Back in November, the single greatest segment in the history of morning television aired: On WEAU-TV’s “Hello Wisconsin,” two comedians, presenting themselves as the fitness duo “Chop and Steele,” demonstrated fake home fitness tips like speed stomping on straw baskets, lifting jugs of gravy, and karate-chopping fallen branches with fervor.

It was later discovered that “Chop and Steele” were actually Joe Pickett and Nick Prueher, New York-based comedians who host the live comedy and film event The Found Footage Festival.

Gray Television, WEAU-TV’s owner, did not appreciate being on the receiving end of this beautiful moment in television history, and is now suing the two comedians for committing fraud, copyright infringement, and conspiracy to commit a wrongful activity, according to The Mercury News.

Gray Television writes in their complaint that Pickett and Prueher have been re-airing the “Hello Wisconsin” episode at Found Footage Festival events, which the company claims is an infringement of their intellectual property. Gray Television is asking for compensatory and punitive damages, as well as fees incurred in pursuing this litigious action.

The suit also states that the duo misused airtime in order to advertise their own brand, which they misrepresented to the station during the booking process. According to the New York Daily News, the duo, under the name “Jerry Chubb,” emailed two of the show’s anchors a fake press release presenting Chop and Steele as a duo that “us[e] their muscles to entertain and educate” and had previously been fan favorites on season three of America’s Got Talent.

According to The New York Post, the suit quotes Pickett and Prueher saying that local morning programs are “easy to exploit,” and highlights another instance when the duo pulled a similar stunt where Prueher dressed up as an expert chef to promote a fake cookbook on the “Fox 6 Wake Up” morning show in Milwaukee.

The Grand Forks Herald points out that Pickett and Prueher had actually appeared as Chop and Steele on other morning shows like “Good Day Dakota,” where, during the bit where the duo lifts the jugs of gravy, one of the jugs Pickett was lifting fell and spilled onto the floor of the studio. Pickett said that he felt so bad about the accident that he stayed after the segment was over and helped clean up. According to the Grand Forks Herald, the “Good Day Dakota” team seemed to have fun with the segment, and Pickett credited one of the anchors for being game with the ridiculous segment.

Pickett and Prueher have expressed to numerous outlets their general annoyance with Gray Television’s lawsuit; however, speaking to the Grand Forks Herald, Prueher said that he was amused that a whole law firm “has to parse out every dumb thing we said and did on that show.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Comedians Sued for Pranking a Wisconsin Morning Show appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since it was announced that Donald J. Trump was going to be the 45th President of these United States of America, Democrats have been looking to attach themselves to any kind of competition to gain some kind of payback for their defeat (See: Super Bowl LI). Although it didn’t result in an explicit victory, this past Tuesday’s special election for Georgia’s House seat in its Sixth District offered Democrats their first viable taste of victory and vengeance.

Wednesday’s special election resulted in Democrat Jon Ossoff narrowly missing out on the 50 percent of the vote that he needed to win the contest outright, thus making a run-off between Ossoff and top GOP vote-getter Karen Handel necessary. The details of the run-off, scheduled for June 20, have already become the subject of controversy and, now, a lawsuit.

Yesterday, the DC-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit on behalf of five different civil rights groups–the Georgia NAACP among them–that claims that a certain Georgia state law that prohibits those who weren’t registered for this week’s special election from voting in June’s run-off is in violation of national voting laws.

The reportedly violated law that the complaint cites is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which explicitly states that states “can set a voter registration deadline for federal elections shorter than 30 days, and a number of States do so, but cannot set a longer deadline.” The complaint claims that Georgia’s “statutory scheme” effectively creates a deadline that exceeds the restriction of a 30-day registration deadline, which will mean that people who registered between March 21 and May 22 won’t be eligible to vote in June.

According to the complaint, the five groups are seeking “injunctive relief” by requiring the state of Georgia to allow all eligible residents of Georgia’s Sixth District the ability to continue to register to vote in the June run-off through May 22.

Speaking to reporters, Candice Broce, a spokeswoman for Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp, characterized the lawsuit as a “political attack” “This law has been in place since [former Georgia Secretary of State] Cathy Cox, a Democrat, was in office but they’ve waited until now to challenge it. This is just being done to disrupt our processes. We will fight it in court,” Broce said.

Broce also said that Georgia state law treats run-off elections as extensions of special elections, which would make the rigidity of the voter registration deadline a logical practice.

Georgia has a record of employing various voter suppression tactics both historically and recently. In October, the ACLU sued the state over its decision to not extend its voter registration deadline in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said in a statement that the lawsuit was a “nakedly political stunt to manipulate the system and squander state and county resources days before the election.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post State of Georgia Sued Over Alleged Voter Suppression appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday it was announced that Whittier College’s law school–located in Costa Mesa in Southern California–will be discontinuing its program. As the school’s board of trustees announced on Wednesday, Whittier would not be accepting a law class for Fall 2017.

As the Los Angeles Times reported, the school’s spokeswoman Ana Lilia Barraza said that the school will develop a plan to ensure that students who already enrolled will finish their degrees. According to the National Jurist, most schools in Whittier’s situation file for something called a “teach out” with the Department of Education, which would allow for a school that is closing to help enrolled students finish their programs while not losing certain federal loan options. However, Whittier has not yet begun the  process for filing for a teach out.

The reason for Whittier Law’s closing looks like it may be due to a mix of factors including its discouraging post-grad employment numbers amongst its students, its shockingly low percentage of students who pass California’s bar exam, and its rapidly decreasing admittance rates. According to the Orange County Register, Whittier law school graduates who found full-time employment in 2015 was less than half the national average, the percentage of first-time takers of the California bar exam was almost 40 percent less than the average among other law school campuses in the state, and over the past couple of years, the small school has seen its number of admitted students drop from 1,579 students admitted in 2013 to 934 in 2016.

The closing will make Whittier Law the first American Bar Association accredited law school to shut down in three decades, according to the Los Angeles Times. “We believe we have looked at every realistic option to continue a successful law program” reads an official message from the chairman of the Whittier Board of Trustees. “I appreciate the gravity of this decision and its impact on the lives of all those who belong to the Law School community.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Whittier College’s Law School Set to Close appeared first on Law Street.

For most people, headphones represent a chance for reprieve–an oasis from the belligerent noise that comes with actively listening in on and participating with the world around you. However, according to a new lawsuit, Bose has been making it so your personal sonic sanctuary can be infiltrated by marketing firms seeking to gather information on your every want, need, and personal preference. Not only is Big Brother watching, but he’s listening, too.

Actually, the issue isn’t that dire, but this new lawsuit does introduce important questions about how much freedom we’re willing to give marketing companies when it comes to infringing on personal freedom. As first reported by Fortune, the headphone company has been hit with a complaint from Bose headphone-owner Kyle Zak, who claims that the company, through the “Bose Connect” app that they encourage consumers to download, is secretly collecting data customers’ audio selections and disclosing that data to third party marketing companies without consent.

“[O]ne’s personal audio selections  – including music, radio broadcast, Podcast, and lecture choices – provide an incredible amount of insight into his or her personality, behavior, political views, and personal identity,” the complaint states. “[N]umerous scientific studies show that musical preferences reflect explicit characteristics such as age, personality, and values, and can likely even be used to identify people with autism spectrum conditions.” 

The purpose of the Bose Connect app was to allow users to control certain Bose products from their smartphones. However, Bose does not require users to download the app. The complaint singles out a data mining company named Segment.io as one of the third parties that Bose is feeding data to for targeting purposes. According to their website, Segment works with other companies such as Bonobos and Crate & Barrel.

The complaint states that Zak, on behalf of all those “similarly situated,” seeks actual and statutory damages that have come with the invasion of privacy that Bose has brought, as well as full compensation for the purchase price of Bose Wireless products. For reference, a pair of Bose QuietComfort 35 Wireless Noise Cancelling headphones will run you about $350–on top of how much you value personal freedom because of all the involuntary ceding of private information and such. 

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Are Bose Headphones Used to Spy on You? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Rogue Music Alliance, an independent music label based in Vancouver, Washington, sent out a press release announcing that a new EP from Prince was set to come out on Friday–the one-year anniversary of the Purple One’s death. However, Prince’s estate and Paisley Park Enterprises have hit the EP’s sound engineer, George Ian Boxill, with a federal lawsuit with the aim of stopping Friday’s release, according to a report from KSTP.

The lawsuit came only hours after RMA’s press release that revealed details about the six-song EP, called Deliverance. According to the press release, Deliverance includes six songs, all of which were recorded from 2006-2008, and were co-written and co-produced by Boxill. The bluesy title track was also released on Tuesday and can still be heard on iTunes, Apple Music, and Soundcloud.

The lawsuit, according to Minnesota’s KSTP, was filed in federal court after a suit filed in a district court was withdrawn in order to compensate for the fact that Boxill currently resides in California. KSTP reports that the district suit–which we can assume is almost identical to the aforementioned new federal suit–claimed that Boxill is holding a number of unreleased Prince tracks that are valued at over $75,000 and is threatening to release them. That would do irreparable damage to Prince’s business relationships and privacy as well as violate a confidentiality agreement that Boxill signed in the studio. In the suit, Prince’s estate is requesting for the recordings to be returned.

In the RMA press release, Boxill claims the decision to release Deliverance through an independent label is something that “Prince would have wanted.” “Prince once told me that he would go to bed every night thinking of ways to bypass major labels and get his music directly to the public,” Boxill is quoted as saying in the press release.

As many people have pointed out, especially the popular tech blogger and Prince superman Anil Dash, Boxill’s statement seems to be completely disingenuous when one looks at the history of Prince’s desire to not release his infamous “vault” of thousands of songs and video projects, as well as pop culture urban legends like “A Song Called Wally.”

“Prince cared very deeply about control & ownership of his recordings,” Dash tweeted in a thread. “[H]e spent decades fighting the legacy of black artists having their creative work stolen or exploited. This seems like exactly that.”

Disputes over Prince’s expansive back catalogue have come to the surface ever since the singer’s death last year. In February, as Variety reported, Universal Music Group announced that it had required the rights from Prince’s estate. However, as The Wall Street Journal reported, UMG is seeking to nullify the deal and get its money back as a number of the recordings that the company was promised in the deal still belong to Prince’s original label Warner Bros. Records, which struck a deal with the singer in 2014 after almost 20 years of estrangement.

As of this morning, Deliverance is still set to drop on Friday with a physical release set for June 2.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Prince’s Estate Files Lawsuit to Block Release of New Music appeared first on Law Street.

Princeton University–the prestigious Ivy League institution whose famous alumni include Woodrow Wilson, Michelle Obama, and Queen of Genovia Amelia Mignonette Thermopolis Renaldi–is suing the Department of Education in an attempt to block the release of its admissions data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to Buzzfeed News.

The lawsuit is an attempt to hinder the anti-affirmative action organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a nonprofit whose mission is to remove race-based college admissions standards and is accusing Princeton of practicing anti-Asian bias in its admissions. The organization seeks to use a FOIA request to prove its accusations by releasing documents that Princeton gave to the DOE during a long investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights into anti-Asian discrimination that concluded in 2015. The investigation determined that this bias did not exist.

According to Buzzfeed, Princeton claims that it turned those admissions documents over to the department under the condition that sensitive data would be kept private, and that if the data were to be released, the department would be in violation of the Trades Secrets Act. SFFA perceives Princeton’s lawsuit as an inherent admission of guilt; however, the logic of that perception does not totally check out, for Princeton could not want to release the documents because it would reveal practices that are just bad PR, such as admission preferences for children of alumni or for celebrities.

Speaking to USA Today, Daniel Day, a spokesman for Princeton, said that the university filed the lawsuit “to honor the promise of confidentiality we make to all applicants and their families . . . [and] so future applicants will be willing to provide materials to [the university] knowing the confidentiality of their materials will be respected.”

This is not SFFA’s first attempt to reveal information about the admissions practices of Ivy League institutions, having also filed similar lawsuits against Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill. SFFA filed a lawsuit in 2014 against Harvard, alleging that the university employed discriminatory practices in its undergraduate admissions process.

While progress has been slow–mainly due to the case being put on hold in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin–some action has been taken. In September, a district court judge ordered Harvard to release six years worth of “comprehensive data” on its undergraduate admissions process. This order came shortly after Harvard attempted to get the suit dismissed.

In December, two Asian American high school seniors and Harvard applicants, working in conjunction with Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, petitioned a federal judge to join the case as amici curiae (friends of the court). This  would allow them to file amicus briefs, participate in oral arguments, and submit evidence, according to a report from NBC News.

“We refuse to be used as a wedge by outside players stoking the insecurities of newer Asian immigrants, provoking them to lash out at the very programs that have helped communities of color gain access to higher education,” Nicole Ochi, supervising attorney for Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, said in a statement reported by NBC News.

The Harvard Crimson reported that 22.2 percent of those admitted into Harvard’s class of 2021 are Asian American students. While much has been said about Asians who oppose affirmative action–particularly in the Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin ruling–polls show that a majority of the Asian American community still support the practice.

Last year, the Asian American Voter Survey found that, among respondents, 64 percent said that they favor affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities gain better access to higher education. A mere 25 percent of respondents disagreed with the practice.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Princeton Sues the Federal Government to Protect Admissions Data appeared first on Law Street.

We have all been subjected to the cruel injustice of opening up a new bag of chips only to find that it’s not even half-empty (or full, I guess). On Monday night, as Reuters first reported, two consumers of Wise potato chips said enough is enough, and filed a class action lawsuit in a Manhattan federal court seeking damages for consumers in New York and Washington DC who are being misled by Wise Foods and its bags of air, which contain some potato chips.

Sameline Alce and Desiré Nugent, who are from New York City and DC, respectively, cite in their complaint that Wise Foods leaves its bags 58 percent to 75 percent empty, which is far from the 30 percent that would justify the price consumers pay for the bag.

The 30 percent benchmark that the plaintiffs are referring to comes from the food industry standard known as functional slack-fill. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines nonfunctional slack-fill as the empty space in a package that is filled to less than its capacity for reasons besides things like protection from damages during shipping and handling, or the need for the package to perform a specific function. Certain states like California have certain protections for consumers regarding slack-fill, according to The National Law Review.

Over the years, there has been a growing trend of nonfunctional slack-fill cases. In 2015, according to The National Law Review, a class action lawsuit was filed against GNC Holdings Inc. by two consumers who claimed that GNC’s whey protein products were under-filled. In 2016, Herr Foods had a class action lawsuit filed against it for under-filling its potato chips bags.

