A presidential elector has officially announced that he will not be voting for Donald Trump on December 19. In an op-ed in the New York Times, Republican Christopher Suprun declared his opposition to Trump. He says that the President-elect’s lack of foreign policy experience and his demeanor make him unfit for the presidency: “He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage. This is unacceptable.”

I worry about America when taking a vote is considered treason. https://t.co/ingWbRkdC1

— (((Chris Suprun))) (@TheChrisSuprun) December 6, 2016

Now, some Democrats calling themselves the “Hamilton Electors” are hoping that more Republicans will be encouraged by Suprun’s act and refuse to stand by their party’s nominee. According to Politico, there are at least eight Democratic electors in the group, based in Colorado and Washington. They have been working to influence other electors to choose a Republican alternative, likely Governor John Kasich. It is unclear whether he would be up for the job, but Suprun also mentioned him as a fitting choice. There are 538 electors that officially choose the president, and one candidate needs 270 to win. So, to have a chance to block Trump from actually taking office, the anti-Trump electors and Democrats would need to persuade 36 more to vote for someone else.

Curious about #HamiltonElectors strategy? Get clear here, and then unite with us to #stoptrump: pic.twitter.com/G3BHdcByUD

— HamiltonElectors (@HamiltonElector) December 3, 2016

Prominent Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig is joining forces with a California law firm, ready to give legal support and free counsel to electors who choose to vote for someone other than Trump. The effort, called “The Electors Trust,” will also provide a space and platform for electors to discuss and construct a strategy for how to vote on the 19^th, to see whether there is enough support to actually stop Trump. “It makes no sense to be elector number five who comes out against Trump. But it might make sense to be elector 38,” Lessig said.

Clinton’s popular vote lead is now over 2.65 million — and above 2%. This shouldn’t happen. It’s time to reform the electoral college.

— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) December 6, 2016

Since Hillary Clinton received over 2.5 million votes more than Trump in the election, abolishing the Electoral College has been a hot topic. However, some say removing it would only lead to chaos. To do so would require a Constitutional amendment.

Eradicating the Electoral College would also risk tilting general elections in favor of nominees that could win major metropolitan areas such as New York and California, with no need to campaign in rural areas or in less populated states. It could also lead to extremely close elections that would require recounts, and delay the whole process. And if elections were to be decided by the popular vote, it would be difficult to win an absolute majority because of third party candidates. This year, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but not by a majority—she got 48 percent of the vote.

On December 19, the electors will head to their respective state capitals and cast their votes. To further support electors who are anti-Trump, a team of lawyers connected to the Hamilton Electors is already preparing to challenge laws in the 29 states that have legislation binding electors to their party’s nominee. Even if the chance of avoiding a Trump presidency isn’t that great, they’re going to try.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post Presidential Electors and Lawyers Organize Against Trump appeared first on Law Street.

After last week’s poll-defying election results, half of Americans were left stunned and feeling a bit like they’d just been cast in a Doomsday movie. Luckily meme connoisseur Josh Billinson, was there to deliver some much needed comedic relief.

Billinson, who goes by the handle @jbillinson on Twitter, created a series of viral memes with a hilarious take on Vice President Joe Biden’s response to a Trump presidency. In them Biden comes up with some pretty devious plans to prank President-elect Donald Trump before he moves into the White House, while President Obama does his best to stop him.  Pretty soon other users began creating their own takes on the trend, resulting in some of the best internet memes, ever!

So if you need a political pick-me-up or are feeling nostalgic over the end of America’s favorite bromance, then check out a collection of the best Biden/Obama memes below:

Obama: “They just called it for Trump, he won”
Biden: “Well I’m not going to call him President, ever! Not even if there’s a fire!” pic.twitter.com/eeRIMuHyEO

— Josh (@jbillinson) November 10, 2016

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 Memes of Biden Trolling Trump Are Helping Us Laugh Away Our Tears appeared first on Law Street.

Following Donald Trump’s surprising win on Tuesday, a Ku Klux Klan group announced that it will be holding a celebratory parade, honoring Trump’s victory.

The group will hold the parade on December 3, according to the Loyal White Knights’ website. However, it does not give a specific location other than North Carolina and did not specify a time.

The website says that the celebration is called the “VICTORY KLAVALKADE KLAN PARADE,” and that “TRUMP’S RACE  UNITED MY PEOPLE.”

The KKK announced a victory rally in North Carolina for the President-elect they endorsed. pic.twitter.com/tfac2zOiAQ

— AJ+ (@ajplus) November 11, 2016

The Loyal White Knights are located in Pelham, NC, and the Anti-Defamation League considers them to be one of the most active KKK groups in the country. They have around 150-200 members, and reach 15 different states.

The group also took part in a protest against the removal of the Confederate Flag in South Carolina last year.

This is not the first time that Trump has received praise from the KKK. Former KKK grand wizard David Duke expressed his support for the Republican candidate many times throughout the election.

“He’s made it OK to talk about these incredible concerns of European Americans today, because I think European Americans know they are the only group that can’t defend their own essential interests and their point of view,” Duke told Politico in December 2015. “He’s meant a lot for the human rights of European Americans.”

Additionally, a little over a week before the election, the KKK’s official newspaper, The Crusader, showed its support for Trump with a front page story entitled, “”Make America Great Again.”” The newspaper hails itself as “The premier voice of the white resistance.”

“The Crusader” is the official newspaper of the KKK. #MAGA #DonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/mBTvLOFU9u

— Billy Gee (@billygee12) November 1, 2016

Trump’s campaign has tried to distance itself from the KKK, calling the Klan “repulsive” after being previously criticized for not doing so quickly enough.

Julia Bryant

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

The post Ku Klux Klan Plans Trump Victory Parade in North Carolina appeared first on Law Street.

After Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 election, despite winning the popular vote, then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton called to eliminate the Electoral College: “it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president,” she said. Sixteen years and four elections later, the Electoral College lives on, and Clinton made no mention of disposing of it during her concession speech on Wednesday, even though she became the second Democrat in the modern era to win the popular vote yet lose the White House.

Donald Trump won 51 more electoral votes than Clinton, but a little over 250,000 more Americans voted for her. The story was similar in 2000, though Gore’s margin in the popular vote was over double Clinton’s this year. Three presidents in the 19th century–John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888–were elected despite losing the popular vote. So why is this system in place, and why does it endure?

There are more Clinton voters than Trump voters. But they live in the wrong places. That is one lesson of this election.

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) November 10, 2016

The Electoral College traces its roots to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Though other systems were considered, including a direct popular vote, the founding fathers and delegates settled on using so called “electors” to represent individual voters. They wanted to ensure people in sparsely populated states were heard, and were concerned the average American lacked suitable information to make responsible decisions, so “electors” act as informed proxies instead.

Slavery played a role as well. Southern delegates at the 1787 convention were worried that they were outnumbered by Northerners. So the Three-Fifths Compromise was reached: slaves would count as three-fifths of a person when  apportioning Representatives and “electors.”

