On Tuesday, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted screenshots of his email conversations regarding efforts to set up a meeting with a “Russian government attorney” in June 2016. His tweets came after The New York Times told him that it was about to publish an article detailing the contents of the emails. Trump Jr. declined to comment and instead tweeted a brief statement along with the screenshots, saying he was posting them “in order to be totally transparent.”

The emails show how Trump Jr. was approached by Rob Goldstone, a British publicist and former tabloid reporter, to set up a meeting. Goldstone represents the Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, the son of a Moscow real estate tycoon.

Here’s my statement and the full email chain pic.twitter.com/x050r5n5LQ

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 11, 2017

Agalarov’s father, Aras, and Donald Trump cooperated back in 2013 to bring the Miss Universe contest to Russia. Their families befriended each other, and the younger Agalarov featured Donald Trump in one of his music videos. The Agalarov family also has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In the email to Trump Jr., Goldstone wrote that Emin Agalarov said that his father had met the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” and claimed to have damaging information on Hillary Clinton, which could be useful for his father’s presidential campaign. “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” Goldstone wrote. “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer,” was Trump Jr.’s reply.

After some back and forth, the meeting was set for June 9 in Trump Tower. Trump Jr. brought Paul Manafort, his father’s campaign chairman at the time, and Jared Kushner, his brother-in-law who remains a close advisor to his father, to the meet with the Russian attorney. Goldstone even checked in at Trump Tower on Facebook before the meeting.

You have to love that Rob Goldstone wrote an email saying the Russian gov wants to help beat Hillary and then checked in for the meeting pic.twitter.com/Ajg1NWHciA

— Josh Schwerin (@JoshSchwerin) July 11, 2017

What exactly happened at the meeting remains unclear. Trump Jr. claimed that the attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, only wanted to talk about adoption policies. The day after, when The New York Times contacted him again to say it was about to publish a second article, he changed his account.

Trump Jr. then said he only knew that he was meeting a woman who claimed to have information that would be helpful to his father’s campaign, but said he didn’t know her name beforehand. He also said that she didn’t have any valuable information after all.

A spokesperson for Vladimir Putin said that the Kremlin had no knowledge of the meeting and does he know Veselnitskaya.

On Tuesday morning, Veselnitskaya defended herself on NBC and said she never had any damaging information about Clinton. She denied having any ties to the Kremlin and said that the conversation with Trump Jr. was about the Magnitsky Act–a law that imposed sanctions on Russian officials who have committed human rights violations.

In retaliation for the law, the Kremlin stopped allowing the adoption of Russian children by American parents. Veselnitskaya is reportedly known for having well-connected clients and has aggressively lobbied against the Magnitsky Act in the past. According to Veselnitskaya, the Trump team may have wanted info on Clinton “so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted.”

No matter what was said at the meeting, and whether or not the information was useful, the emails show that Donald Trump Jr. was fully aware that he was meeting with someone who he was told was a representative of the Russian government, which also wanted to help to get his father elected.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emails Show Trump Jr. Sought Information From Russian Government During Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Kris Kobach, appointed by President Donald Trump to investigate voter fraud, sent a letter to all 50 states, requesting their voter files. Voters’ names, their party affiliation, military status, and other personal information, Kobach wrote, should be handed over to the Election Integrity Commission. In addition, the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers should be provided to the federal government, the letter said.

Within a few days, a majority of states rejected Kobach’s request; many were aghast at his demands. And on Friday, Kobach himself said he could not comply with parts of his own request. Here is what you need to know about the whole situation:

Trump Decries Voter Fraud

Kobach’s effort has its roots in Trump’s repeated claims about voter fraud. Trump has said three to five million people illegally voted in last fall’s election, thus handing the popular vote to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. After the election, in which Trump won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, he tweeted, “in addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

He later pegged the number of illegal votes, in an unsubstantiated and so far unfounded claim, at three to five million. Kobach, during an interview in January, said, “If you take the whole country,” illegal votes were “probably in excess of a million, if you take the entire country for sure.”

In May, Trump created the Election Integrity Commission to investigate voter fraud during the 2016 election, appointing Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state, as the commission’s vice chairman. The commission is chaired by Vice President Mike Pence.

Kobach’s Letter

Last Wednesday, Kobach sent a letter to all 50 secretaries of states–even the ones who are not in charge of their state’s voter information. The letter specifically requested:

Publicly-available voter roll data including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.

Kobach said the information would be made available to the public, and said states had until July 14 to fork over the information to the commission.

“Yet Another Boondoggle”

As of Monday afternoon, at least 27 states have rebuffed all or parts of Kobach’s request–including Kansas, Kobach’s own state. Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia reacted swiftly to the letter, saying he has “no intention of honoring [Kobach’s] request.” He added in a statement: “Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia.”

Alex Padilla, California’s secretary of state, said he “will not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally.” Some states have said they would provide Kobach with “publicly available information” like voter rolls, while questioning the commission’s true intentions.

Voting rights advocates have rejected Kobach’s letter as a “propaganda tool” to justify voter suppression ordinances in the future. Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said:

I have every reason to think that given the shoddy work that Mr. Kobach has done in this area in the past that this is going to be yet another boondoggle and a propaganda tool that tries to inflate the problem of double registration beyond what it actually is.

And on Friday, Kobach himself suggested he could not comply with his own request. In an interview with the Kansas City Star, Kobach said he would not provide the commission with Kansas voters’ Social Security information.

“In Kansas, the Social Security number is not publicly available,” he said. “Every state receives the same letter, but we’re not asking for it if it’s not publicly available.”

Meanwhile, over the weekend, Trump expressed his discontent with the states refusing to comply.

Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Quest to Prove His Claim About Voter Fraud: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential election was noteworthy not just because of its outcome, but also for the extent to which both parties used technical data collection behind-the-scenes to secure victories in swing states. Just last week, a cyber risk analyst stumbled onto a trove of that gathered data, collected on 198 million Americans, on an unprotected server.

The analyst, Chris Vickery, an employee of the cyber security startup UpGuard, came across the 1.1 terabytes of data on an Amazon cloud server, which wasn’t password protected and was accessible to anyone with the URL address. According to UpGuard, it took Vickery several days to download the extensive dataset, which may have been left open and exposed for 10 to 14 days.

UpGuard is calling this leak the “largest known data exposure of its kind,” and confirmed that the discovered content includes names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and indications of individuals’ ethnicities and religions. Voters’ political views on hot-button campaign issues such as fossil fuels and taxes were also minutely recorded, likely for future micro-targeted campaigns.

Currently downloading what is, basically, the home address of every Trump supporter.

Understand the cloud before you upload to it. pic.twitter.com/nRPb98jwoP

— Chris Vickery (@VickerySec) June 13, 2017

The information was collected by GOP data firm Deep Root Analytics, one of three data firms hired by the RNC to help Donald Trump win the presidential election.

The firm acknowledged that the data was theirs on Friday and released a statement apologizing for the breach.

Deep Root Analytics CEO Brent McGoldrick said the company takes “full responsibility” for the leak. He added that the mistake was likely due to “a recent change in asset access settings since June 1.”

Although much of the data collected by Deep Root Analytics is available online through more innocuous sources, many have been quick to analyze the leak’s potential cyber security ramifications.

“That such an enormous national database could be created and hosted online, missing even the simplest of protections against the data being publicly accessible, is troubling,” UpGuard said on their website.

This leak also comes at a time when the U.S. elections and elections in other western nations have been the targets of increasingly aggressive cyber attacks.

“This is deeply troubling,” Privacy International’s policy officer Frederike Kaltheuner told BBC News. “This is not just sensitive, it’s intimate information, predictions about people’s behavior, opinions, and beliefs that people have never decided to disclose to anyone.”

While this leak could have been much more damaging and revealed more secretive information, experts say this should be a cautionary warning. If companies don’t make cyber security a priority, individuals may have to worry a lot more the next time a leak occurs.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accidental Data Leak Exposes 198 Million Americans’ Personal Information appeared first on Law Street.

What were you doing at this time last year?

On June 8, 2016, exactly a year ago, The New York Times ran a front page story commemorating former secretary of state Hillary Clinton reaching the threshold of delegates and superdelegates needed to secure the Democratic Party nomination. This made Clinton the first woman to lead the presidential ticket for a major political party.

The front page #OTD in 2016. Hillary Clinton claims the Democratic nomination. #nytimes pic.twitter.com/IDHWQzIrK7

— New York Times OTD (@OnThisDayNYT) June 8, 2017

At this point, plenty of people had high hopes of seeing America’s first female president. Many experts doubted that Clinton, an experienced politician, would lose to real estate mogul Donald Trump, who was nearing his own nomination.

As we all know now, much has changed in the year since that front page ran. National mood has ebbed and flowed, and the feeling that it’s been a long year is pervasive across America on social media and in casual conversation. The country has undergone a serious transformation in the past year in part because of the election and in part because of current events which have stricken fear in many.

As a baseline, Trump secured the Republican nomination and fought hard against Clinton in the campaign before pulling off the upset and winning the 2016 election. But throughout the campaign there were numerous important events that continuously shocked the nation, often to no avail. There was the tape of him with Billy Bush boasting about groping women without consent. There was Trump’s defense of his gross behavior surrounding Miss Universe models, specifically 1996 winner Alicia Machado. And there was his endorsement from KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.

And since Trump’s inauguration in January, the political climate in America has been drastically altered. Trump has regularly embroiled himself in controversy, whether it was his executive orders restricting travel from mainly Muslim countries or his choice to fire FBI director James Comey. And don’t forget when Trump fired Attorney General Sally Yates after she didn’t defend his travel ban. Not to mention all of the times he’s taken to Twitter to spout baseless accusations against former President Barack Obama, the media, and other global leaders.

Most notably, since The New York Times ran that front page story the political, racial, and cultural divide has widened across America. From any vantage point, American society is different than it was when Clinton secured the nomination last June.

Polarization on the political spectrum has become more evident. It has become increasingly clear that Republicans and Democrats alike mostly discuss politics with those who agree with them, the Pew Research Center concluded.

That polarization has, at least in part, led to violence across America. Violence has broken out at numerous protests since Trump’s inauguration, including the Portland protests just this past weekend. Nationwide, racially motivated hate crimes have become a more pressing issue. After researching nine major metropolitan areas including New York City and Chicago, the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University found that hate crimes rose more than 20 percent in those areas. Hate crimes in New York City increased 24 percent from 2015 while Washington, D.C. had the largest increase at 62 percent. These hate crimes vary from racial threats to religious attacks against Jews or Muslims.

Additionally, people have become more skeptical of polling and poll analysis after pollsters’ failure to correctly predict the election. 538, an analysis site led by Nate Silver, is one of the organizations greatly criticized in the past year.

The truth is that it’s been a long year, particularly in the political realm. Many of the events that happened over this year have contributed to a feeling of despair, whether the events are related to terrorism, crime, or international affairs.

Part of this seismic shift has been the impactful global events that portray the changes over the past year. These events have shaped the past year and contributed to exhaustion of the American public. Here are some of the most notable:

• June 12: A lone gunman opened fire at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing 49 in one of the worst mass shootings in US history.
• July 6: African-American men Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were killed by police officers in New Orleans and St. Paul, respectively. Both deaths were caught on camera.
• July 15: An attempted military coup in Turkey failed and nearly 6,000 were arrested
• October 18: The White House said it was “confident” that Russia was behind the recent DNC email hacking in an attempt to influence the American election.
• November 4: The Paris Agreement on climate change went into effect. Trump recently announced he would be pulling the United States out of the agreement, provoking plenty of backlash.
• December 2: Trump spoke on the phone with Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen. This broke from traditional American “One China” policy that was put into place by President Richard Nixon in 1972.
• December 19: Andrey Karlov, Russian ambassador to Turkey, was assassinated as the lone gunman screamed “don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria!”
• January 21: Over 2 million people worldwide participated in a “Women’s March,” protesting newly inaugurated President Trump.

While Trump’s rise to prominence has had ripple effects, it’s no doubt that so have these events and Trump’s response to them. With a rise in hate crimes, polarization, and controversy, the past year has been one of the most unique and unpredictable in recent history. Whether the current state of affairs continues or not is unknown. After a hectic and stressful year, many are hoping things slow down, but there’s no way to predict what Trump, or anyone else, will do next.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It Has Been a Long Year Since Hillary Clinton Was Nominated appeared first on Law Street.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop the recount of election ballots that Green Party leader Jill Stein has initiated. His argument is that it is expensive and could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. The recount in Michigan has not started yet, and Schuette asked the Michigan Board of Canvassers to reject Stein’s request, claiming that she doesn’t have any evidence of fraud or errors. Since it is pretty urgent, he also filed an emergency motion with the Michigan Supreme Court to look at the issue immediately. “We have asked the court to end the recount which Stein is pursuing in violation of Michigan laws that protect the integrity of our elections,” he said.

It is inexcusable for Stein to put MI votes at risk of paying millions and potentially losing their voice in the Elec College.

— A.G. Bill Schuette (@SchuetteOnDuty) December 2, 2016

The lawsuit says that Stein received only about 50,000 votes of the 4.7 million votes cast in Michigan, and yet she wants a recount to make sure that was the right result. It claims that it will cost taxpayers millions of dollars and criticizes the fact that she waited until three weeks after the election and then requested a recount by hand, which will take a very long time.

But Stein’s campaign paid the fee for filing the request in full, almost $1 million, and has also raised more than $6 million in just a few days to cover the recounts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Her argument for doing so has nothing to do with believing she could win the election; rather it is about transparency and fairness. She wrote in an op-ed in USA Today on Thursday:

In the age of computerized voting machines and unprecedented corporate influence in our elections, our electoral system is under increasing threat. How can every citizen’s voice be heard if we do not know if every citizen’s vote is counted correctly?

Also on Friday, the Board of State Canvassers in Michigan failed to reach an agreement on another objection to the recount effort, this time by Trump’s lawyers. Since the vote was 2-2, the requested recount could theoretically start as early as the beginning of next week. But it all depends on what happens with Schuette’s lawsuit.

The recounts Americans are calling for will help restore trust in our democracy. They’ll also point us to reforms that safeguard that trust.

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) December 2, 2016

Stein bashed the lawsuit, calling it a politically motivated attempt to side with Trump, and said: “Our democracy allows for recounts to ensure the accuracy and security of elections, and today’s move by the Attorney General is yet another frivolous attempt to obstruct this legal process.”

She pointed out that a miscount doesn’t need to have been made on purpose, but as with anything that has to do with machines, glitches do happen. In 2004, 90,000 votes remained uncounted because of calibration problems with the machines in a county in Ohio. Who knows if anything else could be wrong?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michigan Attorney General Files Lawsuit to Stop Election Recount appeared first on Law Street.

Sarah Palin likes Donald Trump, but doesn’t believe he made it all the way to the White House on his own. On the holiday edition of the Breitbart News Daily radio show she claimed that God was responsible for Trump’s win. In the show, she said she saw the role “divine providence” played on the campaign trail. She said people have been desperate for a change after the country’s deterioration and that his victory was due to people praying to God that the rest of the citizens would wake up. Palin claimed she had seen it “first-hand.” And she also said this:

I saw more and more people’s eyes open, and I think so much of that was based on the church in general, those people of faith who were praying to God that people would wake up. Remember, our Founders dedicated this land, this new country that would be America, this idea of America, dedicated it to God. If I were President, I’d re-dedicate us to God.

Palin has described herself as a “Bible-believing Christian,” saying that God has an important role to play in American elections. But the last time she said that God would do the right thing for America by helping John McCain beat Barack Obama in 2008, her predictions were wrong and Obama became the first black president in U.S. history. Many people had something to say about her views on religion and the 2016 election:

Dear Sarah Palin,

God heard what you said and wants you to know he responded thusly: “Leave me out of this.”

— Ricky Pine ⚡️❄️ (@redrainricky) November 30, 2016

Sarah Palin says God made Trump win, confusing God with slaveowners who demanded an electoral college during the constitutional convention.

— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) November 30, 2016

Palin also said: “We found our revolutionary Donald Trump, he’s our messenger. Donald Trump heard the voice of the people and allowed the people to expose what needed exposing.”

To make Palin’s year even better, it was reported on Wednesday that she is being considered for a cabinet role as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. According to a Palin aide she has been telling Trump transition officials that she feels she could be of use in a “productive and positive way.” She has focused on the VA for a while; her eldest son is an Iraq War veteran and earlier this week her son-in-law posted a video to Facebook promoting her work with veterans. Though Palin has not yet been to the Trump Tower to meet with the President-elect, she was one of his first endorsements.

There were mixed reactions on social media to that news as well.

Sarah Palin is “super duper excited” that she might be in charge of the dept for animal doctors. @monicajibanez @georgeswright

— AnnAMae (@SweetasPHI) November 30, 2016

Sarah Palin as VA Secretary seems completely insane until you remember that Donald Trump was just elected President.

— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) November 30, 2016

I’m probably more qualified to be VA Secretary than Sarah Palin just by having ‘VA’ in my Twitter name

— Matt Oswalt (@MattOswaltVA) November 30, 2016

Palin has also been talked about for the position of Energy Secretary, which could be pretty catastrophic considering she posted a Facebook status showing off her view on energy, saying “Drill, baby, drill!” She also wrote: ”The inherent link between energy and security, and energy and prosperity, is real and recognized by every American except sketchy politicians and deceived faux environmentalists.” So, if you thought we left Palin behind in 2008, don’t worry, she’s back and busy in 2016.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sarah Palin Claims God Intervened and Helped Trump Win the Election appeared first on Law Street.

Colorado voters had the choice on November 8 to decide whether or not to abolish a loophole in the state’s constitution that makes slavery legal as punishment for a crime. Lawmakers from both parties unanimously decided to put the question on the ballot and there seemed to be no opposition to the effort, as no one campaigned against it.

That’s why it was such a shocker when it turned out that a majority appears to have voted against the measure. All of the votes have still not been counted, but by late Thursday there were almost 35,000 more “no” votes than “yes” votes, out of 2.3 million ballots cast.

Many were upset after the election:

Colorado votes NOT to remove language of slavery from state constitution. This is even more concerning than other results today.

— Matthew Bentley (@bentleymaja) November 9, 2016

Colorado voted a minimum wage increase while simultaneously voting to keep slavery in the constitution for criminals. Huh?

— John Livingston (@JohnLivy) November 18, 2016

Colorado, I’m confused. You voted for Clinton, to keep slavery legal, to legalize assisted suicide, & made it harder to propose amendments.

— Suzi Q Smith (@suziqpoet) November 9, 2016

It seems unbelievable that over a million people in a state that recently voted to legalize recreational marijuana would also vote against completely getting rid of slavery. And when it dawned on lawmakers why the results turned out as they did, they probably slapped their heads. The question was worded like this:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the removal of the exception to the prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude when used as punishment for persons duly convicted of a crime?

Would you know whether to check the “yes” or “no” box?

“I think people were confused by the language,” Democratic Representative Joe Salazar told the New York Times. “I don’t think this was a pushback at all by individuals saying they wanted slavery in the Constitution. I just think the language was too confusing.”

The exception to the prohibition of slavery, which allowed for the practice as a punishment for a crime, was added in 1876, which was after slavery was abolished nationally in 1865. But since it was not widely known that the language exists in the constitution, activists think that people might have misinterpreted it. In addition to the confusing language on the ballot, some believe that voters could also have been thrown off by a voter guide that was sent to every Colorado voter. The guide is required to contain arguments for and against ballot measures and it said that the proposition could lead to legal ambiguity, although experts were not actually concerned.

Lawmakers are determined to try one more time, but next time with simpler language. “We’re going to do it again,” Mr. Salazar said. “We’re going to make sure we finally rid the Constitution of that language.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Votes to Keep Slavery in State Constitution (Really) appeared first on Law Street.

People like to caricature millennials as entitled, uninformed, lazy, and a host of other characteristics that are largely off the mark. One thing we all can agree on, however, is the decisive role millennials played in the 2016 election–by either voting or not voting–and the role young people will play in the future of U.S. civic life. Millennials are the most diverse chunk of the electorate in the history of the country, making for an elusive group, one that politicians struggle to understand and connect with. So how did millennials–in all of our diverse glory–vote last Tuesday? And how will our preferences and attitudes shape elections to come?

How Millennials Voted

Members from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tuft’s Tisch College hosted an event at the Brookings Institute in Washington D.C. on Thursday, where they presented data they averaged from multiple sources and polls in regard to the youth vote in 2016. One thing CIRCLE found is that young people voted at about the same rate in 2016 as they did in 2012, with about half of millennials, or 24 million, casting ballots. Of those who voted, 57 percent did so for Hillary Clinton, and 34 percent for President-elect Donald Trump. But these figures tell only a fraction of the entire story.

“There are many stories of young people, and they have different realities, different priorities, and how they voted really reflected that divide they have,” said Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, the director of CIRCLE who presented the data at Brookings. Unsurprisingly, young people’s ethnicity, religion, race, and gender largely colors their feelings and perspectives, and thus shape how they vote.

For instance, in CIRCLE’s pre-election poll, 67 percent of African-Americans youth, and 36 percent of young Latinos said they would be afraid of a Trump presidency, much higher than young whites who felt the same. This is unsurprising, given the fact that the vast majority of Trump’s voters were white, among young, middle-aged, and older voters alike. But there is more to that story as well. Fifty percent of young white women voted for Clinton, while 42 percent voted for Trump. Comparatively, 54 percent of young white men voted for Trump, while 35 percent voted for Clinton.

Shifting Identities

And although millennials turned out in similar numbers as they did in 2012, enthusiasm toward the two major parties is somewhat down. At the Brookings event, Kawashima-Ginsberg and her CIRCLE colleague Abby Kiesa, discussed how political identities and affiliations are different for millennials than they were for previous generations. For example, young people are more likely to embrace the ideological label of “liberal,” yet are also less likely to identify as Democrats.

Young people might increasingly embrace a liberal ideology, Kiesa said, “but don’t necessarily see the Democratic party as an institution that can represent and advance those ideas.” She thinks at least some of this is “related to some young people’s curiosity of third parties.” The Brookings panel also included two important voices, Carmen Berkley and Jane Coaston, both millennials and women of color. They discussed how to keep millennials of all stripes engaged in the political process, and not just every four years, as well as the crosscurrents that could explain how young people voted in 2016.

What Kind of Change?

Like then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008, while with a decidedly different tone, “change” was a galvanizing element of 2016, especially for Trump voters. Coaston, a political reporter for MTV News, questions what change means exactly. Trump voters, she said, “were looking for change, but they weren’t looking for Republican style change, they were looking for Trump style change.”

In other words, it wasn’t change via Republican orthodoxy–small government, less regulation, and free trade–but via Trump’s radical, if not entirely ideological, platform. In the final weeks of the campaign, Coaston said, Trump started talking about infrastructure investment and making schools affordable. “That’s not standard GOP language,” she said.

Engagement

Berkley, the civil, human, and women’s rights director at the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, is focused on a different sort of change. “If you’re a group of white people that work in an institution, and you’re talking about race, racism, gender, and LGBTQ issues, and there are none of us sitting at the table then you are already doing it wrong,” she said.

Berkley thinks the key to ensuring progressive goals expand and strengthen is that communities of color need to be represented in leadership positions. Another key factor of millennial engagement, she said, is though the media channels they use most.

Kawashima-Ginsberg thinks listening to young people’s want for change, not ignoring it and silencing it, is the key to an engaged civic society in the future. “We need to make sure we take that voice of dissent to the current system and make sure they can engage in a professional and democratic manner moving forward,” she said. “Mending our civic fabric is not a luxury, it’s a necessity and I hope we’re all ready to contribute.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Millennial Vote in 2016 and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

After Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the White House to Donald Trump as a result of the Electoral College system, there have been calls for change. On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill that would abolish the Electoral College and, according to many hopefuls, make future elections fairer.