And if you don’t believe that these slack-fill lawsuits are truly a growing trend, just go on truthinadvertising.org–the website for a non-profit that works to protect consumers from deceptive marketing–search “slack-fill,” and look at how many class action lawsuits have been filed citing this claim against food companies like Mars, Inc. and Kellogg.

So good on Alce and Nugent for fighting the good fight against big food companies constantly deceiving us. It’s only a matter of time before a lawsuit is filed to fight back against other food company outrages like how grape-flavored candies never actually taste like grapes and white chocolate isn’t actually chocolate.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Wise Foods Sued for Its Empty Potato Chip Bags appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like 2017 is the year of the “woke” commercial. This past Super Bowl, audiences were served these types of seemingly socially conscious ads from giants like Audi, Budweiser, and Airbnb. Last night, Pepsi decided to get in on the trend and released a two-and-a-half minute ad starring Kendall Jenner that basically everyone on Twitter found to be as tone-deaf as it was offensive. The ad, which is part of a global campaign that focuses on “the moments when we decide to let go, choose to act, follow our passion and nothing holds us back,” pretty overtly evokes imagery borrowed from what we’ve seen at Black Lives Matter protests.

The commentary on Twitter was a perfect combination of reflection on how Pepsi allowed for this ridiculous ad to be made in the first place, and the brutal roasting that Pepsi deserves.

Star Wars would have never happened if Princess Leia just handed me a can of Pepsi at the beginning of the movie

— Darth Vader (@DepressedDarth) April 5, 2017

“Now just wait one second officers.

I have a Pepsi.” pic.twitter.com/NW0sddKOOI

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) April 5, 2017

“I have a dream that one day God’s brown, black, and white children will enjoy backwash from the same can of Pepsi.” pic.twitter.com/DEFwxXxIP0

— April 4, 1968 (@BroderickGreer) April 5, 2017

.@pepsi could have spared itself a lot of trouble by going back to its original slogan “We Only Have Pepsi, Is That Okay?” #PepsiMoment

— Matt Helgeson (@MattHelgeson) April 5, 2017

In Baltimore they handed out water…nothing changed. @Pepsi pic.twitter.com/X73fcxPIMF

— DC Maryland Virginia (@DMVFollowers) April 5, 2017

“This is officer Haynes; just saw a group of black boys. You guys up for a Pepsi? I think I can force about 4 cans from them” pic.twitter.com/YATDgxLq5C

— #Wejoice (@Rejiaku) April 5, 2017

“STOP GUYS! I have a Pepsi multi pack in my car!!” pic.twitter.com/0BamCseHUo

— Ojuelepogba (@Chenyboi) April 5, 2017

when you were going to violently break up a peaceful protest but the Pepsi way too good pic.twitter.com/wTPCwpyk2v

— Hanif Abdurraqib (@NifMuhammad) April 5, 2017

Pepsi ain’t been right since they lit Michael Jackson’s Jheri curl on fire.

— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) April 5, 2017

me: I’ll have a coke
waitress : is Pepsi ok?
me: oh I’m actually already not racist but thank you

— Sophia Benoit (@1followernodad) April 4, 2017

theory: that Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad is actually a Coke ad

— Chris Gayomali (@chrisgayomali) April 4, 2017

.@CocaCola watching this @Pepsi ad go up in flames pic.twitter.com/s4DW2GqpXq

— Ryan Brooks (@ByRyanBrooks) April 4, 2017

“They ain’t have no more damn Pepsi at the store!” pic.twitter.com/lVb8hA7Feo

— malibu nova (@theBrittdoll) April 5, 2017

MLK’s daughter even got in on the trend:

If only Daddy would have known about the power of #Pepsi. pic.twitter.com/FA6JPrY72V

— Be A King (@BerniceKing) April 5, 2017

And, finally, this thread pointed out the ultimate issues with the commercial–click on the tweets to see the whole thing:

iesha l evans peacefully stands in front of troopers n baton rouge during a protest for philando castile & alton sterling. she was arrested. pic.twitter.com/1UgduU14kz

— lay-ken. ☥ (@lakinimani) April 5, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post New Tone-Deaf Pepsi Ad Receives Brutal Backlash on Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

With a new story coming to light seemingly every single day, there’s no question that all the news about Russia and its interference in the 2016 election is confusing. So, it’s fair to assume that a lot of people were surprised on Wednesday when Senators Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Mark Warner, the Democratic Vice Chairman, held a joint news conference discussing the Senate’s Russia probe.

The biggest takeaway from the press conference was Warner’s comment on one part of Russia’s strategy to destabilize the election, which concerned the Kremlin hiring 1,000 paid trolls to generate fake anti-Clinton stories targeted at specific areas in the U.S. Warner did not elaborate on where those specific areas were, but he alluded to the committee investigating trolls targeting Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The significance of Russia targeting these three specific states is simple: they are all swing states that President Donald Trump narrowly won. They were also the three states included in the unsuccessful recounts prompted by Jill Stein.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia Probe appeared first on Law Street.

“We stand up here, Mr. Jones. Don’t forget,” Bernard Marks, a Holocaust survivor who now lives in Sacramento as an educator, said on Tuesday. Marks was one of hundreds of protesters who gave pointed and stirring speeches at a public forum in Sacramento featuring County Sheriff Scott Jones and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Thomas Homan.

“When I was a little boy in Poland, for no other reason but for being Jewish, I was hauled off by the Nazis,” Marks said. “I spent five and a half years in concentration camp [sic] for one reason and for one reason only: because we picked on people.”

His speech was the boiling point of an already toxic event. From the very start of the forum, Jones and Homan were shouted at by a hostile crowd, as captured by the Los Angeles Times:

Attendees shouted and cursed, chanted and held up protest signs. “Lies!” some yelled when the officials said authorities did not target immigrants who did not pose a danger to the community.

“Where is the money, Jones?” others asked when the sheriff attempted to explain ICE immigration detention contracts, a budget he said totaled $4.8 million for his department.

“You are bringing the uncertainty,” one man shouted at Homan before deputies escorted him out. “You are bringing the uncertainty to everybody.”

Across the country, numerous stories have popped up about actions taken by ICE against illegal immigrants, including Dreamers, or immigrants who came to the country illegally as children. In Portland, a Dreamer was arrested and held in a detention center, which echoes stories concerning detained Dreamers in places like Seattle and Mississippi. In Fort Worth, Texas, 26 parolees suspected of being undocumented immigrants were recently arrested when they showed up to perform their mandatory community service, according to a local NBC affiliate.

They are now detained at an ICE facility in Dallas while they await their fate. In Los Angeles, the LAPD has said reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence among Latino residents has plummeted in 2017, presumably due to concerns over deportation. In the midst of these stories, residents, politicians, and activists around the country have decided to take a stand. And, in a heartbreaking story which has since gone viral, Fatima Avelica, a 13-year-old girl whose father was detained by ICE while he was dropping her off at school, spoke through her tears while telling her story at Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) news conference on Tuesday.

Sacramento isn’t the only city standing up for immigrants. On Monday, hundreds of people gathered in Boston outside the JFK Federal Building (where immigration hearings are held) to protest the arrest of three human rights activists from Vermont. Two of the activists were released on bail later that day. In Somerville, Massachusetts, after Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson called for public government officials of sanctuary cities to be arrested for not following federal immigration orders, Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone taunted him on Facebook, writing “come and get me.”

Further up north, in Rochester, New York, two immigration protests were held in a span of 24 hours after a woman and her brother, originally from Guatemala, were detained. In Charlotte, North Carolina, 200 protesters “shouted down” a city council meeting concerning the city’s coordination with ICE officials and federal immigration orders. In Chicago, immigration advocates staged a sit-in at a regional ICE office. And in Cape May, New Jersey, protesters made their voices heard at a Board of Freeholders meeting at the county courthouse discussing the county’s new proposed partnership with ICE, according to Shore News Today.

People around the country are standing up for immigrants, and for ICE Acting Director Homan, that is something that will be hard to forget.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post People Around the Country Are Protesting ICE Arrests and Deportations appeared first on Law Street.

You might have thought that Bill O’Reilly’s exchange with Maxine Waters was the most racist thing to come out of Fox News yesterday. But, details from a new lawsuit filed by two of the network’s black female employees may have overshadowed O’Reilly’s horrific moment.

According to a report from the New York Times, the two employees–Tichaona Brown and Tabrese Wright, both of whom worked at the network’s payroll department–filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court, citing that they were subjected to “top-down racial harassment,” from Judith Slater, the Fox comptroller who had worked for the network for almost two decades. Slater was fired after an internal investigation, according to a story first reported by The Wrap. The timeline of Slater’s firing is unclear, but a statement from the network obtained by the Times claims that Slater was fired at the end of February.

Brown and Wright’s lawsuit targets Slater, Fox News, and 21st Century Fox, which owns Fox News. The lawsuit claims that Slater repeatedly made racist and disparaging comments about black people that played into egregious stereotypes, and that the network did not do much to address Slater’s behavior, which made for a hostile work environment. Here are some of the lawsuit’s details as reported by the New York Times:

The women . . .  accused Ms. Slater of making numerous racially charged comments, including suggestions that black men were “women beaters” and that black people wanted to physically harm white people.

They also said that Ms. Slater claimed that black employees mispronounced words, such as ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘month’ and ‘ask,’ and that she urged Ms. Brown to say those words aloud in a meeting. Ms. Wright said Ms. Slater once asked if her three children were all ‘fathered by the same man.’

[…]

The suit also includes allegations that Ms. Slater made disparaging comments about Ms. Wright’s hair and credit score. She and Ms. Brown said Ms. Slater had mocked the Black Lives Matter movement and referred to their majority-black department as the ‘urban’ or ‘Southern’ payroll department.

According to the New York Daily News, the suit also alleges further details of Slater’s racist behavior, including, but not limited to responding to Brown’s goodbyes at the end of the day by raising her hands up in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” movement, referring to her commuter train to New Jersey as the “Bombay Express, expressing her belief that Chinese men have small penises, and asking Brown and Wright to teach her how to beat box.

In a statement reported by the Times, the company said that “there is no place of inappropriate verbal remarks like this at Fox News,” but were disappointed that Wright and Brown filed the lawsuit because the company believes it already took swift and appropriate action to remedy the situation.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Fox News Hit With a New Lawsuit Alleging Racial Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Right in the middle of March Madness, the NCAA has taken another stance against North Carolina’s HB2 law. In a statement released through Twitter by the association on Friday, which coincided with the one-year anniversary of HB2’s passage, the NCAA offered somewhat of an ultimatum and stated that, if North Carolina does not make changes or repeal its controversial transgender bathroom law, it will exclude the state from its process for deciding where to locate its championship games from 2018 to 2022.

NCAA reaffirms North Carolina championship stance. pic.twitter.com/2XqPodlQUP

— Inside the NCAA (@InsidetheNCAA) March 23, 2017

This is not the first time the NCAA has taken action against North Carolina in response to HB2. Last fall, the NCAA pulled its seven planned championship tournament games out of North Carolina because of the association’s “commitment to fairness and inclusion.” This move has taken on brand new significance recently as Duke was knocked out of the second round of the NCAA championship after losing to South Carolina in a game that was originally slated to be played in Greensboro, North Carolina but was moved to Greenville, South Carolina. Many saw the game’s location as a factor in Duke’s performance. In a post-game interview, Duke Coach Mike Kryzewski said in response to whether he was frustrated about the game’s location that if he were president or governor, he would “get rid of it.”

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper tweeted out a statement Friday calling for the state’s Republican lawmakers to “step up, meet halfway, and repeal HB2.” He also called March 24 a “dark anniversary” for the state, referring to the one-year anniversary of the law’s passage.

According to Forbes, the NCAA tournament has a significant economic impact for host cities, as a diverse set of industries benefit from the massive influx of fans coming to watch games.

The NCAA is not the first sports association to pull its events out of North Carolina. This year’s NBA All-Star weekend was slated to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina; however, in response to HB2, the NBA decided to relocate its All-Star festivities to New Orleans.

HB2 is one of, if not the most, salient topic in North Carolina politics right now, and the political back and forth is beginning to turn heads around the country. However, that is apparently not stopping other state legislatures from drafting HB2-type laws, as a transgender bathroom bill in Texas, Senate Bill 6, passed through Texas’s Senate State Affairs Committee and will by voted on by the full Senate. According the The Hill, the law is expected to pass through the full Senate, but will have a shakier path in the House.

HB2 remains deeply unpopular in North Carolina, as a recent poll from Public Policy Polling revealed that 50 percent of those surveyed in the state are opposed to it, and 58 percent of those surveyed think that it’s hurting the state. Things don’t seem to be looking up politically in the state, and repealing HB2 looks like it will be a long, uphill battle, seeing as how on Friday the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature overrode Gov. Cooper’s first veto as governor.

The NCAA will decide on host cities for its championship games by April 18.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The NCAA Offers Politically Divided North Carolina an Ultimatum appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever been at a college football game and thought, “Man this football game is fun, but it would be even more fun if some people in this stadium were packing heat!” then you probably were not very happy with the Arkansas Senate yesterday.

After a good dose of public outrage and some lawmakers speaking out about its dangers, a new Arkansas concealed carry expansion measure has now been watered down by an exemption passed by a 22-10 vote in the Senate. The exemption removes college sports events from the expansion.

Signed into law by Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson on Wednesday, the new measure would have allowed anyone with a concealed handgun license and eight hours of active shooter training to conceal carry in a publicly-owned building like a state college campus or the state capitol. Private establishments like bars and places of worship would also be included, although those establishments still have the right to prohibit guns from their premises. News of this measure expanding gun rights to college sports venues angered and alarmed many, leading the Senate to pass the exemption for college sports venues less than a day after the law was passed.

Among those who were confused by the very logic of the law was University of Arkansas defensive back Kevin Richardson II:

I’m curious as to why… https://t.co/Ynpo3lGUeL

— Kevin Richardson II (@K_Rich30) March 23, 2017

Speaking to USA Today Sports, Democratic Rep. Greg Leading, who represents the district that includes one of the University of Arkansas campuses, said “Most concealed-carry permit holders are responsible people. That said, accidents happen. People like to have a good time before, during and after football games in the South. People drink. People get emotional. If you’re not allowed to bring an umbrella into a stadium, why should you be allowed to introduce guns into the equation?” To add to Rep. Leading’s point, outside food is prohibited from most stadiums, and, on the very same day the new measure was approved, the SEC implemented a league-wide “clear bag policy” that encourages fans to bring only clear and smaller bags to SEC football games.

As the AP points out, the state of Arkansas is no stranger to supporting and expanding gun rights. In 2013, the state passed a law that allowed faculty and staff to carry concealed weapons on college campuses, given that those schools agreed to allow guns on campus, which none of them ended up doing. Governor Hutchinson is also, as the AP points out, a former chair of a National Rifle Association task force whose mission was to push for armed faculty at Arkansas public schools in response to the Newtown shooting. That shooting happened, of course, in Connecticut–over a thousand miles away from Arkansas.