Fast forward 223 years. Following the 2000 election, talk of switching to a one person, one vote system gained steam. Doing so would require a constitutional amendment, however, and as President Obama won the White House in 2008 and 2012 both by the Electoral College and popular counts, the effort moved to the margins. Since Clinton’s unexpected defeat on Tuesday, when she won the popular vote by over 250,000 votes (so far) yet lost the election, focus has shifted yet again on abolishing the system. But not everyone think this is a good idea.

In 2012, Gary Gregg, author and political science professor at the University of Louisville, wrote in an editorial in Politico, “abolishing the current system will strongly tilt elections in favor of candidates who can win huge electoral margins in the country’s major metropolitan areas.” He illustrated his point:

Barack Obama received 3.3 million more votes than Mitt Romney in the Nov. 6 election, but won 3.6 million more votes than Romney in just four cities — Chicago, Philadelphia, New York and Los Angeles. He won those margins without much of a campaign. Now, imagine an Obama candidacy free of the need to appeal to Ohio factory workers, Colorado cattlemen, Iowa hog farmers and Virginia police officers, and you start to get the picture.

Proponents of the system also say a popular vote could end in a catastrophe if the race is close, leading to precinct-by-precinct recounts. But there are plenty of critics of the Electoral College system as well. It does not reflect the will of the people, some say, or it creates “swing” states that attract a majority of campaign resources. One surprising critic of the Electoral College: President-elect Trump. Using his preferred platform for discourse, Twitter, Trump called the current system a “disaster for democracy” just before the 2012 election. That same disaster gave him a victory four years later.

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 Electoral College: Why Does it Exist and Why is it So Polarizing? appeared first on Law Street.

All eyes were on the results of the presidential election on Tuesday night, and rightfully so. But America is changing in other ways, chief among which is the widening acceptance of marijuana. Nine states voted on ballot measures to legalize marijuana either recreationally or medically. See how the four states with medical measures on their ballots voted below.

Arkansas

Courtesy of J. Stephen Conn; License (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Results: Passed

Issue 6 will legalize medical marijuana for 17 qualifying conditions. It will also designate money made from pot taxes to technical institutes, vocational schools, workforce training, and the General Fund. An additional measure, Issue 7, was stricken from the ballot by the Arkansas Supreme Court on October 27.

Analysis: Medical marijuana in Arkansas garnered enough support over the past four years to shift a majority of the state from rejecting it in 2012 to supporting it in 2016. Issue 6 passed with 53 percent of the vote on Tuesday night, bringing another medical marijuana program–along with Louisiana and Florida–to the South.

“When you have a red state doing a progressive issue, it gives people in the U.S. Congress the color — for lack of a better word — to allow reform at the national level,” said David Couch, the lawyer who sponsored Issue 6.

For more information on marijuana legalization state by state, click here for “The State of Weed.”

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 Results: How Did States Vote on Medical Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

While people anxiously awaited the results of the 2016 presidential election, Marijuana legalization–one of the nation’s top categories of ballot measures–had a strong and decisive night. Four states joined Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia in legalizing recreational marijuana for adults 21 years and older. Find out how America voted below!

Arizona

“Arizona” courtesy of Gordon Wrigley; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Results: Rejected

Proposition 205 would have legalized recreational marijuana for those over 21. It would have also created a 15 percent sales tax on marijuana that would be distributed to public health and education services.

Analysis: Arizona rejected Prop 205 with 52 percent voting against the measure and 48 percent voting in favor, as of Wednesday morning with 98 percent of the votes reported.

Opponents took issues with the measure’s caveat that would have created a monopoly on the marijuana industry in Arizona. Others argued that the legalization would increase drug trafficking and cause an increase in teen use and deadly car crashes tied to marijuana.

For more information on marijuana legalization state by state, click here for “The State of Weed.”

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 Election Results: How Did States Vote on Recreational Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

If Trump loses the election tonight, he’s definitely not going down without a fight. The Republican presidential nominee has already filed a lawsuit against the state of Nevada over an early voting dispute.

The lawsuit accuses Clark County, Nevada, of keeping the polls open “two hours beyond the designated closing time” Friday night. The polling locations closed at 7 PM; however, some polling locations were kept open until 10 PM to accommodate voters waiting in line.

Nevada state law requires that voters be allowed to cast their ballots if they have entered a polling place, or are physically waiting in line to vote at the time of closing.

As it just so happens, the Las Vegas polling places targeted in the suit happen to be home to large Hispanic populations–and Hillary Clinton has a significant advantage over Donald Trump with Hispanic voters.

The Trump campaign called the extended voting times evidence of a “rigged system,” and alleged that Clark Country voting registrar Joe Gloria’s actions “very much appear to have been intentionally coordinated with Democratic activists.”

According to Business Insider, Judge Gloria Sturman denied Trump’s lawyer’s request for Gloria to preserve the names of the poll workers who permitted the late voting–mainly because he is already legally required to do so.

“I don’t get what you’re asking,” Judge Sturman told David Lee, a lawyer with the Trump campaign.

“I can’t obligate [Gloria] to do something he’s already obligated to do,” Sturman said. “This is Election Day. He has other things to be doing.”

Sturman maintained that she would not expose the poll workers to harassment and an army of Twitter trolls, especially when “they’re not here to defend themselves.”

Trump’s lawyers also requested that the votes cast after 7 PM not be “co-mingled” with the other votes, but that request was shot down as well.

While Trump may not have been successful in what very well may be his first attempt at proving voter fraud, it’s very clear that he’s steadfast in disputing the election if the results don’t swing in his favor.

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 Trump Campaign Sues Nevada For Keeping Early Voting Polls Open Late appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter trolls–presumably supporting Donald Trump–have crafted a faux social media campaign aimed at tricking Hillary Clinton supporters into voting via text on November 8.

You cannot vote for the President of the United States via text. I repeat, text voting is really not a thing people–unless when used for some type of talent competition, typically of the singing and dancing variety. In fact, there’s only two ways to vote; you can go to your designated polling place in person and vote, or you can mail in an absentee ballot (although you can register to vote via text.)

The ad-like memes, written in both English and Spanish, carried captions like “Avoid the line” and  “Vote from home” next to “text ‘Hillary’ to 59925.” They even contained a small, printed disclaimer at the bottom, which reads:

Must be 18 or older to vote. One vote per person. Must be legal citizen of the United States. Voting by text not available in Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska, or Hawaii. Paid by Hillary for President 2016.

They have since been deleted, but here a few tweets containing screengrabs of the images.

This is a SCAM! You must go to the POLLS to VOTE! YOU CANNOT TEXT, EMAIL, or PHONE in your VOTE! pic.twitter.com/fYdRx8I3ZU

— Kathy (@PayDownTheDebt) November 4, 2016

No, you cannot vote for Hillary Clinton via text message https://t.co/WPwikLjjTi pic.twitter.com/3Nb10W9V2c

— Fortune (@FortuneMagazine) November 3, 2016

The use of minority models and Spanish captioning likely means the ads were aimed at black and Latino voters, intended to suppress Democratic turnout by tricking would-be voters into thinking they already voted.

Twitter user @mcness saw the images and immediately attempted to flag the misleading material; however, he claims that Twitter Support told him the tweets did not violate Twitter Rules. After sharing his frustrations online, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted Wednesday that the issue had been fixed.