The presidency is the only office where you can get more votes & still lose. It’s time to end the Electoral College. https://t.co/OXZ9vHaIH1

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (@SenatorBoxer) November 15, 2016

On Tuesday, Clinton was leading the popular vote by 990,758 votes. And by the time that all the votes are counted, the New York Times estimates that she will lead by more than two million, which would be over 1.5 percentage points. Barbara Boxer Boxer said in a statement:

She is on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama. This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts.

Even Donald Trump at one point thought the system was undemocratic, as he pointed out in a long series of tweets in 2012. He even confirmed his stance in an interview on “60 Minutes” on Sunday. He said: “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”

.@realDonaldTrump is exactly right – the candidate with the most votes should win. pic.twitter.com/CG1cvcKbQx

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (@SenatorBoxer) November 15, 2016

But that was Sunday. On Tuesday, he had changed his opinion again, and praised the system on Twitter.

The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2016

He also pointed out that if the election had been based on the popular vote, he would have won it anyway, because he would have focused on campaigning in New York, California, and Florida.

If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2016

Trump is the fifth presidential nominee to win the election despite losing the popular vote. The last one before him was George W. Bush, who beat Al Gore in 2000 even though Gore won the people’s vote by 0.5 percentage point. Since Boxer’s bill is an amendment to the Constitution, it would have to pass by a two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as three-quarters of all states. But no matter the outcome, it is a sign that more people are realizing that the Electoral College is old-fashioned and outdated.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator Barbara Boxer Introduces Bill To Get Rid of the Electoral College appeared first on Law Street.

Protests have erupted in major cosmopolitan cities across America since Tuesday, when Donald Trump shocked the nation with his upset victory. Streams of people crammed the streets of Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Portland, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. over the weekend, many coalescing around Trump properties, chanting and holding signs, and some, clashing with police.

The most violent and contentious protests–deemed riots by the local police–occurred in Portland, Oregon on Saturday evening. People wearing Guy Fawkes masks–now a favored motif of the hacker group Anonymous–and others holding signs, many of which read “Not my President,” flooded the streets. According to media reports from the scene as well as reports from the Portland police, some protesters hurled road flares and rocks at riot police, who were equipped with shields and batons.

Seventy-one people were arrested in Portland. One man was shot at the Morrison Bridge and was later treated at a hospital. Portland police said two 18-year-old men were arrested and charged with attempted murder and unlawful use of a weapon in connection with the shooting. Protests elsewhere, many of which drew thousands of people, were largely peaceful, with people silently walking with encouraging signs preaching empathy for many of the groups that Trump mocked or targeted during his unusual campaign that upended political protocol yet still managed to hand him the White House.

Los Angeles stands with #NeverTrump & #calexit in an **INCREDIBLE** show of solidary on Wilshire Blvd#TrumpProtest pic.twitter.com/wAPa6ied6y

— #CalExit NaphiSoc (@NaphiSoc) November 13, 2016

The protests highlight one of the major fault lines of the bruising 2016 campaign: the disparate worlds of rural and urban America. Most major cosmopolitan cities–Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Washington, D.C.–and many mid-sized ones as well, went blue on Election Day. Smaller towns that are rural and mostly white went to Trump. His divisive rhetoric left deep scars for many who opposed his message and others belonging to groups that were consistently berated by Trump over the past year.

Those scars left a burning desire to protest since Trump’s message won out, and the “not my president” tagline can likely be applied to many liberal pockets on the coasts. But for others, a shred less than a majority of voters, as Hillary Clinton won the popular vote yet lost the Electoral College, Trump is the president they elected and the man they hope will live up to his ubiquitous campaign motto.

For his part, President-elect Trump, in an interview that aired on 60 Minutes Sunday night, said to those who were fearful of his time in office: “Don’t be afraid.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Major Cities Erupt in Protest Over Donald Trump’s Win appeared first on Law Street.

People all over the country are seeking new ways to express that they don’t like Donald Trump’s sexist or racist views. And we’re getting some inspiration from the UK–after the Brexit vote in June, a Twitter user with the handle @cheeahs came up with the idea that wearing a simple safety pin could be a way of showing solidarity with minorities in Britain. She wrote that she wanted “anyone against the sort of nationalistic, racist violence we’ve been seeing” to be able to identify themselves as a “safe ally.”

The idea being that anyone against the sort of nationalistic, racist violence we’ve been seeing could identify themselves as a “safe” ally.

— miss pommery 1926 (@cheeahs) June 26, 2016

Both the Brexit vote and the American election have been characterized by rising tensions and division between groups of people, with an emphasis on immigrants or people of color. Now Americans are donning the safety pin too.

I wear my #SafetyPin to show I am a safe place.I will protect those who are treated unfairly bc of gender, race, disability, & indiv beliefs pic.twitter.com/gn2LmcTbi5

— Sarah Lill (@SarahLill9) November 11, 2016

This is beautiful. Let’s all be safe places for people who are anxious and afraid right now. #safetypin pic.twitter.com/BBeqyIIp4k

— Jamie Tworkowski (@jamietworkowski) November 11, 2016

The pin symbolizes that the person wearing it is in solidarity with minority groups—LGBTQ, ethnic minorities, different religions, women—basically anyone who feels threatened and scared after Trump’s election.

Sir Patrick Stewart did it.

#Safetypin pic.twitter.com/MGFcjx68BP

— Patrick Stewart (@SirPatStew) November 11, 2016

It is important to remember that the safety pin doesn’t symbolize being “anti-Trump voters.” It’s simply a symbol of compassion and love for all people, and shows that the wearer is dissociating from hatred and discrimination. Even Trump supporters can wear them if they oppose the violence and racism that some people express.

The #safetypin is NOT a political statement! It’s a humanitarian statement that shows you stand against bigotry and hate. #safetypinusa

— Lara Arikan (@lararikan) November 11, 2016

@lararikan what about me? A trump voter. CA is a harsh place if you are a trump voter. Could easily get beaten up here.

— Current (@currentofficer) November 11, 2016

Now get out and get yourself a safety pin!

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why are People Wearing Safety Pins on their Shirts? appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump never included anything about his stance on climate change and global warming in his campaign platform. While Hillary Clinton featured the issue prominently on her website, Trump has previously said that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. Though he denied that odd stance in the first presidential debate, his tweet from 2012 was widely spread by the media.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

He has also promised to go back to larger domestic coal, oil, and gas industries. And Trump has tweeted a whole lot about what he thinks of global warming…primarily that it doesn’t exist. You can find a list of all his tweets on the matter here. One example:

President Obama was terrible on @60Minutes tonight. He said CLIMATE CHANGE is the most important thing, not all of the current disasters!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2015

During a speech in May, Trump said that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement if elected, and said that it is “bad for U.S. business” and allows “foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use.” The U.S. has pledged to cut down greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. We are the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world after China, so it is a pretty big deal.

But on Friday, the Paris agreement was ratified into international law, after 96 countries signed the deal. This happened way faster than expected, which is a positive sign. And it means that Trump cannot technically renegotiate any parts of the deal until three years in, and after that one additional year must pass before he could officially withdraw from it.

However, he could technically get out of the deal by disassembling and undermining the ways in which America reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, and by simply not living up to the goals of the agreement. There is also a more aggressive way to get out of the deal, namely by withdrawing from a climate treaty from 1992, which would automatically pull us out from the Paris deal as well. Though this is legally possible, doing so would definitely undermine how trustworthy other countries perceive the U.S. to be and not favor our own interests in the long run. And according to environmental think tank Climate Interactive, this would have a significant impact on the climate. These are pretty alarming things going on.

The “lesser of two evils” argument was BULLSHIT– Trump will repeal Obamacare, pull out of Paris climate deal, stack SCOTUS #NotMyPresident

— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) November 9, 2016

Climate Interactive said that since the U.S. pledge is so large—the percentage translates to 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide—a withdrawal from the deal would directly impact the rest of the world. “Pulling out of the Paris agreement matters not just in leadership, but also in a direct impact on the climate,” said Andrew Jones, co-director of the group, to the Washington Post.

Also, if the U.S. chooses to not partake, other countries like India are less likely to do it too. Trump has also said he wants to reduce the EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by 70-80 percent. In September he picked Myron Ebell as head of environmental policy on his transition team—a climate skeptic who is a director of a conservative think tank and whose sponsors are some of the biggest polluters in the country.

Yet another depressing point is that the election on Tuesday resulted in a defeat of a Washington State initiative, Initiative 732, that would have been the country’s first revenue-neutral carbon tax. It would have imposed a $25-per-ton fee on carbon dioxide emitted in different sectors, money which then could be used to reduce the state sales tax. But looking at the bigger picture of what a Trump presidency will bring, this barely matters, according to Charles Komanoff, director of the Carbon Tax Center. “We’re in for many years of backsliding on climate at a time when we really had to ramp it up,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Trump Reject the Paris Climate Change Agreement? appeared first on Law Street.

All of the sudden, the streets in New York City were filled with chanting people while men and women in skyscrapers peeked down from their windows and tourists on buses snapped pictures. Wednesday night saw thousands of people in cities with largely Democratic populations take to the streets to protest the election of Donald Trump.

Masses of people protesting in Union Square in New York tonight.
Together, we are stronger. #LoveTrumpsHate #NotMyPresident pic.twitter.com/ubbGpBCAda

— PerfectWarrior (@SurvivorHealer) November 10, 2016

In Manhattan, estimates suggest that as many as 5,000 people worked their way uptown along Fifth Avenue and Broadway. At one point, the procession encountered a chain of police officers blocking Broadway going north, with speakers blaring out the message that the protesters were illegally blocking streets and would be arrested unless they moved onto the sidewalks. But no one listened–they just turned right and took the next street to move forward until they reached the Trump Tower.

Throughout the night there were no signs of violence or conflict, just people chanting “Not my president,” “My body, my choice,” and “Donald Trump, go away, racist, sexist, anti-gay.” Even some of the people who were stranded in their cars did not appear upset, but instead honked, cheered, and high-fived strangers through their car windows. The protests were massive, and all of the protestors united in their distrust and disapproval of a Trump presidency.

Protesting is democracy too. It shows those who feel marginalized that they are not alone. That’s important. #TrumpProtest

— Lana Huyen (@lanahuyen) November 10, 2016

The beautiful thing about Wednesday’s spontaneous demonstration was the diversity. More and more people joined from the sidewalks as they saw what was going on. People of all different skin colors, religions, and personalities. What they had in common was that most were young and all were disappointed with the election results.

According to preliminary exit poll numbers from CNN, Hillary Clinton won 54 percent of voters aged 18-29 on Tuesday night. But those margins indicate that she failed to spur young voters to turn out at a sufficient rate to win, a problem that she has had since the primary. In fact, in the primaries, her challenger Bernie Sanders earned nearly 30 percent more votes from Americans under the age of 30 than both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton combined. Many of those voters now feel hopeless.

The scene right now outside #TrumpTower. Never covered anything like this before @PIX11News pic.twitter.com/vy7q7bACTb

— Ayana Harry PIX11 (@AyanaHarry) November 10, 2016

Delivery truck driver (who couldn’t go anywhere if he tried) blowing his horn to cheering crowd, pumping fist pic.twitter.com/8IE9cKGHqe

— Steve Annear (@steveannear) November 10, 2016

CNN reports that similar protests went on in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland. Also on Wednesday evening, a candlelight vigil for Clinton supporters was held in front of the White House. Organizers said about 2,600 watched online as supporters called out, “you are not alone.”

Trump supporters and conservatives expressed disgust at the protests on social media, saying that Democrats don’t respect democracy and only protest if they don’t get their way.

You’re literally protesting against free democratic elections. Go live in North Korea, you absolute trash.#TrumpProtest

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 10, 2016

But peaceful protesting and freedom of expression is also a part of democracy.

People aren’t upset about losing the election.

People are terrified for their safety and futures.

See the difference. #TrumpProtest

— Matthew Kick (@MatthewKick) November 10, 2016

This video shows just how many people were on the streets in Manhattan:

New York City protests against Donald Trump’s presidency. They haven’t stopped coming. pic.twitter.com/qwZlBe2i0L

— Phil McCausland (@PhilMcCausland_) November 10, 2016

Filmmaker Michael Moore happened to come across the demonstration in his cab and got out to join it. “We had all those big protests before the Iraq War and once the war started, everyone stopped protesting. […] This time, we keep it up and we don’t stop till he’s out of there,” he said to the Huffington post.

Michael Moore happened upon the protest tonight, calling for resistance and agitation. pic.twitter.com/LFiGaO1wfy

— Andy Campbell (@AndyBCampbell) November 10, 2016

Stay strong, people.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘Not My President’: Thousands Unite To Protest Trump Presidency appeared first on Law Street.

After the devastating news that Donald Trump will be the next president, so many Americans looked into moving to Canada that the country’s main immigration website crashed. New Zealand was also a popular choice for American citizens looking to flee the country. The Canadian website was down several times on Tuesday night as it became clear that Trump was taking the lead.

The Canadian Immigration website has crashed. Seriously. #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/XXSfCorTd1

— Cause We’re Canadian (@MadelnCanada) November 9, 2016

Lisa Filipps from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada told CNN that the website crashed due to the high number of visitors, but that they were working on getting it up again. It topped Google’s search statistics, along with “how to impeach a president.”

”How to move to Canada” and “how to impeach a president” were just some of the breakout Google queries last night https://t.co/Lw8ATkiyNQ pic.twitter.com/fIYNSfxyoJ

— Fast Company (@FastCompany) November 9, 2016

Many celebrities, like Amy Schumer, Cher, Lena Dunham and Samuel L. Jackson, have threatened to move north if Trump won. On Tuesday night, comedian Ben Schwartz was going to joke about an overloaded immigration website, only to realize it was actually happening.

I was gonna write this as a joke but found out it was real. “The Canada Citizenship and Immigration site crashed around 8 PM” #electionnight

— Ben Schwartz (@rejectedjokes) November 9, 2016

And some Canadian towns even started marketing themselves at Americans, like the island of Cape Breton on the east coast that promoted itself as a safe and quiet refuge for Americans wishing to escape in case Trump won. New Zealand’s main immigration website received 1,593 registrations from the U.S. since November 1, more than 50 percent of what it usually sees over the course of a month.

But it’s not as easy as you may think to just “go move,” even if you are an American. The rules are pretty similar to immigration laws in the U.S. You need a job offer, a spouse, to be wealthy, or a winning ticket in a citizenship lottery. And first of all–you need to get on to the website.

Some Trump supporters had their own ideas about where to go if Trump didn’t win.

I’M MOVING TO RUSSIA IF TRUMP LOSES

— MADAME (@MagicRoyalty) August 23, 2016

But as some people pointed out, you could make more of a difference not by fleeing but by moving to a swing state.

Hey liberals: don’t move to Canada.
Move to Ohio, Florida, North Carolina.

— Dred (@MildredVon) November 9, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If you Want to Move to Canada, Don’t Check Out the Canadian Immigration Website appeared first on Law Street.

The map above will be updated on election night to reflect the election results as they come in. All results will be based on the official Associated Press state projections. Scroll over the map to see when the polls close in each state as well as how many electoral votes are at stake.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2016 Election Results: State by State Map appeared first on Law Street.

After a year of intense debates, drama, and scandals, election day is now less than a week away. The results of the 2016 election will have a major influence on the next four years in politics with regard to a variety of issues, including gun rights, immigration, and tax reform. While environmentalism has not been a highlight of this election cycle, each president has a dramatically different approach to the issue, and the winner will have a serious impact on the future of environmentalism in the United States.

In this two-part series, we will unpack each candidate’s stance on environmentalism and their plans for the future, as well as outline exactly what is within their power to do. This first part will focus on the Republican side of the issue and analyze Donald Trump’s environmental policy. How exactly would Trump’s plan to loosen environmental regulations influence global warming as well as air and water quality? What exactly is Hilary Clinton’s renewable energy proposal and how effective would it really be? These are pressing questions that have gotten little attention throughout the campaign season.

Read Part Two: Where Does Hillary Clinton Stand on Environmental Policy?

The G.O.P. Debates: The Case of the Missing Environmentalist

First a little context. While the 17 original Republican candidates fought bitterly on a variety of issues, they were almost all united in their belief that climate change is a hoax. There were a few exceptions to this rule; Jeb Bush and John Kasich admitted that climate change was real, but not that it was caused by humans, while Carly Fiorina both admitted that climate change was real and caused by human activity. Chris Christie and Rand Paul have both publicly admitted to climate change being real and human-caused (Rand Paul even signed onto a bill agreeing to this) but both later went back on their statements, claiming that the science is still unclear.

Republican runner-up Ted Cruz briefly drew public attention with a clever scientific misinterpretation when he claimed that there has been no warming over the past 18 years, at least if you go by satellite data. His timeline of 18 years would take us all back to the uniquely hot 1997-1998 El Nino. It is true that if you only look at a short period of time and begin with a hot year, it doesn’t appear that much warming has taken place. But if you look at global temperatures over any kind of longer period, they are very clearly going nowhere but up. The methodology behind his assessment also flies in the face of the scientific community, which creates climate change models based on satellite atmospheric data combined with surface measurements, because satellite data can easily be subject to flaws due to confounding variables.

Current Republican nominee Donald Trump has had an even more outlandish position–that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese in order to render American manufacturing less competitive. He has since both claimed that this was a joke and that he never said any such statement, although it still exists on his Twitter account and in videotaped interviews.

“Donald Trump” courtesy of Gage Skidmore; License: (CC-BY-SA 2.0)

Where the Party Stands

The Republican party is often viewed as being anti-environmentalist and generally for good reason. Currently, 182 members, or 34 percent, in Congress do not believe in climate change. While this list of climate deniers includes both Republicans and Democrats, Republicans make up the vast majority of this demographic. In fact, only eight out of 278 Republican members of Congress have taken open stances that they believe climate change is real. However, it wasn’t always the case that Republican presidential candidates also soundly rejected the existence of global warming. Both George W. Bush and John McCain did have environmental proposals when they ran for president and made public speeches about their intentions to aid the environment (although Bush’s environmental legacy was far from positive).

It is not exactly unique that environmental protection isn’t high up on the list of Republican priorities, but is unique that climate change and environmentalism were hardly even touched upon in the Republican presidential debates. The closest these topics came to being debated was within the context of which energy sources the candidates supported, which were universally oil, gas, or coal. Several of the candidates offered support for renewable proliferation to increase domestic energy security, but not at the expense of the economy or energy producers.

The internationally acclaimed COP 21 agreements came to pass without so much as a mention during the G.O.P. debates; the California drought was similarly ignored. This may be reflective of the voting base Republican politicians appeal to, which also has a high percentage of climate deniers. Interestingly enough, this is beginning to shift with time as well; where 24 percent of Republican voters believed in climate change in 2014, now 47 percent embrace the science. If the Republican party shifts enough in its position on environmentalism, it will be interesting to see if Republican politicians will also be forced to change their stances.

Donald J. Trump: Get Rid of All Regulations

Republican nominee Donald Trump does seem to have a consistent view on whether climate change is real (unless you count being confused as to whether or not he blames the Chinese for it). Historically, he has always claimed that climate change is a hoax. His campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, publicly stated that, while Trump acknowledges that temperatures are rising globally, he doesn’t believe that human activity has had any influence over this. Trump’s running mate Mike Pence, however, spoke on CNN a day after the first debate to say that climate change was definitely real and man-made–although he reiterated Trump’s general stance that no environmental policies should be put into place that would hurt businesses or cost jobs.

Trump’s environmental policy logically follows his general denial of climate change as relevant or real. Trump’s original plan was to entirely abolish the Environmental Protection Agency–the government body that designs new environmental rules and regulations (working together with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an umbrella department within the Office of Management and Budget). While it is not within his power to do so unilaterally, one of the most important ways a President can influence energy policy is by choosing a new administration for the EPA. Each new President can appoint a new Administrator, who must be approved by Congress. If the president’s recommendation is approved, that further gives him or her the power to reshape both the upper positions of the EPA and the direction the agency will take.

Trump’s proposed selection to lead the EPA transition team is none other than Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and the Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group that uses bogus science to question “global warming alarmism.” Ebell is a famous climate denier and believes that Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which will dramatically shift the future of energy production in the United States, is not only a huge waste of government funds but also illegal because of the undue burden the regulations place on American businesses. At this time it’s unclear if Trump’s intention is to attempt to make Ebell the new EPA Administrator, but his current position as leader of the team puts him at the top of the suspected list. Alongside Ebell, the EPA transition team includes Republican energy lobbyist Mike Mckenna and former Bush Administration Interior Department solicitor David Bernhardt.

In the event that Trump is able to get his EPA transition team approved by Congress (and they will almost certainly face some opposition), they would be well equipped to try to dismantle the Clean Power Plan and remove many environmental regulations. Which brings us to the simple cornerstone of Trump’s environmental policy: remove as many regulations as possible. Trump has said that he will fight to do away with all regulations he believes are unnecessary in order to allow American businesses more operational freedom and greater room to grow.

In terms of Republican politicians, this position is in no way unique, but few presidential candidates have taken such a hard line stance against previously established environmental regulations (runner-up Ted Cruz would be fighting a very similar battle right now). Trump’s plan includes freeing up protected federal land, both on and offshore, for oil and gas drilling. Interestingly, designating an area as federally protected government land under the Antiquities Act is one of the few ways a president can directly use their executive authority to protect the environment. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are both known for designating huge areas of land as federally protected, Clinton doing so several times specifically to prevent oil and gas companies from drilling in certain areas. For Trump to attempt to use executive power to remove these designations is a little like one president fighting directly with the legacy of a previous president.

More Fossil Fuels

Trump has said he would open up these swaths of federal land for coal mining leases and remove some of the rules that protect waterways throughout the nation from drilling, which is of concern if you’re an environmentalist or if you drink water. Trump is, in fact, one of few politicians still talking about the fantasy power source of “clean coal” in 2016. The general concept behind clean coal is to burn coal as efficiently as possible and then capture the emissions afterward, making it as “clean” as possible. While it’s true that we have made coal cleaner, it’s impossible to burn coal without some pollution. Clean coal has proven much more expensive and difficult to scale than its early proponents thought, making it far from a viable method to reduce carbon emissions. This is particularly true when less expensive and more efficient alternatives exist.

Trump’s focus on coal in particular is interesting, because coal as an energy source has dropped significantly in popularity and coal-fired power plants are rarely built these days (President Obama, coming from coal-heavy Illinois, also once preached the benefits of the mythical Clean Coal, although he’s since done an 180 on the issue and one of the key focuses of his Clean Power Plan is to regulate and reduce coal emissions by as much as possible).

Trump has made public that he views regulations on pollution as an obstacle to the success of business and jobs in America, although research indicates that over the past few decades the negative impacts of regulation on business have been modest and the demand for cleaner technology has in the past repeatedly stimulated innovation and growth in the private tech industry. If his EPA team was driven by the goal to free up businesses from all regulation, this would also involve dismantling key provisions of the Clean Water act and Clean Air Act. While a president can’t literally change the provisions of these acts, the administration he or she puts in place can reinterpret them and Trump could effectively remove the enforcement mechanisms that enable these acts to have their nationwide impact. Trump has, in fact, publicly stated that he would review the EPA endangerment findings, which are used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. To strip away the EPA’s ability to regulate air and waterborne pollution would dramatically increase the United States’ role as a global polluter and worsen public health throughout the United States.

Conclusion

It’s important to look at our current political context to see if Trump really could do any of what he proposes. His selection of an EPA transition team of climate deniers is a little ridiculous and simply unrealistic considering that any new administrator could be blocked by Democrats in the Senate. A figure as divisive as Myron Ebell, or any of the other members of the team, will simply not make it through Congress. If Trump does become president he will most likely have to consider a more neutral person to take the EPA Administrator role.