This exemption is expected to pass in the Arkansas House floor sometime within the next week.

This Arkansas law comes at a time where multiple states with Republican governors are moving to pass some version of concealed carry expansion. This week, North Dakota Republican Gov. Doug Burgum signed into law a bill that institutes Constitutional Carry throughout the state and Ohio’s new gun laws that allow for people to carry a concealed weapon into places like day care facilities and non-secure areas of airports went into effect.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Arkansas Senate Backtracks on Allowing Concealed Guns in College Sports Stadiums appeared first on Law Street.

For the first three months of 2017, Uber has been mired in controversy. Many have attributed the strife to the company’s mistreatment of its employees, influenced by its toxic “bro” culture and iffy moral compass. While it’s easy to brush Uber’s woes off as growing pains for a burgeoning Silicon Valley tech company, its web controversies seem to point to bigger problems with leadership.

Compounding Controversies

Back in January, during the weekend of the first travel ban and successive protests, the company garnered harsh criticism for turning off its surge pricing for rides to New York’s JFK Airport. The opportunistic move prompted people to delete the app in favor of its competitor Lyft.

Shortly after that, Uber’s CEO, Travis Kalanick, left President Donald Trump’s economic advisory council amidst criticism from the public and Uber’s own employees. The company was also sued by Google for allegedly stealing a key component in self-driving car technology. Then in late February, Kalanick was caught on video arguing with a driver over Uber’s fares.

Most recently, Uber initiated an internal investigation into sexual harassment and discrimination allegations lobbed at the company. The investigation was opened after Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer, wrote a blog post outlining her disturbing experience at the company with an anonymous male executive who propositioned her for sex, prompting several female employees to also come forward.

Multiple company executives have since resigned. While Uber has reacted quickly to all of these controversies, the company’s responses have been either met with criticism or overshadowed by yet another controversy.

Uber CEO Seeks Help

Following the embarrassing squabble with one of his drivers, Kalanick admitted that he needs to “fundamentally change as a leader and grow up.” As a result, Uber announced that Kalanick was seeking to hire “leadership help.”

In early March, Uber announced that this “leadership help” would come in the form of a new COO. But the search for this position appears to have hit a snag with the news of president Jeff Jones’ resignation and a rumors of a “toxic” company culture, with Kalanick at the helm. Jones’ hiring was heavily publicized by Uber, and his departure undoubtedly adds complications to Uber’s future hiring plans.

In a statement released to Recode, who first broke the story of his departure, Jones said:

I joined Uber because of its Mission, and the challenge to build global capabilities that would help the company mature and thrive long-term.

It is now clear, however, that the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber, and I can no longer continue as president of the ride sharing business.

Dissatisfied Drivers and Changing the Company’s Culture

Aside from the resignations and sexual assault allegations from employees, Uber is also dealing with more crises regarding drivers’ dissatisfaction with wages. Uber drivers in some states are not allowed to accept tips and Uber’s attempt to strike down a Seattle law that allows its drivers to unionize proved fruitless.

Yesterday, four top Uber officials, all notably female, conducted a media call where they attempted to field questions about Uber’s shifting company culture. Conspicuously, Kalanick was not on the call, but Arianna Huffington, who sits on the company’s board of directors, was.

“Uber must change if it is to be as successful in the next decade as it has been in the last seven years,” Huffington said on the call. “Creating a great culture will be key to their future success. Going forward there can be no room at Uber for brilliant jerks and zero tolerance for anything but totally respectable behavior in an equitable workplace environment.”

Additionally, Huffington also reiterated the company’s faith in Kalnick’s leadership abilities, while underlining the fact that Uber’s culture had to change, and that new hires would be a focus for the company moving forward.

Uber executives have responded swiftly to each controversy; however, as we have seen with their clumsy and thwarted responses thus far, there’s no real indication that the company won’t stumble as it continues to move forward.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Uber’s Controversies Continue to Pile Up in 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Texas lawmakers have been busy the last few weeks. Controversy surrounding a transgender bathroom bill in the mold of North Carolina’s HB2 law thrust the Texas Senate into the news after its Committee on State Affairs approved the measure with a 7-1 vote. Yet, while all of that was happening, another controversial bill flew slightly under the radar.

Senate Bill 25, which was unanimously passed by the committee and will soon move on to the full senate for a vote, would protect doctors from “wrongful birth” lawsuits. This would effectively prevent parents of a disabled child from using wrongful birth as a cause of action against a doctor who withheld information about a fetus’ condition that would have led parents to choose to have an abortion.

The bill’s supporters argue that wrongful birth as a cause of action in a lawsuit is inherently wrong, as it suggests that a birth could be “wrongful.”

“Senate Bill 25 will send a message that Texas does not believe that a life, in and of itself, is an injury in which parents need a damage payment,” said Texas Senator Brandon Creighton during a livestream of the committee hearing.

Critics of the bill argue that a damage payment is necessary in the event that doctors knowingly lied to parents about the health of a fetus because it limits the freedom of choice that a woman has over her pregnancy and her right to have an abortion.

“Eliminating a wrongful birth claim deprives such parents of the right to sue for monetary damages to cover the lifetime costs of caring for their child,” testified Margaret Johnson on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Texas. “These cases are rare but are appropriate redress for parents in such situations.”

Johnson added,

SB 25 is a not so subtle way of giving medical personnel the opportunity to impose their religious beliefs on pregnant women by withholding information about the condition of the fetus–and depriving women of making an informed decision about continuing the pregnancy.

However, Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, contended that the bill “in no way restricts access to testing, in no way restricts access to abortion, and in no way regulates abortion.”

Allmon testified:

It simply says that a lawsuit based on the premise that a child should not have been born is wrong. We believe that a lawsuit that begins as its premise that we should have had the opportunity to kill our disabled child sends a terrible message to those disabled children in Texas.

Supporters of the bill appear to be arguing semantics by pointing out that the bill only targets wrongful birth as a specific course of action because it is morally wrong to suggest that a child should never have been born. They also attest that it wouldn’t hinder a person’s right to bring about another type of medical malpractice lawsuit.

But this logic is dizzying, if not disingenuous. If this law were to take away the option to use wrongful birth and its elements as a claim, constitutional claims could arise that question its validity. Blake Rocap, a legislative counsel for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, pointed out this illogic in his testimony.

Rocap said:

That’s not how it works. If someone were to maintain a suit for medical malpractice and seek the damages for the care of their special child..they would not be able to recover for that care. The court would say ‘What you’re really doing here is trying to maintain a wrongful birth lawsuit, that’s the cause of action you’re really pleading.

If this bill passes in the full senate, it would be added to a list of controversial anti-abortion laws passed in Texas. According to CNN, wrongful birth lawsuits are actually pretty rare, and the bill’s author acknowledges this fact. Additionally, as NPR reported, these lawsuits are incredibly difficult to win.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Debate Over “Wrongful Birth” in Texas appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning the White House announced that President Donald Trump–presumably after taking a break from tweeting about everything from wire “tapps” to Arnold Schwarzenegger–signed a new executive order to revise his controversial travel ban.

Unlike the hectic nature of the initial executive order’s rollout, the revised order was announced throughout Monday morning, with Kellyanne Conway going on “Fox & Friends” to explain the alterations, the administration releasing a somewhat comprehensive fact sheet, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions explaining the legality and importance of the new order. Additionally, unlike the original order, which took effect immediately, the updated version will not be implemented for another 10 days. No cameras were around for the actual signing.

.@POTUS has signed a new executive order that will keep the nation safe. Read it at https://t.co/XcBwwEJJHF pic.twitter.com/Yx2mikXl2A

— Sean Spicer (@PressSec) March 6, 2017

Here’s what you need to know about this new EO:

1. The 90-day travel ban will prohibit the issuance of new visas for people from six countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). While the initial order targeted seven countries, Iraq is no longer on the list because “the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.”
2. The order only applies to people who do not already have a visa, which was a point of confusion for the last order. Therefore, green card-holders and current visa-holders will not be affected.
3. There is no longer an exception for people of minority religions. The previous order and subsequent comments by President Trump included a not-so-subtle hint that Christian refugees could be prioritized.
4. Decisions on applications for refugee status are suspended for 120 days, just like the old EO.
5. The cap for the number of refugees that the U.S. will take in 2017 is now set at 50,000 people. The Obama Administration had previously set a goal to accept 110,000 refugees in 2017 (which led to that stupid Skittles tweet).
6. The indefinite ban on Syrian refugees has been changed to a ban for a 120-day period, during which the refugee program will be reviewed.

As CNN reported, this new executive order was originally planned to be signed last Wednesday. However, after the unexpectedly positive reception of Trump’s address to Congress, the administration decided to ride the wave of positive coverage before instituting an order that surely would ruffle some feathers.

If you need any proof that the Trump Administration was right to expect that the new order would make people angry, within minutes of the announcement of the order’s signing, organizations like the ACLU  released statements criticizing the new ban.

Just in: @ACLU statement on new Trump travel ban — “a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws” pic.twitter.com/WSaKmTkcSJ

— David Mack (@davidmackau) March 6, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About President Trump’s New Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

By now, you’ve probably heard the story of Daniela Vargas, a 22-year-old woman who, at the age of seven, was brought to America by her family from Argentina on a visa waiver program. On Wednesday, the Huffington Post reported that Vargas, a Dreamer, was arrested by ICE agents immediately after she spoke about her father and brother, both of whom were detained by ICE agents because of their expired visas, at a news conference put together by immigration advocates in Jackson, Mississippi. Yesterday, the Huffington Post reported that her attorney said that Vargas was set to be deported without a court hearing because she entered the country using the visa waiver program, which abdicates an individual’s right to contest their removal.

Vargas is now being held at an ICE facility in Louisiana, and shared a message through her attorney that the Huffington Post has published: “I don’t understand why they don’t want me. I’m doing the best I can,” part of the statement reads. It continues:

There’s so much that I can bring to the table, so much, like I can even teach music, I’m an excellent trumpet player you can ask my mom about any of that.  I’m great with math, I speak Spanish. You know, there’s a lot of stuff that I can do for this country that they’re not allowing me to do. I’ve even tried to join the military, and I can’t do that. But, I mean that’s not the point, the whole point is that I would do anything for this country.

Her story has sparked outrage from many, and a petition started by the immigrant rights group United We Dream has collected almost 20,000 signatures. While there are many people on both sides of the argument, from people who are fuming at the injustice of the government’s treatment of Vargas to those who think an illegal immigrant is recklessly breaking the law, another perspective has emerged below the fold. It manages to walk the tight-rope between the two binaries and mixes performative empathy with a subtle “rules are rules” detachment. This perspective argues that this whole situation could have been prevented if Vargas had only managed her money better.

The reason why ICE has detained Vargas is because she is not technically a Dreamer with DACA status. According to the Huffington Post, Vargas’ DACA status expired in November and she only recently applied for DACA status again on February 10 because she was raising money for the $495 application fee that those under the reprieve of DACA are required to pay to renew their work permit.

Multiple immigration advocacy websites caution DACA recipients to be cognizant of their renewal dates and of the importance of saving up for the renewal fee. United We Dream recommends that one should renew their DACA status about five months before their status expires. The organization also outlines a variety of savings and fundraising advice for the renewal fee, as well as the opportunity for a fee exemption, though the chances of getting that exemption are very slim.

Some have pointed to Vargas’ inability to prioritize her DACA application fee as the reason why it is so hard for them to sympathize with her. Why didn’t she treat her payment with more urgency? Why doesn’t this 22-year-old have her priorities in order?

The $495 is a fee Vargas absolutely should have paid and planned for. Could she be characterized as mildly irresponsible for not paying this on time? Maybe. But according to the 2016 Consumer Financial Literacy Survey, one out of every five Americans do not pay their bills on time. The difference between these people and Vargas is that when they do have an overdue bill, a government official doesn’t show up to detain them and throw them in a detention facility to be deported.

A distinct freedom in America is the freedom to fail–the freedom to make a small mess and, as the saying goes, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on. This is a freedom that is not afforded to people like Vargas who were brought to this country with no choice. People who were raised as Americans and with the privileges that that identity allows, only to be brutally reminded when they reach adulthood that they are not Americans–that they are something else entirely, and every one of their failures is amplified to a dehumanizing degree.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Story of Daniela Vargas: The “Dreamer” About to be Deported appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is getting some praise for his joint address to Congress–specifically his tone and the fact that he didn’t say anything too racist while he was addressing the nation. However, there was one moment during his speech that elicited a groan from his audience. This is not a groan in the abstract sense, but a literal groan. It was when Trump introduced the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office (VOICE).

As Trump outlines in his speech, VOICE is supposed to provide a voice (oh, I get it now!) for those who have been affected by crimes committed by illegal immigrants. However, the language Trump used in his speech was vague to say the least.

So what actually is VOICE? Here’s a quick breakdown of where this office came from, what it is, and whether it really is groan-worthy.

VOICE comes from a January 25 Executive Order

Trump has signed a lot of executive orders since he got into office. The one that VOICE is related to was signed on January 25 and called “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” It concerns issues related to illegal immigration and the expansion of the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS oversees the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE).

Aside from threatening to restrict federal funds from jurisdictions that don’t turn over detained illegal immigrants and authorizing the DHS secretary to allow state and local officials to effectively act as immigration officers, the EO calls for two actions that are instrumental to VOICE:

1. The creation of something called the “Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens,” an office that provides professional services to victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. This is basically the start of VOICE (although without that super-cool and snazzy title).
2. An alteration to the Privacy Act so that persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents are exempt from certain protections.  This is a break from a Bush Administration action that required agencies like the DHS  to afford undocumented immigrants certain privacy rights. According to the New York Times, some of these Privacy Act rights included blocking information obtained by an agency from being shared with other agencies like ICE.

We’ve known about VOICE for almost two weeks now

On February 20, two DHS memos from Secretary John Kelly that were circulating for a while were reported by McClatchy. These memos outlined how the DHS planned to follow through on the executive order’s provisions. One of these memos establishes VOICE, which serves as a “programmatic liaison between ICE and the known victims of crimes committed by removable aliens.” The office plans to provide victims, “to the extent permitted by law,” information about crimes committed by illegal immigrants and victims’ families with information about the suspect, such as their immigration status and custody status.

The memo also directs the Director of ICE to reallocate resources used to “advocate on behalf of illegal aliens” to VOICE instead, and “to immediately terminate the provision of such outreach or advocacy services to illegal aliens.”