@mcnees @Support not sure how this got past us. Fixed (and thanks for reporting)

— jack (@jack) November 2, 2016

Many of the accounts that initially tweeted out the images have since been deleted.

Fortune reports that even though they may be misleading, these ads are not necessarily illegal. UC Irvine law professor Rick Hasen explained in an email to Fortune:

There is no law against misinformation or lying at polls. It is possible to argue that providing some misinformation to voters could be seen as voter intimidation and therefore a violation of the Voting Rights Act and other federal (and state) laws. But I don’t think that would apply to these ads.

He also stated that President Obama had proposed a law against such misinformation when he was a senator.

According to New York Magazine, if you text “Hillary” to the number listed on the ads, you will receive a response stating the ad is not affiliated with the Clinton campaign.

Now that we’ve cleared that up, don’t forget to vote on November 8. It may not be as convenient as texting from your couch at home, but it is a vital part of our nation’s democracy.

If you’re upset about attempts to trick voters, please
1) Vote
2) Help others vote
Don’t let friends/family sit this out. Every vote counts.

— Robert McNees (@mcnees) November 4, 2016

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 Don’t be Fooled by Fake Twitter Ads: Voting Via Text Isn’t a Thing appeared first on Law Street.

Wikileaks dumped a new batch of emails on Wednesday that provide a peek into the behind-the-scenes correspondence between Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the State Department as The New York Times prepared to break the story on Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state. They also show the initial scramble Clinton’s team went through as the story was about to hit the media. The emails come from the same trove belonging to Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta that Wikileaks has been steadily leaking on a daily basis. Russia is widely believed to be behind the hacks.

In an email dated March 1, 2015, a State Department press aide, Lauren Hickey, sent the following message to a department contact (Heather Samuelson, a former Clinton aide who has come under fire) and group of Clinton’s aides: “Hi guys – Jen just cleared. She made the highlighted change — just rephrased a line about NARA updates state is undertaking. Yes on your point re records – done below. And yes will let you know — should be in the new few minutes,” Hickey wrote, referencing Clinton’s Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri.

State Department spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on the leaked emails on Wednesday, but said the effort to release accurate information to the media has “at times required communicating with her representatives to ensure accuracy.”

In another email thread, dated March 17, Clinton aides discussed how best to respond to questions sent over by New York Times reporter Mike Schmidt. “Jen when we talked over the weekend you noted that it was fairly irresponsible for them to cherry pick leaked emails and write it up as representative,” wrote campaign aide Nick Merrill, who also works in the Office of Strategic Communications at the State Department. He added that some of Schmidt’s questions were “a little ridiculous to say the least.”

The same email chain shows the initial defensive stance the Clinton team took. Aide Philippe Reines wrote: “There’s a lot to respond to here, but first and foremost the premise is wrong. There is nothing wrong with anyone having personal email addresses or her emailing someone’s private account or vice versa. Maybe she was wishing (longtime aide) Jake (Sullivan) a happy birthday. Or I was sending her a note about her mom. … We’re allowed to have personal lives.”

Palmieri, meanwhile, foreshadowing the pall this would cast over Clinton’s campaign for months to come, wrote: “Strikes me as a big problem that the NYT is having selected emails leaked to them and I think we should do a call to discuss the proper way to handle.”

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 New Leaked Emails Show Communication Between State Department and Clinton Aides appeared first on Law Street.

If you haven’t gotten your Halloween costume together yet and you’re not interested in blending in with a sea of people dressed as “Suicide Squad’s” Harley Quinn or Pennywise-inspired killer clowns, don’t worry, we’re here to help. We’ve gotten enough inspiration from this presidential election circus cycle to get your DIY creative juices flowing. Here are the top ten Halloween costumes for the presidential election-obsessed!

1. Nasty Woman

Katy Perry, in ‘nasty woman’ tee, drives Vegas students to the polls https://t.co/X4w8PHpjVR pic.twitter.com/Fb12FFToCy

— People Magazine (@people) October 24, 2016

When Donald Trump interrupted Hillary Clinton during the third and final debate to call her “such a nasty woman,” he probably had no idea that pissed off women everywhere would  reclaim the phrase as a Hillary rallying cry. You can join hordes of fellow “nasties” this Halloween with the simple tee donned by singer Katy Perry, seen above. Top it off with this “Make America Nasty Again” red cap, turn on Janet Jackson’s 1986 hit “Nasty,” and you’ll be ready to hiss at any misogynists you see on All Hallow’s Eve.

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 Top 10 Halloween Costumes for People Obsessed with the Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

In key battleground states and some Republican strongholds, early voting trends appear more favorable to Democrats this year compared with the same time last cycle. With less than two weeks to Election Day, 13.4 million voters have cast ballots by mail or in person in 37 states. For starters, the early vote total is far higher than during the same period in 2012. Forty percent of the electorate, or 46 million people, are expected to vote before Election Day on November 8. Below are some takeaways from a handful of key states.

North Carolina

Republican Mitt Romney won this vital battleground state in 2012. But if current trends hold, it seems the state could swing to the left. Fewer people have voted early in North Carolina this year compared to 2012, but of those who have, 46 percent are Democrats and 29 percent are Republicans.

According to a CNN analysis of the early votes, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, will need a strong turnout from African-American voters to capture the state. Their share of the electorate is down five percent from 2012. In the most recent poll, Clinton leads Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, by seven points.

Florida

The Sunshine State went to Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Democrats seem poised to repeat their victory there on November 8. Two million ballots have been cast in Florida so far, with the two major parties in a dead heat, each garnering 41 percent of the voters. This bodes well for Democrats: at the same point in 2008 (the most recent available data) Republican voters cast 113,222 more votes than Democrats, according to CNN.

This could be due to changing demographics: the Hispanic portion of the electorate is up four percent in Florida from 2008, while the share of whites has dropped from 82 percent in 2008 to roughly 77 percent this year. But the most recent poll shows Trump edging Clinton by two percentage points in Florida.

Red to Blue?

Some traditionally purple states are showing signs of turning blue, including Nevada and Colorado. Democrats have cast 46 percent of the ballots in Nevada thus far, compared to 35 percent for the GOP. In Colorado, over 400,000 people have cast early ballots, 40 percent Democrats and 34 percent Republicans. CNN’s analysis of the early vote data shows the Democrats with a 15,000 vote lead, which is slightly more than they had in 2012. Obama won Nevada in 2012, though recent polls show a tie between Clinton and Trump.

Historically, Nevada is not necessarily a Republican shoo-in. Bill Clinton won there in 1992 and 1996. George W. Bush won there in 2000 and 2004. And President Obama won in 2008 and 2012. The past two decades or so in Colorado are nearly identical, aside from the 1996 election, when Bob Dole picked up its eight electoral votes.

Obama won Colorado in 2012, but compared to the same early voting period, Republicans held a slight lead. This year, Democrats are up by about 10,000 votes, according to CNN.

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 Road to 270: A Look at Early Voting Trends in 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

With just over two weeks until Americans vote for their next president, Donald Trump may have lost a key member of his campaign: National Political Director Jim Murphy said he will “take a step back from the campaign.” In a short statement to Politico, he attributed his decision to “personal reasons” while making clear that he has “not resigned.” Campaign aides said Murphy has been absent in recent days.