The fact that Congress is largely deadlocked between the two parties on environmental issues has been and will be a huge obstacle for any president trying to accomplish anything (a problem that extends far beyond the environment). Because of this gridlock, nearly all political efforts to combat climate change have had to come through executive action, a pattern that can be easily seen throughout Obama’s two terms. Trump’s commitment to reversing Obama’s executive actions would potentially mean undoing much of the last eight years of environmental policy efforts, worsening air and water quality and giving fossil fuel companies greater access to federal land for fracking and drilling. By specifically using executive power to accomplish this, it would be within Trump’s hands to dramatically peel back the progress that the environmental movement has made in the United States. His plans should be taken seriously by American voters as a threat to the future of our public health and energy security and to the ever worsening global problem of climate change.

Resources

The Blaze: Mike Pence Breaks From Trump, Says Humans Have a Hand in Climate Change

Business Insider: Where Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Climate Change

CBS News: Where the 2016 Republican Candidates Stand on Climate Change

CNN: Campaign Manager: Trump Does Not Believe Climate Change is Man Made

Competitive Enterprise Institute: Myron Ebell

The Economist: Green Tape: Environmental Regulations May Not Cost as Much as Governments or Businesses Fear

Fortune: How Donald Trump’s Energy Policies Are All About Removing Regulations

Grist: How Obama Went from Being Coal’s Top Cheerleader to its No. 1 Enemy

Governing: Economic Engines: Do Environmental Regulations Hurt the Economy?

Grist: Who’s Really in Charge on EPA Rules? A Chat With Legal Scholar Lisa Heinzerling

Grist: Why is Trump so Fixated on Abolishing the EPA?

The Hill: Top Climate Skeptic to Lead Trump’s EPA Transition Team

Politico: The Politico Wrong-o-Meter: Fact Checking the 2016 Presidential Debate

Think Progress: The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus

Think Progress: Christie Says He’s Not ‘Relying on any Scientists’ to Inform Climate Change Views

Think Progress: The Environmental Implications of a Trump Presidency

Scientific American: Many More Republicans Now Believe in Climate Change

Scientific American: Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition Team

The Washington Post: Ted Cruz Keeps Saying that Satellites Don’t Show Global Warming: Here’s the Problem

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Donald Trump Stand on Environmental Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday afternoon the internet went totally wild after finding out about one more leaked email that supposedly proved that John Podesta, and therefore the whole Clinton clan, are Satanists.

#SpiritCooking: Podesta has band-aid on middle finger, likely from a cut, just like Marina Abramovic suggest for a “Spirit Dinner” pic.twitter.com/4Edf1bdLqC

— MicroTurkeyLeaks™ (@WDFx2EU7) November 4, 2016

The email in question was sent to John Podesta from his brother, asking if John could join him for a dinner at artist Marina Abramovic’s place. He included the forwarded email from Abramovic, in which she described the dinner as a “Spirit Cooking”. Because of that phrasing, right wing people online got all frenzied and started sharing their best conspiracy theories. The hashtag #SpiritCooking had over 500,000 tweets by late afternoon.

#SpiritCooking

It all makes sense now. The whole family is involved in this satanic cult. pic.twitter.com/KVV7FbOV6w

— Neil Turner (@NeilTurner_) November 4, 2016

The most disturbing thing about the whole #SpiritCooking Scandal is that NO DEMOCRATS are condemning it! Their silence speaks volumes!!!

— Joshua (@joshuakassemi) November 4, 2016

Despite the influx of conspiracy theories, it doesn’t seem likely that it was a real, blood-drinking orgy that took place. “Spirit Cooking with Essential Aphrodisiac Recipes” is the name of a cookbook that Abramovic created for a 1996 exhibition at the MoMA. It was accompanied by a piece of performance art in which she paints with blood and incorporates  a huge snake.

Wow. I just got to this video about #spiritcooking…skipping dinner this evening… https://t.co/Qahq8OGcav via @YouTube

— Hispanic4TrumpPence (@esgrimista73) November 4, 2016

The list of ingredients in the cookbook did call for “fresh breast milk with fresh sperm milk” to be consumed “on earthquake nights,” but the dinner she invited the Podestas to was more a normal one, with real food. “It was just a normal dinner,” she said to artnews.com on Friday afternoon. “There was no blood, no anything else. We just call things funny names, that’s all.” She told the website that John Podesta never made it to dinner and they have never met in real life. She called the right-wing attacks “absolutely outrageous and ridiculous.”

At least as President, Hellary could call the Vatican hotline & get the Pope to perforrm an exorcism #SpiritCooking

— Deplorabe Majority (@trolling4tuna) November 4, 2016

Thankfully all of this insane election mudslinging will be over soon.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Internet Thinks Podesta is a Satanist After Leaked #SpiritCooking Email appeared first on Law Street.

Melania Trump gave a rare speech in Pennsylvania on Thursday, in which she expressed her concerns about people being mean on the internet, causing many to ask: does she even know her husband?

Melania Trump has generally kept quiet in the campaign since it was revealed that she plagiarized parts of Michelle Obama’s speech from 2008 during the Republican National Convention in July. But on Thursday evening, Pennsylvania women got to hear what her plans would be if she were to become the First Lady.

Trump said she worries about “all of our children” and that people are being mean on the internet. “Our culture has gotten too mean and too rough, especially to children and teenagers,” she said. She went on to say that kids are “hurt when they are made fun of, or made to feel less in looks or intelligence. This makes their life hard. It can force them to hide and retreat.”

The irony in Melania Trump’s words–as her husband has become known for cyberbullying, insulting people based on their looks, and for the recent news that he may have sexually assaulted as many as 17 women–is almost too much. During the campaign, Donald Trump has insulted and verbally harassed anyone who is the least bit critical of him or doesn’t live up to his standards of appearance. The New York Times compiled a list of 282 people, places, and things that Trump has insulted since declaring his candidacy last June. The list includes, among many others, the TV show Saturday Night Live (“unfunny show”), actor Alec Baldwin (“portrayal stinks”), Megyn Kelly (“crazy” and “sick”), Alicia Machado (“disgusting”), and the United States (“weak”).

Melania Trump can’t be serious with being an advocate for cyberbullying when Donald Trump is a cyberbullying predator on & off social media! pic.twitter.com/lRAbw3b3Ba

— Mr. Weeks (@MrDane1982) November 4, 2016

Melania may not have realized that she used one of Hillary Clinton’s foremost arguments against Donald–also put forth by Michelle Obama–to challenge his fitness for the presidency. Clinton and Obama both talk about how important it is to be a role model for children and to protect them from language that is disrespectful and mean. On Thursday, Melania Trump spoke of the exact same problems. She said:

It is never OK when a 12-year-old girl or boy is mocked, bullied or attacked. It is terrible when that happens on the playground and it is unacceptable when it’s done by someone with no name hiding on the Internet.

The internet reacted right away.

.@MELANIATRUMP I’m so glad you lectured America on the evils of cyber bullying. Please also discuss it with this man.->

“Melania Trump” pic.twitter.com/lPL4V1j8Ma

— Cornelia (@PaladinCornelia) November 4, 2016

She also said that children are often picked on for their “looks and intelligence,” which she says isn’t cool. Trump also said that she will work for women’s rights. Maybe she forgot that her husband called Rosie O’Donnell “fat” and “ugly,” Bette Midler “extremely unattractive,” and Debbie Wasserman Schultz “highly neurotic.”

Donald Trump’s rhetoric has already had a notable effect on kids, a development that has actually been named the “Trump Effect.” His language may be increasing bullying in schools, especially for kids of a nationality, race, or religion that Trump has mocked.

Now Melania Trump says she would like to focus on the same groups and issues that the Democrats are using to criticize her husband. But the question is, will she be able to disregard everything that her husband has said and done, and how long will that last?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Melania Trump Wants to Fight Cyberbullying, but Forgot Who She Married appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge has ordered the Republican National Committee to provide details on what kind of agreements it has with the Trump campaign for preventing voter fraud and maintaining “ballot security.” The RNC is bound by a decree from 1982 to not engage in voter fraud prevention activities without the consent of a federal court.

The judge also ordered the RNC to give an explanation of what Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and Mike Pence were alluding to when they recently said that their campaign is collaborating “closely” with the RNC to make sure there is no voter fraud going on. The order comes after a lawsuit that the Democratic National Committee filed against the RNC last week, alleging that it is supporting the Trump campaign with ballot security measures that could be illegal.

Trump has been talking at great lengths about how widespread voter fraud is and claiming that the system is rigged. On his website he urges people who see anything “suspicious” going on at the polls to personally intervene or to sign up to become a volunteer “Trump Election Observer.” This is all to prevent Crooked Hillary from rigging the election, of course.

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

At a rally in Cleveland, Trump claimed that there are 24 million registered voters that are “invalid or significantly inaccurate” and 1.8 million people registered to vote who are actually dead. But there is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud in America and Factcheck.org debunked Trump’s statements.

This makes it extra ironic that it was a Trump supporter who was arrested for attempting to vote twice in Iowa last week. Terri Lynn Rote, 55, said that she hadn’t planned on voting twice, it was just a spontaneous idea. “I don’t know what came over me,” she said to the Washington Post. She also told Iowa Public Radio that the polls are rigged, and she was afraid someone would change her Trump vote into a vote for Clinton.

Des Moines woman Terri Lynn Rote arrested for voting twice #voterfraud https://t.co/snE3mz9Tn6 pic.twitter.com/uCS09WQmOp

— Jeffrey Guterman (@JeffreyGuterman) October 28, 2016

The decree that blocks the RNC from engaging in any voter fraud prevention that is not approved by federal authorities came about after the RNC used armed guards at the polls in 1981 to intimidate minority voters. It is set to expire in December of next year, but if the DNC is correct in its suspicions, it could be extended. The RNC has until Wednesday at 5 PM to respond to the judge.

But individual presidential candidates are not bound by the decree, which means the Trump campaign is free to go ahead with whatever plans it has uphold “security” at the polls. And according to Slate, Republican officials all over the country are engaging in illegal measures to prevent Democrats from casting their votes. So why are the Republicans so sure that voter fraud exists? Maybe because in some cases they are the ones behind it.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders the RNC to Explain What it Means by “Ballot Security” appeared first on Law Street.

Innocent Googlers just trying to figure out the definition of “pathological lying” were subjected to internet trolling on Monday, when users edited its Wikipedia page to include presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s picture.

Everyone Google the words – Pathological Lying – right now. This is what I got – no joke. pic.twitter.com/jX7m1krIE3

— Brett R. Smith (@BrettRSmith76) October 31, 2016

Typically when Google users put in their search query, the first result is often a brief section of the query’s corresponding Wikipedia page. Because of this feature, the first search result users saw alongside the Wikipedia page for “pathological lying” was Hillary Clinton’s photo.

The Wikipedia revision history for the “pathological lying” page shows the many different users who meddled with the article. The first of these changes occurred on October 28, by an anonymous user who “Added the only person who has a proven track record for being a Pathlogical [sic] liar. References can be easily looked up on wikileaks, most media sites, and thru [sic] congressional hearings.”

IP addresses are used to identify anonymous users who make changes or additions to Wikipedia posts. From a search on the internet, the aforementioned user’s IP address was located in Bedminster Township, New Jersey at the time of the search, only 10 minutes from the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster. Interesting.

On October 29, a different anonymous user added the photo of Clinton to the page. This IP address is located in Boise, Idaho, where Clinton is far behind Trump in multiple polls.

Users went back and forth reverting each other’s edits until October 31 when moderators locked the page until November 3, citing “persistent vandalism.”

As of November 1, moderators had locked the page until after the election, writing, “Changed protection level of Pathological lying: make protrection [sic] consistent with other articles being attacked, until after the election.”

In similar fashion, the first result when users search “45th U.S. president” is the Wikipedia page for “United States presidential election, 2016,” which briefly showed a picture of only Trump. Wikipedia moderators also chose to lock this page due to a wave of recent edits.

@triplejHack What in the Wide World of Sports is going on with Google!? pic.twitter.com/PJHC23CzDK

— Dilo on Fire (@FireDilo) October 31, 2016

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Rigged Election, A Rigged Search Engine, and Rigged Wikipedia appeared first on Law Street.

Actress Lena Dunham hit the mark with her 2016 Halloween Costume, seemingly inspired by quotes from Republican nominee Donald Trump. She dressed as a surprised cat with two plastic hands attached to her, portraying a “grabbed p***y.” She posted a picture on her Instagram on Monday evening. “Happy Halloween! With love from a Grabbed P—y,” she wrote.

@LenaDunham sassily takes aim at Donald Trump with her Halloween costume https://t.co/znoJ4dogVF pic.twitter.com/0oUufCP6lL

— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) November 1, 2016

Dunham’s inspiration came from the audio recording that was leaked earlier in October when Trump was heard saying, “when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything,” to TV personality Billy Bush, who has since been sacked by NBC. And ironically the tape might have still been a secret if Bush himself hadn’t bragged about having had that conversation with Trump while in Rio covering the Olympics. Someone at NBC then thought it would be funny to dig up the old tape and release it, which Bush probably hadn’t counted on.

Dunham is a Clinton supporter and spoke out against Trump in People Magazine after the audiotape was released:

To hear someone in a position of power, in the race for the highest office in the land, to say something that is so distinctly violent, and so distinctly abusive — I think it creates a lot of fear and a lot of sort of pain in the public consciousness that we’re going to be dealing with for a long time.

Over the weekend and on Monday, she campaigned for Clinton in North Carolina and has been urging people on Twitter to go vote early.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lena Dunham Took a Shot at Trump with Bold Halloween Costume appeared first on Law Street.

Iceland’s election was on Saturday, and while certain mainstay parties were represented on the ballot, an unexpected challenger also had a place there: the Pirate Party, an anti-establishment party that garnered roughly 15 percent of Iceland’s support.

The Pirate Party is just one of the many populist parties that have emerged in Europe since the global financial crisis, but it does not identify as right or left wing, choosing instead to label itself an anti-establishment movement that will attempt to combine the best of both parties. The party operates on a platform of direct democracy, net neutrality, and civil rights, and is an offshoot of the Pirate movement founded in Sweden a decade ago. However, while the Swedish party was primarily preoccupied with copyright law, the Icelandic version embraces a much broader swath of issues and has gained more traction, thanks in part to the release of the Panama Papers.

After the Panama Papers revealed that Iceland’s former Prime Minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, and his wife held funds in offshore accounts in the British Virgin Islands, the Pirate Party swooped as the voice of protest, organizing massive protests across the country. Freedom of information and the exposure of corrupt practices is a central theme of the Pirate Party’s agenda: Birgitta Jonsdottir, the leader of the party, is a poet who formerly provided legal assistance to WikiLeaks. Before the Panama Papers, the Pirate Party would never have been in the position it holds now, attracting international attention. Jonsdottir herself has expressed surprise during multiple interviews at how successful the party has become.

The Pirate Party did not win a seat at the table this weekend, largely because of concerns about the profound economic effects for international investors had the party won. However,  there could also be a shift in the political status quo now that the Party has stepped toward legitimacy by at points polling over 20 percent. The Pirate Party has ruled out forming a coalition with the current parties in power if it ever is elected, arguing that it doesn’t want its vote to be influenced or absorbed by the corruption of “the Octopus“–the wealthy families that Jonsdottir argues control the country. The party may not ever succeed in creating a more transparent and equitable democracy (and frankly, the party’s plan of action is more optimistic than realistic) but they will have perhaps opened the door for other outsider parties, not only in Iceland, but across all small European nations.

In the United States, where we have massive voting blocs aligned to our traditional two parties, third party candidates have rarely won elections, yet in Iceland, with a total population of only approximately 332,500, a smaller number of voters can have a greater impact on the election–which means the Pirate Party could set a new precedent for dozens of small-scale movements that want to transition into the formal government. The Pirate Party’s steps toward legitimacy may not impact U.S. elections but it can have an impact on countries with small, young populations–voters who are online, connecting with political movements through social media, and who are frustrated with the traditional party dichotomy.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Election No One Has Noticed: Iceland’s Pirate Party appeared first on Law Street.

With only 19 days until election day, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will take the stage Wednesday night for the third and final presidential debate.

Here’s some quick background on the format and timing:

The third and final debate will be hosted by the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and will be moderated by Chris Wallace of the Fox News Network. The format will largely resemble the first debate as the two candidates will be seated at a table and will respond to questions from the moderator. Wallace announced the seven categories that his questions will focus on last week, namely: debt and entitlements, immigration, the economy,  the Supreme Court, foreign hot spots, and fitness to be president. The debate starts at 9 PM and will go to 10:30 PM without commercial breaks. You can watch it on the major networks and broadcast channels and it will be streamed online by major news organizations on Youtube and Twitter.

The primary question going into the debate is whether there is anything Donald Trump can do to make up his particularly large polling deficit with Clinton. With that in mind, here is a rundown of the major unanswered questions and continuing challenges to keep an eye out for at the debate.

Trump’s Response to Sexual Assault Allegations

Donald Trump’s treatment of women has been widely discussed throughout the entire campaign, going all the way back to Megyn Kelly’s questioning at the first Republican debate last year. But between the recently uncovered “Access Hollywood” tape and Anderson Cooper’s tough questioning at the second debate, the issue is back in the forefront. When Cooper pressed Trump on the issue–noting that what Trump talked about was sexual assault–he asked whether he had actually done what he said in the video. Trump denied it, saying it was just “locker room talk,” but shortly afterward many woman came forward claiming that Trump had in fact sexually harassed and assaulted them.

With the exception of flatly calling each accusation false when asked for comment, Trump has not yet had to face many questions about the recent allegations. It seems likely that either Chris Wallace or Clinton will bring this up at the debate. It remains unclear exactly how Trump will respond to the issue but it’s certainly something to look out for. Will he continue to deny everything? Will he make any effort to apologize? Or will he continue to try and turn the conversation to Bill Clinton?

Wikileaks

While many of the recent scandals have focused on Trump, the Clinton campaign has had to address questions surrounding Campaign Chairman Jonn Podesta’s leaked emails, which are being released in batches by Wikileaks. While most of the emails provide a window into the inner workings of the campaign and are more embarrassing than anything else, some do point to potential issues. Notably, a batch of emails illustrates a potential ethics issue surrounding donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. As Reuters notes, a $1 million donation pledge from Qatar may have breached Clinton’s ethics agreement at the State Department. Look to see if Clinton tries to address the controversy or if she simply refuses to discuss the hacked information.

In addition to the information found in the emails, it’s important to acknowledge their source. Many security officials believe that the Russian government supplied the hacked emails to Wikileaks. If the recent leaks do come up at tonight’s debate–and it’s pretty likely that they are at least mentioned by Donald Trump–look for how both candidates respond to the prospect of foreign interference in U.S. elections.

What About Policy?

With so much else going on in recent weeks, there’s been a notable lack of discussion of some major policy issues on the campaign trail. Health care got a brief time in the spotlight at the last debate, but despite the quick discussion, there are many unanswered questions. Clinton provided a full-throated defense of Obamacare and laid out a rough plan to help fix some of its core issues, but she has said little about how she would accomplish that if Republicans continue to hold control of all or part of Congress. For his part, Trump offered some sort of discussion about wanting to “break out the lines and allow the competition to come,” but what exactly that means as well as his larger plan to address Americans’ health care concerns remains extremely murky.

We also haven’t heard the candidates talk about crucial issues like climate change, a long-term plan for the ongoing civil war and humanitarian crisis in Syria, and declining productivity growth and dynamism in the U.S. economy. It’s also important to look out for each candidates’ plan to fill the vacant Supreme Court and the possibility that more seats will open during the next president’s term. More broadly, look out for any indication of how the candidates plan to work with Congress to accomplish their goals in the ongoing period of polarization and gridlock.

For some more unanswered questions, check out this list from the New York Times.

 Can Trump Win Over New Voters?

Donald Trump is currently–and pretty much has been since the end of the primary campaign–lagging behind Clinton in the polls. According to most polling averages, Trump has never really had a lead in the general election, with the possible exception of the brief period between the Republican and Democratic conventions. Put simply, Trump doesn’t just need to make sure his core base of support turns out on election day, he needs to court new voters as well. Meanwhile, Clinton has managed to consolidate the support of many undecided voters, though a relatively large number of voters still haven’t made up their minds or plan to vote for third parties.

Recently, Trump has shown almost no interest in expanding beyond his core base of support. He has doubled down on baseless claims that the election is being rigged against him and has said that if he were to become president he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate his opponent, an unprecedented breach of the nonpartisan rule of law. While such arguments may play well to Trump’s base–who have very negative views of Clinton–it will likely do little to win over undecided voters.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What to Look Out for at the Final Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

A GOP office in Hillsborough, North Carolina, was vandalized and later destroyed by an apparent act of arson.

The Orange County Republican headquarters suffered damages caused by a substance thrown through one of the building’s front windows. The flammable material damaged the building’s interior before going out. The firebombing occurred at some point between Saturday night and Sunday morning. Graffiti and threatening words also marked the territory. An adjacent building was graffitied “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else” accompanied by a swastika.  No one was injured.

Hillsborough Mayor Tom Stevens released a statement and reminded people that elections should be an opportunity to become more democratic, rather than moving into acts of violence.

“This highly disturbing act goes far beyond vandalizing property; it willfully threatens our community’s safety via fire, and its hateful message undermines decency, respect and integrity in civic participation,” Stevens said. “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of people who make Hillsborough their home: Acts like this have no place in our community. Our law enforcement officials are responding quickly and thoroughly to investigate this reprehensible act and prosecute the perpetrators.”

According to the town, “no damage estimates are available yet, and Hillsborough police are continuing to investigate the incident with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”

Governor of North Carolina Pat McCrory declared he will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in the investigation. McCrory’s staff helped deliver new campaign materials to Orange County hours after the bombing.

“The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy,” McCrory said in a statement. “Violence has no place in our society – but especially in our elections. … I will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in this investigation.”

The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy. pic.twitter.com/fr9FWGQUoG

— Pat McCrory (@PatMcCroryNC) October 16, 2016

Thank you for your thoughts & prayers, Sec. @HillaryClinton.

— NCGOP (@NCGOP) October 16, 2016

Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning @NCGOP

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina GOP Office Firebombed: Trump Blames Democrats appeared first on Law Street.

The “Today Show’s” Billy Bush faced extreme backlash from network executives and the public after an audio recording surfaced of the television host having a lewd conversation with Donald J. Trump.

The compromising recording from 2005–in which Trump brags about groping women–quickly became the business mogul’s most pressing issue to date as Republican officials unendorsed their party’s nominee. The GOP presidential nominee posted a statement on social media, telling voters that he is not a “perfect person” and that the words captured in 2005 “don’t reflect who I am.”

In the recording, Bush also exchanged lewd and misogynistic remarks about women. Bush, known as the nephew of former President George H. W. Bush and the cousin of former President George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, worked for Access Hollywood at the time.

Bush issued a statement on Friday evening saying, “Obviously I’m embarrassed and ashamed. It’s no excuse, but this happened 11 years ago–I was younger, less mature, and acted foolishly in playing along. I’m very sorry.”

Everyone hasn’t been so quick to accept the apology.

Noah Oppenheim, the NBC executive in charge of “Today,” wrote in a memo to his staff members on Sunday that “I know we’ve all been deeply troubled by the revelations of the past 48 hours.”

“Let me be clear–there is simply no excuse for Billy’s language and behavior on that tape,” he said. “NBC has decided to suspend Billy, pending further review of this matter.”

Bush co-hosts the third hour of the “Today Show” and has remained off-air since Monday. This isn’t his first time coming under fire during his brief stint on the show. Bush, was the first to report the debunked Ryan Lochte robbery scandal and it led to questions about his journalistic approach.

The leak leads to larger questions about journalism ethics. The 44-year-old television host withheld knowledge of a presidential nominee admitting to sexual assault.