It also directs ICE to develop the weekly report that Trump called for in the EO. The memo highlights that the ICE Director will develop a weekly report on a medium that can be accessed by the public.

So what does VOICE do exactly? 

What VOICE does is give victims a voice by not giving illegal immigrants the benefits of the Privacy Act which, with the help of Trump’s executive order, is now a lawful practice for government agencies. VOICE would allow victims to have access to their offenders’ information that had been previously withheld by agencies. The potential cost to immigrants here is that, according to the New York Times, those who are seeking legal status could face a harder citizenship process. According to the Chicago Tribune this could also be used to target immigrants for deportation. And since VOICE is so closely tied to privacy protections for illegal immigrants, what happens to all that information when an illegal immigrant goes through the process to become a citizen? What will the DHS do with that information?

The DHS memo seems to attempt to shed light on this issue, but with very vague language. In the memo, Kelly outlines how the DHS Privacy Office and the Office of the General Counsel will work together to “develop new guidance specifying the appropriate treatment of personal information DHS maintains in its record systems.” We still do not know exactly what that “new guidance” is, which is alarming considering Trump’s joint address has now brought the existence of VOICE to the forefront.

VOICE does a lot to tackle a small national issue

The issue with VOICE lies in its specific acknowledgment of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and framing the issue as if it is a dire national crisis. A study published by the American Immigration Council shows that not only are immigrants less likely than native-born citizens to engage in criminal behavior, but higher immigration is associated with lower crime rates.

It would be ignorant to say illegal immigrants do not commit crimes, whether violent or non-violent. But we have seen that what illegal immigrants contribute to this country is not simply violence, rape, and crime. We see that immigrants make vital contributions to this country not only in terms of taxes and labor, but through art and culture as well.

VOICE is a practice of proxy racism–it seeks to cover a racist notion of a whole people with a cynical dose of fear for terrifying uncertainties. The office would elevate the worst stories that immigrants have to offer and have them serve as referenda for these human beings as a whole. VOICE shouts over the cries of the vital and vibrant immigrant communities that so desperately want and need to be heard in this country.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Need to Know About VOICE appeared first on Law Street.

Here’s a breakdown of everything that happened to Kellyanne Conway in February:

The Bowling Green Massacre (February 2)

In an interview with Chris Matthews, Conway uses a fabricated massacre to justify the immigration ban.

The Bowling Green Massacre Response (February 3)

The day after the interview, Conway claims she misspoke.

On @hardball @NBCNews @MSNBC I meant to say “Bowling Green terrorists” as reported here:
https://t.co/nB5SwIEoYI

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) February 3, 2017

However, the Washington Post finds this isn’t the case, as Conway had referred to the “Bowling Green massacre” three times before.

Credibility Dispute with CNN (February 6)

CNN reportedly declines the White House’s offer to have Conway appear on Jake Tapper’s “State of the Union,” due to “serious questions about [Conway’s] credibility,” according to the New York Times. Conway refutes this claim on Twitter, but is quickly called out by CNN’s PR account.

. @KellyannePolls was offered to SOTU on Sunday by the White House. We passed. Those are the facts.

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) February 6, 2017

Mika Brzezinski, co-host of “Morning Joe,” tweets a response that suggests MSNBC also declines Conway appearances.

.@CNNPR @KellyannePolls you are not the first.

— Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) February 6, 2017

The Jake Tapper Interview (February 7)

Conway appears on Tapper’s other show, “The Lead.” The interview garners Tapper acclaim for his relentless grilling. At one point in the interview Conway seems to admit her boss is a liar. The interview also gives the internet Tapper’s resting bitch face:

the look on jake tapper’s face while talking to kellyanne conway… pic.twitter.com/NiQtNSh8Rt

— Nicole Cairns (@nicoleindc) February 7, 2017

The Ethics Violation (February 9) 

On “Fox & Friends,” Conway endorses Ivanka Trump’s Nordstrom clothing line–a violation of an executive branch regulation that prohibits employees from promoting the private gain of friends.

This prompts two members of the House Oversight Committee to send a letter to the White House and the Office of Government Ethics asking for recommendations for disciplinary action against Conway. According to POLITICO, the OGE’s website crashes due to traffic that same day. Later that day, Sean Spicer in a press briefing says Conway was “counseled” for her comments. This causes some controversy within the White House.

The SNL Sketch (February 12)

Presented without comment:

The Michael Flynn Interview Pt. 1 (February 13)

In an MSNBC interview, Conway claims that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn enjoys the “full confidence of the president” despite reports that revealed Flynn lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his communications with Russia’s U.S. ambassador. Flynn resigns later that day.

The Michael Flynn Interview Pt. 2 (February 14)

Conway is interviewed by Matt Lauer the morning after Flynn’s resignation. Lauer grills Conway on the timeline of Flynn’s resignation and Trump’s trust in Flynn. At one point, a frustrated Lauer tells Conway that she isn’t making sense.

The White Nationalist Twitter Account (February 14)

After her Lauer interview, Conway tweets “I serve of the pleasure of @POTUS. His message is my message. His goals are my goals. Uninformed chatter doesn’t matter.”

A Twitter account named “Lib Hypocrisy” responds, praising Conway’s “strength and resiliency” and expressing love for her. Conway subsequently retweets the praise while responding that she loves them back. It is discovered that “Lib Hypocrisy’s” bio includes the hashtags #Nationalist and #WhiteIdentity.

Conway tells Buzzfeed News that she wasn’t the one who retweeted the account, and that someone else has access to her account.

The Office of Government Ethics (February 14)

The OGE responds to the House Oversight Committee’s letter by sending a letter of their own to the White House ethics official, recommending that the White House take disciplinary action against Conway.

“Morning Joe” Ban (February 15)

The “Morning Joe” hosts officially ban Conway from their show because they believe she has lost her credibility.

The Spicer Leaks (February 15)

CNN’s Dylan Byers reports that five sources believe the person who has been leaking stories about Trump’s frustration with Spicer is Conway. They say Conway is doing this place the blame of the administration’s troubles on Spicer and to earn a “lasting place in the President’s inner circle.”

Sidelined (February 22)

You may have noticed there is a week-long gap between this controversy and the last one. Apparently, that was the White House’s intention as, according to CNN Money, the White House sidelined Conway because comments she made during appearances on multiple shows were “off message.”

When the news of the “sidelining” comes out, Conway refutes these claims and says she was invited to shows but wanted to focus on other pieces of her “portfolio.”

Merriam-Webster (February 23)

At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Conway says she doesn’t identify with being a feminist because “[modern-day feminism] seems to be very anti-male, and it certainly is very pro-abortion.” The Merriam-Webster Twitter account then tweets this in response:

’Feminism’ is defined as “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” https://t.co/Zjf7CAPUjL

— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) February 23, 2017

Misconduct Complaint (February 24)

The Washington Post reports that 15 law professors specializing in legal ethics filed a professional misconduct complaint against Conway, who is a member of the D.C. bar.

The Couch (February 27) 

Presented without comment:

Kellyanne Conway photographed making herself comfortable on Oval Office couch https://t.co/4qeNGFjJWdpic.twitter.com/978aeedbxM

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) February 28, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Kellyanne Conway and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Month appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, in a $1.8 billion deal, the Canada-based fast food company Restaurant Brands International (RBI), acquired Popeyes, one of the largest chicken fast-food chains in America. The deal is expected to close in April.

“With this transaction, RBI is adding a brand that has a distinctive position within a compelling segment and strong U.S. and international prospects for growth,” RBI CEO Daniel Shwartz said in a statement. “As Popeyes becomes part of the RBI family we believe we can deliver growth and opportunities for all of our stakeholders including our valued employees and franchisees.”

This acquisition makes Popeyes part of the RBI “Family of Brands” that includes Burger King as well as the Canadian coffee and doughnut chain Tim Hortons. RBI is majority-owned by the Brazilian investment firm 3G Capital and was formed in 2014 after the Burger King and Tim Hortons merger. Since the merger, Burger King has expanded around the world with much success.

The deal seems to be good news for Popeyes investors and shareholders. Since news of the deal emerged, Popeyes stock has been soaring, according to Business Insider.

While the deal is being applauded as a good business call by RBI, some people are calling foul, bringing up the fact that RBI has been a prominent perpetrator of tax inversion, which will become even more significant now that RBI is making strides toward becoming one of the largest fast food companies in the world.

Tax inversion is a way for companies to dodge American corporate tax by rerouting their revenue to a so-called “tax haven.” In the Canadian-based RBI’s case, the Burger King merger with Tim Hortons allowed for Burger King’s revenue to be taxed at the Canadian corporate tax rate rather than the American one, which, according to CNN Money, was projected to save Burger King shareholders over $800 million in capital gains taxes and the company itself about $400 million in corporate tax.

Projected tax savings for Popeyes have not been reported yet, but, according to ThinkProgress’ Alan Pyke, being a smaller firm, Popeyes’ tax savings are probably going to be much smaller than Burger King’s. However, with the new Trump Administration, questions about tax/corporate inversion have been growing, as the administration is expected to take a much different approach towards quelling its effects than the Obama Administration did.

Per ThinkProgress’ Alan Pyke:

Inversions were all the rage in corporate management in the second term of the Obama administration, which sought to curb them through new Treasury Department rules. The bankers who helped complete those deals raked in close to a billion dollars in fees for their assistance.

Republicans in Congress are widely expected to gut the Obama-era restrictions on inversions. President Donald Trump’s administration has signaled it would prefer to slash the U.S. corporate tax rate rather than combat corporate tax avoidance through regulation — even though rates are not what drive American-made companies to pretend they live somewhere else.

Pyke cites a report from Reuters that looked at six companies that were known to have completed or were in the process of completing “inversion-type” deals. The report finds that, while the U.S. corporate tax rate is high, many large companies use elaborate strategies to cut tax costs, which reduce the effects of the country’s 35 percent statutory rate and allow companies to pay well below the actual rate. These elaborate loop holes within the U.S. tax code suggest that companies may be practicing tax inversion for a variety of incentives offered abroad, which shows that “Washington’s current debate over business tax reform may be too focused on the statutory rate, neglecting effective rates and the incentives that companies have to shift profits abroad.”

As Pyke points out, President Donald Trump and many other Republicans still prefer to slash corporate taxes to stop companies from making tax inversion deals. Trump has frequently stated that he will lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent.

On the Bloomberg Politics show “With All Due Respect” in November 2015, Trump said that “other candidates don’t even know what corporate inversion is. I do know, I really know,” Trump said. “You are going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs to other countries because of corporate inversions. What you are going to do is lower the taxes bring the money in and they are going to use that money to build and do things in the United States.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Chicken With a Side of Tax Inversion?: A Look at the Popeyes Sale appeared first on Law Street.

If you followed any of the coverage of President Donald Trump’s rally on Saturday in Florida, you may have seen this odd incident:

This is the man Trump brought on stage pic.twitter.com/cHtvop8EYX

— Andrew Hibbard (@andrewhibbard) February 19, 2017

But you may have also seen a ton of confused journalists wondering “what in the world happened in Sweden on Friday night?” Per the Palm Beach Post, Trump said:

Here’s the bottom line. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe.

Well, it turns out that nothing really happened in Sweden. But, thanks to Aftonbladet, a tabloid-like Swedish newspaper, we can read about what really went down on Friday night in Sweden. Publishing a slyly snarky response to President Trump’s remarks, Aftonbladet released a short breakdown of the worst events that took place on Friday night in Sweden–and none of them are any sort of terrorist attack worthy of being compared to the Bastille Day attacks in Nice or 2015 mass shooting in Paris.

Some of the stories are tragic: “8:23 p.m.: A man died in hospital, after an accident in the workplace earlier that day in the city of Borås.” Aftonbladet also captured the mundanity of that Friday night: “6:42 p.m.: The famous singer Owe Thörnqvist had some technical problems during rehearsal for the singing competition ‘Melodifestivalen.’ (However, the 87-year-old singer still managed to secure the victory the very next day.)”

You can check out the full Aftonbladet article here.

So what was Trump even thinking? We now know that Trump’s comments on Sweden were informed by a Fox News segment he watched.

My statement as to what’s happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 19, 2017

We also know that a White House spokeswoman told officials that Trump wasn’t referring to a specific incident, but just rising crime in Sweden in general. Reuters points out that this is not an entirely true statement, as the country’s crime rate has fallen since 2005.

We also know that facts don’t seem to matter anymore.

Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound. https://t.co/XWgw8Fz7tj

— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) February 19, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Swedish Newspaper Shows Trump What “Really” Happened in Sweden appeared first on Law Street.

The current political climate has resulted in reminders of celebrities that none of us have thought about in a while. First, there was Scott Baio. Then, there was Aaron Carter. Next, it was Three Doors Down.

The latest celebrity who, through the power of conservative politics, has come out of the woodwork is none other than Robert Ritchie, also known as Kid Rock. You know, the guy who sings “All Summer Long.”

According to a report from Roll Call, Kid Rock’s name was brought up at a Michigan Republican Party convention as a potential candidate to run for Debbie Stabenow’s Senate seat. Stabenow, a Democrat, has served in the Senate since 2000. She is one of 25 Democratic senators on the ballot in 2018.

While Kid Rock has not commented on the possibility nor has he been officially asked, a Michigan GOP spokesperson told Fox News that she “wouldn’t be surprised if there was a movement for him to run.”

If Kid Rock does decide to run, he might face some competition from none other than Ted Nugent, the hardcore conservative rock musician who was an outspoken Trump supporter during the campaign and appeared at a couple of his Michigan rallies. One such appearance resulted in Nugent grabbing his crotch on stage while he said, “I’ve got your blue state right here. Black and blue. Each and every one of you have only 24 hours to convince the numb nuts that you know, that you can’t vote for criminals, you can’t vote for liars, you can’t vote for scam artists.” Note that this is also nowhere near the most vulgar thing Nugent has done or said.

Speaking to The Daily Caller about a possible Senate run, Nugent said that he “is always interested in making [his] country and the great state of Michigan great again” and that “there is nothing I wouldn’t do to help in any way I possibly can.”

Kid Rock has proven to be less conservative than Nugent, once telling Rolling Stone in 2013 that he considers himself, politically, to be a “lone wolf” and “more Libertarian,” although he tends to vote Republican. In a 2015 interview with Rolling Stone, Kid Rock spoke about his belief in gun ownership as a “sacred right.”

This past election, Kid Rock supported Trump, telling Rolling Stone that he would like to see America run like a business because: “it’s not really working too well running it not like a business.” Early in the 2016 campaign, he spoke of his interest in Dr. Ben Carson as a candidate. Kid Rock’s website also began selling pro-Trump merchandise during the election. A sample of this merch: a shirt with America’s electoral map on the chest, with the states in blue labeled “Dumbf*ckistan.” The shirt sold for $24.99 plus shipping costs.