Internal clashes and international scandals have rocked Trump’s campaign since its inception. Murphy joined Trump’s campaign in June, succeeding Rick Wiley, who clashed with Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager, a position now held by Kellyanne Conway. Paul Manafort resigned as campaign chairman in August following intense pressure surrounding his lobbying work for the pro-Russian former president of Ukraine.

A career lobbyist, Murphy was a key waypoint between Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee. He also helped build field operations in battleground states, and oversaw the floor operations at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. It’s quite late in the game for such a vital piece of a presidential campaign to “step back,” especially considering Trump’s recent self-inflicted wounds and falling poll numbers.

Murphy’s stint with the Trump campaign–which, if he is on hiatus, might still be ongoing–is not his first foray into politics. In 1988, he worked on Bob Dole’s unsuccessful White House bid. Murphy and Manafort worked together for Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign as well.

There are 18 days until Election Day, and Trump has seemingly lost his national political director. How this affects the logistics of his campaign’s final push is unclear at this point, but certainly worth keeping an eye on.

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 Trump’s National Political Director, Jim Murphy, Just Quit? appeared first on Law Street.

Adults still have 20 days to decide who to vote for in the 2016 presidential election, but kids, as it turns out, have already cast their ballots. As part of Scholastic’s mock presidential election, students selected Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to be our next president in a landslide decision.

153,000 students across the country voted for the next president. Here are the results! –> https://t.co/ZCw53pqky3 #ScholasticVote pic.twitter.com/PNsPapNo6f

— Scholastic (@Scholastic) October 18, 2016

Clinton won with 52 percent of the students’ votes, while her main opponent Republican Donald Trump received 35 percent. The remaining 13 percent belonged to dozens of write-in candidates, with Libertarian Gary Johnson coming in third. Losing the primaries didn’t keep Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders from coming in  at a close fourth, followed by Green Party candidate Jill Stein in fifth.

According to Scholastic, “Mom,” Kanye West, Harambe the gorilla, Spider-Man, and “bacon” also received votes.

This year about 153,000 students nationwide, from kindergarten through grade 12, voted in the mock election online or by mail-in paper ballot.

If the past is any indicator, then we should take note of their choice. Since 1940, Scholastic’s results have accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential race except for two–including all 13 contests since 1964. In 1948, students selected Thomas E. Dewey over President Harry S. Truman. And in 1960, students incorrectly backed Richard M. Nixon over John F. Kennedy.

Clinton is currently leading national polls with 49.7 percent of the votes. She needs just 270 electoral votes to win., and as of today FiveThirtyEight put her at 344.

But I guess we’ll have to wait and see what the adults decide on November 8.

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 If Kids Could Vote, They Would Elect Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

Donald isn’t the only Trump these days pressing the press for an apology. His wife, the usually silent Melania Trump, is also demanding a retraction and apology from People Magazine after one of its writers alleged the presidential nominee sexually assaulted her.

In an extremely personal first-hand account published Wednesday, People writer Natasha Stoynoff revealed that in 2005–the same year Trump bragged to Billy Bush on an “Access Hollywood” bus that being a celebrity allowed him to grab women “by the p***y”–Donald pushed her up against a wall and forced his tongue down her throat.

Stoynoff, who had covered Donald Trump for years for the magazine, claims that at the time of the assault she had been been interviewing Donald and a “then-very-pregnant” Melania at their home in Mar-o-Largo for a profile on the couple’s first wedding anniversary. After the assault, she says she immediately took herself off the beat, but bumped into Melania later that winter.

“That winter, I actually bumped into Melania on Fifth Avenue, in front of Trump Tower as she walked into the building, carrying baby Barron,” Stoynoff wrote. “’Natasha, why don’t we see you anymore?’ [Melania] asked, giving me a hug. I was quiet and smiled, telling her I’d missed her, and I squeezed little Barron’s foot. I couldn’t discern what she knew. Did she really not guess why I hadn’t been around?”

Apparently that’s not how Melania remembers it.

At 7:15 PM on Thursday, Melania tweeted a copy of a letter addressed by her lawyer, Charles Harder, to Stoynoff and People editorial director Jess Cagle. Harder, who represented Hulk Hogan in his sex tape lawsuit against Gawker, wrote that Stoynoff’s story was “false and completely fictionalized,” before singling out a relatively minor anecdote from the story that his client would like retracted.

! @people #NatashaStoynoff pic.twitter.com/zXNm6boveP

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) October 13, 2016

The letter reads:

The true facts are these: Mrs. Trump did not encounter Ms. Stoynoff on the street, nor have any conversation with her. The two are not friends and were never friends or even friendly. At the time in question, Mrs. Trump would not even have recognized Ms. Stoynoff if they had encountered one another on the street.

The letter demands that People “immediately and permanently” remove the anecdote about Melania and Barron from the article and print a prominent retraction and apology. Harden writes that failure to do this in 24 hours will “require Mrs. Trump to consider her legal options.”

While Melania never admits that her husband assaulted Stoynoff in the letter, she doesn’t deny it either. It’s unclear what Melania hopes to accomplish by arguing that she wasn’t friends with the woman who is claiming her husband “stuck his tongue” down her throat while she was changing in another room. Instead of helping her husband’s hemorrhaging campaign, she may have just twisted the knife further.

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 Melania Trump Demands Retraction From People, Threatens to Sue appeared first on Law Street.

First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama took to the podium Thursday afternoon to deliver a powerful speech condemning Donald Trump’s “sexually predatory behavior,” admitting that she can’t believe “a candidate for president of the United States has bragged about sexually assaulting women.”

During the speech, which took place at a Hillary Clinton campaign rally in New Hampshire, Obama referenced Trump’s salacious “Access Hollywood” audio recording, calling the Republican nominee’s comments “shocking,” “demeaning,” and lacking “basic standards of human decency.”

Obama, who at times looked emotional, admitted that she couldn’t stop thinking about the tape that has “shaken her to her core.”

FLOTUS said:

This wasn’t just locker room banter. This was a powerful individual speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behavior. And actually bragging about kissing and groping women using language so obscene that many of us worried about our children hearing it when we turned on the TV. And to make matters worse it now seems very clear that this isn’t an isolated incident. It’s one of countless examples of how he has treated women his whole life.

Obama later rejected Trump’s excuse for his language saying, “to dismiss this as everyday locker room talk is an insult to decent men everywhere.”

Clinton applauded Obama’s comments on Twitter writing, “FLOTUS, I’m in awe. Thanks for putting into words what’s in so many of our hearts.”

.@FLOTUS, I’m in awe. Thanks for putting into words what’s in so many of our hearts. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 13, 2016

Michelle Obama’s speech will definitely be remembered as one of the most powerful this election cycle. Trump’s campaign continues to implode following numerous sexual assault allegations and inappropriate comments toward women, proving voters may have finally had enough when it comes to his scandals.

Watch Part of Michelle Obama’s Speech Below

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 Michelle Obama Condemns Trump’s “Predatory Behavior” in NH Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump’s campaign announced its decision to pull its field operation out of Virginia to focus on battlegrounds critical to his chances in November.

