A post-election investigation by The New York Times found that among 49 states (Kentucky would not respond to any requests) and D.C., voter fraud during the 2016 election was virtually nonexistent. Election officials in 26 states and D.C. found “no credible allegations of fraudulent voting,” according to the Times report, while only a handful of states reported fraud claims that required further review.

Claims of voter fraud are hardly new. But from governor races to the presidential election, and from governors who were unseated to the president-elect himself, 2016 has breathed new life into the debate. Tennessee and Georgia reported the most widespread instances of claims that justified further review, at 40 and 25 claims respectively. But a lack of evidence of widespread, election-altering voter fraud should quell most concerns.

Republicans–including President-elect Donald Trump–have largely been behind the push to limit voter fraud by tightening voter ID laws, many of which have been struck down by federal courts. Still, others have questioned the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential race as well, most notably Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Stein challenged the results in three states that were key to Trump’s victory: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which was the only state of the three to move forward with Stein’s recount request. The recount in Wisconsin yielded an even greater margin of victory for Trump.

But the crusade against voter fraud has mainly come from Republicans. On November 27, in response to doubts about the validity and necessity of the Electoral College, and the insistence that he lost the popular vote by over 2.8 million votes, Trump 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

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

Two of Trump’s closest surrogates, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and Trump’s Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, have deflected the president-elect’s claims that “millions of people” voted illegally. In an interview with “60 Minutes” a few weeks ago, Ryan, when pressed about Trump’s comments, said: “I don’t know. I’m not really focused on these things.” And Priebus, when asked the same question in a recent interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” said: “I don’t know that it’s not true…It’s possible.”

Distrust for the legitimacy of some votes didn’t just come from the top of the GOP ticket. In North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory, the incumbent Republican who lost to Democrat Roy Cooper, ordered a weeks-long review into statewide voter fraud. McCrory conceded defeat on December 6, after the Republican-led state and county boards found little evidence of fraud. Out of nearly 4.7 million ballots, 25 were illicitly casted by felons, though that does not mean they knew that doing so was illegal. Some of the “dead voters,” (deceased people who, some Republicans claim, are used by the living to cast ballots) had cast their votes early, and then actually did pass away by Election Day.

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 Post-Election Review Finds Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday night’s presidential result shocked a whole lot of people in the U.S. and around the world; it stunned those that supported Donald Trump and especially those that supported Hillary Clinton. Shock and surprise, it seems, have also blotted out another equally important fact: Congress will remain red.

Republicans retaining their House majority hardly came as a surprise, but some pundits and polls (we know how accurate both can be) predicted control of the Senate to shift from Republicans to Democrats. That did not happen, and now the White House and Congress belong to the GOP, something that has not happened since 2007.

Heading into Tuesday, there were eight Senate races–out of 34 open seats–presumed to be tossups. From Nevada to Wisconsin, Illinois to North Carolina, Democrats and Republicans were expected to wage bruising battles that could flip either way. In the days preceding Election Day, polls in those eight states were split: Democrats were leading in four. Republicans were leading in four. However, by night’s end, seven of eight ended up in the Republican column, bringing their total number of seats to 51. Democrats control 47 seats. Races in New Hampshire and Louisiana are too close to call.

Democrats were hard pressed to find any good news Tuesday night, though there were some small victories: three states elected a woman of color to the Senate. Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat with Thai and Vietnamese ancestry beat Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois. Women of color, all Democrats, won in California and Nevada as well. Elsewhere in the Senate, Marco Rubio (R-FL) won a decisive re-election bid, which was an uphill battle considering his failed presidential run and his tenuous relationship with Trump.

Republicans will also retain control of the House, and not by a slim margin either: at least 239 seats will be red heading into next year, while 193 will be blue. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who in a speech on Wednesday said Trump now has a “mandate” to govern, held onto his district seat in Wisconsin. A few districts have yet to call a result. The 115th U.S. Congress will convene on January 3, roughly two weeks before Trump is set to take the oval office.

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 Election 2016: Republicans Retain Control of Congress appeared first on Law Street.

Did FBI Director James Comey break a federal law by sending a letter to Congress on Friday announcing the bureau’s renewed probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails? Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) seems to think so. Reid sent a letter of his own to Comey on Sunday accusing the director of breaking the Hatch Act, a little known but commonly enforced statute that prohibits federal employees from meddling in an election. “Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law,” Reid wrote.

With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong about Mr. Comey. https://t.co/7tHfOgxvCN

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) October 30, 2016

Congress passed the Hatch Act in 1939, disallowing federal employees to “use [their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” The law has been repeatedly amended since, and the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 widened the scope of partisan participation granted to federal employees.

In July, the Office of Special Counsel–the agency that enforces the Hatch Act–found Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro in violation of the law. In an April interview with Katie Couric, Castro was asked about the coming election and his endorsement of Clinton. He responded: “Now, taking off my HUD hat for a second and just speaking individually, it is very clear that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced, thoughtful, and prepared candidate for President that we have this year.” The OSC wrote that Castro violated the Hatch Act “by advocating for and against Presidential candidates.”

According to Reid, Comey’s withholding of information regarding Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, along with the timing of his letter (11 days before Election Day), was “intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group,” which is a breach of the Hatch Act and a clear “double-standard.” Reid writes:

In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government–a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity.

Aside from Reid’s statement, there is no evidence that Trump or his advisors have ties to the Russian government, though Trump has repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin–even calling on him to double down his hacking of Clinton’s emails. U.S. officials have found evidence that Russia is behind the recent hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s Campaign Chairman John Podesta.

Harry Reid is a disgrace to American politics, among worst men ever in Senate. He can’t go soon enough, & many Democrats privately agree. https://t.co/4lCKx5pKi4

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) October 30, 2016

By alerting Congress to the emergence of new evidence in the Clinton email case–emails were found on devices belonging to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide, and her former husband Anthony Weiner–Comey may have roused enough partisan passions to affect the presidential race, though more likely, down-ballot congressional races. His letter shifted the spotlight off Trump. It reminded voters of Clinton’s weaknesses. It provided fodder for Republican lawmakers, and buoyed Trump’s spirits. But proving Comey intended to cause any of these effects with his actions does not seem likely.

After sending his letter to Congress, Comey sent a letter to FBI employees that offered more details regarding his decision to send a fairly vague letter in the first place. He wrote:

Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

President Obama appointed Comey as director in 2013, and his ten-year term is set to end in 2023. In a briefing with reporters on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama does not think Comey is trying to influence the election. He also said Obama believes Comey is a “man of integrity and good character” and that he’s in a “tough spot.”

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 Did James Comey Break Federal Law with His Letter to Congress? appeared first on Law Street.

FBI Director James Comey, in a letter sent to Congress on Friday, announced a new probe into emails Hillary Clinton sent over a private sever. The new investigation is unrelated to the previous one that ultimately found Clinton not guilty of any criminal offense, but of being “extremely careless.” Comey writes:

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation

The New York Times is reporting that the emails were discovered after the FBI investigated devices belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her ex-husband, Anthony Weiner, in their case involving Weiner’s sexting practices. Apparently, there are three emails, not necessarily even involving Clinton, being reviewed.

Despite Election Day’s rapid approach, Comey said he “cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work.” Comey’s letter had an unexpected ripple effect after its release today: the stock market dipped, as many investors expecting a Clinton victory on November 8 were caught off guard. The Dow Jones average fell by over 150 points.

But a source told NBC’s Pete Williams that the FBI’s second look at Clinton’s email practices does not quite constitute a “reopening,” (in fact, Comey does not use this word in his letter) as many media outlets are reporting. Williams said that it appears that the new probe involves “another device,” and while Clinton could face a political fallout from the announcement, there might not be legal ramifications.

Donald Trump seemed excited by the FBI’s announcement. At a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, he said he was “very proud” of the bureau, adding “I think they are going to right the ship, folks.” On cue, the crowd commenced with their go-to chant: “Lock her up!” Trump also said Clinton’s seemingly immortal email scandal is “bigger than Watergate.”

While social media is bursting with Clinton supporters questioning Comey’s motives, and Clinton detractors reading his letter as the final dagger in her candidacy, Comey might simply be doing his job by reexamining fresh evidence, saying nothing of the content of that evidence–damaging or not. According to Newsweek, Comey likely did not have a choice but to renew the investigation: “because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.”

The Associated Press is also reporting that according to a U.S. official, the new emails did not come from Clinton’s private server. Hang on folks, Election Day is almost here. Until then, stay tuned to Law Street for the latest updates on this and other issues.

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 Is the FBI Reopening its Investigation into Clinton’s Emails? appeared first on Law Street.