“Late Night” TV host Seth Meyers unleashed on Donald Trump and his performance in Sunday night’s debate. Meyers referred to him as “the pervert on the bus” and said that there is “currently a higher standard for the third hour of the “Today Show” than there is for the Republican nominee for president.”

Bush’s future remains unclear. A variety of media sources have speculated that his official departure is only a matter of time.

Sources: Billy Bush’s departure from NBC matter of “when,” not “if” — @brianstelter reports https://t.co/d9B2PW78Hohttps://t.co/lO8dviqF9n

— CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) October 12, 2016

Bush worked on “Access Hollywood,” NBC’s entertainment news show, for nearly 15 years before being promoted to “Today” in August, after contributing to the network’s coverage of the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NBC’s “Today” Show Has Higher Standards Than the GOP appeared first on Law Street.

Donald J. Trump previously confessed that he tries to “pay as little as possible” when it comes to taxes. Therefore, it came as no surprise when a partial report of the Republican presidential nominee’s 1995 tax records confirmed his financial outlook.

The New York Times published Trump’s 1995 income tax returns on Saturday, which explain how the former reality TV show host and real-estate mogul could have avoided taxes for nearly two decades. That year Trump declared a $916 million loss, a loss that could have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

Trump was recently criticized by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the first presidential debate for not being forthcoming about his tax returns. Clinton suspected that the businessman didn’t pay his federal income taxes–a claim Trump said made him “smart.”

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed with Trump’s statement and called him a genius after the tax records were released.

“The reality is, this is part of our tax code. The man’s a genius. He knows how to operate the tax code to the benefit of the people he’s serving,” Giuliani told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

Legal, yes. Genius, not so much.

The Washington Post’s Allan Sloan, a seven-time winner of the Loeb Award (business journalism’s highest honor), didn’t offer the same sentiments as Giuliani. Sloan’s op-ed said:

Sure, the $900 million-plus of losses reported by the New York Times–losses that could be used to offset income for a total of 18 years–are totally shocking. Legal, yes. But shocking.

But there’s something I consider even more shocking–although it involves a much smaller number.

By my read of the Trump tax return published by the New York Times, he would have been tax-free because of a $15,818,562 loss reported on Line 11 of the return under “Rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, etc.” It looks to me that this loss reflects the outrageous, special tax break that real estate developers that people like Trump can get, but that the rest of us can’t.

In the current election cycle Trump has refused to release his returns, unlike every other presidential candidate in modern history. As the candidates begin to bridge the gap between voters, it is imperative they remain honest and forthcoming–a common complaint for both of their campaigns.

Trump declined to comment on the documents. Instead, he tweeted a personal attack at the Times.

I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2016

The Trump campaign released a statement that neither challenged nor confirmed the $916 million loss.

“Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the statement said. “That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes, along with very substantial charitable contributions.”

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Taxes: “Trumped Up, Trickle Down” Economics or Genius? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Don’t Be Surprised if You See a Sex Toy at UT Austin Today

Students at the University of Texas at Austin are protesting the lax gun laws on the school’s campus with a “cocks not glocks” protest. This is the 2nd year of the protest, which was started last year by a UT Austin alum. The students carry or strap sex toys to their backpacks, satirizing the fact that while weapons are allowed on campus, openly displaying a sex toy breaks “university rules and a state law against displays of obscene items.”

Talked #cocksnotglocks bc few things make me happier than Texas students carrying dildos https://t.co/529LYlVISi pic.twitter.com/QvTLtNnXvS

— Rachel Charlene (@RachelCharleneL) August 24, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 25, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Less than three months before the election, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump appointed two new employees to top posts in his campaign staff–Steve Bannon from Breitbart and Kellyanne Conway, an experienced Republican pollster.

Paul Manafort will maintain his role as campaign chairman despite recent accusations of receiving large cash payments from the Ukrainian government.

Steve Bannon, conservative media executive at Breitbart News and former investment banker, is the new chief executive of the Trump campaign. The campaign has always had a positive relationship with the Breitbart, which has published a lot of Trump-friendly news coverage over the past year. When Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was arrested for assaulting Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields earlier this year, Breitbart and Bannon didn’t do much to support her. Then-editor Ben Shapiro quit in protest and has since called Bannon a bully that “has shaped the company into Trump’s personal Pravda.”

That is just one of many things Shapiro has to say about Bannon:

I Know Trump’s New Campaign Chairman, Steve Bannon. Here’s What You Need To Know. https://t.co/nTZ2GpGJnnpic.twitter.com/qJrOQyRv9t

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) August 17, 2016

Now that Bannon is the formal campaign executive for the Republican nominee, he will step down from his position at Breitbart, at least, until the campaigning is over.

Kellyanne Conway was first hired by Trump in July, before then she worked for a super PAC that supported Ted Cruz and was not exactly a fan of Trump. She has been in the media spotlight before for some of her past statements, like when she said that women should be more feminine rather than feminist, or that conservatives need to stop talking about rape (she preferred to call it “the four letter word”). She once said that there’s an alternative for liberal women “constantly thinking about abortion, contraception, being a victim of the patriarchy,” and that conservatives present “an alternative of fun, engaging accomplished women.”

She has now been upgraded to Trump’s campaign manager. A statement published on the campaign’s website said:

I have known Steve and Kellyanne both for many years. They are extremely capable, highly qualified people who love to win and know how to win. I believe we’re adding some of the best talents in politics, with the experience and expertise needed to defeat Hillary Clinton in November and continue to share my message and vision to Make America Great Again. I am committed to doing whatever it takes to win this election, and ultimately become President because our country cannot afford four more years of the failed Obama-Clinton policies which have endangered our financial and physical security.

The news about the Trump campaign’s reshuffling comes after weeks of negative headlines and rising tension from news about Manafort. Roger Ailes, the Fox News founder and anchor who had to leave his post because of sexual harassment allegations, was appointed as campaign adviser earlier this week as well.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Reshuffles Campaign Staff, Hires Breitbart News Chief appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump’s campaign has had a rough week. After the intense backlash surrounding the presidential candidate’s comments about Khizr Khan, followed by his erroneous claims that he saw a video of the U.S. plane delivering $400 million to Iran, and recent reports of discord within the Trump campaign, the latest poll numbers are now showing a widening lead for Hillary Clinton. On top of all that drama, rumors have been flying that Trump may not make it to November.

Trump himself doesn’t seem to be backing down from the fight just yet, and it would be surprising if his ego actually let him. However, ABC News reports that Republican officials are already thinking about his potential replacement if he were to leave the race. Many are even questioning if Trump’s recent actions, which seem to be reckless even by Trump standards, are actually a form of self-sabotage, insinuating that he doesn’t want to run anymore but has too much pride to actually say so.

Trump says he would never drop out: https://t.co/Avr6eAK6o8 pic.twitter.com/4hev2jZRaR

— andrew kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) August 5, 2016

If Trump ultimately did decide to drop out, the Republican National Committee would have the authority to choose an alternate nominee. The RNC’s official rule on filling vacancies in nominations states the following:

(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.

(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.

(c) In the event that the members of the Republican National Committee from any state shall not be in agreement in the casting of votes hereunder, the votes of such state shall be divided equally, including fractional votes, among the members of the Republican National Committee present or voting by proxy.

(d) No candidate shall be chosen to fill any such vacancy except upon receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the election.

It is unclear who specifically the RNC would have in mind as a replacement, but it would be tough to find someone to replace Trump’s blend of personality traits and anti-PC opinions that have attracted so many to him. If he were to leave the race, it would be difficult to find a candidate to appeal to both establishment Republicans as well as the unique crowd that Trump has been able to attract.

The list of Republicans who won’t be backing Trump in the general election keeps growing, with many prominent figures even pledging to vote for Clinton. Meanwhile, as his poll numbers fall, Trump has begun commenting on his fears of a “rigged election” in November. If Trump’s support does keep falling, could he drop out just to avoid the humiliation of defeat? Or would he decide to stick it out and blame a loss on factors such as the electoral system itself?

A candidate dropping out of the race is fairly unprecedented; the only person to attempt it was independent candidate Ross Perot, who dropped out for 3 months before re-entering the race prior to the election. However, Trump has run a different kind of campaign, one that hasn’t played by the rules of traditional American politics. Having a major candidate drop out would fit right in with the unpredictable atmosphere of this insane election year.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Could Trump Drop Out of the Race? appeared first on Law Street.

When word broke Monday that Donald Trump’s campaign was essentially broke, having raised only $1.3 million to Hillary Clinton’s $42 million at the end of May, Twitter quickly reacted with the trending hashtag  #TrumpSoPoor.

The hashtag taunts the presumptive Republican nominee who prides himself on funding his own campaign because he’s “REALLY RICH!” 

Trump better hope that rich mindset of his can pay for his future campaign expenses. In the meantime, Twitter is fiercely chiming in with #TrumpSoPoor to point out the irony of Trump’s shrinking pockets.

#TrumpSoPoor He’ll have to start paying taxes

— Jocelyn Plums (@FilthyRichmond) June 21, 2016

#TrumpSoPoor even his fact check bounced

— Andrew Tumilty (@AndrewTumilty) June 21, 2016

One user called out GOP public assistance resentment.

#TrumpsSoPoor the @GOP is making him take a drug test before they give him any financial assistance.

— Raoul_Duke (@RaoulDuke99) June 21, 2016

#TrumpSoPoor he’s applying for public housing pic.twitter.com/D24IETllKk

— etymology of hip (@indianainsomnia) June 21, 2016

Another speculated Trump’s racist comments were taken from Ted Nugent, who has plenty to spare.

#TrumpsSoPoor He gotta borrow his racism from Ted Nugent.

— (((Crash Thompson))) (@TehRockCritic) June 21, 2016

Don’t think they forgot about that time Trump started a for-profit college that targeted poor people.

#TrumpSoPoor he’s being targeted by Trump University as a potential student.

— Bethany Albertson (@AlbertsonB2) June 21, 2016

Trump already wants Mexico to pay for his wall, but why not his campaign too.

#TrumpSoPoor he’s going to ask Mexico to pay for his campaign.

— BWD (@theonlyadult) June 21, 2016

#TrumpSoPoor he’s the first male politician in history to get less money than a woman working in the same position.

— (((Charles Clymer))) (@cmclymer) June 21, 2016

Needless to say, Donald Trump obviously doesn’t know what experiencing poverty is like, and the hashtag has received criticism for playing on the pain that vulnerable people face.

#TrumpSoPoor liberals made a hashtag so they could make fun of all the things actual poor people have go through everyday & not feel guilty.

— D (@Delo_Taylor) June 21, 2016

But #TrumpSoPoor is not about making fun of poverty and the problems poor people face, rather it is shooting sarcasm at a presidential candidate who has boosted himself repetitively as self-made and rich (as though these are the very best qualifications for the leader of a country.) This sarcasm is pointed at the self-aggrandizing candidate of a party.

Further, let’s not forget Trump was never poor or even struggling because 20 percent of his campaign expenditures are funneled back into Trump businesses. Trump is taking “self-funded campaign” to a whole new level because this campaign is clearly funding himself. While this could become an unsuccessful campaign due to failures to prioritize expenditures such as ad time, which will become necessary in the general election, Trump and his businesses are doing just fine.

Don’t worry about the state of Trump’s campaign fund though, Trump sent out his first fundraising email Tuesday, promising within that it would be “the most successful introductory fundraising email in modern political history.” Hopefully its success can beat the monumental introductory fundraising emails of ancient political history. 

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #TrumpSoPoor that He Can’t Afford to Defend Himself on Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, he affected the future of the Republican party immensely, even though he ultimately lost the race. Although many argue that Goldwater’s loss began the revitalization of the conservative movement, it also marked the start of black Americans’ growing negative perception of the GOP. It’s a pattern that Donald Trump is poised to repeat with Latino voters this year, potentially establishing a negative trend.

Goldwater’s staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957–the bill striking down Jim Crow voting laws designed to deny voting rights to Black Americans–contributed to his high unfavorability ratings among black voters. According to Goldwater, his vote was purely a matter of resisting federal encroachment on states’ rights–but the specter of racism followed his campaign, leading to abysmal support from black voters.

Barry Goldwater courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Members of the Ku Klux Klan publicly endorsed Goldwater, and although he denounced their support, his opponent Lyndon B. Johnson made political hay out of the connection, which Goldwater wasn’t successfully able to escape. The whole situation sounds eerily similar to another GOP nominee not being able to detach himself from KKK support.

Goldwater’s race politics are the subject of discussion even today–in many ways, he was remarkably socially liberal for his party. By 1989, he stated that the Republican party had been overtaken by ‘kooks,’ and in the 1990s, Goldwater approved of several progressive measures, such as gays serving in the military and marijuana legalization. Martin Luther King Jr. put it very well: “While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to the racists.”

Although Goldwater isn’t the sole cause of this divide, he certainly coincided with its beginning. Nonwhite voters in 1960 only carried a 22 point deficit in Republican votes–the same divide present with female voters, although in the opposite direction. During this period, white and nonwhite voters disagreed, but not overwhelmingly so. That all changed in the next election–and the divide that followed is still present today.

In the election of 1964, nonwhite voters opposed Goldwater 94 to 6, marking the steepest voting difference among a minority group in U.S. history–until Barack Obama received 95 percent of the black vote in 2008. This is an example of a stark difference between Latino and black voters–ever since the 1964 election, black voters have supported Democratic candidates by an average of 78 points, while Latino voters’ support was only 45 points on average, with splits as close as 9 points in some years.

Check out the graphs below to see the voting patterns by group. The graphs use data on racial and ethnic voting groups from Gallup and the Roper Center, to show actual voting percentages by each group. Click here to read more about the data.

After Barry Goldwater, Black voters went blue overwhelmingly for decades.

Latino voters preferred Democratic candidates in every election but often by slim margins.

This year, Donald Trump’s attitudes, positions, and comments regarding Latino Americans and immigration may be a ‘Goldwater moment’ for the minority voter bases. In almost every measurable way, Trump rates worse among minority voters than Goldwater. Whereas Goldwater served as a blockade for civil rights, he didn’t openly express racist or xenophobic opinions. Trump has no policy precedent to refer to but has ample opinions–many of which are categorically racist.

A candidate as blatantly offensive as Donald Trump sours the party’s relationship with Latino voters, directly contradicting the GOP’s efforts to connect with those voters. While we’ll have to wait until November for voting results, current favorability ratings paint a difficult picture for Trump. A June Washington Post/ABC survey found that 89 percent of Latinos saw Trump unfavorably. That number was 94 percent for black voters, which is staggeringly high, but the same divide was present between Barack Obama and both of his Republican challengers. These numbers don’t exactly correlate to votes, but they help create an estimate.

Here’s one last graph to show exactly what Trump’s effect could be on Latino voters. Note that this graph is speculative and the added election year assumes that Latino Americans will vote according to their current favorability perceptions of Trump as a candidate. The graph below illustrates how a new divide could emerge:

Trump’s record-high unfavorable rating among Latino voters could signal the largest party split since the 1970s.

Donald Trump’s numbers among Latinos are the worst his party has had in over 45 years–and that’s only half of the bad news for the GOP. Not currying favor with Latinos may not have cost Reagan or the Bushes the presidency, but it may very well cost Trump–Latinos are the largest ethnic or racial minority in the United States, making up 17 percent of the general population. Coupled with black Americans at 12 percent, these minorities are no longer so ‘minor,’ and can’t be ignored by candidates hoping to win a popular vote. While Trump might still be able to improve his standing with Latino voters, it will be an uphill battle. Trump may not be as well spoken, intellectual, or experienced as Barry Goldwater, but he may prove to be just as divisive.

Notes:

Graphs created using polling data from Gallup (1952 – 1972) and The Roper Center (1976 – 2012).

1. The term “Latino” in this analysis refers to voters self-identifying as Latino or Hispanic in polls. The term “black” refers to voters self-identifying as African American or black in polls.
2. Group voting data from 1952 to 1972 only distinguishes between white and nonwhite voters. While these two groups voted similarly–but to different degrees in later elections–there is not precise data on how they may have differed before 1972. 
3. The third graph is speculative and is meant to show that Latinos’ current attitudes toward Trump are more negative than the group has ever demonstrated against a Republican candidate based on past election results.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump This Generation’s Goldwater? appeared first on Law Street.

Since Hillary Clinton mathematically claimed the Democratic presidential nomination this past week, all eyes have been on Democratic party leaders to see how quickly and strongly they will back her. Luckily for Clinton, she has received a few new endorsements from important political figures this week, including President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren. These endorsements were likely made with the hopes of Democratic unification surrounding Hillary come fall so that she will have the resources and support she needs to defeat the Republican nominee.

First, Obama announced his endorsement yesterday with a video, saying that he knows how hard the job can be which is exactly why he knows that Hillary will be so good at it.

A few hours later, Elizabeth Warren jumped on board, saying,

I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.

This endorsement particularly packs a punch, as Warren and Clinton have not always seen eye to eye on political matters and Warren was the only Democratic female Senator who hadn’t endorsed Clinton up to this point. It also has stirred up a lot of buzz about a potential Clinton-Warren ticket this fall, which could help to reinforce Clinton’s progressive image and even lead to the implementation of some of Sanders’ more liberal plans.

As expected, these endorsements have come with their fair share of Twitter support and backlash. Elizabeth Warren has been slammed for what a lot of Sanders supporters see as a weakening of her liberal views.

If y’all want to give me a great birthday present, go to @elizabethforma and @SenWarren and UNFOLLOW.

— I Know Nothing (@jvgraz) June 10, 2016

Warren is Trying to Unite the Democratic Party, But All She’s Doing is Betraying Progressives https://t.co/g1V99UiD9G

— kateloving (@kateloving) June 10, 2016

One of the best responses to Obama’s endorsement of Clinton came from Donald Trump himself and spurred quite the Twitter war.

Obama just endorsed Crooked Hillary. He wants four more years of Obama—but nobody else does!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2016

But, no one puts Hillary in a corner! Her social media team quickly responded with perhaps the funniest tweet in the history of Twitter and the most savage thing we’ve seen all week.

Delete your account. https://t.co/Oa92sncRQY

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 9, 2016

With all of the endorsements and Bernie Sanders’ promise to work with Democratic party to support her, Clinton is sitting pretty as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Now all that’s between her and the presidency is Sanders’ inevitable drop and some long hard months of campaigning against the Republican nominee. With the backing of Democratic leaders and the looming presence of a potential Trump presidency, Clinton seems as desirable as ever.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Endorsements For Hillary Begin Rolling In appeared first on Law Street.

An already divided Republican Party saw another big name choosing sides between the presumptive party flag bearer Donald Trump and his reluctant new adversary, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

Former Alaskan governor and GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin took to Facebook on Sunday to jab at Ryan, endorsing his opponent for the Wisconsin 1st Congressional District primary in August.

“Rep. Paul Ryan abandoned the district he was to represent as special interests dictated his legislative priorities. Without ever having a real job outside of politics, it seems he disconnected himself from the people, thus easily disrespected the will of the people. It’s time for a change,” she wrote, throwing her support behind businessman Paul Nehlen instead of House Speaker Ryan.

Palin told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday she thinks Ryan will be “Cantored”, in a reference to Eric Cantor, the former House Majority leader who was ousted from that position in a shocking upset in 2014.

In a surprising dissent from nearly a century of Speakers’ supporting presumptive presidential nominees, Ryan stopped short of backing Trump last week, which set off a bit of a feud between the two men. Inaction to unite the Republican party by Trump is what Ryan cited as the reason for his reluctance.

Palin endorsed Trump at a campaign rally in Iowa in January, which explains her taking umbrage at Ryan’s refusal to do the same.

For now, at least, Ryan remains at an impasse in supporting a man with whom he has significant ideological disagreements. As of Monday morning, however, tensions appeared to thaw a bit when Trump distanced himself from Palin’s decision to endorse Ryan’s primary challenger. For his part, Ryan deferred to Trump’s claim that he could unseat him as chairman of the Republican National Convention, telling a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist he would do what he was asked.

A closed door meeting between Trump, Ryan, and other GOP leaders is set for Thursday in Washington. Whether that leads to an endorsement from Ryan remains to be seen, though it would be a positive development for a party being split apart by internecine, seemingly daily conflicts.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Paul Ryan Be ‘Cantored’? Sarah Palin Thinks So appeared first on Law Street.

It all ended (or began) in Indiana. Voting ended at 6 PM and before the night was over, Ted Cruz was out of the race and Donald Trump had all but secured the Republican nomination.

Here’s a tweet from Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee:

.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton #NeverClinton

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016

After Tuesday, we now know who the eventual nominees will almost certainly be: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (Sorry Bernie fans, but it’s just not in the cards for him. He needs to win more than 65 percent of the remaining vote and he’s actually in worse shape today than he was before the Hoosiers took to the polls, despite winning their state).

Ted Cruz ran an impressive campaign, he was well organized, and had a better understanding of the electorate relative to most of his competitors. But Cruz was already looking like a longshot before he suspended his campaign on Tuesday night. Despite announcing Carly Fiorina as his choice for Vice President as last ditch effort, Cruz has been mathematically eliminated since the New York primary. Meaning that his only chances of securing the nomination rested on the possibility of a contested convention in which the frontrunner, Trump, did not win a majority of the Republican delegates before the party’s convention. Given that, especially in the last couple weeks, Trump was already on a pretty clear path to the necessary 1,237 delegates, the Cruz campaign had little hope. And although it may not have made a difference, the Republican Party remained notably reluctant to get behind Cruz. Just look at what former Speaker of the House John Boehner just said about him.

And now, for all intents and purposes, the general election campaign begins. Although Sanders and Clinton will continue to challenge each other, barring an extraordinary and unprecedented change of heart among the superdelegates, Clinton has it wrapped up. And now that Cruz is out, Trump has a clear path to the nomination (although Kasich is still running?).

So the remaining question is whether or not the parties will unite to support their presumptive nominees. We now have to wait and see how Republicans react to Donald Trump securing their nomination. To be fair, this is still a question for the Democrats too–Sanders has received more support than anyone thought possible and some question whether those supporters will easily shift to support Clinton–but for Republicans, it’s a much bigger issue. Given that the party split apart in the primary season as some of its leaders embarked on a crusade to stop Trump, that question is particularly important.

As the general election starts to begin, it’s anyone’s guess as to what happens next. The conventional wisdom suggests that Hillary Clinton is a strong favorite. She’s winning in head-to-head polls, which are now just starting to become somewhat useful. Republicans are deeply fractured among those who oppose and support Trump. And the only candidate with a lower net favorability rating (the percent people who view a candidate positively minus those who view him or her negatively) than Hillary Clinton is, in fact, Donald Trump. The biggest question is who turns out to vote on election day. Are Democrats able to mobilize their supporters for a somewhat lackluster candidate, and are Republicans willing to rally around Trump?

While Clinton looks like she has a formidable lead at this point, the conventional wisdom has been wrong several times so far. After all, Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee for president.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cruz is Out and Trump is in, What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

While New York voters were casting their ballots in the state’s primary on Tuesday, many Bernie Sanders supporters were hoping for a last-minute court intervention to open up the primary after a series of registration issues. While the challenge focused largely on issues with registration records, many voters were upset by the rules surrounding the state’s closed primary. When many independent voters realized that in order to vote in the Democratic primary they had to have already re-registered with the Democratic Party back in October, many were understandably upset.

Voters in New York and across the country have started to feel increasingly disenfranchised as the campaign reveals some of the weirder aspects of the American primary system. But the more you look at the way we nominate candidates in the United States, it becomes clear that the bizarre and varying campaign rules make very little sense.

Between delegate allocation that ranges from proportional to winner-take-all, superdelegates, open and closed primaries, caucuses, the outsized influence of states like Iowa and New Hampshire, and the possibility of brokered conventions, the primary process is unnecessarily complex and in some ways, undemocratic.