Kid Rock has been touting his political beliefs for years. During the 2000s, Kid Rock would perform with a Confederate flag behind him, which came back to haunt him in 2011 when he accepted an award from the NAACP’s Detroit branch. He was also an outspoken supporter of Mitt Romney during the 2012 election. Romney called his song “Be Free” his campaign theme song and Kid Rock performed it for him at a campaign event. He also appeared at multiple Romney rallies throughout the country.

While he has been an outspoken conservative, Kid Rock did perform at an Obama inauguration event in 2009, telling The Guardian that, despite not voting for Obama, “there was an exciting sense of change in the air.” However, Kid Rock has said that Obama helped to create a country that was “more divided than ever.” He was, of course, referring to the tension that is rising among people living in red states and those living in “Dumbf*ckistan.”

If this past year has taught us anything, it’s that we should never say never. This 2018 senatorial race could be one to pay attention to.

VOTE KID ROCK pic.twitter.com/SwTMgckKbd

— Kid Rock (@KidRock) November 8, 2016

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Is Kid Rock Michigan’s Next Senate Candidate? appeared first on Law Street.

Tomorrow, in the nation’s capital, people will have a taste of what the city would be like without a vital part of its community. Immigrants across the city will either skip work or walk out of work to participate in “A Day Without Immigrants,” as The Washingtonian reported.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is meant to put the economic significance of the immigrant community on full display and to protest President Donald Trump’s recent immigration policies. The protest comes during a time in which stories about ICE raids have been reported across the country, including one instance in which a Mexican immigrant in Seattle who had previously been protected from deportation under the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy was detained by ICE agents.

According to The Washingtonian, multiple well-known restaurants such as Compass Rose, Bar Pilar, and Pearl Drive Oyster Palace will stand in solidarity with their employees who are protesting, and will possibly close if they are too short-staffed.

Speaking to The Washingtonian, Compass Rose owner Rose Previte said, “We’re just going to go with what we have that day and tell customers, ‘This is what happens when immigrants don’t come to work.’”

Multiple restaurants and restaurant owners have taken to social media to highlight their solidarity with the striking workers.

In solidarity with our immigrant tribe we will close for the day on Thursday for our staff to join in #ADayWithoutImmigrants.

— Busboys and Poets (@busboysandpoets) February 15, 2017

In support of our people & #ADayWithoutImmigrants Thurs 2/16 we will not open @jaleo DC CC MD, @zaytinya or @oyameldc #ImmigrantsFeedAmerica

— José Andrés (@chefjoseandres) February 14, 2017

Staff & customers from around the world are integral to our business & community. Kitchen will be closed Thursday #ADayWithoutImmigrants

— Ivy and Coney (@ivyandconey) February 15, 2017

Public and charter schools in the District will not be participating in the protest and will function on normal hours, according to The Washington Post. However, schools expect many of their teachers and staff members to participate in the protest.

Per The Washington Post:

The chief of schools for D.C. Public Schools, John Davis, sent a note to principals in the school system saying that while many people may participate in the boycott, school will continue as normal and staff and students are expected to be in attendance.

‘We highly value and are committed to fostering a learning environment where staff and students feel safe and secure and we respect the right to self-expression and peaceful protest,’ the letter says.

Some restaurants that have announced their solidarity with their staff members–like Meridian Pint, which is located in the Columbia Heights neighborhood–are located in areas of D.C. that have a high concentration of Latino immigrants.

The protest was spread through social media and flyers that have appeared around the city.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is similar to the “Day Without Latinos” rally held in Wisconsin yesterday. These rallies aren’t the first immigrant-focused protests that have taken place since President Trump’s inauguration. Earlier this month, Yemeni-owned bodegas around New York City shut down in protest of the travel ban.

For those targeted by the latest Republican divide & conquer, look around and remember this: you are not alone. @daywithoutlatinos pic.twitter.com/1vuF6QZ6Oa

— Chris Larson (@ChrisJLarson) February 13, 2017

In addition, on Friday, a “General Strike Against Trump” is taking place in cities across the country.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post D.C. Will Have “A Day Without Immigrants” Protest Tomorrow appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past couple of days, we have seen a few people who should be doing about 100,000 percent less. Among these people are Cee Lo Green at the Grammys, Stephen Miller, the Twenty One Pilots guys, and every person involved with the making of “Fifty Shades Darker.” Now we can add conservative cartoonist Glenn McCoy to those ranks.

On Monday, the Belleville News- Democrat, a newspaper based in southwest Illinois, published a McCoy cartoon in their Opinion section that drew parallels between the tough time our new Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is having, and an iconic moment during the Civil Rights Movement, because that makes sense, right?

The reference: Norman Rockwell’s 1964 painting, ‘The Problem We Live With’ pic.twitter.com/D1wvtyIz5Z

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) February 14, 2017

If it has been a while since you’ve taken APUSH, let me remind you what’s going on in this cartoon. Norman Rockwell’s “The Problem We Live With” depicts Ruby Bridges who, during desegregation in New Orleans, was escorted by three U.S. Marshals to and from her all-white school to protect her from angry protesters.

McCoy’s cartoon seems to suggest that the public criticism that DeVos has faced before and since her nomination is the exact same thing, or, at the very least, similar to what Bridges endured. In the cartoon, McCoy replaces the N-word and “KKK,” which are written on the wall that Bridges is walking past in the original painting, with “Conservative” and “NEA” (National Education Association), respectively.

DeVos gained sympathy from Trump for the particularly rough confirmation process she faced. DeVos endured a bruising Senate confirmation hearing, where her lack of knowledge about public school education and fear of grizzly bears were exposed. Nonetheless, DeVos was confirmed as education secretary last Monday, but only after Vice President Mike Pence cast a historic vote that broke a 50-50 vote tie in the Senate. Since becoming education secretary, DeVos has been relentlessly mocked for her tweets and blocked by protestors from entering a D.C. public school.

Lets compare and contrast: Bridges was six years-old when she began to attend William Frantz Elementary school as its only African-American student, and had to endure the racist chants from protestors when she entered and exited the school doors. Bridges was also the only student in her classroom for awhile, because the parents of her white classmates withdrew their children from the school. All of the teachers except for one refused to teach Bridges. Her family endured backlash as well. This all happened simply because she was a black girl trying to go to school. So, as you can see, there are many parallels between DeVos and Bridges.

You can check out more of McCoy’s cartoons here.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Betsy DeVos is Now “The Problem We All Live With” appeared first on Law Street.

From the Nashville sit-ins in the 1960s to the Memphis sanitation workers’ strikes, Tennessee has a rich history of practicing civil disobedience in the form of nonviolent protests. And recently, Tennessee has seen a resurgence of nonviolent protests. On Inauguration Day, a group of Tennesseans chained themselves to the state capitol. About 15,000 people marched in downtown Nashville on the day of the Women’s March. And, this past July, hundreds of Black Lives Matters protesters spilled onto the interstate, stopping traffic. But in response to this civic action, a Tennessee lawmaker introduced a road block bill that grants drivers who “[exercise] due care” immunity from civil liability if they injure a protester or demonstrator who is blocking traffic.

According to Tennessee’s WTVC News Channel 9, state Senator Bill Ketron, who introduced the bill, said in a statement, “we believe that citizens have the right to protest. There is a procedure for peaceful protests and the purpose of that process is to protect the safety of our citizens. Protesters have no right to be in the middle of the road or our highways for their own safety and the safety of the traveling public.”

There are two distinctions in the bill that should be noted. The first is that if a person takes purposeful or willful action to injure a protester, they will not be granted immunity from civil liability. The second distinction is that the law does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution.

Tennessee lawmakers said that this bill was introduced to protect both drivers and protesters. As the Epoch Times points out, states like North Dakota have introduced similar legislation. If Tennessee’s bill passes, it will go into effect this summer.

At first glance, these kinds of bills aren’t erroneously offensive. But at the heart of these bills, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the core principles of civil disobedience.

Protesters and demonstrators do not simply block roads for the sake of inconveniencing people who are just trying to have a normal commute. Blocking traffic is a visceral statement that reminds people that some lives are inherently inconvenient–that some lives come with inherent roadblocks simply based on trivialities like the color of someone’s skin or who a person loves. Blocking traffic impedes the inexplicit conveniences that privilege bestows.

We can look at Tennessee’s road-block bill uncynically. We can hold the belief that the bill was introduced with the best of intentions–with the belief that these lawmakers truly want to look after the safety of the public. But we can also maintain the perspective that the bill ignores the principles of non-violent protests and continues to allow people to abrogate their responsibility to help society progress toward moral justice in service of letting them go on with their lives as if everything is as it should be, and nothing is wrong.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why Tennessee’s Road Block Bill Wouldn’t Actually Keep People Safe appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel refused to reinstate President Donald Trump’s seven-country travel/immigration/Muslim/DEFINITELY-NOT-A-BAN ban.

The decision was an unmitigated loss for Trump. And what does President Trump usually do when things don’t go his way?

He has his communications team release a measured and coherent statement reiterating the White House’s position on the issue.

Just kidding.

He tweets about it.

So, after the decision was announced, Trump vented his frustrations on the beautifully insufferable and addictive cesspool that we call Twitter.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

And then….well…see for yourself:

“oh no, not court” —judges

— both are equally bad (@caseyjohnston) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT WHERE WE ALREADY ARE BUT A DIFFERENT COURT SHUT UP NO YOU’RE STUPID!

— Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) February 10, 2017

Saying “SEE YOU IN COURT” after losing a court case is like yelling “LET’S TAKE THIS OUTSIDE” after you just lost a fight outside.

— Adam Conover (@adamconover) February 10, 2017

“I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT!” is really the worst thing to yell after you just lost in court

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) February 9, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT! I HOPE THAT BALIFF WITH THE PUPPET OF HIMSELF IS THERE. I LOVE THAT PUPPET! CRACKS ME UP! pic.twitter.com/SdVJBwJAkG

— Jake Fogelnest (@jakefogelnest) February 10, 2017

And then he tweeted…..
“SEE YOU IN COURT”
After just LOSING IN COURT‼️ pic.twitter.com/RZrku9Pp1C

— Dory (@Dory) February 10, 2017

Nap, then therapy, where I will very likely be told to stay off twitter. SEE YOU IN COURT

— Dan Harmon (@danharmon) February 10, 2017

An all caps “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT” is the whitest thing to ever happen in black history month.

— Akilah Hughes (@AkilahObviously) February 10, 2017

{loses in checkers} SEE YOU IN CHECKERS

— Charles Finch (@CharlesFinch) February 9, 2017

trump: “SEE YOU IN COURT!”
court: pic.twitter.com/tNNKsLqq9S

— Giuliana (@Princessofwifi) February 10, 2017

My teacher: F
Me: SEE YOU IN COURT!

— Lexi (@lexi4prez) February 10, 2017

“See you in court” sounds like dialogue from a bad tennis movie. “See you in court. There’ll be no love. Except for your score. Loser!”

— Michelle Wolf (@michelleisawolf) February 10, 2017

me if Beyoncé doesn’t sweep the grammys https://t.co/5JiXwFeIys

— Matt Bellassai (@MattBellassai) February 10, 2017

TRUMP: SEE YOU IN COURT

JUSTICE: pic.twitter.com/85mQSKUK5Z

— jake (@jakebeckman) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT, DONALD. pic.twitter.com/yqIhRjDClC

— Michael Skolnik (@MichaelSkolnik) February 9, 2017

“SEE YOU IN COURT” is what the rich white villain in a dance crew movie yells after he loses a rec room turf battle to a bunch of teens.

— Miles Kahn (@mileskahn) February 9, 2017

And now

*sips martini*
*rolls up sleeves*
*removes earrings*
*takes another sip*

LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT COMMA pic.twitter.com/BRz3g44WJM

— Benjamin Dreyer (@BCDreyer) February 10, 2017

Twitter is so beautiful sometimes. Watching this entire mess reminded me of something. Last night, I just couldn’t put my finger on it, but I suddenly had a revelation this morning.

I want to remind you all of a true classic in American cinema: “Air Bud.”

If you will recall, “Air Bud” is the story about a golden retriever, who is later renamed “Buddy,” who runs away from his abusive owner, a professional clown who is also an alcoholic (this movie has many layers). He then forms a relationship with a teenaged boy who just lost his father in a plane crash. Basically, Bud and the teenage boy form a bond and it’s really beautiful. Oh, also, Bud can play basketball. And he becomes famous. Again, many layers to this film. Anyway, Buddy’s old owner tries to get him back and, in a very tense scene, confronts his dog’s new owners. Check it out starting at 19:49 below:

Welp. There it is. “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT.” Who knew “Air Bud” could be so relevant in 2017.

If you’re interested, you can watch the full movie on a random afternoon on the Freeform channel (formerly ABC Family), probably. Or in your old VHS collection. Either one is a sure fire bet.

There’s no telling what Trump means exactly by “SEE YOU IN COURT,” but today, during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump said “We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country, you’ll be seeing that sometime next week. In addition, we will continue to go through the court process and ultimately I have no doubt that we’ll win that particular case.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Twitter Goes in on “See You In Court” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s important to keep in mind that someone is always having a worse day than you. Yesterday, that someone was Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). Chaffetz, who is also the chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, was flooded by a chorus of boos and chants at a town hall he hosted in his district last night.

WATCH: Jason Chaffetz being greeted with “Do Your Job!” chants at town hall. Per CNN, he left the town hall an hour early @jasoninthehouse pic.twitter.com/8uw7cbwjcW

— Yashar (@yashar) February 10, 2017

Chaffetz’s experience at the town hall was probably jarring for him for a whole multitude of reasons, but mostly because his day seemed to be going pretty well up until that point. Yesterday afternoon, Chaffetz gained bi-partisan praise for condemning Kellyanne Conway for promoting Ivanka Trump’s Nordstrom fashion line in an interview on “Fox & Friends.” Conway seemingly violated an executive branch regulation that prohibits employees from using their position “for their own private gain, for the private gain of friends . . . or persons with whom they are affiliated in a non-government capacity.”

Speaking to reporters on the Hill, Chaffetz said Conway’s comments were “clearly over the line, wrong, wrong, wrong, and unacceptable.” Later, Chaffetz tweeted a letter he, along with Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, sent to the White House and the Office of Government Ethics, calling for recommendations for disciplinary action against Conway.