In an unusually personal and venomous presidential campaign, it is hardly a surprise that when the two candidates got together Thursday night for a charity roast, the mood darkened quite quickly. Usually an occasion for convivial ribbing, this year’s Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner was no casual affair. Named after the first Catholic to win a major party nomination, Democrat and former New York governor Alfred E. Smith (he lost to Herbert Hoover in 1928), the quadrennial dinner is meant to raise money for a Catholic foundation, and less officially, to temper the home stretch before Election Day.

Donald Trump started off strong, toeing the line between roasting his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and using the podium as yet another opportunity to launch personal attacks. One of his more well received jabs of the night came when he addressed the claims that his wife Melania has plagiarized speeches by Michelle Obama. “They think [Obama] is absolutely great,” he said. “My wife Melania gives the exact same speech, and people get on her case.”

At times however, Trump sounded like he thought the audience was made up of his rally attendees, not a gaggle of New York City elite. His more caustic remarks drew jeers and boos from the crowd at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City, which included former mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, and the city’s Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman.

“Hillary believes that it’s vital to deceive the people by having one public policy and a totally different policy in private,” Trump said. “Here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics.” He was referring to one of Clinton’s leaked emails that included a transcript of a speech in which she mentioned keeping public and private stances separate, and another in which one of her campaign officials questioned some Catholic beliefs.

Watch Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton roast each other at the annual Al Smith dinner pic.twitter.com/x0TaKpic22

— Press Association (@PA) October 21, 2016

Though the night was centered around them speaking about each other, Clinton and Trump hardly acknowledged each other’s existence. Eye contact between the two was a rarity, and they only briefly shook hands as they were leaving the room. With Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, sitting between them (the “iciest place on the planet,” he said), there was no elbow rubbing or dinner chatter, though they did share a fleeting private conversation at one point.

Clinton was more self-deprecating than her famously thin-skinned counterpart. “I took a break from my rigorous nap schedule to be here,” she said. “Usually, I charge a lot for speeches like this,” referencing her widely-maligned paid speeches to Wall Street firms. She also found material in Trump’s penchant for hitching a number ranking to women: “Donald looks at the Statue of Liberty and sees a ‘4,’” she said. “Maybe a ‘5’ if she loses the torch and tablet and changes her hair.”

Clinton also addressed Trump’s recent claims the election will be rigged, saying he will only accept the results “if I win.” Clinton said: “It’s amazing I’m up here after Donald. I didn’t think he’d be O.K. with a peaceful transition of power.”

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 Boos and Burns: At Thursday’s Charity Roast, Clinton and Trump Got Personal 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.

Without explicitly withdrawing his support for his party’s presidential candidate, Donald Trump, Paul Ryan instructed House members on Monday to shift their focus to their own races. “You all need to do what’s best for you in your district,” Ryan said in a conference call with House lawmakers, according to an anonymous member on the call.

In light of a video from 2005 that emerged last week in which Trump made crass remarks regarding women, the Speaker of the House also said he will not defend Trump moving forward, nor will he campaign with him, according to lawmakers and congressional staff.

According to the anonymous source who participated in the call, Ryan said he was “willing to endure political pressure to help protect our majority.” He expressed, with urgency, the need to prevent Hillary Clinton from governing with a Democrat-controlled Congress. With many Senate and House seats up for grabs in November, Ryan wishes for his party to focus on maintaining their majority in the Senate, a rockier prospect than holding on to the House, where the GOP holds a 246 to 186 advantage.

Before Sunday night’s debate, and following the release of the damaging 2005 video, Republican politicians reneged on their support of Trump, the most notable of which was Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Rumors began to spread that Trump’s running mate, Governor Mike Pence (R-IN), would drop himself from the ticket. Pence clarified his position on Monday: “This is a choice between two futures,” he said in an interview on CNN. “I’m honored to be standing with him.”

After the House conference call on Monday, Ryan’s support is murkier. His office did deny that he is ceding the race to Clinton, however. Pro-Trump House members felt Ryan was doing just that; some called Ryan and other conservatives who have disavowed Trump “cowards.”

Ryan, it seems, is aiming for the best of both worlds: distancing himself and his party from the tarnish of Trump, while not abandoning him entirely, perhaps in the hopes his supporters will remain loyal to the party. How that strategy will turn out remains to be seen. It could be a cold winter for Paul Ryan.

For more of Law Street’s debate coverage, head over here.

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 Paul Ryan Shifts Focus to Congress, Won’t Defend Donald Trump Anymore 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.

The facts are thin, and the story even thinner: Hillary Clinton has pneumonia. That’s pretty much it. But of course, that raises some very intriguing questions–especially if you’re a conspiracy theorist: Has she been harboring the disease, shielding her failing health from the media since she was Secretary of State? Did she contract it while delivering a contracted speech to Goldman Sachs? And given the very fact that Clinton has spent her entire career tag teaming with a body double–in speeches, in meetings with now-deposed Middle East dictators, at a dinner date with Bill–has she already moved on from not only this election season, but this life? Here’s what we actually know:

Friday Diagnosis

Following a week of coughing fits and mockery from her political opponents, the Democratic presidential nominee was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. That fact became evident on Sunday, while she spoke at a memorial event at Ground Zero in Manhattan. While getting into a Secret Service van after the ceremony, Clinton appeared unstable and required assistance from a few agents who held her upright as she climbed into the van.

According to her longtime doctor, Lisa Bardack, Clinton is “re-hydrated and recovering nicely,” in her upstate New York home. Clinton’s campaign announced that the candidate will be teleconferencing into her San Francisco fundraising events on Monday and Tuesday.

An Uncharacteristic (Yet Also Characteristic) Trump

Seemingly shocking everyone who expects Donald Trump to say something earth-shattering on a daily basis, “I just hope she gets well and gets back on the trail and we’ll be seeing her at the debate,” was Trump’s diplomatic response to his opponent’s diagnosis.

And while his well wishes were a bit of a surprise, Trump left room for some of his more conspiracy-minded supporters to question the pneumonia diagnosis. “You know, it was interesting because they say pneumonia on Friday, but she was coughing very, very badly a week ago, and even before that, if you remember. This wasn’t the first time,” Trump said Monday morning on CNBC. “So it’s very interesting to see what is going on.”

He wished her well, and then seemed to question the legitimacy of the diagnosis. He said “interesting,” a few times, hinting that perhaps there is something deeper that the Clinton campaign isn’t disclosing.

#BodyDouble

And as Twitter so often does after game changing events such as a routine pneumonia diagnosis, an inventive hashtag was hatched: #BodyDouble. Yes, as of Monday morning, that was a trending topic. People were voicing their–seemingly very real in some cases–concerns that Clinton has been using a body double, not only for Sunday’s 9/11 anniversary event, but for years before that.

Take a look at some of Twitter’s finest #BodyDouble musings below:

#Hillarys #BodyDouble on the left… Look at the hips. She came out 20 lbs lighter 2 hrs later with no medical or SS pic.twitter.com/ZFh4Vlj4iq

— MalibuUSA (@JamesABaade) September 12, 2016

This also could be her #BodyDouble @AnnCoulter @BreitbartNews @seanhannity should INVESTIGATE! #TrumpsArmy pic.twitter.com/FPUb7pui8N

— GIRLSFORTRUMP (@lbrot1) September 12, 2016

#hillaryshealth #BodyDouble guys if that wasn’t her she may not have recovered from the incident. What if she’s dead?

— Still Sanders (@StillBernin) September 12, 2016

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 Clinton’s Pneumonia: A Post-Speech Scare, a Body Double, and a Tame Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Under a President Trump, American foreign policy would look something like this: Guantanamo Bay would remain open. Drone strikes would continue. Nation building and regime change would cease. And–in what Trump referred to as “extreme vetting” in his foreign policy speech Monday afternoon–immigrants from regions of the world that have a “history of exporting terrorism” will be subject to screening tests.

At Youngstown State University in Youngstown, Ohio, Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, highlighted America’s threats–and criticized the architects of its current foreign policy–before revealing the tenets of his foreign policy plan. With broad strokes, he painted a bleak portrait of an America under siege from “radical Islamic terrorism,” a phrase he used often and pointedly in his speech. He derided President Obama’s and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approach to the Middle East as a failure. “The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary Clinton,” Trump said, pointing to decisions made in Libya, Syria, and Iraq that led to the region’s current instability, allowing ISIS to prosper.

That speech was a reminder that Prompter Trump will always be just as dishonest and incompetent as Twitter Trump.

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) August 15, 2016

The Cold War was a consistent reference point throughout his speech, as Trump sought to parallel the idealogical threat of radical Islam with that of communism. “Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international consensus,” Trump said. “That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic terrorism.” And in a surprising backtracking of his previous remarks that called into question NATO’s effectiveness, Trump said under his administration, America will “work closely with NATO.” He added that “we could find common ground with Russia in the fight against ISIS.”