While most people view the primaries and caucuses as a series of state-wide elections where voters go to the polls and pick their respective party’s nominee, the reality is much, much more complicated. Primaries are a race for delegates, which are allocated by state but do not always live up to the democratic vision of elections that most have. Complexity in the primary system makes the process unnecessarily confusing, and tends to give a greater voice to the parties than to the actual voters.

Neil Irwin at the New York Times made a laudable attempt to find some good out of the current system, arguing that the complexity requires candidates to hire effectively and manage a large, sprawling campaign. Irwin makes a good point in that the complexity of the campaigns can help us weed out candidates, but it doesn’t matter in so far as elections make voters feel like the parties are trying to marginalize them.

Now it’s fair to say that this election is pretty different than past nomination processes. Everything is particularly competitive, and as a result, each delegate means a lot. This has caused many to pay closer attention to exactly how the process works, and for most, they don’t like what they see.

There are a lot of factors that have caused many to feel disconnected from the two political parties, but this election has made disaffection a political message. The so-called outsider or anti-establishment candidates like Trump and Sanders have made a point of directing ill will toward the parties and the election results. While criticizing the establishment could be chalked up as a political maneuver, when it comes to the nominating process both candidates have a point. Superdelegates and closed primaries favor the Democratic party because they give party insiders direct influence and can prevent independents from participating. And when half the Republican party is talking about a contested convention that could give the nomination to someone who didn’t win the popular vote, people are justifiably upset.

While some may argue that these quirks have a significant impact by shifting media coverage and the public’s perception of the campaign, they may not change the ultimate outcome. But that doesn’t really matter when the current system still makes many Americans feel excluded. The rules surrounding the nomination process simply become another way for people to be mad at the establishment.

A perfect example of this just occurred in New York. Would Bernie Sanders have won if the state held an open primary? Probably not. But New York’s particularly restrictive re-registering rules made it so independent voters, who tend to lean toward Sanders, still weren’t able to vote. So now the issue distracts from the race and causes many to get angry at the establishment. It also gives the Sanders campaign an opportunity to trash the system and add fuel to the fire.

But underlying all of this is the fact that the complexity distracts people from the issues and erodes trust in our democratic institutions. A casual observer of the primaries is inundated with strategy and horse-race media coverage based on obscure rules that change each election cycle and vary by state and party. Because of this process, we have candidates saying that there is a “rigged system” and we have young voters turning against their party because of a perceived bias in favor of the frontrunner.

Now I’m not saying that fixing the absurdity that is our nominating process will solve these problems. People will still feel marginalized and disconnected from mainstream politics. But when it comes to the most basic form of civic participation, Americans need to feel like their vote counts and that election outcomes are legitimate.

We have a long way to go before the American people trust their institutions and feel included in the democratic process. But when it comes to elections, there’s no reason why we can’t fix some of the more ridiculous idiosyncrasies. Any voter should be able to look at a state’s election results and assess the current state of the race. And there should be very few opportunities for politicians and their supporters to argue that the parties are trying to control the race.

Simple reforms like doing away with superdelegates, allocating all delegates based on the popular vote, making every election an open primary where voters are free to register and vote for the candidate of their choice, and unifying the rest of the rules to prevent large discrepancies between states would go a long way in making this process more accessible to the average news consumer. More dramatic reforms like fixing the election schedule so it doesn’t favor states that aren’t representative of the rest of the country would also help. While this may be treating the symptom and not the problem, reforming the nomination process would certainly prevent a lot of distraction on the campaign trail and make voters feel more included in the nomination process.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Face it, the U.S. Primary System is Ridiculous appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk about the qualities the United States needs in its next president. Should he or she be a forceful figure who will lead our country in defeating ISIS? Does it matter if the president is fashionable? A financially savvy leader who can pull us out of debt? How old should the president be? With all these different factors to consider, it’s no wonder Americans are confused about who to vote for.

Have no fear, because one undeniable quality stands alone as the most important: how well does a candidate understand the informal rules and faux pas of New York City? And this week, we found out. In a trip to New York to sway voters before the state’s primary, the candidates were tested on city smarts: whether that be their tunnel talent, as they traveled under the city to get from place to place; their pizza wisdom, as they sat down for a big ol’ slice of pie; or their general understanding of how to be human in a city, in the case of Ted Cruz. Needless to say, some candidates quickly came out on top.

#1… John Kasich

While Kasich may be last in the polls, at least he was first in our hearts when he visited this local deli in the Bronx. With his “can do” attitude–which propelled him to eat two helpings of spaghetti, a personalized sandwich, and more–and a winning smile for the crowd, Kasich was easily the most charming visitor in New York.

A crazy and memorable scene in the Bronx this afternoon as Kasich stopped to chow down on some food at Mike’s Deli pic.twitter.com/FA2F8rQNEB

— Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) April 7, 2016

Unfortunately for Kasich, he doesn’t have a perfect NYC record after a pizza disaster a few weeks ago, in which he was seen eating a slice with a fork and a knife. Come on John, talk about detrimental gaffes!

John Kasich just ate his pizza with a fork and knife pic.twitter.com/KQ0UXCoJjN

— GIF The News (@NowThisGIF) March 30, 2016

Luckily for him, the likable dining-sesh at Mike’s Deli helped New Yorkers forgive and forget when it came to the recent pizz-astrophe, just not quite enough to actually put him ahead of Trump in any of the real polls.

#2… Donald Trump

As one of three candidates with actual ties to New York, Trump was a standout this past week. After repeatedly being attacked by Ted Cruz for his “New York values,” Trump took the opportunity to show exactly what he thinks New York values are. He and his wife, Melania Trump, toured the 9/11 Memorial Museum, also dropping a whopping $100,000 donation to the museum. With his name already all over a lot of the city, thanks to the Trump Tower, this donation just helped Trump secure what was already a pretty striking lead in his home state.

#3… Bernie Sanders

Sanders, another New York native, had a bit more of a rough go this week after he failed to answer some questions about the city correctly. When the Senator was asked to comment on the cheapest way to ride the subway, he jokingly cited jumping over the turnstile as the best way to save a quick buck–how cute! Unfortunately, when pressed a little further on the issue, Sanders showed just how lacking in city smarts he has become since moving to Vermont and working in D.C.:

What do you mean, ‘How do you ride the subway these days? You get a token and you get on.

For those of you who, like Sanders, may not have been on the subway in quite a while, the joke here is that subway tokens haven’t been used in New York in over a decade. Oops! Looks like your age is showing just a tad, Bernie. But, all in all, a valiant effort.

#4… Hillary Clinton

Clinton’s trip to New York may have been the most memorable and newsworthy visit, as it spurred tons of articles, parody videos, and internet memes making fun of her clear inability to use public transportation. For that reason alone, Clinton ranks near the very bottom of the list.

So, what actually happened? When entering any form of a subway system, the most annoying thing that can happen is someone holding up the turnstiles. And that’s exactly what Clinton did. It took not one, not two, but five swipes of her MetroCard to get through the turnstile. Talk about a serious city faux pas!

The good news about this gaffe? Her campaign has turned it into a quite hilarious 404 page on her website. Whenever you click a link or page that no longer exists on Clinton’s website, you are redirected to a gif of her swiping her MetroCard with a message that reads, “trying to get where you want to go? This page isn’t it.” While the campaign may be making light of a potentially negative situation, there’s only so much joking around you can do about a candidate’s ability to handle New York.

Clinton clearly wasn’t ready for the underground travel; how can we be sure she can handle the sad D.C. Metro or the country?

#5… Ted Cruz

Last on the list is Ted Cruz. Not only does this man not know how to act in the city, he straight up insulted NYC in a past debate with Donald Trump. After using “New York values” to insult Trump, Cruz was not welcomed with open arms when he traveled to the Bronx last week. A school in the Bronx canceled a visit from Cruz after the students threatened to stage a walk out because they didn’t agree with his views. Cruz was also heckled out of a restaurant where he was eating by angry protestors who believe that his anti-immigration platform is the opposite of everything people in the Bronx stand for. The Daily News featured nasty slogans, slamming Cruz for his anti-NY sentiment on multiple newspaper covers.

@Nannygal2 @amperg33 @wakeuppeopleSOS @tedcruz DROP DEAD TED! Now polling in NY at 16%!! NY HATES LYING TED!! pic.twitter.com/TuUAHS86jr

— Dawn Murray (@dawnellemurray) April 7, 2016

While there are obviously other factors to take into account when voting for president, these New York successes and failures could be pretty influential in swaying voters one way or another. What the candidates have hopefully learned from their New York trips is that it’s important to respect the places they campaign in and appreciate the diverse groups of people they will represent if elected president. After all, city and travel etiquette can say a lot about a person.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Who Did it Best? The Candidates Take on the Big Apple appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, voters in five states and Republicans in the North Mariana Islands will turn out to participate in their caucuses and primaries, but in one state, the electorate just got a little bit bigger. After a court ruling last week, registered 17-year-olds in Ohio will have the right to participate in the state’s primary elections on Tuesday, going against the Ohio secretary of state’s earlier interpretation of Ohio law.

The ruling, which came down in favor of nine 17-year-olds in Ohio, was praised by the Bernie Sanders campaign, the ACLU of Ohio, the League of Women Voters in Ohio, and the Fair Elections Network, all of which either sent letters or filed lawsuits against the secretary of state’s interpretation. According to FairVote, a non-partisan voting reform advocacy group, Ohio is now one of 23 states in which 17-year-olds who will be 18 before the general election can participate in at least one party’s primary.

According to Ohio law, any eligible voter who will be 18 on or before the date of the general election may vote in their party’s primary election, even if they are not 18 at that point. Here’s the official text of the law:

At a primary election every qualified elector who is or will be on the day of the next general election eighteen or more years of age, and who is a member of or is affiliated with the political party whose primary election ballot he desires to vote, shall be entitled to vote such ballot at the primary election.

So what caused the problem? While the statute may seem pretty clear, the Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s interpretation of the law took issue with 17-year-olds’ participation due to the nature of primary elections. Unlike regular elections, voters in primary elections technically elect delegates who go on to nominate a candidate at the parties respective conventions. The plaintiffs argue that electing delegates is the same as nominating, while Secretary of State Husted disagrees. Husted’s argument differentiates between votes that nominate and votes that elect. He claims that because the election is for delegates, voters who are not 18 cannot weigh in on the presidential election.

Ohio allows voters who are not 18 but will be by the time of the general election to participate in primary elections, but they are not allowed to vote on issues or directly elect party committee members–which seems to be the basis of Husted’s interpretation. However, in the complaint, the plaintiffs say that based on the way Ohio defines primary elections, as “an election held for the purpose of nominating persons as candidates of political parties for election to offices,” Husted’s interpretation has no basis. Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Richard Frye agreed, concluding that in the case of presidential primaries, voting to elect delegates has the same effect as nominating, and therefore, 17-year-olds should be entitled to cast a ballot.

After the ruling was handed down, Husted’s office issued a statement noting its disagreement with the judge, but ultimately saying that it would follow the ruling and not appeal. In the statement, Husted says, “I believe that Ohio law is clear and that my office has properly administered the law, just as previous Democrat and Republican Secretaries of State over the last two decades have done,” but added that he will follow the ruling and not challenge it further. He also notes, “Our elections system needs more stability and less chaos. This last minute legislating from the bench on election law has to stop.”

While the ruling may make it difficult for Ohio elections officials to properly count early voting from 17-year-olds, the judge instructed them to make all possible efforts to include their votes in the final count. While the ruling will likely only affect a small number of voters–individuals born between March 15 and November 8, 1999–it does set a clear precedent for the future.

Voting advocacy organizations like FairVote emphasize the potential benefits of lowering the voting age. By allowing individuals to vote when they are younger, they are more likely to make voting a habit and participate in civic life as they grow older. On balance, it seems like the ruling will be a net positive for young Ohioans.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawsuit Grants Some 17-Year-Old Ohioans the Right to Vote appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that Trump rallies are raucous affairs, in fact, that’s probably putting it mildly. On Friday night, Trump even cancelled a campaign event due to what he called security concerns, although the decision was made by the campaign and not local police.

A lot of blame has been passed around for the violence and the underlying forces that create it, but the true responsibility lies with Trump and his supporters engaging in it. When asked about his responsibility Trump merely deflects, arguing that he can’t be held responsible for his protestors. But he can, and more to the point, he should be, because it is clear that he plays a role in this violence.

Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren’t told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2016

If you’ve watched coverage of Trump’s campaign closely, you’ve undoubtedly seen clips of him interacting with the crowds at his rallies. Several people have collected all the instances of violence so I won’t go into every example, but let’s take a closer look at how he responds. It’s not that Trump deflects or shrugs off responsibility for the violence, he condones and promotes it. He justifies what happens by saying that his supporters are passionate and that it’s beautiful to watch. But he also goes a step further at his events. When protesters attempt to disrupt a speech, he engages with them and the crowd calling on people to kick his opponents out, he’s repeatedly offered to pay legal fees for supporters who beat up protestors, and he trashes protestors while praising people who attack them.

Another high profile incident happened recently when Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields was hurt at a campaign event. When walking up to ask Trump a question, Fields was aggressively pulled away from the candidate, leaving several bruises on her arm. A Washington Post reporter who saw the incident wrote that Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was the one who assaulted Fields. Video of the incident is unclear and the Trump Campaign and Breitbart have argued that it wasn’t Lewandowski. However Fields, Breitbart’s Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro, and spokesperson Kurt Bardella have all severed ties with the site, alleging that the campaign and the website are lying.

To be fair, some may criticize the media for playing up what happened to Michelle Fields. Journalists are very interested in what happens to other journalists so naturally this case has gotten a lot of coverage, but this isn’t an isolated incident and the possibility that her assault was from someone inside the Trump campaign makes it all the more concerning.

But more than that, the violence that goes on at Trump rallies and his response to it is emblematic of how Trump deals with things that are no longer acceptable in the United States. An example of this is the way he dealt with an issue surrounding support from the Ku Klux Klan. After David Duke, an infamous Klan leader, spoke out to support Donald Trump, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Trump if he would denounce Duke and the Klan in an interview. Trump’s response was troubling to say the least. He initially said that he didn’t know anything about David Duke then danced around the issue for several days, claiming that there was a problem with his earpiece during the interview and couldn’t hear the question. While Trump eventually made a clear disavowal of David Duke and the KKK, he took his time and sent a signal to his supporters.

This episode sparked a lot of debate, but arguably the best exchange occurred between two CNN commentators–Van Jones, an activist and former Obama Administration advisor, and Jeffrey Lord a former official in the Reagan administration. They debate Trump’s rhetoric, which Jones calls “playing funny with the Klan.” The altercation created a very compelling scene:

Ultimately, what all this tells us is that Trump’s actions speak to his leadership style–a style where he will refuse to take responsibility for his actions and the resulting actions of others, where he’ll justify violence with “passion,” and allow people to harm his opponents without intervening. It no longer seems like a stretch to think that a Trump presidency, with Trump in control of law enforcement agencies and the authority to issue unconditional pardons, could be particularly violent. And that’s just a question of leadership. When it comes to policy, Trump constantly misdirects, misinforms, and even outright lies to the public.

In the meantime, little has been done to stop Trump or challenge him to own up for what happens at his rallies. Now we are left waiting for the next incident at a Trump event, maybe it’s a serious injury, maybe it’s worse.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump and the Violence that Follows Him appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats in Nevada and Republicans in South Carolina took to the polls on Saturday to choose their parties’ nominee for President. When the dust settled, Donald Trump walked away with a commanding lead in the South Carolina primary while Hillary Clinton pulled out ahead in the Nevada primary. The recent contests help solidify the conventional wisdom about the election so far, but much of the analysis is still speculation. While many questions remain, we may soon have answers–Super Tuesday is approaching.

The GOP

Although each party has only held three contests in this year’s election season, the race is starting to take a distinctive shape. Donald Trump has managed to transition his significant lead in national and state polls into a sizeable lead in actual delegate counts after three contests. While most have remained skeptical of Trump throughout the early stages of the election cycle, his lead is becoming more and more difficult to refute.

With a second place finish in Iowa and two first place finishes by sizeable amounts in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Donald Trump sits well ahead of his challengers. Nate Silver at FivetThirtyEight has a nice breakdown of the impending battle between “Trump Optimists” and “Trump Skeptics” that will pan out in the ensuing weeks. While optimists cite Trump’s strong performance in recent contests and continued dominance in the polls, skeptics note that there may be a ceiling for his support; as more establishment-supported candidates drop out Republican voters could rally behind Trump’s most electable challenger.

The Dems

When it comes to the Democratic Party’s race, Hillary Clinton is starting to take more control over the race when it comes to coalition building and endorsements. When it comes to pledged delegates, which are awarded based on the results of state caucuses and primaries, Sanders and Clinton are basically tied. But when you factor in superdelegates–Clinton currently leads with over 500 total delegates while Sanders has just 70–Clinton has a commanding lead and some important momentum from Nevada. On Saturday, Clinton took away 19 delegates and Sanders managed to get 15. In a race to 2,383 delegates, the vast majority remain undetermined.

Sanders has surprised spectators and has proven to be a much stronger opponent than nearly anyone anticipated. But Clinton has managed to earn the support of some very important Democratic constituencies. In addition to a strong lead in superdelegates, who are Democratic Party leaders, Clinton has been endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus and retains a significant amount of support among union members–two very important Democratic voting blocks.

Hillary Clinton managed to win in Nevada, which is considerably more diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two primary states. While there is some debate over Clinton’s success among Latino voters in Nevada, she has managed to maintain a strong support among minority voters. That support is likely to play an important role in the coming primaries. Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight wrote a thorough breakdown of the demographics in the upcoming contests:

While only 13 percent of Nevada caucus-goers in 2016 were black, their share in South Carolina will be much higher (55 percent of South Carolina Democratic primary voters were black in 2008). That’s why Clinton is up by 25 percentage points in the South Carolina polls. Even beyond South Carolina, on Super Tuesday 63 percent of the delegates up for grabs will be in contests with a higher share of African-Americans than Nevada.

While most of the discussion so far rests largely on speculation, the important thing to keep in mind is that our picture of the race will soon get a much-needed dose of clarity–Super Tuesday is just over a week away. On March 1, 11 states vote to allocate around 880 delegates to the Democratic candidates. To put that in perspective, just over 100 pledged delegates have been assigned to candidates so far. The biggest change now is the fact that a lot of delegates are going to be determined very quickly. The pace of the campaign picks up considerably in March, which will tests the organization and reach of every campaign in new ways. The Democratic Party’s proportional system of delegate allocation, which awards candidates delegates based on their share of the popular vote, will likely keep the pledged delegate count close in the coming weeks. But if Clinton manages to take the lead after Super Tuesday, Sanders may have a hard time catching up to her.

Final Takeaways

Super Tuesday will be a big test for the Sanders campaign, which will need to compete with Clinton in a range of primaries spanning several demographic groups. We’ll also have to wait and see if Donald Trump can turn his massive polling lead into actual votes. While the so-called ceiling theory of Trump support will be tested soon, as it currently stands, establishment Republicans have the most to worry about.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Last Weekend, All Eyes are on Super Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

Good news everyone! Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz announced this week  that he plans to get rid of inefficiency in the U.S. military’s bureaucracy by cutting out adherence to political correctness, social experiments, and, oh, that’s right… gluten-free meals.

According to Cruz, gluten-free MREs (Meals Ready-to-Eat) are what’s really wrong with America’s military today–they’re reducing efficiency and stressing out our commanders. I mean, how in the world are we supposed to trust the men and women serving our country if they don’t even eat bread? Bread is pretty much the most American thing I can think of, and loving it is part of our civic duty. If Ted Cruz expressing his love for gluten in his policies is wrong, then quite frankly, I don’t want to be right.

Check out the video of his address aboard the USS Yorktown in which he attempts to win the military vote. It’s golden. In the speech, Cruz announces his ideas for Reaganesque military policy, which he hopes will keep us No. 1 in military strength worldwide. He even cited Regan’s policies as a model example of how we should run our country:

I am confident that if we put in the hard work we can, as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, rebuild our military so it will be so feared by our enemies and trusted by our allies that, God willing, we won’t have to use it. That is the essence of what President Reagan used to call “peace through strength.”

The best part of the video, by far, is the huge round of applause for Cruz’s announcement that he wants to fight against “plush-bottomed pentagon bureaucrats,” and the subsequent deafening silence after Cruz rails against providing gluten-free MREs.

But, isn’t celiac disease just a made up condition to rile up liberal voters, anyway? Unfortunately for Cruz–and everyone else who was under the impression that anti-bread lobby is the actual cause of America’s dilapidation–it turns out this harebrained scheme to avoid one of the world’s best nutrients (carbs!!!) is actually a real thing. According to the Celiac Disease Foundation, the consumption of gluten by people with celiac disease can seriously damage their small intestine. In addition, the disease affects one in every 100 people. And people with a parent or sibling with celiac have a one-in-10 chance of developing the disease in their lifetime. What that means for Cruz’s plan is that not all people can enjoy bread the way he can (click here to see what we can only imagine Cruz does when alone with his favorite gluten-based foods), so getting rid of gluten-free options may not be his best plan.

The real question of the day is: is it really gluten-free meals that are ruining our country? Doubtful. Don’t get me wrong, I love bread as much as then next guy, but, infuriatingly slow bureaucracy and red tape aren’t going to be fixed by sprinkling some wheat on the situation. Saving a quick buck or two by producing less diverse meals for our men and women in service won’t fix the deficit. If anything, this policy announcement could alienate military voters who feel like Cruz is trying to decrease services for members of the armed forces. It has aggravated people on the internet and even got #tedlovesbread trending, which can’t be good for his campaign… or can it, if he’s going for the whole “any press is good press” strategy.

Cruz should really get his act together if he actually wants a shot at being president, but, then again, it’s not like his competition has avoided all embarrassing moments and weird policy ideas (Donald Trump’s wall, Ben Carson’s biblical tax plan, any and everything Jeb! has ever done). One thing is clear about his policies: a lot of us feel the same way about them as Cruz’s daughter feels about kissing him… just kind of “ew.”

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Bread Cruz for President! appeared first on Law Street.

The saying, “The system is rigged” is one of Bernie Sanders’ favorite lines on the campaign trail. He gives speech after speech highlighting economic injustice and inequality that reiterates the same sentiment. It’s why so many of his supporters are passionate in their support for his campaign, but Sanders’ animosity towards the system may expand in the coming months to an additional target: the Democratic Party’s primary system.

When news broke that Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary by more than 20 percent, yet may tie Hillary Clinton in delegates, Sanders supporters and Hillary-haters were irate. How could this be? What sort of system lets that happen? Welcome to the primaries, where everything’s made up and the points don’t matter. Okay, they matter a little bit, but it’s complicated. To understand the outrage after the New Hampshire primary, you need to look closer at the role of superdelegates.

So in this installment of “Why the Primaries are Weird,” we’ll be diving into everyone’s favorite subject: delegate math–specifically the Democratic Party and its superdelegates.

How do Delegates Work?

Before we get into the absurdity that is superdelegates, let’s do a quick review of how delegates come into play in the primary system. Each state elects delegates, individual party members who are pledged to a certain candidate based on the outcome of the state’s primary or caucus. The way delegates are chosen varies widely by state, but the important thing to know is that they are based on the outcome of a primary or caucus. Generally speaking, delegates are allocated proportionally based on their share of the vote in an individual state’s primary or caucus.

Delegates elected at the state level are then bound to a specific candidate, meaning that when the Democratic and Republican conventions occur after the primaries, elected delegates cast their votes for the candidate that they are pledged to. When all is said and done, the candidate with a majority of the delegates in the party convention wins the nomination and proceeds to the general election.

What about superdelegates?