The news, which broke from Trump’s New York headquarters Wednesday night, came as a surprise to Republican Party members in the state. Two staffers directly involved in the GOP’s efforts in Virginia confirmed the decision to NBC News.

Clinton currently leads Trump by 7.5 points, according to a RealClearPolitics average of state polls. The move effectively concedes the state, and its 13 electoral votes, to Clinton and her Vice-Presidential candidate, former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.

Earlier in the week, Trump fired his Virginia state co-chairman, Corey Stewart, after Stewart participated in a protest in front of the Republican National Committee headquarters. The former state director still supports the campaign that fired him.

Stewart, a Prince William County Commissioner, posted a plea on his Facebook urging the campaign to not pull out of Virginia. Stewart wrote:

Thousands of dedicated volunteers have spent millions of hours knocking on doors, making phone calls and raising money for Mr. Trump over the past 15 months. Virginia is winnable. An aggressive ad campaign–in combination with the efforts of these volunteers–will produce results. Pulling out now would be a betrayal to these volunteers.

Over the past decade, Virginia has become increasingly favorable terrain for Democrats. President Barack Obama won the state twice after decades of Republican dominance–by six points in 2008 and four points in 2012.

“The move to pull out of Virginia shows Trump is ‘running essentially a four state campaign,’ with the focus now shifting to battlegrounds critical to his chances in November: Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio,” NBC reported after receiving a tip from a source with knowledge of the decision.

Trump has 25 days left in the election cycle to turn battleground states in his favor. The Republican nominee is currently falling behind Clinton in national polls.

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 Campaign Pulls Out of Virginia appeared first on Law Street.

After the first presidential debate broke records as the most watched debate in U.S. history, expectations for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s second showdown at Washington University in St. Louis were high. Here are five of the most buzzworthy moments from the second presidential debate:

 You Know They Had to Talk About The Tape

Going into the second debate, we knew Trump was going to be confronted with questions about the 2005  recording where he was heard speaking vulgarly about women with then “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush. CNN’s Anderson Cooper wasted no time bringing it up saying, “You’ve bragged that you sexually assaulted women,”  before asking the Republican nominee to explain his actions. Trump responded by saying repeatedly that it was just ” locker room talk” and deflected the conversation to ISIS, Clinton’s emails, and Bill’s past discretions.

Clinton responded by saying that the video and Trump’s attacks against the Khan family, a Hispanic federal judge, President Obama, and a reporter with a physical disability definitively show that he’s not fit to be president. “He owes the president an apology. He owes our country an apology.”

That video represents exactly who Donald Trump is.

-Hillary Clinton.#debate

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) October 10, 2016

More Sniffling

Like the first debate, viewers continued to be distracted by Trump’s constant sniffling. While the source of his nasal woes is still unclear, people couldn’t help but speculate about the cause.

#Debate: @realDonaldTrump seems a lot more calm, although his sniffling hasn’t gone away.

— Melissa Mecija (@10NewsMecija) October 10, 2016

Is Trump going to blame the sniffling on his mic again? #debate

— Anthony De Rosa (@Anthony) October 10, 2016

symptoms of cocaine abuse

1. dry mouth
2. sniffling
3. rambling incoherently #debate

— Hutch Harris (@thethermals) October 10, 2016

Trump Threatens to Put Clinton in Jail

When addressing Clinton, Trump said that if he wins, “I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” in response to her private email server use while serving as Secretary of State. Clinton responded by saying viewers should fact check his falsehoods, and that it’s a good thing Trump isn’t in charge of our nation’s laws. “Because you’d be in jail,” shot back Trump, followed by cheers from the audience.

Excuse me, Moderators

It’s not unusual to see presidential candidates interrupt the moderator to get their points across, but this time it was excessive. Trump accused the moderators of teaming up against him and favoriting Clinton.  “It’s one-on-three,” muttered Trump. In fact, ABC’s Martha Raddatz had just asked Clinton about her emails. “We brought up the emails,” Cooper responded.

The Candidates Had to Say Something Nice About Each Other!

After attacking each other’s policies, personal lives, and scandals for an hour and a half, the candidates were asked to close out the debate by naming one positive thing they respect about one another.

Clinton went first, saying that she admires Trump’s children. Trump closed out the debate saying, “She doesn’t quit, she doesn’t give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She is a fighter.”

Aww maybe there is hope that they can one day be friends. Or not.

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 5 Buzzworthy Moments From the 2nd Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of The Arizona Republic editorial board on Tuesday evening–a decision that changed the course of the paper’s history. 

Arizona’s largest newspaper has been in publication since 1890 and has never endorsed a Democrat for president.

The endorsement comes a day after the first presidential debate–a debate which saw Republican nominee Donald J. Trump failing in the eyes of the paper. The editorial board released a statement online to explain their decision:

Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.

This year is different.

The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.

That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.

The editorial board noted Trump’s clumsiness on the world stage, lack of respect for women, and an inability to control his words as some of the reasons why they have chosen to endorse Clinton. The board recognized Clinton’s missteps, but despite her flaws, the former Secretary of State was deemed the superior choice.

“Hillary Clinton is super progressive and liberal and to prove it here is a list of all the Republicans voting for her.”

— Dan Arel (@danarel) September 20, 2016

The Arizona Republic joins other major papers with conservative editorial boards in endorsing Clinton or declining to endorse Trump. The Cincinnati Enquirer and Dallas Morning News are two other notable examples.

Republican elite have continued to support Clinton–exposing the complicated reality of the Republican Party.

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 Clinton Continues To Receive Republican Endorsements appeared first on Law Street.

Someone finally figured out a genius way to to get more young people to register to vote: let them use their phones.

The non-profit group Fight for the Future created HelloVote, a chat bot that guides users through the process of registering by asking them a series of questions via text messages or Facebook messenger.

Register to VOTE via text, yes it’s that easy now. Try @_hellovote_ here: https://t.co/90AJoWtmdv pic.twitter.com/p96mcLL4V5

— Andrew Curry (@andrewcurryla) September 17, 2016

Here’s how it works:

• Start by simply texting “HELLO” to the number 384-387, or start on Facebook messenger.
• Then follow along with the chat bot as it asks for basic information like: name, address, date of birth, and driver’s license number, or the last four digits of your social security number.
• If your state accepts instant registration, HelloVote will send your forms in automatically.
• If your state doesn’t accept instant registration and requires a signature, HelloVote will send you a pre-filled form via email or mail, along with a pre-addressed stamped envelope that you can sign and send to your local Board of Elections.

According to Business Insider, HelloVote can now fully register people to vote via SMS or Facebook in six states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Virginia.

CEO Holmes Wilson told the website that the company is close to launching in Vermont and Illinois and “should be able to add Kentucky, West Virginia, and Hawaii soon.” It also hopes to add Pennsylvania to the list before the state’s October 11 registration deadline.

In other states HelloVote is only partially operational and requires voters to mail in registration forms.

Users have already begun using the service, and attest that it does in fact work.

I tried https://t.co/VOZpxhqDhD and it works! Everyone, please check to be sure you’re registered to vote, or use it to register via text.