What she did was wrong, wrong, wrong. Here is our bi-partisan letter to the White House and OGE. #Donteverdothis https://t.co/zqeYhcttMB

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) February 9, 2017

So, Chaffetz was probably feeling pretty good about himself after all that. Of course, all good things must come to an end. After a visit to the Utah State Senate, Chaffetz made his way over to his town hall meeting at Brighton High School, which, according to an event Facebook page, was not advertised by Chaffetz and changed locations multiple times because of large interest. While Chaffetz did not officially promote the event, multiple left-leaning groups like the Wasatch Socialist Party set up event pages that led to an outpouring of protestors and attendees, according to Utah’s KUTV news reporter Chris Jones.

The auditorium, which seats 1,100, was filled to capacity while about 1,500 people stood outside the school, chanting and holding up signs.

Several thousand people outside of Brighton HS. Who couldn’t get into @jasoninthehouse town hall. #utpol pic.twitter.com/gtARJu9mSf

— Chris Jones (@jonesnews) February 10, 2017

Auditorium for Cong Chaffetz Town hall packed. Police say 1000 outside. Now chanting, “You work for us!” @UtahIndivisible @IndivisibleTeam pic.twitter.com/R9iDakiWrZ

— Kyung Lah (@KyungLahCNN) February 10, 2017

This was all before the actual event started. During the event, Chaffetz was grilled by multiple attendees over a wide range of subjects, from Bears Ears National Monument, to public lands, to the Trump Administration, to Betsy DeVos, to immigration.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, most of Chaffetz’s answers were drowned out by boos and chants like “Vote him out!” and “Do your job!” At one point, a frustrated Chaffetz said “If you want me to answer the question, give me more than five seconds to do it.”

But, nevertheless, Chaffetz’s frustrated constituents persisted, with attendee after attendee hitting their representative with tough questions. One notable grilling came from a grade-school girl:

Utah Congressman Chaffetz gets totally owned by 10 year old girl’s sick burn about science, refuses to answer her question & crowd goes wild pic.twitter.com/FxKUM2TklY

— Aaron Stewart-Ahn (@somebadideas) February 10, 2017

And another came from an ex-teacher:

At rowdy town hall, ex-teacher asks Chaffetz — chair of House oversight — “what’s your line in the sand” for Trump? pic.twitter.com/8U7IkpZtsS

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 10, 2017

And another came from a cancer survivor who shared her story about the help she received from Planned Parenthood:

Cancer survivor — who relies on Planned Parenthood for care — asks Chaffetz: “Why are you trying to take [it] away?” pic.twitter.com/yexjMZ7wz6

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 10, 2017

And another–well, you get the idea.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the town hall lasted 75 minutes, which, according to multiple reports, was 40 minutes shorter than the event was supposed to be. Over the past couple of years, Chaffetz has been no stranger to public criticism. As Oversight Committee chairman, Chaffetz has received flack for relentlessly harping on Hillary Clinton’s connections with the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. He was also widely derided for taking to his Instagram to post a picture with a caption that many people saw as petty and unclassy:

So pleased she is not the President. I thanked her for her service and wished her luck. The investigation continues.

A photo posted by Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) on Jan 20, 2017 at 12:31pm PST

He is also known to have a dim understanding of how charts work:

Chaffetz was also widely criticized this past election for his flip-flop on President Donald Trump. After the Access Hollywood video was released, Chaffetz told Utah’s Fox 13 News that he couldn’t vote for Trump and look his daughter in the eye. Nineteen days later, presumably after looking his daughter in the eye, Chaffetz went on to say he would be voting for Trump, but would not be endorsing him:

I will not defend or endorse @realDonaldTrump, but I am voting for him. HRC is that bad. HRC is bad for the USA.

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) October 27, 2016

Chaffetz has yet to comment on what transpired last night.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Jason Chaffetz Flooded by Boos at Town Hall Meeting appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter is riddled with parody accounts, but one in particular has been helping people laugh through their fears for the past week. The parody account “Future CNN” has been offering people a kind of respite from the craziness of the news–giving us a look into what the future may hold for CNN’s coverage.

The account tweets images of made-up future CNN chyrons that are as hilarious as they are jarringly accurate. The chyrons poke fun at Trump’s, shall we say, “impulsiveness,” CNN’s coverage/panels, and the general insanity we’ve seen in politics over the past couple of weeks.

The account first tweeted last Monday, and since then it has gained the attention of some prominent political reporters and actual CNN employees, including “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter.

Here’s a sample of the account’s tweets:

pic.twitter.com/XirE9EIpvM

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) January 30, 2017

pic.twitter.com/SoemTPaRd8

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) January 31, 2017

pic.twitter.com/faTZIns0Vc

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) February 1, 2017

pic.twitter.com/BJ9JjrkRyx

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) February 3, 2017

pic.twitter.com/vwAAWwmcWT

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) February 3, 2017

pic.twitter.com/Nf3dMZEONV

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) February 7, 2017

It might be helpful to remind people that this is a parody account. Also, it is helpful to remind people that Twitter is free. And horrible. And also beautiful, but, you know, in a kind of horrible way.

You can follow “Future CNN” at @FutureCNN

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “Future CNN” is Helping People Laugh Through Their Fears on Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

Some people read books to escape from the harsh truths of reality. And some people (or, apparently, a lot of people) read books to better discern the totalitarian threat of the current political environment, I guess?

Much has been said about George Orwell’s “1984” returning to the top of Amazon’s best sellers list, but another dystopian fiction novel has since joined it. This week, Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” hit Amazon’s best sellers list at number two, with “1984” dropping down to the third slot from the top spot it held after the #alternativefacts controversy late last month.

Considered as somewhat of a “feminist ‘1984,’” “The Handmaid’s Tale” is set in a dystopian future where a totalitarian state run by religious zealots, the Republic of Gilead, has replaced America. In Gilead, women are property, a large number of them are infertile, and they are placed in a caste system where their worth is determined by their ability to bear children, race, and class. As warfare rages on throughout the country, fertile women are put in camps and trained to be “Handmaids,” who are tasked with bearing the children of rich white men. Sounds like a fun and breezy read, no?

Like “1984,” which has been banned and challenged many times by school boards since its publication, “The Handmaid’s Tale” has been caught up in similar controversy. Most recently, in 2014, the book was banned by a school board in Pennsylvania because of the novel’s profanity and graphic sexual references. In 2012, according to the Winston-Salem Journal, two mothers in Guilford County, North Carolina attempted to ban the book from schools because of its extreme view of Christianity.

On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Russell Perreault, head of publicity for Anchor Books, which now publishes “The Handmaid’s Tale,” said that sales of the book shot up 60 percent in the last year and, since the election, sales increased by 200 percent.

While some of the book’s success can be attributed to the impending April premiere of the Hulu show based on the novel (Hulu premiered the show’s second trailer during last Sunday’s Super Bowl), it’s not out of the question to consider the book’s renewed prominence could be connected to an increase in political anxiety.

This spike in sales for “The Handmaid’s Tale” is similar to the sales numbers posted by “1984.” According to CNNMoney, which spoke to a Penguin spokesman, Penguin reprinted 75,000 copies of “1984” the week after the inauguration–which is a significantly larger reprint than normal for the novel. This upsurge in sales for “1984” is similar to but larger than the spike that sales of the novel saw in the midst of the NSA surveillance scandal in 2013.

Following this gloom and doom of the future reading trend, Sinclair Lewis’ cautionary novel “It Can Happen Here” as well as Aldous Huxley’s even more cautionary novel “Brave New World” can be found further down the Amazon best sellers list. However, it should be noted that the children’s books “Llama Llama I Love You” and “Love from the Very Hungry Caterpillar” sit at fifth and sixth on the list, so do not despair, for children’s reading habits have not been affected…yet.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “The Handmaid’s Tale” and “1984” Sit at Top of Amazon’s Best Sellers List appeared first on Law Street.

There was a lot going on last night during the Super Bowl. But caught up in the hysteria–somewhere between people pointing out the game’s eery similarities to this past year’s election, the Tom Brady roasting, the Tom Brady adoration, the Lady Gaga jumping gifs, and the commercials that every American loves to hate or hates to love–a ton of people donated a ton of money to various organizations and charities around the country.

Using the hashtag #AGoodGame, people took to Twitter to pledge to donate a certain amount of money every time their team scored a touchdown or a field goal.

Watching #SuperBowl w/ democracy, civil rights, & environment in mind. #AGoodGame for @ACLU @PPact @splcenter @AWIOnline @NatlParkService pic.twitter.com/SZBYScSnah

— Amber Baillon (@Vambaillon) February 5, 2017

$100 to ACLU, $50 to Planned Parenthood and $50 to Standing Rock Sioux. #AGoodGame #SuperBowl @joshgondelman Thanks for the inspiration!

— Kristen Callisto (@HaleiwaHoney) February 6, 2017

5 Brady sacks = $100 to @splcenter, & $100 to @AlbanySAFEProj to help support survivors of sexual assault and DV #AGoodGame @joshgondelman https://t.co/9Ud0OdEtAn

— Bear Brian (@Brian___H) February 6, 2017

I have paid off my #AGoodGame promise to @SavetheChildren. My math looks like this: pic.twitter.com/komMvvdQ3h

— Owen King (@OwenKingwriter) February 6, 2017

#AGoodGame Donating to Boston area women’s shelter @RosiesPlace pic.twitter.com/09WfXr8T94

— Estelle Nickleby (@estenickleby) February 6, 2017

#AGoodGame was started by comedian Josh Gondelman, a writer for “Last Week Tonight” and a lifelong Patriots fan, who, on Thursday, tweeted his intention to support his team while rejecting the politics of some of the organization’s members.

I’ve been a Patriots fan for my whole life but I am way off on the political spectrum from much of the organization. https://t.co/3p3oVKzwkW

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

I’d like to be able to cheer for the team I grew up loving without cheerleading the Trump administration. Is this anyone else?

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

My friend @emma_sandoe and I thought that maybe people who feel ambivalent could donate to a good cause for every Pats FG or TD.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

It seems like a practical way to do a little good without staging a (small and ineffective) boycott of the Super Bowl.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

If you have political Patriots fan ambivalence, maybe pledge a little money to a good cause when they score using the hashtag: #AGoodGame

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

Because of Tom Brady’s garbage politics, I’m donating $100 for every Patriots TD and $50 for every FG to the @NAACP_LDF. #AGoodGame

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

The politics of some of the members of the Patriots organization has been a running sub-plot in the NFL this season. In September, a “Make America Great Again” hat was seen in the Patriots’ superstar quarterback Tom Brady’s locker. Brady has also made comments that have quietly alluded to his support of  President Donald Trump.

In November, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was criticized for sending a letter to Trump congratulating him on a “tremendous campaign” and touting him “the ultimate competitor and fighter.”  Additionally, Patriots owner Robert Kraft has described Trump as a “a very close friend” and was seen at Trump Tower a week after the election ended.

In an interview with Esquire, Gondelman said he would have felt “weird” not acknowledging the relationship these members of the Patriots have with Trump. “I have this large social media reach, and fortunately a little money I could donate to a good cause,” Gondelman said, “So it just felt like to do that would be putting my money where my mouth is.”

While donation totals from #AGoodGame have not been collected yet, last night’s surge of generosity follows a trend that has sprung up in response to some of Trump’s policies. At the end of the weekend Trump’s polarizing travel ban took effect, CNN’s Brian Stelter reported that the ACLU had received 356,306 donations totaling over $24.1 million–five times more than the organization usually receives in a whole year. Planned Parenthood also has seen a rise in donations. According to The Atlantic, Planned Parenthood received 80,000 donations in the three days after the election.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Anti-Trump Super Bowl Donation Campaign Raises Money for Various Organizations appeared first on Law Street.

With tensions rising in America, shade levels have been rising in direct proportion. A tiny bit of this shade and subtly savagery is coming from former official Obama White House photographer Pete Souza’s Instagram account.

Souza, who was also the official White House photographer for the Reagan White House, has been taking to his new Instagram account (the account he used during the Obama administration is now archived) to post photos from his time with the Obama White House, while also throwing some shade at President Donald Trump.

Many people and outlets have pointed out Souza’s shade, from people on Twitter to CNN and Teen Vogue.

Omg you need to follow @PeteSouza on Instagram. The subtle trump shade…these captions are SAVAGE. #ObamaLegacy #whitehouse44 pic.twitter.com/xxLOEQv8qH

— Vallari Ajgaonkar (@VallAjgaonkar) February 2, 2017

Ain’t no shade like Pete Souza shade cus Pete Souza shade has amazing composition and lighting. https://t.co/QuBl7er9AT

— The Happy Feminist (@HappyFeminist) February 2, 2017

I am living for @PeteSouza‘s instagram trolling

— Megan Hess (@mhess4) February 3, 2017

Let’s take a little dive into this man’s glorious new Instagram feed, and rank his pointed posts by shade and savagery.

#5: Immigration Ban Posts

Many people criticized President Trump’s immigration ban last weekend that incited protests in different airports across the country. This criticism has been direct and heated. But Souza is far too shady to directly address the situation. Instead, Souza just posted two pictures relating to the refugee situation to respond. The first: a picture of Obama with a young refugee. The second: a picture of a six-year-old boy, Alex, who was so concerned about the well-being of a Syrian refugee that he wanted him to be his brother.

Why do these posts take last place on the list? Well, that’s because, while they’re perfectly shady, they’re a little too heart-tugging and emotional to be petty enough to be characterized as “savage.” Hundreds of stories have been written about the immigration ban and its effects on not only refugees but on American citizens, and these posts from Souza point to the perceived human costs associated with Trump’s executive order. These posts are a perfect introduction to the shade that Souza is throwing on Instagram, but they aren’t totally indicative of how subtly biting Souza’s posts can get.

Talking with a young refugee at a Dignity for Children Foundation classroom in 2015.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 29, 2017 at 5:16am PST

Remember Alex, the six-year-old boy who wrote President Obama a letter about the Syrian boy photographed in the ambulance. Alex visited the Oval Office with his family the day after the election. "Dear President Obama, Remember the boy who was picked up by the ambulance in Syria? Can you please go get him and bring him to [my home]? Park in the driveway or on the street and we will be waiting for you guys with flags, flowers, and balloons. We will give him a family and he will be our brother. Catherine, my little sister, will be collecting butterflies and fireflies for him. In my school, I have a friend from Syria, Omar, and I will introduce him to Omar. We can all play together. We can invite him to birthday parties and he will teach us another language. We can teach him English too, just like my friend Aoto from Japan. Please tell him that his brother will be Alex who is a very kind boy, just like him. Since he won't bring toys and doesn't have toys Catherine will share her big blue stripy white bunny. And I will share my bike and I will teach him how to ride it. I will teach him additions and subtractions in math. And he [can] smell Catherine's lip gloss penguin which is green. She doesn't let anyone touch it. Thank you very much! I can't wait for you to come! Alex 6 years old "

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 30, 2017 at 2:37pm PST

#4: Australia 

Now we’re getting into slightly more savage territory.