And in a move he has alluded to in past interviews, Trump called for an “ideological screening test” that would root out “all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups.” In addition, such a test would screen out those who “believe that Sharia law should supplant American law;” “Those who do not believe in our Constitution;” and those who “support bigotry and hatred.” Specifically what such a test would look like, to whom it would be distributed, and how it would be administered was not expounded upon.

Trump ends his hateful, bigoted, fear-mongering speech promising…to reject bigotry & hatred. No self-awareness or sense of irony. Amazing.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) August 15, 2016

Trump’s speech–which was precluded by remarks from former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani and Trump’s running mate Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN)–focused exclusively on the threat of “radical Islamic terrorism.” He did not mention China, North Korea, or Russia, three nations that many foreign policy analysts see as some of America’s gravest threats apart from ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Though his speech mirrored the apocalyptic tone of the speech he delivered a few weeks ago at the Republican National Convention, he sought to end it on a cheery, unifying note: “I will fight to ensure that every American is treated equally, protected equally, and respected equally,” he said. “Only this way will we make America great again and safe again for everyone.”

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 Vows to ‘Destroy’ ISIS, Use ‘Extreme Vetting’ on Immigrants appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 campaign season has revealed divisions across America, both cultural and political. Donald Trump fired up crops of people who feel like they’ve been lost and forgotten about in Washington. But it’s not just your average Joe who feels that way. One current Republican Congressman has endorsed Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, a former Senator has done the same, and a handful of prominent Republican aides and advisors are also #WithHer. 2016 is a highly irregular instance–Republicans are embracing the torchbearer of the Democrats, and there are rumblings that more are prepared to do the same as the days tick toward November. Here are five influential Republicans who have already said they’ll probably be voting for Hillary:

Representative Richard Hanna

Hanna, a representative from New York, became the first sitting–and so far, the only–Congressman to not only reject Trump, but also say he’d be voting for Clinton. “I do not expect perfection, but I do require more than the embodiment of at least a short list of the seven deadly sins,” Hanna wrote in an op-ed published on the Syracuse’s website on Tuesday.

Questioning his party’s ability to nominate an “electable” president, Hanna said he finds Trump “deeply flawed in endless ways,” citing the billionaire’s recent spat with the parents of a Muslim soldier who died fighting for America in Iraq. Hanna noted the ideological differences between himself and Clinton, but said, “I will vote for Mrs. Clinton,” adding: “I will be hopeful and resolute in my belief that being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing.”

Rep. Richard Hanna has become the first GOP congressman to cross party lines & say he’ll vote for @HillaryClinton pic.twitter.com/WIzAjVLGUu

— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) August 3, 2016

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 Trump Effect: 5 Republicans Who Will Be Voting for Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

Americans don’t like this election. This year has been negative and distracting, and honestly, we deserve better.  Whether you take umbrage with Donald Trump’s hateful comments, Hillary Clinton’s email server, or you’re just frustrated with the direction your party has taken, you’re not alone. Many voters are disillusioned with the candidates who emerged from the primaries, and the general election is expected to be an even nastier fight.

But there’s another fight that deserves our attention, one with far less negativity baked into the candidates. The undercard fight is a cleaner, better fight. If you look to the vice presidential picks, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, you get a glimpse of what that reset might look like. Pence and Kaine disagree on almost everything—gun rights, civil liberties, religious freedom, women’s health–yet they’re similar in that they avoid negative campaigning, and are seen as caring family men.

@KevinMKruse Both grew up Catholic, but took different paths: Kaine adhered to Jesuit training; Pence became an “evangelical Catholic” /2

— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) July 28, 2016

The vice presidential candidates make waves for policy decisions, rather than personal drama. They’re better representations of party values than the frontrunners are. They want to focus on the issues central to their party and central to their beliefs. Of course, you still might despise their decisions — but hating ideas is whole lot better than hating a person.

Imagine turning on the TV, and instead of hearing pundits analyzing the latest disparaging remarks from one candidate to the other, they debate whether a certain is good for the economy, or whether one is discriminatory. The closest chance we’ll have for that kind of debate will be when the VP candidates have their chance to spar.

People are already remarking on the similarities and differences between the two men, and while some people will still make jokes, the tone of their comparison is much more serious:

Tim Kaine always looks like he’s seconds from laughing and Mike Pence always looks like he’s seconds from screaming

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) July 28, 2016

Both @mike_pence and @timkaine were student body presidents of their high schools pic.twitter.com/7wMsZqN8te

— Dave Jorgenson (@davejorgenson) July 28, 2016

Both VP nominees have strong records in promoting trade. Tim Kaine –> https://t.co/LiyyTNpMH7 Mike Pence –> https://t.co/Ri60F08B97

— U.S. Chamber (@USChamber) July 28, 2016

I wish that we had a chance to start over with candidates who are seen for their policy rather than their baggage. Perhaps then we could get a chance to reset and focus more on the differences between our solutions rather than the differences between our character.

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 Pence vs. Kaine: The Election America Deserves appeared first on Law Street.

Before he extolled Hillary Clinton’s virtues and qualifications, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) ripped into Donald Trump. He presented the audience–gathered in the gymnasium of Northern Virginia Community College for a rally–with a three-part quiz: “Do you want a ‘you’re fired’ president, or a ‘you’re hired’ president?”; “Do you want a trash talking president, or a bridge building president?”; “Do you want a ‘me first’ president or a ‘kids and families first’ president?”

If the couple hundred strong audience’s reaction was any indication, the latter–clearly Clinton–was the unanimous choice. Thursday’s rally was an audition of sorts for Kaine, a presumed favorite as Clinton’s running mate. And perhaps as a response to those who fear he is too bland, too safe, too vanilla for the job, Kaine grew red in the face while animating his reservations about Trump and his reverence for Clinton.

“‘Ready for Hillary’ in Español is ‘estamos listos para Hillary,'” said Kaine, a fluent Spanish speaker who has spent time in Honduras as a minister. “The word ‘ready’ in Spanish is a little bit different than the word ‘ready’ in English…[In Honduras] the best compliment you could receive is to say that you are ‘listo’ because it means you’re well prepared, ready to get on the battlefield. You’re ready to fight.” At this, the crowd erupted in chants of “Hillary, Hillary.”

When it was Clinton’s turn to speak, Trump took a backseat to policy points (she still managed to land a few jabs: “this would be a good reality show, it’s just so serious”). The former secretary of state and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee evoked the popular play “Hamilton”–which, she said, she has seen three time–and the historical context it explores. America’s founding fathers “did not all agree,” she said. “They didn’t even all like each other. But here’s what they did–they worked together, and they set the most outrageous, unbelievable goal.” Their achievement, she said, was transforming disparate colonies “into a nation that could stand with the rest of the world.”

Thousands wait in over ninety degree heat. Most were turned away.

And with that, Clinton presented America’s choice as the most consequential of her lifetime, perhaps of the country’s lifetime: “We are asked whether we want to go forward into our future with confidence, optimism and hope, or whether we give in to bigotry and bluster and bullying.” She added: “Coal country, Indian country, inner city neighborhoods. I want us all to rise together.” But after the rally, on a small lawn outside the gymnasium, a scene emblematic of America’s current political gridlock unfolded.

“As illustrated recently by what happened over the email scandal, [the Clintons] have not been honest or law abiding citizens,” Laurie Kirby, who with her husband Ron braved over ninety degree heat and a staggering sun, told Law Street. The Kirbys stood with a giant American flag and signs opposing Clinton as “unlawful” and “untrustworthy.” As the soft-spoken couple shakily expressed their support for Trump (“I don’t necessarily agree with every statement that comes out of his mouth,” said Laurie), Clinton supporters streamed past, shaking their heads, shouting “stronger together!” and booing the couple.

A small circle began to form: the Kirbys conversed with a stocky, boisterous man in sunglasses, M.T. Two young women joined in. Both were turned away from the rally, they told Law Street, because the gym had reached capacity. “Our reservation apparently wasn’t good enough,” said A.D. (who declined to provide her full name), a first-generation Somalian, and a rising sophomore at Northern Virginia Community College. A.D. and her friend I.K. (who also requested only her initials be used) came as “moderates,” open to hear what Clinton had to say.

As they discussed the “false promises” of Bernie Sanders and the “elitism” of Clinton, a woman–decked in Clinton gear and clutching a “stronger together” sign–shouted at the Kirbys: “[Hillary] is not a liar” and “not crooked.” “I’m a Hillary supporter all the way, thank you,” she said, joining the circle chat. While the debate over Clinton’s character raged on, M.T. laughed. “It’s a very great conversation, it’s great dialogue,” he said. “Only in America!” He grew serious and shook his head as the tone around him grew testy, and personal attacks began to fly. “Just because you have different political views doesn’t mean people have to shame each other,” he said.