The process outlined above is the way that Republicans choose their nominee and how the Democrats allocate most of their delegates, but not all. Enter superdelegates, a group of individuals chosen by the party who are allowed to vote in the Democratic Convention alongside the elected pledged delegates. The difference between superdelegates and regular delegates is their “unpledged” nature. Regular delegates are pledged to support a specific candidate based on the outcome of a state’s primary or caucus. Superdelegates are not pledged and are essentially free to vote however they wish at the Democratic Convention.

Superdelegates are Senators, Congressmen, and state party officials, and essentially exist to give the Democratic Party more control over their nominating process. While each party has additional delegates for “party leaders and elected officials” (PLEOs), all Republican PLEOs and most Democratic PLEOs are pledged, meaning that they are bound, at least in some way, to the results of state elections. The remaining unpledged PLEOs are the superdelegates.

To win the Democratic nomination, you need to have at least 50 percent of the 4,763 total delegates, making it a race to 2,382 delegates. Out of the 4,763 total delegates, 712 are unpledged superdelegates, approximately 15 percent. This means that a candidate could conceivably lose the popular vote and still win the nomination with the support of enough superdelegates. This is how Sanders was able to win the popular vote by a massive margin while possibly tying Clinton in the delegate count. Six of New Hampshire’s eight superdelegates support Clinton, so the race appears much more even. In fact, Clinton had a large national lead over Sanders before the race even started because of the number of superdelegates who say they will support herm though it is important to note that these superdelegates have up until the Democratic Convention to change their mind.

So… Blame Hillary?

No, you can’t blame Hillary Clinton. This is a perfect example of “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” You don’t have to like Hillary Clinton as a person or as a candidate, but she is not responsible for the Democratic Party’s undemocratic system of choosing its nominee. Sanders, a candidate who isn’t even really a Democrat, is inherently disadvantaged by the system, but that doesn’t make it Clinton’s fault.

I’m not defending Hillary Clinton, I’m just saying that if you are mad about the system, which is understandable, you should be mad at the Democratic Party. But before you claim that superdelegates are just another way that the Democratic Party is sidelining Bernie Sanders, you should remember that this system has been around since the 1980s and probably isn’t going away anytime soon. In a perfect bout of irony, to get rid of superdelegates, the superdelegates themselves would have to make the final decision.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How do Superdelegates Work? And Why are People so Mad? appeared first on Law Street.

Dixville Notch. That’s the name of a small town in New Hampshire, and not, as you may have expected, the name of a Southern lawyer from the 1920s. Actually, the word town isn’t technically correct, as it’s designated as an “unincorporated community in the Dixville township.” The only reason anyone has heard of Dixville Notch is because the town has the honor of being the first town to vote in the New Hampshire primaries. To illustrate just how small Dixville Notch is: the community’s population tally in 2010 was a whopping 12 people.

In the wacky world of primaries and caucuses, where some of the most powerful people in the country pretend that Iowa is their favorite state, sometimes small towns like Dixville Notch get their fifteen minutes of fame.

This all happens because New Hampshire law allows a town with fewer than a hundred residents to open polls at midnight, and close polling as soon as the last ballot is cast. Why? Because “Live Free or Die,” that’s why. Dixville Notch isn’t the only town who has taken advantage of this law, as there is a nearby town named Hart’s Location which has a similar tradition. One key difference: the citizens of Hart’s Location grew tired of the media attention for a few decades, and suspended the tradition from 1948 to 1996. I like to imagine that Hart’s Location is a bustling metropolis of forty-one people, who look down on the twelve townsfolk of Dixville Notch for living simple lives.

One man, Neil Tillotson, (who has a bizarre and fascinating Wikipedia page) had the ceremonial honor of casting the first ballot, which he would do by holding his slip above the ballot box with one hand, checking his watch on the other hand, and dropping his vote in at the exact stroke of midnight. He has since passed away at 102 in 2001, and now the first to vote is randomly selected.

There has only once been one tie in the history of Dixville Notch, and while that statement could feasibly be about neckties given the size of the population, here it refers to a tie in voting. This occurred in 2012, when Mitt Romney and Barack Obama each received five votes.

Dixville Notch is just one of several small towns across the country that draws attention during the insane election season. Remember when Polk County, Iowa was momentarily nationally relevant? In a political system governed by archaic and bizarre rules, with caucuses and coin-flips, midnight voting and pork-eating, quirks like Dixville Notch’s voting tradition add a little levity to the tiresome ordeal.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dixville Notch: A Small Town On The Big Stage appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama made an appearance at an American mosque on Wednesday for the first time in his presidency, a symbolic act during a time when anti-Islamic rhetoric is growing. The mosque, at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, was at one time just a small gathering place but has now grown into one of the largest Islamic communities in the Mid-Atlantic.

“If we’re serious about freedom of religion—and I’m talking to my fellow Christians who are the majority in this country—we have to understand that an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths,” Obama said to the crowd gathered at the mosque.

Obama stressed the importance of unity among all Americans, especially amongst different faith communities. Obama also praised the Muslim community for its contribution and role in America’s history. The United States is home to 1.8 million Muslim adults and 2.75 million Muslims of all ages, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Muslim Americans keep us safe,” said Obama. “They are our police. They are our firefighters. They’re in [the Department of] Homeland Security.”

This is not the first time a president has visited a mosque. George W. Bush visited one shortly after the 9/11 attacks, whereas Obama has only been to mosques outside of the country.

During his presidency, Obama has been asked by many different Muslim groups to visit mosques as well as to publicly denounce the comments made by 2016 presidential candidates and the growing Islamophobia in general. However, it was not until Wednesday–seven years into his presidency–that President Obama first stepped foot inside an American mosque.

This trip is a bit more complicated for Obama than it was for George W. Bush. The President has been constantly criticized for being a “closeted Muslim,” making his visit in light of those conspiracy theorists a tricky thing to work around. A CNN/ORC poll done in September found that 29 percent of Americans said that they believe that Obama is a Muslim; among Republicans, it was 43 percent.

Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio host, often refers to Obama as “Imam Barack Hussein Obama,” putting more of the emphasis on the words “Imam” and “Hussein.” He has also asked, “…why can’t we call Imam Obama America’s first Muslim president?”

Timing is a key factor for his recent visit. This election cycle has brought out increased Islamophobia among Americans and shown how polarized the issue of terrorism really is.

During this election cycle more than one Republican presidential candidate has spoken out against Islam altogether:

“Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.” – Donald Trump, Nov. 2015

“It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down any place — whether it’s a cafe, a diner, an internet site — any place where radicals are being inspired.” – Marco Rubio, Nov. 2015

“[There is] a fundamental foundational problem in Islam of embracing issues of freedom of conscience and religious persecution.” – Rick Santorum, Sept. 2015

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.” – Ben Carson, Sept. 2015

In reference to the alleged Muslim “no-go zones” in Europe, former candidate Bobby Jindal said, “If we’re not careful the same no-go zones you’re seeing now in Europe will come to America.”

The refugee issue has also caused candidates Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz to propose that preference should be given to Christian refugees, claiming that Christians are at no risk of committing violent crimes.

In contrast, here is what the Democratic candidates have been saying:

“I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists…you can talk about Islamists who also are clearly jihadists.” – Hillary Clinton, Nov. 2015

“It’s always playing one group against another. That’s how the rich got richer while everybody else was fighting each other. Our job is to build a nation in which we all stand together.” [in response to islamophobic rhetoric] – Bernie Sanders, Oct. 2015

During a time when the anti-Muslim rhetoric is growing, not only among presidential candidates but also in the general public, the President’s visit was crucial in his effort to combat the nonacceptance and fear felt by many Muslim-Americans.

Here is the full video of President Obama’s speech:

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Visits an American Mosque For the First Time appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump finished second in Iowa, no one knew what to expect as he reacted. Would he accept the democratic outcome of the election? Would he lash out at the people of Iowa, which he’s momentarily done in the past? By the end of the night, everyone’s questions were answered when Trump took the stage. Surprising many, Trump’s reaction came across, well, classy. But that wasn’t his last word on the subject; after he had a little more time it seems like he changed his mind.

Here’s his speech in Iowa:

“We finished second and I want to tell you something, I’m just honored. I’m really honored. And I want to congratulate Ted [Cruz] and I want to congratulate all of the incredible candidates including Mike Huckabee who’s become a really good friend of mine,” Trump said in his speech after Cruz was declared the winner. In the speech, he thanked his opponents, he praised his staff, and congratulated the winner. To finish off, he even said he’d consider coming back to Iowa to buy a farm.

But Trump’s good will and acceptance didn’t last long. Naturally, Trump’s first inclination was to go after the media. After tweeting about his great experience in Iowa and how he was satisfied with the outcome, he tweeted, “The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!” To be fair, he is right that turnout was very high on Monday–almost 40 percent higher than in 2012–and that he fared best among first-time voters.

Trump’s usual assault on the media continued on Twitter, but he eventually shifted focus to Ted Cruz. Once Cruz gave his 32-minute victory speech, Trump quickly shifted tact:

Anybody who watched all of Ted Cruz’s far too long, rambling, overly flamboyant speech last nite would say that was his Howard Dean moment!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2016

On Wednesday, Trump began an all-out assault on Cruz, accusing him of cheating and stealing the election.

Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

During primetime of the Iowa Caucus, Cruz put out a release that @RealBenCarson was quitting the race, and to caucus (or vote) for Cruz. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Many people voted for Cruz over Carson because of this Cruz fraud. Also, Cruz sent out a VOTER VIOLATION certificate to thousands of voters.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

And finally, Cruz strongly told thousands of caucusgoers (voters) that Trump was strongly in favor of ObamaCare and “choice” – a total lie!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Believe it or not, Trump again has a couple fair points. Cruz was responsible for a legitimately nefarious direct mailer that his campaign sent out to essentially scare people into voting. Many Iowans received a letter from the Cruz campaign with their voting “scores” (which aren’t a real thing) as well as the scores of their neighbors. This strategy is based on a piece of political science research about direct mail and voter turnout, but the Cruz campaign took it to a new extreme. The letters were intended to pressure voters to turn out to improve their “voting score” and it even alleged that the recipients committed some sort of “voting violation.”

The Iowa Secretary of State quickly denounced the mailers, issuing a statement saying,

Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a ‘voting violation’ based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.

He went on to note that caucuses are not even conducted by the state government, rather they are under the control of political parties. It is also important to note, however, that Cruz is not alone in his use of extremely misleading mailers, Marco Rubio sent a equally dubious letter to voters as well.

Trump also criticized Cruz’s response to news that Ben Carson was not going to travel directly to New Hampshire after the caucuses. The Carson campaign alleged that Cruz spun the news as if Carson was dropping out of the race in an effort to change the minds of caucus-goers. Cruz eventually apologized saying that spreading the news was fair game, but that a clarification should have been sent out when it was clear that Carson was not leaving the race.

While Trump’s criticism of Cruz has some surprisingly reasonable points, it’s unlikely that his tactics shifted the balance of the elections. As the Washington Post points out, Carson actually outperformed polling predictions and Bloomberg notes that Cruz sent the mailers out to about 3,000 potential voters yet won by more than 6,000 votes.  Ultimately, Trump went so far as to call for a new election, or at least for the existing results to be invalidated.

Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Over the course of a few days, Donald Trump went from congratulating Ted Cruz on his win to outright calling him a liar and a cheater. But then again, did we really expect anything else?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Might Not be a Gracious Loser After All appeared first on Law Street.

Amidst commentary on how Hillary Clinton has ramped up, pointed attacks on Bernie Sanders, and Sanders’ constant mention of how well he is polling, you may have missed one of the most interesting points of the Democratic debate this past weekend: a 17-year-old boy in a handmade silk jacket who–although he didn’t seem out of place–certainly wasn’t where he was supposed to be.

Louis Shenker, a 17-year-old from Longmeadow, Massachusetts was seen on national television as he walked on stage to shake hands with the presidential hopefuls, but that definitely wasn’t the most exciting part of Shenker’s night. In a blog post written by the teen himself this Thursday, Shenker talks all about the pains he went through to get on stage that night, which include some pretty impressive feats. From claiming to be Martin O’Malley’s son to worming his way into the debate hall, this kid may have just pulled off one of the most impressive break-ins of the century.

So, how did he do it? According to Shenker, the recipe for success–when it comes to making your way on stage with some of the country’s most important people–is apparently comprised of a couple of white lies, a slightly above average knowledge of attendees of the Democratic debate, and a hell of a lot of confidence. Or at least, that’s what he claims in his blog post. Apparently Shenker had also snuck into the Republican debate less than a week before, though, he made less of a splash there and mostly hung in the shadows.

The teenage hero–and supposedly qualified didgeridoo player–started his evening by walking up to the gates of the Gaillard Center and claiming he was told he would receive a ticket to the event at the gate. He mentioned he was a representative of several Jewish organizations and was quickly swept up in the crowd, given a staffer pass, and whisked away to help direct people arriving at the event’s entrances. He then weaseled his way inside the media room by announcing he was writing an article for the World Jewish Congress. Finally, Shenker made his way to the main room of the debate by telling security he was a seat filler–could this guy get any more ballsy? In a last ditch attempt to secure the world’s most impressive fake-out, Shenker made it on stage after the debate, writing in his blog that his motivation was as follows:

At this point I said to myself fuck it I was going to get on stage with the candidates. So I followed the families of the candidates through the side exit to backstage and past many secret service agents none of which stopped me. Then I was onstage.

The cameras went live, and there he was, on almost every TV in the nation, immediately gaining attention for his stylish fashion sense and youthful looks. Shenker said his phone was immediately blowing up with snapchats, texts, and tweets from his friends back home who were shocked when they saw his face, front and center, shaking Hillary Clinton’s hand. Some people questioned Shenker’s presence on stage (and his choice of jacket) at the end of the debate, taking to the internet to voice their opinions and surprise:

Did anyone else see this child at the #DemDebate ?? Like a Thanksgiving themed jacket?? pic.twitter.com/e9MsQR6Mzu

— David Lew (@davidlew) January 18, 2016

 

Gonna need to know more about this jacket. #DemDebate#TheRealIssuespic.twitter.com/wjPMxUDSnb

— Kyle (@semiserious) January 18, 2016

Honestly, this had to have been a pretty cool night and an experience we can all probably be jealous of. Shenker met countless celebrities, was featured on national television in a suave, retro jacket, and pulled off a pretty magnificent stunt. His blog has gone viral and he has gained almost instant fame–Killer Mike even gave him a shoutout on Twitter.

The moral of the story? Take some risks, I guess. Don’t be afraid to shoot for the stars because, sometimes, you may literally be able to reach them. As cheesy as it sounds, we can all probably take a page out of Shenker’s book and follow his words of advice:

 If there is one thing this experience has taught me it is if you act like you are supposed to be somewhere people will believe you.

As the new year keeps rolling in, I know I’ll be keeping this advice in the back of my mind. And, hey, maybe if the presidential candidates start acting a little bit more like they belong in the White House, they too can achieve their dreams.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post What We Can Learn from the Boy who Snuck into the Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

In light of the recent tragedy in Paris, the fight against ISIS is likely to retake the spotlight. In a press conference on Monday, President Obama was forced to defend his current strategy for the Middle East, as his opponents argue that the United States needs to take a stronger approach to prevent future terrorist attacks on the western world.

Currently, the United States is leading an international coalition of airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In addition to airstrikes, a force of over 3,000 U.S. advisors is on the ground in Iraq to train the local military. The focus of the campaign is to build up ground forces in the region, notably the Iraqi army and moderate Syrian rebels, while supporting established groups as they fight ISIS. So far, the goal has been to contain ISIS, prevent it from taking additional land, and slowly take back territory without the direct use of American soldiers on the ground.

At the end of October, the president announced that he was sending up to 50 special operations troops in Syria to coordinate ground forces there. While the addition of American ground forces in Syria marks a possible departure from Obama’s promise not to use ground forces in Syria, he emphasized that the general strategy remains unchanged. We also know that prior to that announcement, U.S. special forces have been embarking on covert raids against ISIS. One such raid led to the first American combat fatality in Iraq since 2011, while U.S. forces rescued 70 hostages facing what anonymous sources told CNN was “imminent mass execution.”

The Obama administration argues that training local forces, rather than using U.S. troops, is crucial for stability in the long term, but doing so also requires a lot of time. One aspect of the U.S. strategy that has generally failed is the effort to train and build up a force in Syria. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter recently told Congress that the army has only managed to train about 60 Syrian fighters to take on ISIS. As a result, the Defense Department shifted its plan in Syria to support existing forces rather than build new ones.

President Obama’s strategy has been relatively successful in terms of containing and pushing back ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but in light of the recent attacks in Paris many argue the current response is not strong enough. While criticism of the current strategy in the Middle East is easy to find, an alternative strategy is more elusive. Most, like Republican candidates, argue that the United States needs to take a stronger tone in the region, but few have said how they would actually do so. John Kasich argues that boots on the ground are necessary to defeat ISIS, but he has not yet said how many would be required. Lindsey Graham is so far the only candidate who has given a specific policy plan for the region, calling on the United States to deploy 20,000 troops to Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS.

Donald Trump has said that he would “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, but he has been generally vague on details beyond that–though if you ask him, vagueness is actually his intention. Jeb Bush has said that the United States needs to declare war on ISIS, which would include the imposition of a no-fly zone. He has also called on Obama to consult with military leaders to figure out how to defeat ISIS and then enact that strategy, but he has not directly offered a plan beyond the need for U.S. leadership in the region. Marco Rubio has criticized the current strategy while coincidentally offering a plan that looks very similar to the current strategy. However, he argues that only Sunni forces will be able to defeat ISIS, who claim to be Sunni Muslims themselves.

In a press conference at the G20 Summitt on Monday, President Obama addressed his critics while stating that the current strategy in the Middle East will remain in place. He reiterated his view that using local forces to fight ISIS is the most effective way to build stability and prevent a resurgence. When asked about the use of U.S. troops, he highlighted the threat that ISIS poses beyond its territory in Iraq and Syria:

And let’s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there’s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? Or if there’s a terrorist network that’s operating anywhere else — in North Africa, or in Southeast Asia?

The nature of the threat posed by ISIS is becoming increasingly more complicated as the group begins to act outside of its territory in Iraq and Syria. Critics argue that the United States needs to take a much stronger stance in Iraq and Syria, but few have proposed a vision of what that would look like.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the U.S. Strategy to Fight ISIS? appeared first on Law Street.

We’ve all heard Donald Trump say some off-color things–after all he kicked off his campaign that way– but lately it seems like he’s getting more and more fed up with the way things are going, and refuses to apologize for it. In a 95-minute speech to a large crowd in Davenport, Iowa, Trump went on his most recent, and quite possibly his most exasperated rant yet.

Trump, who showed up to the event 40 minutes late, sounded like he lost his voice and at times ran out of breath while ranting about the state of the Republican primary and the United States in general. He began his speech on Thursday with the topic of illegal immigration, a subject that has become central to his campaign, but he didn’t stop there.

Over the course of his speech he touched on several classic Trump themes and sayings. “We don’t win anymore,” he lamented and “I’ll be the best jobs president that God ever created.” He also called several politicians “stupid,” for negotiating bad deals, most notably President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

While most of these antics seem like the standard practice for the colorful real estate mogul, he continued for over an hour and a half on arguably his most intense rant of the campaign. Much of his discussion focused on the military, specifically the United States’ involvement in the Middle East. At one point he claimed that he would have stopped the 9/11 attacks:

I wrote a book, ‘The America We Deserve’–in 2000–where I said there’s a guy named Osama Bin Laden, in my book! And we better watch him… I said, ‘there’s a guy, Osama bin Laden, and we better do something about him because he’s gonna go under a rock’–and this is what I said in the book–and three years later the World Trade Center came down with him.

He also talked about more contemporary military challenges, notably how he would deal with the Islamic State. After recanting his initial reluctance to divulge the details of his grand strategy (so as not to inform the enemy) he laid out a bold plan:

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil camps, they have certain areas of oil that they took away, some in Syria some in Iraq, I would bomb the shit out of ’em. I would just bomb those suckers. I’d blow up the pipes, I’d blow up the refineries, I’d blow up every single inch, there’d be nothing left.

At the beginning of Trump’s speech, the crowd fed off of his enthusiasm, cheering when Trump refused to be “politically correct.” But as he went on, the crowd’s applause became less frequent and more tepid. Those standing in the bleachers behind his podium started to sit down after about an hour and 20 minutes of talking. When he started discussing his competition in the primary race, the audience appeared to become somewhat uncomfortable. The Washington Post notes, “As Trump attacked Carson using deeply personal language, the audience grew quiet, a few shaking their heads. A man sitting in the back of the auditorium loudly gasped.”

Trump became particularly animated, and at times distraught, when he discussed his opponents. He first teed off on Hillary Clinton, claiming that she is “playing the women’s card,” and argued that her gender is the limit of her appeal. After Clinton, he moved on to his competition in the Republican primary. The most notable attack, however, was saved for Ben Carson, who has become his most significant challenger in the polls.

He started by saying, “now Carson’s an enigma to me,” and he continued to note that “he wrote a book, and in the book he said terrible things about himself. He said he’s pathological and that he’s got, basically, pathological disease.” He continued to rip into Carson exclaiming,

I don’t want a person whose got pathological disease… I’m not saying it! He said he’s got pathological disease… If you’re pathological, there’s no cure for that, folks.

Next, he referenced an interview that he did on CNN earlier that day. In the interview, he essentially compared Carson to a child molester, a claim that despite there being no evidence to back up, he repeated in Davenport.

If you’re a child molester, a sick puppy, there’s no cure for that… if you’re a child molester, there’s no cure. Pathological–there’s no cure… So he’s a pathological, damaged, temper, a problem.

At one point when discussing Carson’s life story–which involved him attempting to stab one of his friends at a young age only to be stopped by his friend’s belt buckle–Trump stepped away from the mic to demonstrate with his own belt.

“How stupid are the people of Iowa? How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?” Trump bemoaned. He finished his analysis of Carson’s story saying, “And he goes into the bathroom for a couple of hours and he comes out and now he’s religious… And the people of Iowa believe him. Give me a break.”

Trump is generally pessimistic about the current state of the country, after all, he wants to “make America great again,” but this time it seemed like he had just about had enough. He couldn’t understand Carson’s surge in the polls, he thinks American politicians are stupid, and he just can’t quite figure out why everyone doesn’t love him.

I don’t want to be the 100th person to mark “the beginning of the end” for Donald Trump’s presidential bid, but it’s becoming clear that campaigning is wearing on him. Truthfully, it’s impossible to say what’s next for Trump, but if his campaign does end prematurely, he might actually be fine with that. “I go back to my life,” he said, “I don’t have to do interviews, which I don’t like doing to be honest with you,” and “I can leave the scum back here, the press, alone… I don’t need them anymore.”

If you want to subject yourself to the pain, here’s the full video:

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Goes on Bizarre and Exasperated Rant in Iowa appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been about a month since the Obama administration publicly announced that the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were completed, and just last week the full text of the agreement was released to the public. It will be the largest free-trade agreement in history, including 12 counties and roughly 40 percent of the global economy.

The umbrella agreement writes universal rules and standards for trade markets around the Pacific. Although all the countries involved still need to ratify the agreement, the release is an important step in that direction. In the United States, President Obama is now in the midst of securing Congressional consent, despite heavy criticism. This will likely be an uphill battle that comes down to one basic question: will the TPP benefit the U.S. economy and global markets? While the text of the 30-chapter deal was only recently made public, trade groups and labor unions are already entrenched in their support or opposition for the deal, which will become even more contentious in the coming months.

An Overview of the TPP

Who is involved?

In total, there are 12 countries involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, namely the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Singapore, and New Zealand. Indonesia may also join in the future.

Why does the United States support the TPP?