— thefourthvine (@thefourthvine) September 22, 2016

As the election nears, young voters make up a crucial portion of votes for the potential victor. Targeting young people with convenient services like this is a great way to encourage voter turnout and participation in this year’s election. If you haven’t already registered, here’s your chance!

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 HelloVote Allows You to Register to Vote Via Text appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday September 26, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will go head-to-head in the first presidential debate. The debate starts at 9 p.m. EST and will air on all major news networks and stream live on Twitter. Make sure you’re following Law Street on Twitter and Facebook for live debate coverage and commentary. Here’s everything you need to know heading into round one.

The Participants

Clinton and Trump are the only two participants in Monday’s debate, which will take place at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. But what about the Green Party’s Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson? The Commission on Presidential Debates, which has been sponsoring debates since 1987, invites only those candidates who receive at least 15 percent support in an average of five national polls. Clinton (43 percent) and Trump (40.4) averaged far above the 15 percent bar, while Johnson (8.4) and Stein (3.2), did not.

After months of scathing tweets and abrasive stump speeches, Monday’s debate will be the first direct engagement between Clinton and Trump of the 2016 campaign season. Expect both to make an attempt at softening their images amid historically low favorability ratings.

The Moderator

The man in the middle for debate number one is NBC’s “Nightly News” host, Lester Holt. In February 2015, Holt replaced Brian Williams as anchor after Williams was dropped for embellishing his war-reporting experiences in Iraq.

Holt, 57, has decades of journalism experience and is known for diving into the thick of a story, rather than reporting on it from the periphery. A week before the debate, Trump let loose a pre-emptive missile toward Holt by calling the debate “rigged.” “Look, it’s a phony system, said Trump in an interview Monday with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “Lester is a Democrat. I mean, they are all Democrats. Okay? It’s a very unfair system.”

Holt is not, in fact, a Democrat, but a registered Republican.

The Topics

The format for the debate is as follows: there will be six topics touched on for 15 minutes each for a total of 90 minutes. The three main topics chosen by Holt are: “America’s direction,” “Achieving Prosperity,” and “Securing America.”

In her primary debates, Clinton projected a substantive, detail-oriented posture, largely free of insults and the noise that so often dominated the Republican primary debates. She’ll likely do the same on Monday, spending her allotted time fleshing out her policies as much as possible. Trump might take a different tack. A formidable showman, Trump branded his Republican opponents with catchy nicknames in the primary debates, turning nearly all of his opponents into laughing stocks and caricatures.

But perhaps America will see a new Trump come Monday. “I think this, if she treats me with respect, I will treat her with respect,” said Trump during his interview with O’Reilly.

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 What You Need to Know About the First Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The mystery that is Donald Trump’s hair has perplexed the masses for years. Trump never leaves his penthouse without his signature golden retriever comb over, despite being mocked mercilessly for it. But what’s going on in there? Is it real? Is it fake? Is it a toupee? Or possibly a hair transplant? America wants to know!

“Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon had the privilege of seeing the billionaire’s tresses up close Thursday night, and had the audacity to ask Trump if he could “mess up his hair.”

And Trump let him!

From the looks of it, the hair is definitely attached to Trump’s head, so that rules out a toupee. But whether or not it’s some sort of weave or extensions, I think that’s still up for debate. Either way, a big thank you to Fallon and Trump for making all of our days. The moment will surely go down as one of the best from this election cycle.

Watch Fallon mess up Trump’s hair in the video below:

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 Donald Trump Actually Let Jimmy Fallon Mess Up His Hair appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton stopped by “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Monday to finally set the record straight on “wacky” rumors that her health is failing–using, of all things, a jar of pickles.

When host Jimmy Kimmel asked Clinton point blank if she is in good health, she offered up her wrist so he could take her pulse, joking “Make sure I’m alive!”

Clinton then sarcastically mocked the baselessness of the rumors that she’s dying, adding, “With every breath I take, I feel like it’s a new lease on life.”

The Democratic presidential nominee’s health became a major campaign topic after several conspiracy theories (courtesy largely in part from Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Breitbart) suggested she’s secretly ill, with Parkinson’s disease or some deadly brain blood clot, looks “tired” and “sick,” and lacks the “mental and physical stamina” to fight ISIS .

“It absolutely makes no sense,” Clinton said. “I don’t go around questioning Donald Trump’s health. I mean as far as I can tell, he’s as healthy as a horse.”

Kimmel then dared Clinton to prove she’s in good health by opening a jar of pickles in front of the studio audience.

Watch her exaggerated lid twist below:

Clinton also discussed plans to prepare for upcoming debates with Trump saying, “I watched a lot of his debates during the primaries and he insulted all of his opponents, he insulted all the moderators, he insulted, I guess about 80 percent of the American people and the rest of the world.” While she wants to “take it seriously,” she recognizes she needs to also prepare for any “wackiness” by drawing on her experience in elementary school with “pony tail pullers.”

Later during the interview, the topic then shifted to news that the State Department plans to release 15,000 new emails before the debate deadline. When asked if she’s concerned Hillary said, “Jimmy my emails are so boring. And I’m embarrassed about that. They’re so boring. So we’ve already released, I don’t know, 30,000 plus so what’s a few more.”

Kimmel closed out the segment by asking Clinton to pick out Donald Trump quotes from a toupee-topped fishbowl, and try to keep a straight face while reading them aloud. Clinton managed to stay expressionless while uttering a few memorable Trump lines, before finally refusing to read aloud Trump’s creepy comments about possibly wanting to date his daughter Ivanka.

Watch the full clip below:

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 Clinton Proves She’s Fit to be Prez By Opening Jar of Pickles on Kimmel appeared first on Law Street.

Two parents of Americans killed in the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack are blaming Hillary Clinton for the deaths of their sons in a new lawsuit filed Monday. As Clinton prepares to face further scrutiny over her email scandal, here are some fast facts about the case you need to know:

Who Filed the Lawsuit?

The lawsuit was filed by Patricia Smith, the mother of American U.S. Foreign Service member Sean Smith, and Charles Woods, father of American Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods. Both of their sons were killed during the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack. You may remember Smith, who goes by Pat, from last month’s Republican National Convention, where she delivered a harsh critique of Clinton during her speech, declaring, ” I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son.”

Pat Smith at RNC: “I Blame Hillary Personally for the Death of My Son” in Benghazi https://t.co/0N4nKXcOug

— David Lee O’Connor (@retmilarm92) July 19, 2016

What Are They Suing HRC For?

Smith and Woods are suing Clinton for defamation and the wrongful deaths of their sons, claiming their deaths were “directly and proximately caused by the negligent and reckless actions” of Clinton and her private email server. They claim Clinton went on a “defamatory smear campaign” against them, painting them as liars for claiming Clinton told them that the Benghazi Attack was caused by an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

The lawsuit also accuses Clinton of false light, negligence, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

How Did Clinton Respond?

In a statement provided to The New York Times, Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said of the lawsuit:

While no one can imagine the pain of the families of the brave Americans we lost at Benghazi, there have been nine different investigations into this attack and none found any evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton.

Will This Effect the Election?