This Souza post shows Obama sharing a hearty and chummy laugh with the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia at the ASEAN gala dinner last September.

Talking with then Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand, left, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia last September at the ASEAN gala dinner.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Feb 2, 2017 at 2:21pm PST

Did Souza post this just because he thought the lighting was particularly good in this shot? Absolutely not. This was posted in the midst of the new Trump-Australia feud and after The Washington Post reported that the phone call between Trump and Turnbull was somewhat contentious.

Per The Washington Post:

. . . President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu­gee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.

At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladi­mir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”

The beauty of this post lies in how subliminal it is. This is a technique that we will see Souza employ for numbers 3 and 2 of our ranking.

#3/#2 (Tie): Mexico and Merrick Garland

We have a tie. We have this tie because these two posts are uniquely shady in their own ways, thus making it impossible to choose which one is superior to the other.

Let’s begin with the Merrick Garland post.

Merrick Garland. Just saying.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 31, 2017 at 5:28pm PST

For context, Merrick Garland is, of course, the Obama Supreme Court nominee who never received a Senate confirmation hearing. Many people have cried foul over this because Garland was respected by politicians on both sides of the aisle. And last week Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

What makes this post so great is the fact that Souza posted this picture of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden with Garland a couple of hours before Trump announced his pick for SCOTUS nominee. The other thing that makes this post great is the simplicity of the caption, especially the second part. “Just saying.”

Just saying. 

This caption is also 100 times better if you read Just saying the same way André 3000 says “Just playin'” after he describes his very specific (read: petty) hope that a pretty but stuck up young woman (Caroline) will speed in her car on the way to the club trying to hurry up to “get some” baller or singer (or somebody like that) and while driving try to put on her makeup in the mirror but because of her inability to multitask she will crash, crash, crash into a ditch.

We then move on to the picture that Souza posted of Obama drinking tequila with Mexico’s president Enrique Peña Nieto.

This one is for Grover. President Obama sampling some tequila with President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico in 2013. @heygrover

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 31, 2017 at 6:18pm PST

This one is pretty self-explanatory. It’s no secret that Trump has a dicey relationship with Nieto (see: border wall). Things seemed to have reached a kind of boiling point the other day when The Washington Post reported that Trump had a heated phone call with Nieto, who canceled a planned meeting with Trump. Then, The Associated Press reported that Trump told Nieto that “he was ready to send U.S. troops to stop “bad hombres down there” unless the Mexican military does more to control them.”

The whole situation with the relationship between Trump and Nieto would make this post go pretty high on the list, but what truly makes it so perfectly shady is what is maybe an unintended feature of the picture. If you will notice, Obama bears a striking resemblance to an insanely popular meme/gif. Click this link to see if you can make the rainbow connection.

#1: Then It Was on Day One…

Congratulations, you’ve made it to the end.

The absolute shadiest/pettiest/subtly savage post Souza has made came on the very first day of Trump’s presidency when Souza took a moment to comment on some of the aesthetic changes to the Oval Office.

I like these drapes better than the new ones. Don't you think?

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 21, 2017 at 7:36pm PST

The drapes that hang behind the Resolute desk are now gold, which isn’t much of a surprise because, if you didn’t know, our president is Donald Trump.

Captured this last night as @POTUS @realDonaldTrump sits at his desk in the Oval Office for the first time in the @WhiteHouse. #POTUS45 pic.twitter.com/BObUKXwIir

— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) January 21, 2017

Why does this post take the number one spot? Because the whole thing is about drapes. That’s it–drapes. How petty do you have to be to go after a man’s choice of drapes? And imagine how shady you have to be to go after the drapes of the man who replaced your former boss.

Also, this was posted on Day 1 of Trump’s presidency. Day. 1.  This is a day after anarchists took to the streets to set a limo ablaze and bust the window of a Starbucks and the same day millions of women around the globe marched in protest of the new president and his problematic views and behavior, and this man was ruthless enough to take to his Instagram account to go in on the new president’s new drapes. Souza is audacious. This is like if “I don’t know her” were an Instagram post. This is why this post is and will always be the most petty/shady/savage post Souza will ever make on Instagram.

There are no signs that Souza will stop posting his shadiness on Instagram any time soon. Not only does he post pictures with captions that comment on our current political situation, but he also posts a ton of pictures that are objectively beautiful that were taken throughout his career as a photographer.

It’s just too bad that Souza is no longer around the Obamas to take a better-framed and less-grainy photo of this iconic moment in the life of the former president of these United States:

Obama’s on vacation with the hat backwards. He’s never coming back. pic.twitter.com/RUakcwwgtT

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) February 1, 2017

You can follow Pete Souza on Instagram @petesouza.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Profile in Shade: A Ranking of Pete Souza’s Instagram Posts appeared first on Law Street.

Frank Ocean’s estranged father is suing him…again. According to a TMZ report, Ocean’s father, Calvin Cooksey, is filing a defamation lawsuit against his son. The $14.5 million lawsuit is a response to a Tumblr post that Ocean wrote after the Orlando nightclub shooting that had the “Blonde” singer, who infamously took to Tumblr to discuss his sexuality in 2012, recounting the time his dad used a homophobic slur. In the post that led to the defamation lawsuit, Ocean wrote:

I was six years old when I heard my dad call our transgender waitress a f****t as he dragged me out a neighborhood diner saying we wouldn’t be served because she was dirty. That was the last afternoon I saw my father and the first time I heard that word, I think, although it wouldn’t shock me if it wasn’t.

Cooksey, who considers himself to be somewhat of a multihyphenate, claims that the story never happened, and that it has caused damages to his aspiring career in film and music. This isn’t the first time Cooksey has filed a lawsuit–in fact, it’s not even the first time he’s filed a lawsuit against his son.

In 2012, Ocean took to his since-deleted Twitter account to reveal that his father was suing him for $1 million. “Father wanna sue me for a million. Like I owe him back child support. Weak individual bought me a swiss knife at 6yrs old then dipped on me,” Ocean tweeted.

In 2014, TMZ reported that Cooksey hit rap mogul Russell Simmons with a $142 million lawsuit, claiming that Simmons’ hip-hop culture website GlobalGrind unfairly painted him as horrible father. Like his current lawsuit, Cooksey sued Simmons for damages to his future income. In the lawsuit, according to TMZ, Cooksey claimed that Ocean’s “Money Grubbing mother” hid his own son from him and didn’t give Cooksey the chance to be a father. Ocean, who is notoriously private, maintains a close relationship with his mom. In October, Ocean brought her as his date to the final Obama White House state dinner.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity has been sued by their own father. Just last year, actor Christian Slater was involved in a $20 million lawsuit that his father, who is also an actor, filed against him for defamation of character. In the suit, as Entertainment Tonight reported, Slater’s father claimed that comments his son made in an interview claiming that he suffered from mental health issues “ruined his career in the stage, motion picture, and television industry.” The lawsuit was tossed out in July.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Frank Ocean’s Father Sues Him for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Finance Committee Republicans took matters into their own hands to confirm two of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

In an effort to advance Trump’s nominees for Treasury secretary and secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services–Steven Mnuchin and Congressman Tom Price–the Republicans on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee voted in a surprise meeting on Wednesday morning to change the procedural rules that outlined that Democrats must be in attendance to vote on the nominees.  With this rule change, Mnuchin and Price were approved by the committee in a 14-0 vote, allowing for the nominations to go to the full Senate for approval.

Where are @SenateFinance Dems this morning? Standing with the ppl of OH and others hurt by the abusive practices of Mnuchin’s bank. pic.twitter.com/AvLpnxyJko

— Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) February 1, 2017

This move comes a day after Democrats on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee staged a boycott of Mnuchin and Price’s hearings, which presented an obstacle considering the standing rule was that at least one Democrat had to be present in order for any votes to take place. The boycott was led by Senators Sherrod Brown and Roy Wyden in an effort to push for more vetting of both Mnuchin and Price, both of whom the senators claim gave misleading testimonies and responses during the committee hearings about their investments and foreclosure practices, respectively.

.@sensherrodbrown on why Senate Dems boycotting Price and Mnuchin committee votes. https://t.co/qr5oT2gOHX

— Andrew Rafferty (@AndrewNBCNews) January 31, 2017

The Democratic senators outlined their concerns and request for further questioning in a letter sent to the committee’s chairman, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, this morning.

Here are the questions @SenateFinance Democrats want answers to from Price & Mnuchin pic.twitter.com/jo2NOyq484

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) February 1, 2017

Talking to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Hatch relayed his annoyance with the boycotting senators. “I’m very disappointed in this kind of crap . . . This is the most pathetic thing I’ve seen in my whole time in the United States Senate,” Hatch said.

Even after the rule change and the approval of Trump’s two nominees, Hatch still took time to go after the committee’s Democrats for their boycott, telling reporters that the boycott was “unprecedented obstruction” and a “cheap political ploy.” However, the boycott might not be as unprecedented as Hatch claims it to be, considering, as many have pointed out, the Republicans boycotted in 2013 to block the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The rule change and verbal sparring in the media between Finance Committee members just adds to the rising tension between members of Congress. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted no on the confirmation of Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary, who is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife. Earlier today, things got contentious between Democratic Senator Al Franken and GOP Senator John Cornyn during a Judiciary Committee meeting when Cornyn took exception to Franken calling out absent GOP Senator Ted Cruz. In addition, Democratic senators on the Environmental and Public Works Committee–taking a cue from their colleagues on the Finance Committee–have staged a boycott of the vote to confirm Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA.

Al Franken calls out absent Ted Cruz & Cruz’s GOP colleague John Cornyn objects. Franken: “Well, he should be here.” pic.twitter.com/zjMBDhshnJ

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 1, 2017

And this is only Day 12 of Trump’s presidency.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans Change Finance Committee Rules to Push Through Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

Mississippi Representative Tom Weathersby proposed a bill last week that would prohibit sagging pants in the state. Anyone who commits the offense would be subject to fines up to $100 and psychological and social counseling.

According to Mississippi Today, the GOP lawmaker filed House Bill 1353 in response to a constituent’s encounter with a group of young men who “wore their pants too low” and became belligerent after they were asked to pull their pants up.

“Personally, I like to see people dressed when they’re in public and I like to see people with their pants up,” Weathersby told Mississippi Today.

“Anti-sagging” provisions have gained some traction over the past couple years. As the Huffington Post points out, communities like Opa-Locka, Florida and Wildwood, New Jersey have adopted bans on sagging pants, and two high school students in Tennessee, both black, were jailed for “indecent exposure” because of their low-riding clothing.

Hinds County, Mississippi made an effort to outlaw sagging by proposing a $10 fine on those who violated the ordinance. In that 2012 case, local government officials equated sagging pants with the Jackson area’s youths’ inability to get jobs.

The Mississippi chapter of the ACLU pushed back, warning that the ordinance may–as ACLU representative Bear Atwood told ABC News–“end up targeting black neighborhoods and, for kids who have done nothing other than wear their pants too low, brings them into contact with the police unnecessarily.” The ordinance was eventually voted down.

Mississippi state’s most recent anti-sagging bill invites a multitude of questions. How low do pants have to be to be considered “indecent and vulgar”? What will psychological and social counseling actually do to prevent this low-hanging atrocity from persisting?

Perhaps, a more prudent question is why do legislatures and local municipalities think it’s okay to legitimize respectability politics in black communities?

To start to define “respectability politics,” we can look to the statement that the Mississippi chapter of the ACLU shared in its response to the Hinds County proposed ordinance:

We all want to see our young people grow into productive, engaged citizens, but this is not the way. Saggy pants bans will have long lasting harm in our communities. Such bans will divert precious resources from law enforcement. Let’s spend those resources on education, after school activities or new text books. Rather than open doors for youth, saggy pants bans will close doors of opportunity.

The Mississippi ACLU statement begins an argument that helps to pinpoint the nucleus of what is wrong with the respectability politics argument: Why should forcing black communities to adapt to standards of “respectability” be a focus for legislation when the culture of poverty is created and exacerbated by discriminatory policies that result in the lack of resources afforded to these communities?

Politics of respectability seek to blame the condition of black lives in America solely on black people–as if their agency is not limited by institutions and structures that are the result of years of discriminatory policies. This presents a flawed reality in which equality for African-American can be achieved if only young black men pulled up their pants and if young black women dressed better.

It also puts the onus on marginalized people to aspire to standards set in the interest of maintaining hierarchy in order to gain some semblance of equality and respect. Respectability politics defines racism as something black Americans will just have to overcome. As Mychal Denzel Smith writes in his book “Invisible Man Got the Whole World Watching,” “It’s only when [black people] live up to the stereotypes that we limit our opportunities.”

Mississippi is a state where African-Americans, who make up almost 40 percent of the state’s population, still suffer from the residual effects of the state’s “Black Codes” and brutal implementation of Jim Crow. It is a state whose flag waves proudly while containing a tribute to the Confederate flag and has school districts that, even 62 years after Brown v. Board of Education, only recently “officially” desegregated. It is also home to one of the nation’s highest poverty rates and worst public school systems.

In HB1353, we see Mississippi’s desire to focus its energy not on actions that will make any attempt to alleviate its many problems, but on bills that criminalize certain choices and create a measurement of a human being’s deservedness of fair and equal treatment based on how many inches one’s pants falls below one’s butt.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Mississippi’s Proposed Sagging Ban is Legitimizing Respectability Politics appeared first on Law Street.

Aside from all the gifs and memes that resulted from Gen-X icon Winona Ryder’s facial expressions, the biggest story of last night’s Screen Actors Guild Awards was the many winners who used their acceptance speeches as a platform to rebuke President Trump’s executive order banning travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The night opened on a political note when Ashton Kutcher, presenting the night’s first award, welcomed “everyone at home and everyone in airports that belong in my America. You are part of the fabric of who we are, and we love you and we welcome you.”

#sagawards pic.twitter.com/3BGDGa0FLC

— SAG Awards® (@SAGawards) January 30, 2017

The night continued with “Veep” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus, accepting the award for outstanding performance by a female actor in a comedy series. In her speech, she called Trump’s immigration ban “un-American” and told her story of being the daughter of an immigrant who fled religious persecution in Nazi-occupied France.

The political focus continued throughout the night. William H. Macy thanked Trump for making his “Shameless” character Frank Gallagher–a perpetually drunk and irresponsible man with a proclivity to go on extended rants–seem normal. “Orange is the New Black” actress Taylor Schilling called on Hollywood to “keep telling stories that show what unites us is stronger than the forces that seek to divide us.” “The People v. O.J. Simpson” star Sarah Paulson requested that everyone donate to the American Civil Liberties Union. And “Stranger Things” actor David Harbour pointed to art’s ability to “cultivate a more empathetic and understanding society.”