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 At Virginia Rally, Tim Kaine Rips Trump, Praises “Ready” Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

In what could be a foreshadowing of the Democratic ticket come November, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts appeared onstage with Hillary Clinton at a rally Monday morning–the first official campaign event of the 2016 race–where she extolled Clinton’s virtues, slammed Donald Trump, and inspired liberal passions over the potential for a historic, all-female Democratic ticket. “I’m ready. Are you ready for this?” Warren asked the cheering crowd of 2,600 at the Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Standing behind a lectern featuring Clinton’s “Stronger Together” slogan, Warren ticked off Clinton’s achievements as a “fighter”–for children, for women, for families, for health care, for human rights, and “for those who need her most.” The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee stood to the side, smiling and clapping. The two seemed a natural fit, like they’d been at each other’s side for years. The chemistry leaves Democrats, especially the party’s liberal wing, wondering: Might Clinton choose Warren as her running-mate this fall?

According to a recent Bloomberg Politics poll–of the vice presidential candidates floated around so far by the Clinton camp–the Democratic electorate would like to see Warren hold that mantle by a wide margin. 35 percent of those surveyed chose Warren as the preferred vice president to Clinton, with Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) in second with 17 percent, and Housing Secretary Julian Castro in third with 12 percent. Of course, the VP seat is not filled based on the desires of voters, and there is no guarantee Warren would accept a VP invitation if one is extended her way. Steps are being taken, however, as she is currently being vetted by Clinton campaign lawyers, and is expected to be subject to a closed-door interview with Clinton in the near future. And according to aides who spoke to The New York Times Monday on condition of anonymity, Clinton will select her VP with the fall Senate elections on her mind.

Irrespective of her future as the Democratic Party’s potential second in command, Warren spent nearly 20 minutes on Monday playing two roles that would certainly come in handy for a Clinton running-mate: a champion of Clinton and a trasher of Trump (“You want to see goofy? Look at him in that hat,” she said). Warren spent the first half of her speech running through personal anecdotes about her siblings and parents, highlighting her middle-class upbringing and working-class values. And of course, she painted Clinton, a “granddaughter of a factory worker whose going to make it all the way to the White House,” with the same brush, while tackling the Trump issue with vigor and venom.

“She knows what it takes to beat a thin-skinned bully who is driven by greed and hate,” Warren said of Clinton, eliciting boos from the crowd at the mere mention of “Donald Trump.” “She knows you beat a bully not by tucking tail and running, but by standing your ground and fighting back.” Calling Clinton a survivor of 25 years of “right wing attacks,” the Massachusetts senator–who will be up for re-election in the fall–offered full support: “most of all she has a good heart, and that’s what America needs.”

Just before Clinton took the stage to reciprocate Warren’s supportive words, the crowd erupted in chants of “Hillary! Hillary!” Warren joined them for a brief moment. Soon, perhaps weeks from now, we will know if Warren will continue rallying the troops, administering jolts of support at rally events, or play an even larger role in November.

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 At Campaign Rally, Warren and Clinton Prove a Strong Duo, Blast Trump appeared first on Law Street.

At this point, the disbelief that Donald Trump could actually win a primary has worn off. But worry still remains for many, especially after hearing about Trump’s support of waterboarding and other more severe forms of torture. Other candidates such as Cruz and Rubio were also in support of waterboarding in the most recent Republican debate. But these candidates’ desire to be tough on terrorism seems to only be a test of masculinity, leaving basic human rights unrecognized.

At recent debates, Ted Cruz spoke in support of waterboarding in an all-means-necessary approach to interrogation; Rubio took a similar approach. The collective opinions of these three candidates has ignited backlash from their own party, and again raises awareness of the dissonance within the Republican Party as its candidates endorse compromising measures. Senator John McCain had to distance himself from the words of these candidates, and remind them of the severe impact of torture. He responded to their statements in a Senate address, highlighting:

It might be easy to dismiss this bluster as cheap campaign rhetoric, but these statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the American people about the realities of interrogation, how to gather intelligence, what it takes to defend our security, and at the most fundamental level what we are fighting for as a nation.

One American already mislead by these comments is none other than Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump. In defense of his father’s torture stance, the younger Trump actually said that waterboarding was no different from hazing in frat houses across American college campuses.

These comments had several people doing a double take just to ensure he actually said those words. Eric Trump and these candidates want people to see torture as a sign of toughness, and candidates are able to capitalize off the fear and tragedy of Americans after terrorism attacks.

Infighting between the candidates over their toughness has occurred too–Donald Trump actually laughed when one of his supporters called Ted Cruz a pussy during his speech because Cruz’s support of waterboarding did not measure up to the strictness of Trump’s future plans for torture. After laughing, he went on to repeat the words of his supporter to his entire audience after laughing.

This long back and forth over the use of torture begs the question: is this a race for presidency or a contest in masculinity?

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Macho Enough to Torture?: Cruz, Trump, and Rubio All Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

While Donald Trump is busy alienating Hispanics, other candidates are desperately trying to tap into the highly valued Hispanic vote to fuel their campaigns. So in an attempt to connect with Hispanic voters, Hillary Clinton’s team uploaded a new post to her campaign site Monday titled “7 things Hillary Clinton has in common with your abuela.”

In the post Clinton plays up her new role as grandmother while talking about the importance of el respeto, but Hispanic voters weren’t buying it. Clinton was immediately accused of “hispandering” aka pandering to Hispanics, and the backlash was muy grande.

The hashtag #NotMyAbuela quickly became a trending topic, with Hispanic voters listing off all the ways Hillary is not like their abuelas. Many of the tweets mocked the comparison with humor.

Maury knows. #NotMyAbuela pic.twitter.com/r2d0mjRAok

— Julian Kiani (@JulianKiani) December 23, 2015

Hillarry is #NotMyAbuela . This is… pic.twitter.com/8zkoCjlZKN — Sonparabailar (@sonparabailar) December 23, 2015

.@HillaryClinton do you even know what this is? #NotMyAbuela pic.twitter.com/Z2qGfXGGWm — Eliel Cruz (@elielcruz) December 22, 2015

I’ll believe @HillaryClinton is a Latina abuela when I see her throwing chanclas @ Chelsea. Until then, #NotMyAbuela pic.twitter.com/nr9FuEBjrC — L. Herrera y Lozano (@herreraylozano) December 23, 2015

#NotMyAbuela Instead of standing there while he lied, my Abuela would have beat him and left him crying pic.twitter.com/lHK95WOcIF — Niko (@NikoTheFarmer) December 23, 2015

Other posts took a much more serious approach. Some users began using the hashtag to criticize Clinton’s white privilege and foreign policy, while juxtaposing all the ways their abuelas’ struggles were nothing like Clinton’s.

Hilary is #NotMiAbuela #NotMyAbuela because I was separated by mine by many miles, and a militarized border pic.twitter.com/3cGk3dkIa7 — Marisol Ramos (@LaMarichola) December 22, 2015

Mi abuela wouldn’t try to buy Latino votes by using Spanish words & trying to seem relatble to struggles she’ll never know #NotMyAbuela — mixer (@AryanaaBM) December 23, 2015

Our experiences cannot be equated to those of a rich and privileged white woman. It’s shameful and disrespectful to try #NotMyAbuela — Lupita Gonzalez (@pitaslug) December 23, 2015

my abuela wouldn’t support the deportation of central american child migrants to the violent countries they tried to flee from #NotMyAbuela — paulinecstasy (@paulinecstasy) December 23, 2015

My Abuela raised 6 children alone, and can’t afford cancer treatment. #NotMyAbuela — Adamantium Dovahkiin (@raerraven) December 23, 2015

My abuelita and I divided by the border wall. Abuelitas don’t militarize communities. #NotMyAbuela pic.twitter.com/nykh5At5Z3 — Christian Ramirez (@RamirezUSMEX) December 23, 2015

Mi abuela was a woman of color, spoke only spanish, and faced racism&sexism. @HillaryClinton is #NotMyAbuela and needs to stop hispandering — Antonia Simpson (@alexandrabc1214) December 22, 2015

Latinos aren’t one size fits all. It takes more than a few Spanish words & cute pictures to get the Latino vote. #hillaryabuela #NotMyAbuela

— Vanessa Oden Show (@VanessaOden) December 22, 2015

All of the criticism has caused some people to wonder if there’s a bit of a double standard from voters, since many Bernie Sanders supporters and staffers often refer to him as “Tio Bernie” or Uncle Bernie. If “tio” is ok for Sanders, why isn’t “abuela” for Clinton?