According to the White House, the TPP will establish American leadership and influence in the Pacific. President Obama strongly supports the deal because he believes that it will strengthen the U.S. economy and national security. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, the deal is meant further U.S. interests and create an equal playing field for everyone “by requiring other countries to play by fair wage, safe workplace, and strong environmental rules that we help set.” The TPP will also cut over 18,000 taxes that countries have on American goods and services, which may help American companies gain additional access to global markets.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is intended to make the United States highly competitive in the Pacific while prioritizing American interests and values. According to the White House, the TPP does this by eliminating preferential treatment of state-owned enterprises over American businesses, protecting trade secrets, ensuring open internet access, and creating fair markets between the United States and foreign countries.

What’s Covered by the TPP?

In short, almost everything. The pact will affect 12 countries and over 40 percent of the world’s economy and a massive amount of goods and services. For example, tariffs will be removed on textiles and clothing and potentially eliminated for carmakers. Tariffs on American cars are as high as 70 percent in Vietnam, making their removal a major win for the U.S. auto industry. Currently, American poultry is taxed up to 40 percent in some countries and soybeans are taxed as highly as 35 percent. Other foods that may be affected include dairy, sugar, wine, rice, and seafood. Major food-exporting countries like New Zealand and Australia stand to benefit from the removal of these barriers.

Removing tariffs is not the only potential consequence of the TPP; there are also notable, but controversial, patent protection provisions. The TPP would allow pharmaceutical companies eight years of protection on new biotech drugs. Doing so ensures that pharmaceutical companies can profit from new groundbreaking drugs, but may also keep prices high as competitors have to wait longer to make generic versions. The TPP intends to removal global internet barriers as well. For example, Google will be able to sell products in foreign markets that are currently restricted. The intended reduction of global roaming charges could cause an increase in competition among Telecom heavyweights. For more information on the intellectual property implications of the TPP check out Sam Whitsell’s issues brief explainer.

The TPP also creates new labor standards for all countries involved. Each country must adhere to the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The TPP protects unions, prohibits child labor and forced labor, and standardizes minimum wage and work hours, along with a variety of other protections. The agreement also strengthens international environmental standards with new resource protections. The White House argues that these provisions will “level the playing field” between the United States and the other countries and President Obama has also called it the “most progressive trade deal in history.”

Where is China?

It’s called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, right? One could reasonably think that China’s massive economy would be involved–China is the largest exporter and second largest importer in the world. But China has, so far, not played a role in the negotiations and has no plans to join the agreement.

In fact, the White House argues that, “with the TPP, we can rewrite the rules of trade to benefit America’s middle class. Because if we don’t, competitors who don’t share our values, like China, will step in to fill that void.” The TPP specifically attempts to work around what some perceive to be obstructionism from China. Despite being part of the World Trade Organization (WTO), China has made free trade agreements more challenging to develop. The TPP ultimately allows for Chinese inclusion, but isn’t designed to “Chinese specifications” and cannot be vetoed by China. The agreement seeks to spread Western values to many of China’s important trading partners.

Some believe sidelining China is a mistake, even if the United States is trying to limit China’s control. Felipe Caro and Christopher Tang, business professors at UCLA, argue that the idea that China can be locked out of the agreement is naive, as China is the world’s leading trading nation. China has loaned money to and indebted a variety of countries, in an effort to spread its influence abroad. As of the end of 2014, China gave Bangladesh $3.8 billion and Pakistan $17.8 billion, which illustrates the power and influence that China has in many developing nations. Furthermore, China is aiming to create the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, an international bank that according to Caro and Tang “would help finance infrastructure projects across the Asia Pacific.” They further note that the bank has the support of “47 regional and 20 non­regional members, including TPP nations, such as Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam.”

China also has pre-established trade agreements with a number of TPP members. This could severely hinder the efficiency of the TPP in practice. China has a lot of leverage at its disposal and leaving China out of the negotiations may have unforeseen consequences.

TPP Lingo

While Congress has not yet decided on the Trans-Partnership itself, there have been a number of votes on related issues. Before we get into those, let’s go over some of the acronyms that get thrown around in discussions of the TPP.

The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP): A separate trade deal that the United States is negotiating with the European Union. According to the U.S. Trade Representative:

T-TIP will help unlock opportunity for American families, workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers through increased access to European markets for Made-in-America goods and services. This will help to promote U.S. international competitiveness, jobs and growth.

This agreement is related to the Trans-Pacific Partnership in that it will also utilize the Trade Promotion Authority that was recently passed by Congress–which brings us to our next definition.

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): This simply means that Congress cannot amend or filibuster the TPP or TTIP. Congress must vote on each trade deal exactly as it is–yes or no. Trade Promotion Authority is what many refer to as the “fast track” method. It authorizes the president to formalize trade agreements with countries abroad, limiting Congress to simply voting to approve an agreement. In terms of Congressional oversite, TPA will give members of Congress access to read the negotiating text, receive briefings on negotiations, have time to review the deal, and outline objectives for the U.S. Trade Representative.

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA): Initially created in the Trade Act of 1974, it offers compensation to workers and companies hurt by trade agreements, along with job search and training assistance. According to GovTrack, the current TAA would give states more control over job assistance and reduce healthcare costs to workers affected by the TPP. Historically, trade assistance has always been associated with Trade Promotion Authority because it appeases Democrats, who worry about the effect of trade agreements on blue collar workers. Although TAA initially failed in Congress after it was separated from TPA, it was eventually included in the Trade Preferences Extension Act, which passed several days later.

Criticism of the TPP

There are many TPP supporters who believe that the agreement will stimulate economic growth in all countries involved. President Obama wrote in a press release that “if we can get this agreement to my desk, then we can help our businesses sell more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can help more American workers compete and win.” However, there are many loud critics of the partnership in the United States.

A major fear is that American jobs will be shipped overseas to developing countries. The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the TPP’s predecessor, remains controversial in the United States. Although some claim NAFTA boosted small to medium sized American businesses, others argued that the agreement resulted in the loss of thousands of domestic jobs to foreign countries. Free trade agreements inspire competition between international labor forces, which can cause jobs to move to where businesses can save money. For example, with increased integration under the TPP, the American labor force could be forced to compete with workers in Vietnam where the hourly wage is $2.75 and labor laws are less strict.

Others also argue that the politics of other nations involved are equally delicate. For example, Australia has a major problem with the TPP’s potential consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, as it will extend the length of patents for drug companies. Critics claim that these extensions will result in decreased competition, leading to inflated prices for name brand drugs. Poorer countries could have even less access to life-saving medicines due to the influence of intellectual property protections on drug prices.

It is also interesting to note that Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, a former supporter of the TPP as Secretary of State, recently came out against the deal after having supported it in the earlier stages of negotiations. When asked about her stance on the deal in the Democratic debate, Clinton responded:

It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, ‘this will help raise your wages.’ And I concluded I could not.

She expanded on her position in an interview with PBS.

It seems that Democrats and Republicans alike have doubts on this agreement, despite its aggressive backing from the White House.

Conclusion

Although the text of the deal was only released recently, the fight behind it has become particularly heated over the past several months. As politicians, trade and labor groups, and the public continue to review the text it is likely that it will become even more controversial in the coming weeks. Congress will soon have to vote on the deal, which could have wide-ranging implications for the United States and other members of the protocol.

Resources

Primary

Medium: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

The White House: How the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Boosts Made in America Exports, Supports Higher-Paying American Jobs, and Protects American Workers

The White House: Statement by the President on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The White House: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Additional

BBC: TPP Trade Deal: Who are the Winners and Losers?

CNN Money: Why Everyone Hates Obama’s Signature Trade Deal

Fortune: Leaving China out of the TPP is a Terrible Mistake

The Atlantic: Why Americans Are Turning Against Free Trade

BBC: TPP: What is it and Why Does it matter?

Gov Track: How Congress Voted on Trade?

Politifact: What Hillary Clinton Really Said About TPP and the ‘Gold Standard’

USTR: Strategic Importance of the TPP

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on With the Trans-Pacific Partnership? appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, November 7, Donald Trump will host Saturday Night Live, which in addition to being particularly entertaining television could lead to free airtime for his opponents.

Dating all the way back to the Communications Act of 1934, broadcast channels that feature a candidate for federal office provide “equal opportunity” to opposing candidates who request their airtime. While there are several notable exceptions for news programming, this rule basically entitles Trump’s opposition to request free airtime on all NBC affiliates that air Saturday Night Live.

Because Trump is hosting the show, he will probably get somewhere between 20 to 25 minutes of airtime, which means that if his opponents submit free time requests NBC affiliate stations could be on the hook for a lot of free airtime. But this is also where several questions emerge. Equal opportunity only applies to “qualified candidates,” which according to the rule must have filed all of the necessary paperwork and made a “substantial showing” of his or her intention to seek the nomination. Any Republican who can prove that he or she is a qualified candidate may be entitled to free airtime.

The rule applies to all NBC affiliates that air SNL but not the network itself, meaning that individual stations would be charged with negotiating equal opportunity airtime. So far, most campaigns have focused on early primary and caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which means that candidates’ requests may not meet the requirements in all states. Requests also need to be made within a week of Trump’s SNL appearance, but if airtime is granted candidates are entitled to do whatever they want with it.

While news programming is exempt from the equal opportunity rule, Saturday Night Live is subject to equal opportunity requests. In fact, this came up recently when Hillary Clinton made an impromptu appearance on the show. Her brief part in a sketch caused the New York NBC affiliate to notify the FCC that Clinton appeared on air without charge for three minutes and 12 seconds. As a result, Clinton’s opponents in the Democratic party were entitled to make equal opportunity claims, and one of them did. Lawrence Lessig, who at the time was running for president as a Democrat (but no longer is) asked 47 NBC affiliates for the same amount of airtime that they afforded to Clinton.

This is not the first time an equal opportunity issue has come up with a Saturday Night Live host. As Politifact points out, the show had Al Sharpton host back in 2003, which sparked concern over how the network would deal with equal opportunity claims. Senator Joe Lieberman, one of Sharpton’s opponents for the Democratic nomination, made a request and ended up getting free time–he was given a 28-minute segment to air a town hall discussion on NBC affiliates in California and Missouri. But based on the show’s opening scene in 2003, it’s pretty clear that they knew what they were doing when they invited Sharpton to host. Check out the video:

The rule’s original intention makes sense when you consider the media landscape several decades ago–broadcast television had much less competition than it does today and networks had significant of influence over the information people were exposed to. This rule essentially prevented networks from special treatment to specific candidates. But now, the idea of equal opportunity may seem a little weird. With the rise of cable and the internet, the media is much more fragmented than it was in the past, yet this rule only applies to broadcast media.

As Phillip Bump at the Washington Post points out, if Trump’s episode of SNL was only shown online, rather than broadcast over public airwaves, the rule would not apply. Some argue that equal opportunity is simply outdated and that the FCC should get rid of it. After all, the Federal Elections Commission is still able to punish media outlets if it considers their treatment of was candidate unfair. But barring a significant reinterpretation of the law, it looks like it will continue to be an option for candidates during this election cycle.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s SNL Appearance Could Lead to Free Airtime for GOP Candidates appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the Republican presidential hopefuls took the stage again, and boy, was it a mess. From angry exchanges between candidates, to accusations that the moderators were biased, to a lack of focus on economic questions in a debate supposedly centered on economics, no one was particularly happy with the end results. Check out some of the funniest reactions to the craziness on Twitter below:

There Were Attempts to Actually Discuss the Economy

“Look. I’m a small business. My mother was a smaller business. My father was a change machine…” – everyone on stage #CNBCGOPDebate

— Sean Crespo (@SeanCrespo) October 29, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Tweets from the #CNBCGOPDebate appeared first on Law Street.

If you haven’t noticed, Lincoln Chafee was running for president. You may have also noticed that on Friday morning, he officially dropped out of the race. His announcement marks the end of his four and a half month campaign, despite never polling above 2 percent nationally.

While I do not mean to belittle Lincoln Chafee–a distinguished politician who has been a Mayor, Governor, and Senator for the state of Rhode Island–nearly all of the evidence and discussion about his presidential bid has led to everyone asking why he ran in the first place. During his career, Chafee was a vocal opponent to the Iraq War and was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the use of force in the Iraq War (Chafee later switched to the Democratic Party in May 2013). But despite his record, his presidential campaign has been arguably the most underwhelming part of the 2016 primary race.

While Chafee’s campaign may have felt like it was over before it started, he officially  fell into obscurity during the Democratic debate. In the debate, Chafee launched a thinly veiled jab at Hillary Clinton, saying that the United States need to restore American credibility with the world and that the next president needs the best ethical standards. His affront was relatively bold–especially considering no one else on the stage was that willing to confront her–but when moderator Anderson Cooper asked if Clinton wanted to respond, she merely said “no.” That was that. No one pushed back; no one was outraged that Hillary Clinton didn’t have to answer a nearly direct challenge from another candidate.

When a longshot candidate announces his campaign to be president, many wonder if he is in the race to talk about the issues and force the other candidates to do so as well rather than actually get elected. But after the first Democratic debate, Lincoln Chafee couldn’t even do that much.

By most accounts, Chafee had a weak debate performance even if you don’t factor in his inability to engage Hillary Clinton. But it didn’t end there; in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN the next day Blitzer all but asked him to end his campaign right then and there.

Chafee’s campaign officially began back in June, and since then he has largely failed to generate attention. Foreign policy was one of his primary focal points, using the phrase “Prosperity Through Peace” as a major campaign tagline. He presented himself as an alternative to the more hawkish Republican party and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Arguably the highlight of his announcement speech was a call for the United States to switch to the metric system. While that might actually not be the worst idea, having it as a pillar of your presidential platform is questionable. I don’t know about you, but when someone says we need to change our measurement system, I don’t reach for my wallet to donate to their campaign.

Chafee’s polling remained steady since the beginning of his campaign, fluctuating between 0 and 2 percent. Yes–there have been several polls in which none of the respondents said that they would vote for Lincoln Chafee. At one point, Conan O’Brian took it upon himself to simply try and get Chafee up to 1 percent.

Money has also been a significant problem for Chafee. NPR recently took a look at all of Chafee’s major campaign donors–there are 10 of them. In total, he raised about $15,000. In fairness to Chafee, he did raise nearly $4,000 from donors whose names do not need to be disclosed because they gave less than $200 each, but still. For some comparison, Bernie Sanders has raised over $41 million from over 65,000 donors.

From the start of his campaign, it has been hard for anyone to really understand why Chafee was running in the first place. While he focused largely on his anti-war views, he was not unique in that respect. Bernie Sanders also opposed the war in Iraq and generally does not support the use of force abroad unless it is absolutely necessary. Chafee also trumpeted his integrity. He has often said, “I am very proud that over my almost 30 years of public service I have had no scandals.” While integrity is certainly something that people should look for in a candidate, it is not the only thing. Most people want someone they can trust, but who also has good ideas and a strong vision for the future–a combination that Lincoln Chafee never quite seemed to communicate.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Making Sense of Lincoln Chafee’s Bizarre Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Vice President Joe Biden shocked many, and validated the predictions of many others, when he announced he will not be seeking the Democratic nomination for President. Regardless of the emotion you’re experiencing–sadness, joy, or somewhere in between–Biden has officially answered a question that dragged on for a very long time. Check out some of the best and most entertaining Twitter reactions to Biden’s announcement in the slideshow below:

Remember the Hologram of will.i.am?

CNN now beta-testing a hologram of Biden to use in debates

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) October 21, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Twitter Reactions to Joe Biden’s Announcement He Won’t Be Running for President appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was the first Democratic debate of the 2016 primary elections. Unlike the Republican field, which had to be split into two parts in order to accommodate the insanely large group, the Democrats have a small collection of political veterans vying for the nomination. There’s Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner; Bernie Sanders, the surprise challenger; Martin O’Malley, the other normal candidate that everyone keeps forgetting; Lincoln Chaffee, the weird metric system guy from Rhode Island; and Jim Webb, who probably exists.

In a lot of ways the Democratic debate felt a little flat, and a little too early. While there were some really great moments of legitimate and important discourse, the Democratic field is just a bit more subdued and unified on a lot of key issues than its Republican foil. But, that didn’t keep some funny, wtf, and badass moments from sticking out. In fact, here are the top five moments from last night’s Democratic debate.

Best Shot on Donald Trump: Martin O’Malley

Donald Trump, the inexplicable Republican frontrunner, received a pretty sharp jab from O’Malley, who called Trump “that carnival barker in the Republican party…”

Given the flashiness and “look-at-me” attitude that Trump has used to gain supporters, this classification isn’t that far off, and made a powerful point about his attitude toward immigrants.

Best One Word Answer: Hillary Clinton

It wasn’t surprising, but one of the biggest criticisms against Hillary Clinton to stick so far–the kerfuffle over her emails while she was Secretary of State–was a point of contention at last night’s debate. Lincoln Chaffee made a not-so-veiled reference to the email scandal, saying “I think we need somebody with the best and ethical standards as our next president. That’s how I feel.” Clinton was asked if she wanted to respond, and her answer was short, sweet, and made it clear she was tired of political grandstanding over the issue: “No.”

Second Most Uncomfortable Moment: Lincoln Chafee and Anderson Cooper

Cooper, who was by all accounts, a strong and fair moderator, went after Lincoln Chafee on his earliest Senate vote–the Glass-Steagall Act. Chafee gave a weird answer: it was his first vote after being appointed to his recently deceased father’s spot. Cooper followed up–asking if he wasn’t defending his vote because he was saying he didn’t understand what he was voting for. That led to really awkward exchange, that certainly could have been handled better by Chafee.

It also wasn’t the only moment where Chafee struggled to defend his record as a Senator–questions about his vote for the Patriot Act also seemingly tripped him up.

Most Uncomfortable Moment: Jim Webb’s Enemy

Jim Webb, who served during the Vietnam War, was asked what enemy he’s the most proud to have made. While his competition gave fun predictable answers such as Republicans and the NRA, Webb focused on his military experience, saying the enemy he’s most proud of making was “enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me, but he’s not around right now to talk to.” While Webb was an incredibly impressive and heroic soldier, sans important context and with awkward delivery, the entire thing came across very strangely.

Best Moment Overall: Bernie Sanders and Clinton’s Emails

Sanders said exactly what we were all thinking the umpteenth time that Hillary’s emails came up last night: enough is enough. It’s time to talk about the real issues. And he was damn right.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Moments From the First Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Bernie Sanders is running arguably the most exciting and revolutionary campaign of the 2016 primary season. Nevertheless, he is still trailing Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton by a large margin. With that in mind, here are the top 10 (mostly serious) things Sanders should consider if he wants to win the Democratic nomination

1. Get more of the minority vote

In recent weeks, Bernie has been showing signs of improved polling among black voters, which is a great sign. But he is still trailing Hillary by a very wide margin, and is also having trouble with the Hispanic vote. His message of systematic change has the potential to be very attractive to minority voters, but Sanders needs to improve his recognition among these important Democratic blocs. But as long as he doesn’t try to do the Nae-Nae on television, he has a good chance of improving on this front.

2. Get better exposure on traditional media

This is a phrase you probably never thought you would hear uttered in the 2016 election cycle. If you frequently use social media, you could easily be under the impression that everyone in the country is rooting for Bernie to win the nomination, but this is not the case in polls. Bernie has to continue to get his message out, but in ways that don’t just reach young voters. That means he will have to use carrier pigeons, or whatever way old people get their information.

3. Convince Joe Biden to run

With Biden in the race, Bernie can let the other candidates fight each other in a failed attempt to prove that they have distinct visions for their presidencies. This will highlight the incredible pushes for reform that comprise Bernie’s platform.

4. Downplay the “democratic socialist” label

Even if it is accurate, it is important that Bernie downplays the “socialist” label, since the word is too loaded for an American audience. Instead he should stick to more acceptable terms like “progressive” or “radical left-wing nut.” It is also important that Bernie rebuffs the idea that he is the Democratic version of Donald Trump. He needs to continue to emphasize that his platform is composed of progressive attempts to save the middle class, not a series of rants that sound like the political satire on the “Colbert Report.”

5. Break his “no attack ad” policy

One thing Bernie is very proud of is the fact that he has never run a negative campaign, but he has hinted that this is a possibility for this race. As commendable as it is that he has tried to remain above the political pettiness, at the end of the day he has to convince a fickle, emotion-driven American population to vote for him. There’s a saying here: “you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.” Bernie would do well to keep that in mind.

6. Keep racking up the endorsements.

Endorsements send powerful signals to voters and being endorsed by labor unions, civil rights activist Cornell West, and the makers of Ben and Jerry’s are important steps for Bernie. Now if only Elizabeth Warren and Obama would throw their support behind Bernie…

7. Be even more fed up with the system

There are some people who don’t support Bernie Sanders because they just aren’t sure he really wants to change the American political system for the better. His history of dedication to the middle class, American labor, civil rights, climate change, and bipartisan action just isn’t convincing enough. I recommend he yells 10 percent louder in a 20 percent more exasperated tone at all subsequent rallies.

8. Fix his hair

We understand, Bernie was too busy fighting the partisan crap-fest that is Congress to ever have time for a comb or brush, but presidential candidates need to have tame hair. Remember, the presidential process is just a grand popularity contest, and all the cool kids have cool hair. I mean come on, there is no way that any candidate with crazy hair could ever win their party’s nomination, or lead in the polls.

9. Release his email record

Everyone is doing it, and I heard that it’s the only way the news media will cover a Democratic candidate.

10. Get Tom Brady to admit he deflated the footballs

We haven’t forgotten about that, have we people? He can’t just get away with that. Not in Bernie’s America.

At the end of the day, pundits and statisticians alike will continue to posit that Bernie Sanders has no chance of winning the nomination. But remember, they also said that there would never be fourth Pirates of the Caribbean and now they’re making a fifth, so anything can happen. The biggest must-do for Bernie’s campaign at this point is exposure. As more and more Americans hear his message, they are starting to #FeelTheBern. He’ll need the fever to keep spreading if he hopes to win the nomination.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 10 Things Bernie Sanders Needs to Do to Win the Democratic Nomination appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Governor Scott Walker became the first candidate to drop out of the running for the Republican presidential nomination. His departure from the primaries has led to a wide range of reactions, from utter shock, to great relief, to unoriginal jokes. No matter your opinion on this small town Colorado native turned runner up student government president turned college dropout, there is no doubt that he was a solid candidate. An exciting one? No, but a solid one. His position on some of the most important issues to Republican primary voters were almost uniformly in line. He held tenure for three terms as governor in a swing state while only being recalled one little time. Moreover, his position on the core issue of this recall, bargaining rights for public unions, made him a conservative hero, and thrust him onto the national stage. Perhaps most importantly, Walker rides Harley Davidson motorcycles and is a good Midwestern Christian. So how did this walking, talking embodiment of rice cakes become the quickest failed campaign in modern politics?

Well, people watched him talk. If you were to describe Scott Walker as a candidate, he would appear to be one of the strongest candidates. Unfortunately, as we watched him drowned out by bigger voices in two straight debates, it was hard to see such strengths. The constant coverage of these two debates ensures that voters do not forget about his dismal performances. Due to the incredibly long span of time in which primaries are held, candidates must hold on to the excitement and support that they originally garnered. Just ask Hillary Clinton about how hard that is.

In addition to their length, primary campaigns require millions of dollars, which means many devoted supporters and maybe a billionaire donor here and there. In any other election season, with these issues still remaining, Scott Walker would be a candidate who sticks around until the end of the primaries. Unfortunately for him, this election’s primary voters have no interest in a run-of-the-mill establishment governor. This is a group of voters who have dealt with eight years of a wildly liberal Obama administration intent on limiting religious liberty, weakening America’s stance in the world, and involving government in every facet of our lives. Or at least that’s what many primary voters feel has been the case. Changing the course of this country would require someone who is willing to think outside the box and speak his mind. Scott Walker didn’t seem to fit the bill for those voters.