Clinton has faced criticism over her private email server throughout the entirety of presidential campaign, surviving nine separate investigations into the attack and constant criticism from the Trump campaign on the issue. But should this new lawsuit cause her to worry? Legally, Clinton can probably rest easy, as none of the previous  inquiries found evidence of wrongdoing on her part. However, from a political standpoint it’s hard to know for certain whether or not this case will pull votes away from the current presidential frontrunner.

Read the Full Benghazi Lawsuit Here.

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 What You Need to Know About the New Hillary Clinton Benghazi Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday afternoon, a billionaire prescribed angry American workers a path to the middle class in a city the recession pummeled harder than pretty much any other. Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, gave his most detailed speech on his economic plan yet, in front of protestors, supporters, and press at the Detroit Economic Club.

As protestors punctuated his hour long speech, in which he was introduced by his running mate Governor Mike Pence (R-IN), Trump aimed to shift the focus from his recent blunders to his beliefs on how America should move forward. Here is what you need to know about where Trump plans to steer the economy, with some fact-checking for good measure:

Taxes

For one, Trump railed against the estate tax: “American workers have paid taxes their whole lives, and they should not be taxed again at death,” said the man who inherited undisclosed millions from his father. He promised to abolish the estate tax, which he said “is just plain wrong.”

Trump’s tax plan seemed to try to placate disillusioned low-income earners without completely ignoring those who are in the highest tax bracket. Private income, under Trump’s plan, would be taxed in three brackets: 12 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent. “The rich will pay their fair share, but no one will pay so much that it destroys jobs or undermines our ability as a nation to compete,” he said, promising that many Americans–presumably those who earn below a certain threshold–would not pay any income taxes.

Inaccuracies

It’s no secret at this point that Trump throws falsehoods around often and enthusiastically. That’s not to say Clinton doesn’t do her share of fibbing, but per PolitiFact, an independent fact-checking website, the two are hardly in the same stratosphere: 53 (or 22 percent) of Clinton’s statements this campaign season have been completely true, while only nine of Trump’s (four percent) statements could be considered foolproof. His speech on Monday, though prepared, treated facts lightly at some points.

A touchstone of Trump’s success so far has been his stance on trade deals, namely that they are “terrible” and he’d “rip them up” if elected president. NAFTA, drafted by President George H.W. Bush and supported by Bill Clinton, is one of Trump’s go-to targets.

“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, before NAFTA went into effect there were 285,000 auto workers in Michigan. Today, that number is only 160,000 auto workers,” Trump said on Monday.

Auto manufacturing jobs have indeed been on a decline in America, especially in the “Motor City,” Detroit. But Trump implies NAFTA is the sole culprit of those job losses. The Congressional Research Service conducted a study in 2015 on NAFTA, and found that while certainly some auto industry jobs were lost to cheaper labor in Mexico, it’s also certain that many of the job losses can be explained by increased productivity due to technological advancements.

For more fact-checking on Trump’s speech, click here.

Clinton

Here is how Trump framed the two options Americans will face in November: “She is the candidate of the past,” he said of Clinton. “Ours is the campaign of the future.” While they both are technically candidates of the present, Trump looked to portray Clinton and her platform as tired, worn out, and his own as bold, ready to “jump-start America.”

Again, some of his criticisms aimed at Clinton were related to trade. He mentioned her support for NAFTA and said she would likely support the Trans-Pacific Partnership–her official stance is against the TPP, but she did support it in the past–a 12-nation trade deal that is stalled in Congress at the moment.

Trump dismissed Clinton’s economic vision, which she will flesh out on Thursday, also in Detroit. Clinton, during a rally in St. Petersburg, Florida, shot back, saying his plan equated to a re-packaged version of Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economics: “Now, you know that old saying, ‘Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?'” she said. “Trickle down economics does not help our economy grow. It does not help the vast majority of Americans.”

With Clinton set to unveil her economic vision for America on Thursday, hopefully the focus will shift from lofty rhetoric to detailed ideas so voters can focus their energy on the things that matter.

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 Three Things You Need to Know About Trump’s Economic Policy Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Melania Trump’s recent nude photo scandal has raised a lot of questions about her immigration to the U.S., causing people to wonder if the wife of the “Build The Wall” presidential nominee was once an illegal immigrant herself.

The speculation began after the New York Post posted photos of Melania from a nude photoshoot that took place in New York in 1995. According to Politico, this conflicts with Melania’s statements that she first came to the U.S. in 1996 and traveled every few months back to her home country of Slovenia to stamp the visa.

“I came here for my career,” Melania told Harper’s Bazaar in January, “It never crossed my mind to stay here without papers. That is just the person you are. You follow the rules. You follow the law. Every few months you need to fly back to Europe and stamp your visa. After a few visas, I applied for a green card and got it in 2001. After the green card, I applied for citizenship. And it was a long process.”

This seemingly small timeline discrepancy was enough for Politico reporters Ben Schreckinger and Gabriel Debendetti to begin poking holes into the former Slovenian’s model’s story, revealing crucial gaps. Politico writes,

Trump’s tale of returning to Europe for periodic visa renewals is inconsistent with her holding an H-1B visa at all times she was living in New York — even if it was the lesser-known H-1B visa specifically designed for models — said multiple immigration attorneys and experts. An H-1B visa can be valid for three years and can be extended up to six years — sometimes longer — and would not require renewals in Europe every few months. If, as she has said, Trump came to New York in 1996 and obtained a green card in 2001, she likely would not have had to return to Europe even once to renew an H-1B.

They concluded that Melania’s story was actually more consistent with someone traveling on a B-1 Temporary Business Visitor or B-2 Tourist Visa. If Melania was in fact using a B-1 or B-2 Visa while working in the United States, instead of an H-1B Visa, that would mean that she was working illegally in the country–making her, for all intents and purposes, an illegal immigrant.

Melania responded to the rumors on Twitter, denying the allegations with the following tweet.

pic.twitter.com/U3VTY05mzc

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) August 4, 2016

Melania’s former agent Paolo Zampolli has since corroborated her story, telling the AP that he did, in fact, secure her an H-1B visa for models. However, many still aren’t convinced that she followed the letter of the law when immigrating to the U.S. If these allegations are correct it could potentially be troubling for her husband’s campaign, which relies heavily on opposition to illegal immigration.

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 Was Melania Trump an Illegal Immigrant? appeared first on Law Street.

The internet is not convinced that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has ever sacrificed anything, after Trump criticized the Gold Star family who spoke at the Democratic National Convention last week.

Khizr Khan stole the show at the DNC Thursday, when he said Donald Trump has “sacrificed nothing and no one,” and questioned if Trump has read the U.S. Constitution. Trump responded to the speech during an interview with ABC News’ “This Week,” where he criticized Khizr and his wife Ghazala–the Muslim American parents of a soldier killed in Iraq–claiming Ghazala remained silent during the speech because she “wasn’t allowed to speak,” and that he’s “made a lot of sacrifices!“

Unfortunately, no one seems to believe him.