I am wondering why is #TioBernie Ok, but Hillary can’t be like our Abuela? #notmyabuela Honest ? ,I got no skin in the game at this point. — Julissa Arce (@julissaarce) December 22, 2015

Regardless, it’s clear now that Clinton’s attempt at “hispandering” went way too far, and potentially alienated her from possible supporters. Even though the Democratic frontrunner seemingly has the nomination in the bag, mistakes like this could end up seriously hurting her campaign.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #NotMyAbuela: Twitter Mocks Hillary Clinton’s “Hispandering” Post appeared first on Law Street.

Rand Paul started to bid farewell to 2015 with a special edition of his “Waste Report,” a regular roundup of government spending that he considers wasteful. Paul releases these reports as part of his unending effort to cut the federal deficit, but this edition commemorated the, objectively speaking, most underrated holiday in the United States: Festivus.

If you don’t know what Festivus is you should, aside from being ashamed of yourself, watch this YouTube clip for some background. Festivus is a fictional holiday created by the TV show “Seinfeld” and its celebration involves multiple different parts. The most notable part is the “airing of the grievances,” in which people share the problems they have with, well, everyone and everything.

Paul seized on Festivus, which is celebrated each year on December 23, to share some of his own grievances with his fellow candidates and the government in general–and he did so with an epic Twitter rant. Here’s a sampling of the best Tweets:

“I’ve got a lot of problems with you people and now you’re gonna hear about them!” #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

He, of course, started off with the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump referencing his extremely questionable use of the term “schlonged.”

Where to start but @realDonaldTrump. If u bring the Yiddish, know what it means. Guess that’s more of a kvetch than a grievance #Festivus — Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

After the debates, @realDonaldTrump always trying to give us parting gifts of his made in China ties. Weird. #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

Next he moves on to his fellow Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz. For context, Cruz was born in Canada.

My friend @tedcruz has still not pledged to issue exec order declaring Canadian “bacon” is not real bacon. Makes me suspicious. #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

He offered some critiques of his GOP competition:

to my absentee friend @marcorubio, I didn’t put your $170k+ salary in my waste report today. But I could have #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

.@JebBush is always trying to change the debate rules to allow extra time for awkward pauses in answers. Not gonna happen. #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

And he was sure to make it a bipartisan affair, taking shots at his competition on the other side of the aisle.

.@CarlyFiorina has ZERO trouble making it back from commercial breaks @HillaryClinton. Just saying. #Festivus #waronwomensrooms

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

to my comrade @SenSanders: Unless you’re Santa Claus, Socialism runs out of other people’s money #Festivus — Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

When he finished with his competition he, naturally, took a brief pause to ask for money.

While you wait for more grievances this #Festivus considering standing with me and helping our campaign right now https://t.co/78WPMctrVp — Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

Finally, he went through some of the highlights from his Waste Report. He highlighted public housing projects, which he claims give housing subsidies to people who don’t need it. Because people only need to qualify as low-income when entering housing programs, they can continue to receive subsidies after they no longer meet that criteria. He also criticized the use of federal funds for a study on why “Americans don’t want to use the metric system.”

Not everything in Paul’s report would be universally categorized as waste, like a study that sought to understand the role of emotions in decision-making, but you have to give him credit for cataloging a long list of spending that he deems questionable, not to mention the glorious way in which he chose to expose them.

While it’s fair to say the use of Festivus and ad-hominem attacks on his competition are an effective way to get media attention (I admittedly fell for the trap), Paul stayed true to his fiscal conservatism and had fun while doing it. I generally criticize campaigns’ often gimmicky use of social media, but this time, I have to give Rand Paul some credit.

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 Rand Paul Wins Twitter with Festivus Rant appeared first on Law Street.

“No more baby parts.” That is what Robert Lewis Dear, the gunman who killed three people and injured several more at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, allegedly told authorities following his arrest. We can assume that the shooter was referring to the smear campaign of videos released earlier this year by the Center for Medical Progress. These videos have been analyzed multiple times and have been proven to be doctored, falsely claiming that Planned Parenthood sells parts from aborted fetuses for profit.

Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts. So why did Dear say “no more baby parts”? That is simple: because the slanderous and hateful rhetoric surrounding those videos continued even after they were proven to be fake, and those fake facts were repeated over and over again by the media and by politicians seeking an emotional reaction from their audience and to bolster their numbers. They are by no means to blame for the tragedy that occurred in Colorado, at least not directly. But politicians do–especially those candidates running for president–need to hold themselves accountable for spreading lies.

It is no secret that politicians stretch and manipulate facts to suit their own agendas, but at some point manipulation turns into outright falsehood. The citizens supporting these candidates, though, don’t know that, and are unlikely to research the facts on their own when they are listening to someone they trust. This is great for people making a living from fact-checking debates, but very bad for the future of American policy.

After the shooting in Colorado, Democratic candidates took to social media immediately to show their support for Planned Parenthood.

We proudly #StandWithPP of Colorado Springs and the brave law enforcement personnel who fought to protect it.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 28, 2015

Today and every day, we #StandWithPP. https://t.co/oifqTQLx1X — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 27, 2015

My thoughts and prayers are with those in Colorado. #StandWithPP

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) November 28, 2015

Meanwhile, Republican candidates stayed relatively quiet. Who can blame them, really, when the place where yet another shooting happened was an organization they so vehemently denounce? A few of the GOP presidential candidates, such as Trump, Fiorina, and Huckabee, finally acknowledged the tragic event, but also turned it into an opportunity to mention, once again, the lie that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue.

In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Carly Fiorina was asked whether she thinks the violent rhetoric towards Planned Parenthood is to blame for actions like those in Colorado, to which she replied:

First, it is not alleged. Planned Parenthood acknowledged several weeks ago they would no longer take compensation for body parts, which sounds like an admission they were doing so. Secondly, this is so typical of the left to immediately demonize the messenger, because they don’t agree with the message…What I would say to anyone who tries to link this terrible tragedy to anyone who opposes abortion or opposes the sale of body parts is, this is typical left-wing tactics.

Here we see a prime example of fact manipulation, as well as blaming the opposition rather than taking responsibility for spreading lies. It would put Fiorina in an awkward position, of course, to contradict what she said in the CNN debate about the Planned Parenthood videos, which turned out to be incorrect. But is it better to hold tightly to false facts, rather than admit to your supporters that you were wrong? Only in a political career. It is extremely saddening to see that politicians, especially the politicians running for the highest office in the United States, are relying on such underhanded tactics to achieve their goal. It certainly does not bode well for us, the American citizens who have to put up with it.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Politicians To Blame For Hateful Planned Parenthood Rhetoric appeared first on Law Street.

Bobby Jindal announced on Tuesday that he is suspending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, leading many Americans to ask, “who?” The Louisiana governor had a tough time breaking into the crowded Republican field and on Tuesday remarked, “this is not my time.” He will be missed by about 0.4 percent of likely Republican voters. In remembrance of this fallen candidate, here are the top seven moments of Bobby Jindal’s campaign (10 moments are reserved for candidates who poll over 1 percent).

1. His campaign announcement

Any great presidential campaign begins with a great announcement video. Bobby Jindal’s hidden cam announcement to his unenthusiastic family was a pretty good precursor for the American public’s reaction.

“Yaaaaaay…”

2. Calling for the End of the Supreme Court

Right at the beginning of his campaign, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing gay marriage, to the dismay of many social conservatives. Bobby Jindal boldly proposed the best solution for this political frustration: disbanding a branch of the federal government.

I don’t think RBG is going down without a fight.

3. Having a lower approval rating in his deeply red home state than Barack Obama

Many people commented that Jindal’s campaign was a long shot and pointed out that he didn’t have the support he needed to get the nomination. Unfortunately, not even his home state of Louisiana was behind him. His approval rating stood at 32 percent when he announced his candidacy, compared to 42 percent for President Obama.

And he’s governor of a state where Obama lost his reelection by 17 points. Rough.

4. Polling higher than Jeb Bush in Iowa (Briefly)

Despite the doubters and the critics, Jindal fought hard and campaigned even harder, especially in Iowa. This paid off, when he recently topped former front-runner Jeb Bush in an Iowa poll.

I’m not sure whether this was more exciting for Jindal or sad for Bush. Even more, in the most recent Iowa polls before he dropped out, Jindal stood ahead of Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and John Kasich.

5. Stating that he deserves a spot in the primetime debate.

In late October, Jindal was highly critical of the debate structure which only allowed the top 10 candidates in national polls to participate. It is unclear whether he would have preferred a debate with 15 people on the same stage, a debate with a rotating stage, or maybe a head-to-head tournament style debate.

Caesar Flickerman seems to like the last idea

6. Attacking Chris Christie for being a “big government Republican.”

Speaking of debates, one of his biggest moments came in the most recent JV debate where he staked out ground as a true conservative Governor, calling out Chris Christie. He has spent much of his campaign defining himself as an aggressive candidate, and this was no exception.