Scott Walker’s exit from the Republican primaries is a case study in everything wrong with American politics. In the age of a 24-hour news cycle intent on telling its viewers who is winning at every moment in primaries that run for over a year, require millions of dollars in funding, and are decided by radical primary voters who reward borderline racist and Islamophobic speech with huge campaign donations and poll boosts, solid candidates become unelectable. And that is how a candidate who was originally the front-runner at his announcement abruptly spiraled into dismal poll numbers and eventually dropped out. Here’s to hoping Scott Walker finds more success as a bedtime audio book narrator. Or maybe a NyQuil spokesperson.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Scott Walker Really Drop Out of the Presidential Race? appeared first on Law Street.

How can Twitter become more profitable? Politics. Two weeks ago, Twitter announced that all Tweeters will be able to press a button within a tweet to make political contributions.

This service will undoubtedly make it easier for the general public to monetarily back candidates they support. Considering that Twitter users see political news more regularly than Facebook users, Twitter is probably the best social platform to start experimenting with e-donations.

Jenna Golden of Twitter echoes these sentiments:

When people have conversations about politics, they have them on Twitter. It’s what voters learn and share in these conversations that routinely motivates political action.

People can send money to campaigns using cashtags. Basically, instead of using a hashtag in a Twitter post (i.e. #berniesanders) they can click on an existing cashtag associated with a candidate’s verified account (i.e. $berniesanders) to donate funds.

The catch is that the whole process goes through a financial service called Square. So, even though Twitter is trying to streamline the whole money-transfer process, a prospective donor will be re-directed from Twitter to Square’s website.

Hmm…I wonder why Twitter partnered with this particular third-party site rather than building their own internal system or choosing another site, such as Venmo.com? Could it be because Square co-founder, Jack Dorsey, is also the interim CEO of Twitter? Curious. (Insert side-eye here).

What will be the pitfalls of this new type of digital alchemy? Will turning one click into a $10 donation for Hillary Clinton really make a difference? Additionally, with all the possibilities of cyber security breaches, will private banking information be safe in the hands of Square?

Even if donors are hesitant to put their money where their mouse is, presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle are supporting the new Twitter cashtag venture. Nine candidates are embracing the new technology–are they ready to embrace other alternative forms of payment?

Next month, could supporters follow the recent Dance Deals trend and do the “hokey pokey” for Hillary in order to donate funds? (Maybe we should put in a call to Elana Langer after her next scheduled #DanceDeal at Brookfield Place in NYC).

If donors succeed in finding and actually using campaign cashtags, it’s a smart move for politicians to utilize Twitter’s crowd-funding capabilities. Square only charges a 1.9 percent processing fee for each donation, and Twitter does not charge a penny for processing. Twitter does, however, charge campaigns to promote or “boost” tweets that explicitly ask users to donate.

In a perfect world, the political campaign gets a ton of online donations, Twitter profits off of the promoted tweets, and Square gets its small cut of all donations. If this plan succeeds, it could drastically increase Twitter’s profitability, and its reputation in the political arena.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Pushes Political Campaigns into the Digital Age appeared first on Law Street.

The latest celebrity to jump into the political fray is probably one you wouldn’t expect–Ricky Martin. The Hispanic crooner wrote a pretty scathing op-ed about Donald Trump’s views on immigrants, published this week in Univision. But despite his unexpected entry into the conversation, Martin is just the latest celebrity to weigh in on what already has been an exhausting presidential primary season.

According to the op-ed, Martin was seemingly inspired to write the piece after the showdown between Donald Trump and highly respected Univision reporter Jorge Ramos. Ramos asked Trump about his new hot campaign position–ending birthright citizenship. After Ramos asked a question apparently out of turn, Trump got hostile and told Ramos to “go back to Univision.” A video of the altercation is below:

Martin took issue with the way Trump treated Ramos, saying:

Jorge Ramos was doing his job as a journalist in a press conference, which he attended representing one of the world’s most important television networks for Hispanics and exercising his right of freedom of the press. Yet, Trump verbally assaulted and removed Jorge from the event without any apparent reason.

Then, Martin continued his piece by arguing that the Hispanic people need to stand together and fight back against individuals like Donald Trump who consistently degrade the Hispanic community. Martin stated:

We have to stop the power that Trump feels he has over Latinos, and the xenophobic speech that he and his campaign team seem to be convinced will be successful.

Martin certainly isn’t the first Hispanic celebrity to speak out against Trump’s attitude in recent weeks, and he almost certainly won’t be the last.

Eva Longoria, of “Desperate Housewives” fame and an ardent supporter of Obama in the last two election cycles, commented on Trump’s arguably most inflammatory comments to date–when he called Mexican immigrants rapists–pointing out the power of words:

What I think he doesn’t understand and what people don’t understand is words create emotional poison. Hitler moved a nation with words, just words. So you have to expect this backlash. If you say something like that, as he has said, you must expect a backlash.

America Ferrera, an actress who is also well known for her activism, published an open letter in the Huffington Post also condemning Trump’s comments about Mexican immigrants being rapists, entitled “Thank You, Donald Trump.” Her reasoning for “thanking” Trump was because he would help get out the vote. She wrote:

You see, what you just did with your straight talk was send more Latino voters to the polls than several registration rallies combined! Thank you for that. Here we are pounding the pavement to get American Latinos to the polls, while your tactic proves most effective. Remarks like yours will serve brilliantly to energize Latino voters and increase turnout on election day against you and any other candidate who runs on a platform of hateful rhetoric.

Singer Shakira also tweeted her contempt about Trump’s statements:

No one living in this century should stand behind so much ignorance. 2/2 http://t.co/jsx0KHdmzO

— Shakira (@shakira) June 30, 2015

Trump is leading in the Republican polls right now, but that doesn’t mean that he hasn’t made some powerful enemies in the process. While Ricky Martin, Eva Longoria, America Ferrera, and Shakira aren’t necessarily political powerhouses, the fact that they’ve spoken out so quickly about Trump shows that they aren’t going to sit through an election cycle in which the Hispanic community is consistently degraded and maligned.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Continues to Piss off Hispanic Celebrities appeared first on Law Street.

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton take the battle online, Ted Cruz uses a War Games meme, and then there’s Donald Trump. Check out the slideshow below with some of the best campaign tweets of the week. For more election Twitter coverage, check out Law Street’s 2016 Voices.

Jeb Bush Calls Out the White House

For the first time in 54 years, the American flag flies above @USEmbCuba. #Cuba http://t.co/0O4X1m5bb8

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 14, 2015

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Campaign Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The crowded 2016 election may get yet another face, but the newest candidate might run on a uniquely one-dimensional platform. Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor and government reform advocate, launched a presidential exploratory committee this week, but unlike most candidates, Lessig’s potential campaign will focus on reforming politics by removing the influence of money. If elected, he will consider his presidency a mandate to fix the political system–and then promptly step down.

In a video released this week, Lessig announced that if the leading Democratic candidates do not make government reform the single focus of their campaigns, and if he is able to raise $1 million from small donors by Labor Day, he will declare his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. But what truly makes the possibility of Lessig’s campaign unique is his promise to hold the presidency only until meaningful reform is passed, after which he would resign–allowing the elected Vice President to assume the presidency. See the video below for Lessig’s announcement:

So what are Lessig’s ideas for government reform? His three-point plan, which he calls the Citizen Equality Act of 2017, involves “the equal right to vote,” “equal representation,” and “citizen funded elections.” This plan combines existing reform policies to, among other things, remove voting barriers, stop gerrymandering, and institute a voucher or public fund matching system for campaign donations.

The underlying problem that Lessig emphasizes is the idea that in the current American political system, every citizen does not enjoy equal representation from elected officials–or in Lessig’s words, “the system is rigged.” Much of this hinges on his issues with the current campaign finance system, in which wealthy donors are able to pour unlimited amounts of money into Super PACs and Social Welfare Organizations (for more information on campaign finance see LawStreet’s explainer here). According to Lessig, all current political issues pale in comparison to what he calls “citizen equality,” because absent this equality, Congress’ agenda will remain controlled by the small number of people who fund their campaigns.

One of the most interesting aspects of Lessig’s announcement is his idea of a “Referendum President,” who would hold office only as long as it takes to enact reform, then promptly resign–allowing the elected Vice President to assume office. If Lessig does run, he intends to make his campaign about his reform package rather than his capacity to carry out the duties of the Presidency.  In his announcement video, Lessig said, “The candidate is the referendum. The campaign is for that referendum.”

This isn’t the first time Lessig has attempted to use novel methods to reform politics. In 2014, he created the Mayday PAC, which spent close to $7.5 million to support Congressional candidates who favor campaign finance reform. While the PAC was not particularly successful–only two of the eight candidates that it supported won their elections in 2014–the idea of using a “Super PAC to end all Super PACs” was certainly unique. This time, however, Lessig seeks to gain a much broader base of support, rather than soliciting support from “50 billionaires.”

Lessig’s campaign may seem like a long shot, and it likely is, but there is a good chance that he will at least launch a campaign. There are two conditions that must be met in order for him to declare his candidacy after Labor Day. First, he must raise $1 million in the next 26 days–he has currently raised nearly $150,000 so far this week. Second, he will only run if no leading Democratic candidate promises to make his reform agenda the primary purpose of their campaign. While several of the candidates have called for campaign finance reform, and some even want a constitutional amendment along those lines, Lessig says that they must do more to make their goals credible.

Another remaining challenge for Lessig is the upcoming Democratic debate. If he does run, he will almost certainly need to participate in the debate in order to have a reasonable shot at the Democratic Nomination. Per the Democratic Party’s rules, candidates must poll at over one percent in at least three national polls to qualify, a threshold that Lessig believes he will be able to reach. In an interview with the Washington Post, Lessig said, “If we can be in the debates and frame this issue in a way that becomes compelling, then I think there’s a chance to see it take off.”

While his campaign might be a long shot, if you think campaign finance and political reform are important you may want to keep an eye out for Lessig’s campaign. He may fail to get enough support for a successful campaign, but his efforts could elevate the issue of campaign finance as the 2016 race heats up.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawrence Lessig: Campaigning to Not Be President appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday night, the top ten Republican presidential candidates gathered in Cleveland, Ohio to duke it out on stage for the GOP nomination during the first primary debate of the year. Candidates were asked questions on a wide range of topics, from what they believe is the best approach to combat ISIL in the Middle East, to whether or not God has influenced their decisions to run for President. The panel of men, 90 percent of whom are white, debated women’s health care issues as well as the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and argued about who among them was the most average, the most American, and who hates Hillary Clinton the most. The riveting debate had hundreds of quotable moments, but here are the top ten quotes, one for each of the presidential hopefuls, in the order of the candidates’ standings in the polls.

1. Donald Trump: “If it weren’t for me you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration.”

America runs on Trumpin.

2. Jeb Bush: “They called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget.”

Jeb! will make you an offer you can’t refuse. Literally. You can’t refuse a veto.

3. Scott Walker: “I defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out…”

Scott Walker: destroying women’s health centers before it was cool.

4. Ben Carson: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”

So if you ever elect a Siamese twin to public office, Carson can help to make your vote count twice.

5. Mike Huckabee: “The military is not a social experiment, the military does two things: kill people and break things.”

How strong? Army strong.

6. Ted Cruz: “Well, I am blessed to receive a word from God every day in receiving the scriptures and reading the scriptures. And God speaks through the Bible.”

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz is the chosen one by divine right.

7. Rand Paul (to Chris Christie): “I don’t trust President Obama with our records. I know you gave him a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go right ahead.”

Don’t ever think we don’t notice all of your awkward hugs, Christie.

8. Marco Rubio: “Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Velma might find her glasses before the Democrats can find a good candidate, #AmIRight Rubio? High five!

9. Chris Christie (in response to Rand Paul wanting to get warrants before tapping into Americans’ phones and emails): “Listen, senator, you know, when you’re sitting in a subcommittee, just blowing hot air, you can say things like this.”

Look at all of these hot air balloons emanating from Cleveland during the debate!

10. John Kasich: “I’m an old-fashioned person here, and I happen to believe in traditional marriage…. And guess what, I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay.”

(Read: “I HAVE GAY FRIENDS I SWEAR.”)

Jennie Burger  and Maurin Mwombela also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Quotes from the First 2016 Republican Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton might have some explaining to do before she can claim the top spot in the Democratic primary. Any pro-Hillary voters who prioritize moral plans for American foreign policy should probably look into the candidate’s past in Haiti. The Pulitzer Center hosted journalist Jonathan M. Katz on Monday night for a discussion about the Clintons’ influence and rather infamous legacy in Haiti and I was fortunate enough to be able to attend. It’s surprising how little the failures and destruction of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s presence in Haiti have been brought up so far. Hopefully by 2016 this topic will be making headlines.

First, some background on the topic: on January 12, 2010, the deadliest natural disaster ever recorded in the hemisphere, a magnitude-7.0 earthquake, devastated Haiti’s southern peninsula and killed 100,000 to 316,000 people. Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the Haitian reconstruction effort and vowed to help the country “build back better,” so that if another disaster struck, Haiti would be able to respond more quickly and with more efficiency. Hillary described their efforts as a “road test” that would reveal “new approaches to development that could be applied more broadly around the world.”

The Clinton Foundation alone has directed $36 million to Haiti since 2010. Another $55 million has been spent through the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, and an additional $500 million has been made in commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative’s Haiti Action Network. But what does Haiti have to show for all of these investments? Not much, according to Katz. “Haiti and its people are not in a better position now from when the earthquake struck,” he said. The hundreds of millions of dollars and the years of reconstruction efforts have yielded negligible results. For a project so expansive, Hillary has kept relatively quiet about Haiti thus far in her campaign. Her spokesman declined to comment on how Haiti has shaped her foreign policy, saying Hillary would address that “when the time comes to do so.”

Hillary’s big plan for how she would “rebuild” Haiti in the wake of desolation was characteristically American: through business. With big corporate plans on the horizon, Bill and Hillary became exceedingly familiar faces in Haiti leading up to the 2011 presidential elections. It’s not surprising that the candidate who vowed to make Haiti “open for business” was ultimately the victor. Former Haitian pop star Michel Martelly eventually won the race, after Hillary salvaged his candidacy when he was eliminated as the number 3 candidate by convincing the parties to accept him back into the race. Katz said that this vote was fraudulent. Martelly, a businessman and strong proponent of foreign investment in Haiti, was “attractive” to the State Department, Katz noted. He very much had a “Clinton view of Haiti and a Clinton view of the world.”

That’s how Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory geared toward making clothes for export to the U.S., was born in 2012. Bill lobbied the U.S. Congress to eliminate tariffs on textiles sewn in Haiti, and the couple pledged that through Caracol Park, Haitian-based producers would have comparative advantages that would balance the country’s low productivity, provide the U.S. with cheap textiles, and put money in Haitians’ pockets. The State Department promised that the park would create 60,000 jobs within five years of its opening, and Bill declared that 100,000 jobs would be created “in short order.” But Caracol currently employs just 5,479 people full time. “The entire concept of building the Haitian economy through these low-wage jobs is kind of faulty,” Katz stated on Monday. Furthermore, working conditions in the park are decent, but far from what should be considered acceptable.

Not only did Caracol miss the mark on job creation, but it also took jobs away from indigenous farmers. Caracol was built on fertile farmland, which Haiti doesn’t have much of to begin with. According to Katz, Haitian farmers feel that they have been taken advantage of, their land taken away from them, and that they have not been compensated fairly. Hundreds of families have been forced off the land to make room for Caracol. The Clintons led the aggressive push to make garment factories to better Haiti’s economy, but what it really created was wealth for foreign companies. This trend was echoed when the Clintons helped launch a Marriott hotel in the capital, which has really only benefited wealthy foreigners and the Haitian elite.

Mark D’Sa, Senior Advisor for Industrial Development in Haiti at the U.S. Department of State, said that many of the Clintons’ promises remain unfulfilled and many more projects are “half-baked.” Haiti remains the most economically depressed country on the continent. If Hillary wins in 2016, U.S. policy geared toward Haiti will undoubtedly expand, meaning even more money will be funneled to the Caribbean nation to fund the Clintons’ projects, for better or for worse. According to Katz, the truth is that we don’t actually know how much money has been thrown into the Caribbean country to “rebuild” it, and that with economic growth stalling and the country’s politics heading for a shutdown, internal strife seems imminent.

The introduction of accountability for the foreign aid industry is the most important change that can be made, according to Katz. Humanitarian aid does nothing positive or productive if there are not institutions in place, managed by individuals who actually live in these countries, to oversee that aid is serving rather than hurting the people it is supposed to “help.” Hillary Clinton’s efforts in Haiti have fueled political corruption, destroyed arable farmland, and have forced hundreds of families to leave their homes and their jobs to make room for a factory that has not given even a fraction of the amount to Haiti as it has taken. If the introduction of accountability is the way to go, then we first need to start talking. So Hillary, what do you have to say about Haiti?

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why U.S. Foreign Policy Isn’t Ready for Hillary appeared first on Law Street.

Although the Republican field for 2016 presidential nominees is quickly becoming as crowded as a particularly small clown car, the Democratic field is starting to get some new contenders as well. As of today, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has just joined the crowd.

O’Malley went back to his roots for the announcement, to the city of Baltimore where he was once mayor. He in some ways embraced the controversy and violence that the city has been experiencing after the recent death of Freddie Gray, pointing out that it is a symptom of larger American problems. He stated:

What took place here was not only about race, not only about policing in America. It was about everything it is supposed to mean to be an American.

While that’s a compelling talking point, O’Malley’s strongest point to his campaign appeared to be his determination to set himself apart from the current Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. O’Malley appears to be positioning himself as left of Clinton (although of course not as far left as fellow candidate Senator Bernie Sanders) and a new voice in comparison to the Bush and Clinton families. One of the lines in his announcement took a shot at both Clinton and presumed Republican contender Jeb Bush. O’Malley stated:

Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he’d be just fine with either Bush or Clinton. Well, I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street—the presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.

Yet O’Malley has an uphill battle–exactly because of that moderate, outsider status he purports to represent. Clinton has long been viewed as a strong leader who is inevitably going to win the Democratic nomination–according to Real Clear Politics she’s polling at an average of 63.6 percent. Based on the same polls at a distant second (12.5 percent) is Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has said multiple times that she’s not running. Vice President Joe Biden–also not declared–is polling at 10 percent. Sanders is just behind him at almost 9 percent. Next, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee have 2.6 and 1.8 percent respectively. O’Malley finally clocks in at just under one percent.

Those aren’t particularly good odds–and that’s probably because there’s been nothing particularly exciting about O’Malley yet. While he may be running as a more liberal counterpoint to Clinton, he’s not as liberal as Sanders. To position yourself between two more dynamic and beloved candidates isn’t really a winning strategy.

Whether or not O’Malley actually has a shot will probably depend on Clinton herself. At this point, the Democratic nomination is pretty much hers to lose–a big scandal or health scare could do her in, but it seems like a pretty long shot. While O’Malley joining the race has made it a bit more crowded, she’s still standing on a very pretty pedestal.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does Martin O’Malley Actually Stand a Chance? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s only May 2015 and already the Republican field vying for the 2016 presidential nomination feels awfully crowded. In anticipation of this very crowded field, various outlets that host the presidential debates are already taking steps to limit the number of candidates who will be able to participate in the nationally televised debates. Given the notoriety and celebrity status required to win the nomination in this day and age, this could sink some candidates’ campaigns before they even really begin.

In terms of candidates who have already declared, we have Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. There’s also former Governor Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. It’s also speculated that some combination of former Governor Jeb Bush, former Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Lindsey Graham, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor John Kasich, and business mogul Donald Trump will declare at some point relatively soon. At my count that could be well over a dozen candidates, and I’m sure there are at least a few I’m missing or who will come out of the woodwork to declare.

In light of this potentially huge field, both Fox News and CNN, who are hosting debates in August and September, respectively, have declared that they’re only going to allow the top ten candidates on stage to duke it out for the GOP nomination.

Those announcements, of course, raised plenty of questions, because there’s no good way to determine who the “top ten” candidates are before a single vote is even cast. According to Fox News, the candidates have to “place in the top ten of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by Fox News.” CNN has announced that it will be using a slightly different metric:

The first ten candidates—ranked from highest to lowest in polling order from an average of all qualifying polls released between July 16 and September 10 who satisfy the criteria requirements … will be invited to participate in ‘Segment B’ of the September 16, 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debate.

Either way, Fox and CNN are both taking steps to ensure that the candidates that they allow on stage for the debates are ones who have a fighting chance–although when considering the crowdedness of the field, this may come down to a few percentage points between candidates who make the cut and those who don’t.

With that in mind, apparently CNN has also announced that it’ll give candidates who don’t make the cut for the main debate but who are polling about 1 percent in three national polls the opportunity to speak in a different segment of the September debate.

Given the sheer craziness that was trying to watch the Republican debates in 2012 and the Democratic debates in 2008, both of which had plenty of candidates (although less than 10), it makes sense that the news outlets want to limit the amount of candidates speaking. If they were to go above ten, there would be hardly enough time for each candidate to be able to say anything useful about his or her platform. That being said, missing out on national exposure will end up hurting the lesser-known candidates, and could end up culling the field on the earlier side than past election cycles.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You’re Not Invited: Republican Candidates Vie for Debate Spots appeared first on Law Street.

Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he is running for president as a Democrat in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week. Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont and a self-identified “democratic-socialist,” will seek to represent the left-leaning side of the Democratic Party. While many view his bid for the Democratic nomination as a long shot, he presents the party’s first challenge to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign has garnered a significant amount of attention in the media and from her Republican challengers, indeed many headlines this week focused on her speech on criminal justice rather than on Sanders’ campaign announcement. However, having a serious challenger to Clinton in the Democratic primary is something that many party members support. A recent Bloomberg poll found that 72 percent of self identifying Democrats and independents think a primary challenger is good for the Democratic Party. While many may question Sanders’ ability to become a significant opponent to Clinton, he has repeatedly said he is “in it to win.”

Describing yourself as a socialist generally does not bode well in American politics, but many of Sanders’ core issues tend to resonate well with populists in the Democratic Party. Sanders is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and identifies economic inequality as one of the most important issues facing the United States. In his interview with the AP, Sanders said, “What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels.”

His opposition to Wall Street and what he calls the “billionaire class” also extends to his desire for campaign finance reform. Sanders actively supports a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and move toward a public-funding system.

Sanders also has strong appeal among environmentalists as someone who recently voted against the Keystone XL Pipeline, and cosponsored a Senate resolution to acknowledge that climate change exists and is a result of human activity. He has also sponsored legislation that would call for a carbon tax and is a strong proponent of alternative energy. He has a 95 percent rating on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, which evaluates congressional members’ voting records on environmental issues.

As a self-identified socialist, Sanders stands politically to the left of Clinton and many establishment Democrats. He supports expanding medicare to develop a single-payer system for all Americans and has opposed several free trade agreements. He has vocally expressed his opposition to Trans-Pacific Partnership as well as giving the president fast-track authority to pass it without amendments from Congress. Although he supported President Obama’s executive action on immigration, which protects nearly five million illegal immigrants from deportation, he has also said that guest workers may lead to greater unemployment of American low-wage workers.

On some issues, however, Sanders’ positions are in line with a large portion of Americans, particularly those within the Democratic Party. Sanders voted against the Iraq war, which Clinton initially voted for and later came to hurt her 2008 presidential bid. He is also a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage, an issue that has gained increasing public support and currently has a landmark case in front of the Supreme Court.

While many believe that Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic Party’s nomination is a foregone conclusion, Sanders has shown that he intends to do more than force Clinton to discuss the issues that are important to left-leaning Democrats. That said, he is considerably behind in early polling numbers, campaign organization, and fundraising, which will all present important challenges as he tries to become a legitimate challenger. The 73 year old from Brooklyn says that he can appeal to a wide audience because of his role as the longest-serving Independent Senator in American history.

Sanders says, “I’ve run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country.”

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Independent Senator Bernie Sanders Running For President as Democrat appeared first on Law Street.