The most emotional and perhaps most resonant moment of the night came from Mahershala Ali, who accepted the award for best male actor in a supporting role for his performance in the movie “Moonlight.” “We see what happens when you persecute people. They fold into themselves,” Ali said.

He added:

When we kind of get caught up in the minutiae, the details that make us all different, there’s two ways of seeing that. There’s an opportunity to see the texture of that person, the characteristics that make them unique, and then there’s the opportunity to go to war about it, say, ‘that person is different from me and I don’t like you, so let’s battle.’ My mother is an ordained minister, I’m a Muslim. She didn’t do backflips when I called her to tell her I converted 17 years ago. But I tell you now, we put things to the side, I’m able to see her, she’s able to see me, we love each other, the love has grown. That stuff is minutiae. It’s not that important.

Politics taking a prominent place during awards season has a rich history–one that includes Marlon Brando refusing to accept his Academy Award for “The Godfather” to protest the film industry’s treatment of Native Americans and Michael Moore using his Oscar speech to shame President George W. Bush. If last night was any indication, President Trump is in for a bruising couple of weeks.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Screen Actors Guild Awards Get Political appeared first on Law Street.

Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez signed a memo on Thursday that orders county officials to comply with federal immigration detention requests. This order makes Miami-Dade the first jurisdiction to relinquish its status as an immigrant sanctuary, a title given to it by the Department of Justice in May of 2016, but one that the county itself has resisted.

Gimenez’s action comes a day after President Trump signed an executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” on Wednesday, which denies federal funding to sanctuary cities by instructing the Department of Homeland Security to cut its funding to these cities. This, in effect, coerces counties into cooperating with federal authorities when it comes to detaining undocumented immigrants.

Gimenez’s action directs the county’s corrections director to comply with Trump’s executive order by holding undocumented immigrants who have been detained by police for committing crimes long enough for federal authorities to pick them up, a measure that officials in many cities have resisted so far.

In 2016, the cost that the county would have incurred had it held the almost 100 undocumented inmates long enough for feds to pick them up would have been about $52,000, according to The Miami Herald, which broke the story.

In an interview with The Miami Herald, Gimenez said that his decision was a financial one, stating that “I want to make sure we don’t put in jeopardy the millions of funds we get from the federal government for a $52,000 issue. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to be arresting more people. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to be enforcing any immigration laws.”

On “Fox and Friends” this morning, Gimenez told the show’s hosts that the decision was a “no-brainer,” saying that Trump’s executive order “put an exclamation point” on the issue, and the county is merely returning to its 2014 policy honoring detention requests “regardless of the fact the governments says they’ll pay for it.”

Gimenez’s statement stands in contrast to statements made by mayors of other sanctuary cities such as Bill de Blasio of New York City. He said on CNN that the city would threaten to sue if federal funding was stripped because the city refused to turn over undocumented immigrants who commit low-level crimes. The city’s current policy states that the city will cooperate with the federal government if an undocumented immigrant commits a serious crime.

Gimenez, who voted for Hillary Clinton in the election, and called for Trump to step down as the Republican party’s nominee back in October, was praised by Trump, as the president took to Twitter yesterday afternoon to celebrate the perceived policy victory:

Miami-Dade Mayor drops sanctuary policy. Right decision. Strong! https://t.co/MtPvaDC4jM

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 26, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Miami-Dade Becomes First Jurisdiction to Comply with Trump’s Sanctuary City Order appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an unwritten but profusely underlined rule in Washington that you don’t make fun of the president’s children, but after Donald Trump’s inauguration this weekend, some users on Twitter didn’t seem to get the memo.

In the midst of the inauguration festivities this past weekend, a number of Twitter users made Barron Trump, the president’s youngest son, the butt of a whole host of jokes.

Is it just me or does Barron Trump look like King Joffrey? pic.twitter.com/lJKVyfqgDw

— Game of Thrones Meme (@Thrones_Memes) January 21, 2017

Until @katiemaryrich either profusely apologizes to #BarronTrump or is fired, I will join the many who #BoycottSNL. Loyal viewer since 1975. pic.twitter.com/haQ6PRcHWn

— (((ProperGander))) (@BamaStephen) January 21, 2017

In response to these jokes, a lot of people called foul, reiterating a point that many have preached for decades: the first children are off limits. Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton took to social media on Sunday to express her feelings about the Barron situation:

Barron Trump deserves the chance every child does-to be a kid. Standing up for every kid also means opposing @POTUS policies that hurt kids.

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) January 22, 2017

Clinton’s support for Barron comes two weeks after former first daughters Jenna Bush-Hager and Barbara Bush penned a letter in TIME in support of Malia and Sasha Obama, praising them for their grace while their parents served as president and first lady and wishing them well on the lives they will embark on after their parents’ time in the White House.

On Monday, NBC suspended “Saturday Night Live” writer Katie Rich for her tweet about Barron Trump, which she has since apologized for. While some have seen NBC’s action as justified, others have come to the defense of Rich, highlighting that crude comments from President Trump and other politicians have not been met with the same kind of swift reprimand.

That Katie Rich joke was just “writers room talk.”

— Moshe Kasher (@moshekasher) January 24, 2017

Katie Rich should have never tweeted that joke. She should have said it on an Access Hollywood bus. Then no one would care.

— Dan Wilbur (@DanWilbur) January 23, 2017

It’s interesting that a writer on SNL is held to a higher standard of language than the man we elected @POTUS @katiemaryrich #stupid

— Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) January 24, 2017

Katie Rich suspended from job for joke. Bill Kintner still at work. Once again proving NBC has stricter policies than our Govt. https://t.co/GsUBIB6wfJ

— Paul Scheer (@paulscheer) January 24, 2017

For their part, the White House issued a statement on Tuesday that called for privacy for Barron. “It is a longstanding tradition that the children of Presidents are afforded the opportunity to grow up outside of the political spotlight,” the statement reads. “The White House fully expects this tradition to continue. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton Comes to the Defense of Barron Trump appeared first on Law Street.

This morning, Florida Senator Marco Rubio took to Facebook to announce that he will support Rex Tillerson’s nomination for Secretary of State, despite the tough questions that Rubio had for Tillerson during his confirmation hearing.

Rubio’s long statement praises Tillerson’s patriotism and “impressive record of leadership,” but also highlights a number of concerns that Rubio brought up during the confirmation hearing, like Tillerson’s refusal to call Vladimir Putin a war criminal. However, at the end of his statement, Rubio states his support of Tillerson despite these concerns, saying that he must “balance these concerns with his extensive experience and success in international commerce” and that “it would be against our national interests to have this confirmation unnecessarily delayed or embroiled in controversy.”

Rubio’s support comes a day after Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham released a joint statement in support of Tillerson. In addition to Rubio, Graham and McCain were the two primary hurdles in the way of Tillerson’s confirmation.

“We need a Secretary of State who recognizes that our nation cannot succeed in the world by itself,” the joint statement reads. “The views that Mr. Tillerson has expressed, both privately and publicly during the confirmation process, give us confidence that he will be a champion for a strong and engaged role for America in the world.”

The main criticism that senators on both sides of the aisle have of Tillerson is his connection to the Russian government when he served as CEO of Exxon Mobil, having received the Russian Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin. Tillerson also lobbied the White House to lift the sanctions that were imposed on Russia after the invasion of Crimea.

Upon the release of his statement, Rubio has been met with criticism aimed at his lack of political courage.

Marco Rubio is the same man who called Obama “weak” on Russia. https://t.co/b48AfTgtKk

— Terrell J. Starr (@Russian_Starr) January 23, 2017

We knew how @marcorubio’s tough talk about Tillerson would turn out, because we all knew how how his tough talk about Trump would turn out.

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) January 23, 2017

Marco Rubio just listed his spine for sale on Craigslist.

— Michael Blackman (@ParaComedian09) January 23, 2017

So Marco Rubio:

1) Grilled Rex Tillerson and tried to embarrass him about Putin

2) Is now voting to confirm Rex Tillerson

— Matt O’Brien (@ObsoleteDogma) January 23, 2017

Rubio garnered a wave of praise after his comments during Tillerson’s confirmation hearing, particularly for a line of questioning in which Rubio called for “moral clarity” and pushed Tillerson on his refusal to label foreign actors as sponsors of terrorism or in violation of international law.

“These were not obscure areas […] it should not be hard to say that Vladimir Putin’s military has conducted war crimes in Aleppo,” Rubio said. He added, “It is never acceptable, you would agree, for a military to specifically target civilians. I find it discouraging your inability to cite that, which is globally accepted.” The video below shows Rubio’s comments.

Rubio has a history of balking on his perceived strong stances, including his support of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee after calling him a “con man,” and running for Senate after repeatedly saying that he had no intention of running if he did not become president.

I have only said like 10000 times I will be a private citizen in January.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is expected to vote on Tillerson’s nomination sometime on Monday.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Marco Rubio Pledges his Support for Tillerson, Making Confirmation Likely appeared first on Law Street.

Hours before Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 45th President of the United States, Shia LaBeouf launched his newest livestream art project, “He Will Not Divide Us.”

“He Will Not Divide Us,” is a four-year-long 24/7 livestream project created by LaBeouf and his frequent collaborators Nastja Säde Rönkkö and Luke Turner that invites the public to say the words “He will not divide us” as much as they wish in front of a camera mounted on a wall outside New York’s Museum of the Moving Image. The official website states that the project is meant “as a show of resistance or insistence, opposition or optimism, guided by the spirit of each individual participant and the community.”

6 Hours Later #HeWillNotDivideUspic.twitter.com/Ld2pZoRpUZ

— Jaden Smith (@officialjaden) January 21, 2017

update: it is jaden smith outside of the museum of moving image screaming”he will not divide us” pic.twitter.com/825sdVQa3u

— babadook canterbury (@I0vingsomeone) January 20, 2017

Since its launch, “He Will Not Divide Us” has seen a flurry of participants, including a white supremacist who exclaimed “We must secure the existence of white people as a race.” LaBeouf quickly shut him down, shouting the project’s mantra in his ear directly in front of the camera.

Mr. LaBeouf shouting down a white supremacist earlier. This thing has been a fascinating watch so far. #HeWillNotDivideUs pic.twitter.com/i0J6oq3BLt

— murta (@murtaman) January 22, 2017

Aside from the protester, the project has introduced people like Leo, a man who stood in front of the camera for over three hours on Sunday night and endured a mini-Trump rally and white supremacists because “at this time, we need compassion and unity to be what we’re focusing on.” Leo was joined by Alexi and Richie, two people who he had never met before, who stood in solidarity with Leo, inspired by his dedication.

this is so beautiful #hewillnotdivideus pic.twitter.com/1SDkOGCJjz

— ella (@frickingtroye) January 23, 2017

THIS MAN HAS MOVED A NATION TONIGHT #hewillnotdivideus pic.twitter.com/EbioOQ5pOw

— l a u r e n (@laurenouterson) January 23, 2017

Richie walked with alexi so she can be safe #hewillnotdivideus pic.twitter.com/cfKN6O47SN

— leslie (@vscoyoyo) January 23, 2017

You can watch the livestream at http://www.hewillnotdivide.us.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Shia LaBeouf Launches Four-Year-Long Anti-Trump Project appeared first on Law Street.

Obama commutes sentence of Chelsea Manning. How many people died because of manning’ leak? https://t.co/WrijBtp4fo

— Judith Miller (@JMfreespeech) January 17, 2017

Miller, now a Fox News contributor, is the former New York Times reporter who wrote a series of stories on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq using unnamed sources who gave Miller information that we now know to be completely false. After they were published, Bush administration officials used Miller’s stories as verified evidence of the presence of WMDs in Iraq, which helped to bolster support for the Iraq War–a more than $2 trillion military endeavor that resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 U.S. troops and millions of Iraqi civilians, as well as thousands of U.S soldiers who have been wounded both physically and mentally.

In 2015, Miller published her memoir, “The Story: A Reporter’s Journey,” in which she tried to rationalize her reporting and divert blame to her sources who, as she told Jon Stewart, “had never been wrong before.” Twitter wasted no time pointing out the hypocrisy of Miller’s Manning tweet, unleashing a flood of backlash.

@JMfreespeech pic.twitter.com/tt7xpnZuNZ

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech pic.twitter.com/GG40QGenQj

— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech pic.twitter.com/rm1eG6Pdt8

— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech I dunno, Judith. How many died because you peddled lies about Saddam’s WMD?

— Mark Colvin (@Colvinius) January 17, 2017

.@JMfreespeech Good question. The answer is: None. Zero.
How many people died because of the Iraq War you helped enable with fake news?

— Peter Kofod (@peterkofod) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech Do you realize you’re THAT Judith Miller?

— Meredith Haggerty (@manymanywords) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech you literally caused the iraq war to happen under false pretenses, bye.

— Myles Tanzer (@mylestanzer) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech Your lies contributed to the deaths of more than 170,000 people. You are a weapon of mass destruction.

— Pete Forester (@pete_forester) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech Talk about the pot telling the kettle lies in order to start the iraqi war

— Sir Jeffington IV (@JeffCerulli) January 17, 2017

Judith Miller should probably sit this one out.

— Jane Coaston (@cjane87) January 17, 2017

In an attempt to quell the online hate, Miller took time out to respond to one of her critics–and plug her book.

@HarleyPeyton not lies or propaganda, but Intel estimates that proved wrong.Big https://t.co/t0K4ba5ucQ “The Story, a Reporter’s Journey”

— Judith Miller (@JMfreespeech) January 17, 2017

However, that response quickly backfired as well.

@JMfreespeech @HarleyPeyton From the NYT: “This sad and flawed book won’t help her be found.”

— Greg McMullen (@gmcmullen) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech @HarleyPeyton “To PROVE I’m not a lying sociopath, read my book: I’m Not a Lying Sociopath” By Judith Miller.
uh… ‘Kay. pic.twitter.com/QJPDsXjmsp

— Tony (@jaxtonypiper) January 18, 2017

@JMfreespeech @HarleyPeyton Sorry, Judy, but the author of that book has been thoroughly discredited by real journalists.

— (((TonyD))) (@Dogger55) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech @HarleyPeyton Girl….

— Charlie (@notcharchar) January 17, 2017

Regardless of where one stands on the Chelsea Manning commutation, one issue we can all agree on is that Judith Miller should not be the moral arbiter for anything.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Twitter Unleashes Its Wrath on Judith Miller After Chelsea Manning Tweet appeared first on Law Street.