Come at me, bro.

7. Dropping out.

Unfortunately for Governor Jindal, the 2016 presidential race just wasn’t his to win. In a year with so many eccentric, anti-establishment Republicans, there was little chance that an unpopular, bland governor could get the nomination. Kudos to him for running anyway, and extra kudos for realizing that he should drop out.

Here’s to hoping more candidates follow suit…

Bonus:  Muslim no-go zones and Muslims colonizing Europe

Earlier this year, before he announced his campaign, Jindal discussed his theory about “no-go zones” in some European cities that were overrun by violent Muslims and even stated that Muslims were “colonizing” Europe.

He will be greatly missed.

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 The Top 7 Moments of Bobby Jindal’s (Brief) Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

A Florida newspaper is really pissed with Senator Marco Rubio.

In a scorching op-ed published Tuesday evening, the Sun Sentinel’s Editorial Board accused Rubio of “ripping off voters” with his constant absences in Congress. Rubio, who is currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination, has missed more votes than any other senator this year. The Sentinel blasted Rubio saying,

Your job is to represent Floridians in the Senate. Either do your job, Sen. Rubio, or resign it.

The op-ed comes in response to Rubio’s interview with CNN Sunday, where he justified missing roughly one third of Senate votes this year by saying, “I’m not missing votes because I’m on vacation. I’m running for president so that the votes they take in the Senate are actually meaningful again.” Rubio went on to explain,

If there is a vote where my vote is going to make a difference or an issue of major national significance and importance, we’d do everything possible to be there. But I am going to miss votes, I’m running for president…When I miss a vote, it’s not because I’m out playing golf. We’re out campaigning for the future of America where I believe I can make more of a difference as president than I could as a senator.

Watch Rubio’s CNN Interview Below

The Sentinel’s editorial board’s response:

Sorry, senator, but Floridians sent you to Washington to do a job. We’ve got serious problems with clogged highways, eroding beaches, flat Social Security checks and people who want to shut down the government.

If you hate your job, senator, follow the honorable lead of House Speaker John Boehner and resign it.

It got harsher when they wrote,

Let us elect someone who wants to be there and earn an honest dollar for an honest day’s work. Don’t leave us without one of our two representatives in the Senate for the next 15 months or so.

Then they accused him out for essentially defrauded tax payers with his salary saying,

You are paid $174,000 per year to represent us, to fight for us, to solve our problems. Plus you take a $10,000 federal subsidy — declined by some in the Senate — to participate in one of the Obamacare health plans, though you are a big critic of Obamacare.

You are ripping us off, senator.

And they do have a point. According to a tally by Politico, Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders have been able to juggle both their senatorial duties and presidential campaigns, missing only seven and four votes respectively. Rubio on the other hand has shown an unmistakable unwillingness to help govern his state my missing staggering total of 59 votes. But to be fair Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham aren’t too far behind him with absences from votes totaling 57 and 39.

Even though the Florida newspaper is hardly the first to point out Rubio’s poor attendance record, its critique probably stung the most. At a time when campaign debate rhetoric relies so heavily on politicians showboating and examples of how candidates were able to “revolutionize” their states with their policies, having constituents publicly rebuke a contender is a huge political blow.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Newspaper to Marco Rubio: “Do Your Job or Resign it” appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration, education, jobs, and disliking Donald Trump–these are issues of great importance for many Hispanic voters in the United States. So it’s no surprise that these were major talking points for the Democratic presidential hopefuls attending the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) Annual Conference on Monday.

The four day event held in the Kansas City Convention Center has long been an opportunity for important figures and community leaders to address concerns specific to the Hispanic community, and form partnerships with Hispanic community-based organizations. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Secretary of State and 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton capitalized on the large audience of potential Latino votes by delivering short yet powerful speeches describing their political ideals. What they had to say all fell along similar lines.

Senator Bernie Sanders spoke first, choosing to focus most of his speech on racial equality and comprehensive immigration reform in the United States. He addressed the vibrant morning crowd by saying that immigration reform is, “one critical piece that must be talked about,” and that “without these folks it is likely that our agricultural system would collapse,” when referring to immigrants. He also spoke about the need for equality–on both racial and economic levels.

Governor Martin O’ Malley delivered a luncheon keynote address. Using powerful words and clear diction, O’Malley expressed his intent to make the United States a place more welcoming for immigrants. “We are, and always have been, a nation of immigrants…The enduring symbol of America is not the barbed-wire fence. It is the Statue of Liberty,” he stated as he referred to the GOP priority of securing the border with a fence, a tactic already proved too costly and unnecessary.

Similarly, the frontrunner in the Democratic polls, Hillary Clinton, has previously not had as much success with the Latino community as her opponents. However, her speech Monday may have helped her cause. Along with O’Malley and Sanders, Clinton spoke about immigration reform and racial equality. She also incorporated feminist ideals and expressed the following:  “Just ask yourself this: How can it be that, on average, Latinas still make just 56 cents on the dollar compared to white men? And then do the math. All this lost money adds up. For some women, thousands of dollars every year.” Furthermore Hillary made a reference to GOP candidate Jeb Bush’s comment about Americans having to work longer hours and tied it into the hard work immigrants often have to undertake, arguing against Bush’s sentiments.

While each politician explained some laudable goals, it wasn’t just their policies that got the crowd excited. One of the consistent highlights was the candidates’ shared disdain toward GOP candidate Donald Trump. O’Malley, Clinton, and Sanders all shared their insights on Trump with the hopes of further marginalizing not only him as a candidate, but as a foil for the Republican party as a whole.

Although Sanders declined  to answer the question of whether or not Donald Trump is a racist, he described Trump’s comments and behavior as an “outrage” and “totally unacceptable.” O’Malley took it a notch higher as he shared his “disgust”  by calling Trump “a hate-spewing character running for president,” and further distanced the Republican party by saying “the problem is that it’s so hard to tell him apart from the other candidates.” Hillary Clinton did not hold back when it was her turn to share her thoughts on Donald Trump. “Basta, Enough!” stated Clinton as she called Trump’s immigration bashing comments “shameful.” Clinton added that she, as well as everyone else in the room, knew an illegal immigrant and calling them drug dealers and rapists was “appalling.” She further added to the notion of Trump representing the entire Republican party as she called out the other GOP candidates for remaining silent on Trump’s statements and not speaking out for weeks after the foul comments were made.

After Monday’s Democratic speeches at the National Latino Council of La Raza, attendees appeared hopeful and satisfied. “I really like that as a Latino I found out we have a lot of support and that was wonderful. I feel very happy,” shared event attendee Maria Arguello. Voters seemed to like that all three candidates gave genuine attention to the issues most pertinent to the Hispanic community but it was also important for them to know the candidates’ unified stance against Trump and the comments he made.  While the Democratic candidates shared a brief moment while fighting for the Hispanic vote, the competition is about to become a lot tougher as all share similar insights.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democratic Candidates Go After Trump for Anti-Immigration Statements appeared first on Law Street.

Real estate mogul Donald Trump has recently become one of the most talked-about people on the internet. Trump has a long history of making highly arrogant, conceited, and disparaging comments on pretty much any topic. But, Trump is faring fairly well in some presidential primary polls–second only to Governor Jeb Bush. While candidates saying stupid things is not a new trend,  some of Trump’s recent statements stand out as remarkably incorrect and foolish.

Check out some of the best Donald Trump quotes of the cycle so far, debunked:

When speaking about the “Great Wall of Mexico” he intends to build, Trump stated: “I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me–believe me–and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”

It appears that Trump has visions of making a small scale “Great Wall of China” to be placed at the Mexico-U.S. border. Although the concept of a fence between the U.S. and Mexico isn’t a new idea–a 700 mile long one was attempted a decade ago–it hasn’t proved cost effective enough for the U.S. According to Former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Ralph Basham, that’s because fencing in poor soil, flood plains, or sand dunes has proven to be more expensive than effective. As a result of these terrain challenges, in some places the government would have to spend more than $6 million per mile for specialized fencing. In those areas, the government has opted for more agents and technology to better secure the border. Basham further elaborates that there are plenty of paved roads where agents have time to respond to incursions or where there are natural obstacles like mountains and water that already slow, deter, or reroute traffic. These obstacles make the installation of a barrier unnecessary. There is clear evidence that agents on ground would not only be a more cost effective solution but also more successful at keeping illegal immigrants from crossing the border.

Also the illegal and ridiculous notion that he wants Mexico to pay for it would technically give that nation the rights to the wall, so it would have to be renamed “The Great Wall of Mexico.” It is safe to say Mr. Trump would not be too pleased with that name.

When asked about ISIS, Trump responded by saying he would: “Bomb the oil fields in Iraq.” Furthermore he augmented on his point by saying: “I don’t care about the government of Iraq.”

It seems that Mr. Trump is slightly confused when it comes to Middle Eastern geography and history. If he ever were to become president, he would benefit greatly from a class or two on Middle Eastern Affairs or International Relations at an accredited institution. Just to be clear, the actual Iraqi government is entirely independent of ISIL and is constantly fighting the terrorist group. In fact the United States Army trains the Iraqi military, which would make things not only messy but rather awkward if the U.S. took Trump’s advice to bomb the oil fields. Moreover, bombing an entire oil field to “end ISI[L]’s funding source,” would not only affect oil prices dramatically, but our current diplomatic relationship with Iraq would be hurt.

When asked about why he is running for president, Trump goes on a tangent in which he states: “We’ve lost our jobs, we’ve lost our money. We’re a third world nation and we’re a debtor nation at the same time.”

Effectively, the United States isn’t what it used to be. In many instances jobs have become more difficult to come by and the economy has struggled. However, to call the United States a “third world nation,” is not just a politically outdated statement but also flat out wrong. Statistics provided by Forbes show that the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom twenty percent is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.

When asked about abortion, Trump stated, “In terms of polling, the pro-choice (support) is going down a little bit.”

Referencing national statistics in a speech is a great way for presidential candidates to appear caring and knowledgeable about hot domestic issues. It is even more impressive when the statistics are actually accurate. Donald Trump has made it very clear that he is socially conservative–that extends to his personal views on abortion. Needless to say however, he makes an interesting claim regarding pro choice support when compared to recent polls.. A survey conducted by the Gallup in May of 2015 showed that 50 percent of Americans identify as pro-choice; an obvious 9 percent increase from 2012 when the same question found 41 percent Americans identified as pro-choice. Furthermore, according to the 2015 survey, 44 percent of Americans identified as pro-life which effectively contradicts Trump’s statement.

So, Trump has certainly had some doozies lately. But be sure to check back next week to see which political figure  makes an appearance on Law Street Media’s page of outrageous comments.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump’s Top 4 Outrageous Comments So Far in the Presidential Race appeared first on Law Street.

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, self-described Democratic Socialist, is a 73-year-old senator from Vermont, the longest serving independent in Congressional history, and a Presidential candidate. He’s been described as “one of the few elected officials who is fundamentally devoted to dealing with the plight of poor and working people” and he’s gaining ground in the polls on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders polled within 8 percentage points of Clinton in New Hampshire last week, a pretty big deal since the New Hampshire primary comes first in the series of nationwide party primary elections. From social justice and climate change to trade agreements and health care, Bernie’s got some all-inclusive views that I can definitely get on board with. Here are 10 reasons why you’ll want to #FeelTheBern in 2016.

1. #SocialistBern: Bernie wants to provide a free college education for everyone.

Rather than cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, Bernie wants to cut military spending and put that money towards education. That means that public colleges and universities in the country would be tuition-free.

 Say goodbye to college debt with #TheBern.

2. #ProgressiveBern: He wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Disposable income FTW.

3. #CivilRightsBern: He marched with MLK.

Bernie Sanders is one of two sitting senators to have attended the March on Washington in 1963 to hear MLK’s I Have A Dream Speech.

If only The Bern could still move like this…

4. #HappyBern: He’s never run a negative advertisement in over 30 years.

He has stated, “I’ve never run a negative political ad in my life…I believe in serious debates on serious issues.”

 He who hath not bitched on my TV hath mine vote.

5. #DemocracyBern: He wants to make Election Day a national holiday.

“In America, we should be celebrating our democracy and doing everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process. Election Day should be a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy.”

Get ready for your new favorite holiday.

6. #FlowerBern: Bernie loves the environment.

The Bern serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he’s focused on global warming. He introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies that immorally get huge tax breaks.

Peace, Love, and Bernie Sanders for President.

7. #PeacefulBern: He opposed entering the war in Iraq.

No further commentary needed.

8. #99PercentBern: He wants to reform the campaign finance system that allows “billionaires” to “buy elections and candidates.”

GOP better take its money and run.

9. #EqualityBern: He’s a feminist.

Bernie believes birth control should be provided through all health care plans. He’s also stated that all women who rely on the military healthcare system should have access to contraception coverage and family planning counseling.

Finally, a man who speaks to my uterus’s needs.

10. #TheRealBern: He released a folk album.

In 1987, as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, The Bern recorded a folk album.

He’s a cool Mayor.

Feel the Bern in 2016…

And move it like Bernie to the Democratic Primaries…

So we can #BernTheHouseDown.

Jennie Burger 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 Ten Reasons to #FeelTheBern This Election Season 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.

Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee formally announced his run for the Democratic presidential bid on Wednesday, June 3. Chafee joins a few other declared Democratic presidential candidates, with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton garnering the most support thus far at 12.8 percent and 61.2 percent respectively. Given Chafee’s relative obscurity, however, he seems to be a bit of a long shot candidate.

Chafee’s moment of glory mainly comes from his work with Obama. Obama helped Chafee win the governorship in 2010 and then Chafee became one of Obama’s strongest supporters during his reelection campaign in 2012. Chafee seems to be mimicking some of Obama’s actions in the Democratic primary, especially Obama’s tactic of attacking the Iraq War vote to defeat Clinton in the 2008 race. Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and in the 2008 Democratic presidential race, he persistently attacked Clinton for her decisions regarding the Iraq war. This attack point helped Obama defeat Clinton, and Chafee appears to be capitalizing on the same thing. He has launched his campaign with a focus on his dissenting vote in the Senate regarding the Iraq War in 2002. Chafee is using this to separate himself from Clinton, which is not an awful tactic considering that it’s a weak spot for the Democratic frontrunner.

In this aspect, Chafee joins O’Malley in being the only other Democratic presidential candidate to play a little dirty instead of focusing on the issues and policy reforms. Which, considering neither Clinton nor Sanders has resorted to the same kind of tactics, could backfire for Chafee immediately.

According to Chafee’s website, his four main platform points are an aversion to foreign entanglements, building a strong middle class, improving environmental stewardship, and the protection of personal liberties. Chafee’s past is actually most interesting aspect of his presidential bid–he entered politics as a Republican and then became an independent until he joined the Democratic Party in 2013. But Chafee is not at all worried with how his party-switching history will affect his popularity in the primary. In fact, his response to this concern was:

I have not changed. My old liberal Republican stand on the issues does line up with the Democratic Party—women’s reproductive freedoms, support for working families. I have a 30-year record.

Another notable aspect of Chafee’s presidential bid is his insistence on switching the United States to the metric system. His reasoning for doing so is to become “an internationalist country.” He believes that by switching to the metric system, among other moves, the United States will be giving a symbolic message to the rest of the world that it is ready to integrate into the world system instead of taking a unilateral approach to foreign policy.

Chafee’s run is undoubtably a long shot. But the same buzz surrounded Bernie Sanders when he first announced, and he is the only Democratic candidate who has threatened Clinton’s standing, even if only marginally so. Chafee seems focused on his role as the underdog and feels America has a particularly soft spot for that kind of status. But the problem is that both O’Malley and to a lesser extend, Sanders, have been running on a similar platform. So the Democratic presidential bid is turning into a contest between the established Clinton dynasty, a progressive-socialist independent Sanders, little known O’Malley, and now Chafee, the new underdog.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lincoln Chafee: The Democratic Primary Welcomes a New Underdog appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic presidential candidate, declared that he wanted to debate the Republican presidential candidates right now so he can expose their “reactionary agenda.” Sanders believes that debating these candidates on the presidential issues instead of allowing the media to focus on polling and fundraising will expose their policies that favor the wealthy.

Traditionally, the presidential primary candidates only face each other. Republican presidential candidates debate among themselves as do Democratic presidential candidates. But never before in modern years have the individual presidential candidates within each party debated across party lines. Before candidates Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, presidential debates weren’t even an aspect of the elections. That only happened because Lincoln kept following Douglas on his campaign trail, goading him into arguments. So is that same pattern of events going to be set in stone by Sanders?

Sanders is primarily running on reducing the income inequality gap in America—which is extremely important considering the top 20 percent of U.S. households own more than 84 percent of the wealth and the bottom 40 percent own about .3 percent of the wealth. Sanders’ primary purpose for this debate would be to question the Republicans on their future plans regarding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are all hot topics considering America’s economic situation.

While Sanders’ call for a debate between the presidential candidates may seem a little outlandish, he has valid points. After the Great Recession, the top 1 percent has had a positive 36.8 percent increase in income but the rest of the country has experienced a negative change in income, at about .4 percent. The top one percent has an average income of $1,303,198 and the bottom 99 percent has an average income of $43,713.

Sanders wants to capitalize on the Republican presidential candidates’ plan for economic reform. Sanders is particularly focused on raising the minimum wage to a living wage and making education affordable for every American. That’s somewhat consistent with Hillary Clinton, who has supported numerous efforts to change the economic system as well, including raising the minimum wage and fighting for women’s equal pay.

But some of his Republican presidential candidates are trailing more closely to the income inequality issue than others. Jeb Bush’s economic policies still focus on cutting back taxes and rolling back regulations on industry, but Bush also recognizes a major problem, stating, “If you’re born poor today, you’re more likely to stay poor.”

So Sanders’ call for a debate between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates might seem a little extreme, he has some fair points. Many of the major campaign contributors are big banks, such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. By calling out for a debate, Sanders is trying to confront all of the presidential candidates on their economic plans for the future. Considering the dire income disparity in America right now, that’s not a bad plan.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bernie Sanders’ Call for an Early Debate: Could it Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Political newcomers Dr. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have formally announced their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election, adding more diversity to the growing cast of GOP contenders. However their chances of becoming the Republican nominee may be slim to none, seeing as both candidates have never held public office or had military experience. So, in an effort to learn what would possess a famous retired neurosurgeon and a former CEO to run for president, here’s a bit of backstory on these conservative POTUS hopefuls.

Dr. Ben Carson

Oddly enough, it was a Lifetime movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr. that first introduced me to Dr. Ben Carson. The inspiring yet cheesy biopic modeled after his autobiography entitled “Gifted Hands” chronicled the former pediatric neurosurgeon’s life and the events leading up to the 1987 surgery that made him famous. In that operation, he became the first surgeon to separate a pair of conjoined twins joined at the head.

In 2013 Carson decided to retire as a surgeon and begin inserting himself into the political realm, in what many accurately guessed was the makings of a presidential run. However since then, Carson’s political experience can be pretty much be summed up with his bashing of Obamacare and government intrusion in healthcare at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast.

At his campaign kickoff Monday in his home town of Detroit, Carson chose not to shy away from his inexperience, instead opting to capitalize on it, telling voters he is not a politician, reports the Atlantic. He stated:

I don’t want to be a politician because politicians do what is politically expedient. I want to do what’s right.

But before Carson educated voters about his conservative platform he decided to start things off with what may be the most unusual campaign launch/mini-concert ever. The strange highlights included his wife Candy playing the “National Anthem” on the violin and an evangelical choir singing a rendition of Eminem’s “Lose Yourself,” which is now available for download on iTunes.

Despite having zero experience or political clout, Carson claims he’s ready to go up against the crowded pack of Republican candidates. If he somehow manages to accomplish that, it will be one long uphill battle for the controversial hopeful, especially since he’s been quoted saying Obamacare is the “worst thing since slavery.” He also claims homosexuality is a choice, citing people who go to prison identifying as straight and end up having gay sex as proof.

I’m in it!

— Dr. Ben Carson (@RealBenCarson) May 4, 2015

Carly Fiorina

Unlike Carson, Carly Fiorina’s presidential campaign announcement strategically went without the theatrics, but she did throw a bit of shade at fellow female campaigner and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. In her campaign ad’s opening statement, Fiorina plays up her inexperience saying, “our founders never intended for us to have a professional political class” as she turns away from an image of Clinton.

Fiorina is a retired business executive who served as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP) before being forced out in 2005 after a botched merger, lackluster revenues, falling stock prices, and innovation struggles. She’s also credited with laying off 30,000 HP and Compaq employees during her time as CEO, a fact not forgotten by one site using the domain name carlyfiorina.org, which Fiorina regrettably failed to register. The site called out Fiorina with thousands of frowny faces and the message:

Carly Fiorina failed to register this domain. So I’m using it to tell you how many people she laid off at Hewlett-Packard. That’s 30,000 people she laid off. People with families.

But Fiorinia wasn’t the only presidential candidate to make that mistake. Ted Cruz also failed to procure the domain name tedcruz.com, which now shows the message “Support President Obama. Immigration Reform Now!” 

Running for president? Buy ALL your domains. Otherwise: http://t.co/cQx6Fw6hGw, http://t.co/9k3UPHQEBT #2016Election pic.twitter.com/yyACnGe94N

— Amina Khan (@aminawrite) May 5, 2015

On a more serious note, like Carson, Fiorina has no political experience and has never held elected office, even though she did make a failed Senate run in 2010. Fiorina did serve as an aide to John McCain during the 2008 presidential elections, but failed miserably when she dissed his running mate Sarah Palin saying she didn’t think she could run a major corporation like HP. Then she dug herself in a bigger hole with these follow up comments:

Well, I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation, I don’t think Barack Obama could run a major corporation, I don’t think Joe Biden could run a major corporation.

Fiorina’s biggest challenge, besides overcoming her vast political shortcomings, may be avoiding chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome.

Newcomers to the political arena aren’t that surprising–we all remember Herman Caine from 2012. But whether or not Republican newbies Carson or Fiorina will actually have a chance with their outsider statuses will be up to the voters.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do Republican Newbies Have Any Chance in the GOP Primaries? appeared first on Law Street.

Get excited everyone! The 2016 presidential campaign is beginning to take shape, with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Hillary Clinton all formally throwing their names into this election’s version of the Goblet of Fire. But let’s talk about the newest candidate to submit his bid for office–the 43-year-old Republican Junior Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio. His fresh face and conscious appeal to younger voters has already garnered comparisons to a young Barack Obama, but his shorter resume compared to his peers makes him a less familiar face for many voters.

That’s why I decided to compile some interesting facts about our newest Republican candidate that demonstrate just how “hip” with our generation he really is. So without further adieu here are the three facts millennials should know about presidential hopeful Marco Rubio.

He’s Meme Friendly

One thing we millennials love is our memes, and Rubio tapped into that love of combining photos with witty commentary when he gave us the awkward sip seen around the world. If you haven’t seen the sip, it happened during his turn at the GOP rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union in 2013. Rubio took an uncomfortable pause in the middle of the speech for a questionably timed water break that managed to creep out many viewers.

.@marcorubio: He reaches for water, but we’re breaking out the Arbor red. pic.twitter.com/O6ATmGumkE

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) April 13, 2015

His nervous lip smacking combined with uncomfortably direct eye contact proved to be the perfect recipe for an instant viral meme. That sip alone generated at least 15 different parody Twitter accounts and instantly earned Rubio 13,000 new followers. With those kinds of gains in followers, Rubio could take this election one sip at a time.

Picked up over 13,000 new followers on #twitter since last night! Im going to start drinking #water in the middle of all of my speeches! — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 13, 2013

He Loves Rap Music

In a December 2012 interview with GQ magazine, Rubio transformed into an old school music lover out of nowhere, sharing his affinity for Afrika Bambaataa, Public Enemy, and Tupac, and earning some instant street cred. When it comes to music Rubio prefers intensity over “party anthems” calling Eminem his favorite artist and “the only guy that speaks at any sort of depth.” When asked by GQ if he had a favorite song to play to psych him up before a Senate vote Rubio laughed saying:

..in terms of psyching yourself up, I don’t have time for that. You know you can’t put on earphones and the storm the floor and vote.

If you ever wondered what Rubio is currently jamming out to, he was kind enough to share his public Spotify playlist, but sadly it lacks Rubio’s favorite tracks which include: “Straight Outta Compton” by N.W.A., “Killuminati” by Tupac, and Eminem’s “Lose Yourself.”

He’s Social Media Savvy…Or at Least He Thinks He is

Rubio began his presidential campaign by first asking supporters to add him as a friend on Snapchat. Yes, Snpachat, the quick deleting photo/video sharing app that’s usually known for less than wholesome uses.

I’m now on @Snapchat. My username is marcorubio16. Please add me. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) April 13, 2015

However, his “story” making skills still need some work. His first posts consisted of a lot of clapping and name chanting from his presidential campaign announcement, as well as him being driven away in a super sexy gold minivan. I’m hoping he’ll step his selfie game up soon, or if all else fails just videotape himself taking more awkward sips from tiny water bottles. But till then I still want to know if Rubio is team follow back or nahh?

hi @marcorubio are you team follow back or what pic.twitter.com/l2KzeLAp35 — Marisa Kabas (@MarisaKabas) April 13, 2015

Why you gotta be so rude pic.twitter.com/HlAlqnnlQq — Marisa Kabas (@MarisaKabas) April 13, 2015

Since announcing his candidacy last night, Rubio has already begun to try to spin his inexperience and youngest contender status–both of which are concerns for the American people–to his advantage. Whether his plea to millennials will help him actually connect with younger voters will have to be seen.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marco Rubio: Going After Millennials for 2016 appeared first on Law Street.