Twitter quickly started mocking the billionaire’s supposed sacrifices with a string of sarcastic tweets using the trending hashtag #TrumpSacrifices. Here are the top ten #TrumpSacrifices from the hashtag:

His Stock Pile of Aqua Net

Once survived an entire weekend at Mar-a-Lago with just one can of hairspray. #TrumpSacrifices

— Paul Begala (@PaulBegala) July 30, 2016

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 Twitter Defends Khan Family, Mocks #TrumpSacrifices appeared first on Law Street.

After FBI director James Comey announced that the FBI would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for her private email use, the former Secretary of State took the stage in Charlotte, North Carolina with President Obama. Obama announced his endorsement of Secretary Clinton shortly before she secured the Democratic nomination. Tuesday’s appearance was the first time the two Democrats campaigned together, and President Obama has already managed to breathe some much  needed life back into Clinton’s campaign.

Hillary sells herself as a savvy politician with practical solutions for the country–which can often translate onstage as being a little too analytical. In other words, Hillary majorly lacks the fun factor. That’s where our beatboxing, b-balling, belting, boogie-busting Barack-in-Chief comes in.

Obama’s infectious energy and smoothness help round out Hillary’s campaign. It’s kinda like when your mom tricks you into eating your vegetables by disguising them as fun shapes–or when “Blackfish” got a little boring so they threw in some cool animations to explain just how depressed orcas are.

President Obama was able to provide the yin to Clinton’s yang. Clinton’s speech was full of tongue-in-cheek remarks about how the two politicians were fierce primary rivals eight years ago, including strange anecdotes about their diplomatic travels during Obama’s first term.

When Obama took the stage, the energy in the room built to a fever pitch. Obama chanted “Hill-a-ry! Hill-a-ry!” with the crowd. Like a deft stand up comedian, Obama cracked some jokes about North Carolina food, hospitality, and had a back-and-fourth with the audience comparing basketball teams.

Much like DJ Khaled at the beginning of a Beyoncé concert, Obama did some call-and-response chants to feed the energy of the crowd. “Hillary got me fired up,” he kept repeating. Then he laid out his case for Hillary. Even though almost every word that he said was about Secretary Clinton, from the moment he stepped into the convention center, it was the Obama show.

Watch President Obama and Secretary Clinton’s remarks below:

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 Obama the Hype Man: Bringing the “Fun Factor” to Clinton’s Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

** Warning: As the title would suggest, this post will contain and link to some NSFW nudity

Some brazen broads in the #NeverTrump movement have devised a new tool to use against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee–female nudity. In an effort to stop Trump from making it to the oval, and to make the Republican National Convention (RNC) as awkward as possible, women are baring it all for anti-Trump votes and female empowerment.

Tramps Against Trump

This movement, comprised of mostly sex workers, has promised to exchange #Votes4Nudes in order to steal votes away from Trump.

#votes4nudesusa #trampsagainsttrump @election2016 pic.twitter.com/hxt98TnC2Q

— Tramps Against Trump (@votes4nudesusa) June 4, 2016

The Tramps Against Trump creator, who goes by the pseudonym “Jessica Rabbit,” told Motherboard, “In the past we had Rock the Vote and other ways to get the vote out, but what do young people like now? They like naked people on the internet. So, we’re using naked people on the internet to make a change and get people excited about something.”

Rabbit and her cohorts are in strong opposition to Trump’s anti-abortion (and some would say anti-women) stances, which threaten both their bodies and their livelihoods.

“Whoever becomes president will have a direct effect on what we can and can’t do with our bodies, and how the law will move forward relating to us,” Rabbit said. “For sex workers, this is a really important election.”

In order to receive nudes, 18 and up voters need only provide a selfie with proof of vote (i.e. a voter receipt).

But don’t even think about bullying any of these ladies to send you pics. This site has a strictly enforced zero tolerance policy for “harassment, racism, homophobia, transphobia or body shaming of ANY KIND” and violators will immediately be blocked.

Nude Art Installation Outside RNC convention

As a disclaimer let me admit that this isn’t a protest of Trump per se, but the nudity will be directed right at him.

Photographer Spencer Tunick, who is best known for organizing large-scale nude shoots, is seeking 100 women volunteers to pose naked in a group art installation in July during the week of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

This piece, which will be titled “Everything She Says Means Everything,” will involve women holding large mirror discs aimed at the convention center in order to “reflect the knowledge and wisdom of progressive women and the concept of ‘Mother Nature.'”

Tunick explained the piece’s philosophy on his site writing, “By holding mirrors, we hope to suggest that women are a reflection and embodiment of nature, the sun, the sky and the land.” Adding, “The mirrors communicate that we are a reflection of ourselves, each other, and of, the world that surrounds us. The woman becomes the future and the future becomes the woman.”

You can volunteer to pose naked in Tunick’s Cleveland installation here.

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 Women Bare Their Naked Rumps to Protest Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

On June 12, a gunman in Orlando, Florida murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub. In response to this attack, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump seemed to fuel the fires of conspiracy during a “Fox & Friends” appearance, alluding to a greater plot involving President Obama.

Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind — you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.

He doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody understands — it’s one or the other, and either one is unacceptable.

The Washington Post ran a story on Trump’s comment with the headline “Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting.” Even though Trump may have stopped short of actually saying “Obama played a purposeful role in the Orlando shooting,” there’s no question that he drew a connection, which allowed listeners to speculate.

Trump has to know the effects of his comments, and the media firestorm he can set off with the shortest sound bite. Playing coy–suggesting something insane, only to recoil when he is accused of the suggestion–is an all too common ploy for Trump.

Just think back to when he claimed Judge Gonzalo Curiel couldn’t fairly rule on Trump University cases because of his heritage, only to insist that there is nothing racist about his statement. Or just a few weeks ago, when he accused Hillary Clinton of playing “the woman card,” then fiercely denied that the statement was sexist.

This pattern allows him to feed the narrative that the media is corrupt and set against him. That is why Trump revoked the Post’s press credentials, detailing his reasons in a Facebook post:

I am no fan of President Obama, but to show you how dishonest the phony Washington Post is, they wrote, “Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting” as their headline. Sad! Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.

Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron made a statement in reaction to this revocation:

Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished, said in a statement. The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically, and unflinchingly.  We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.

Compare this behavior with Hillary Clinton’s notorious caution towards the press–such as when she drew criticism for “corralling” the press behind a rope so that they didn’t crowd her during public appearances. Trump’s distrust of the media goes even further, as he has thrown out reporters from his events.

Clearly, the Post won’t be quiet about Trump’s campaign, although it may now be harder to get a scoop as quickly as other outlets.

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 Trump Revokes Washington Post Press Credentials appeared first on Law Street.

Following Donald Trump’s win in Indiana’s primary Tuesday, Ted Cruz finally did the inevitable and announced he’s dropping out of the presidential race. We really aren’t all that sad to see “lyin Ted” go, but we are bummed that we officially have to acknowledge Donald Trump as the Republican party’s presumptive nominee.

But wait, isn’t someone else still chugging along in the GOP primaries? What’s his name again?

Oh yeah, John Kasich!

Granted it’s kind of hard to remember the Ohio governor when he’s lost every state except his home state and still trails Cruz and Rubio, who both value numbers and logic and have dropped out.

Stephen Colbert couldn’t help but make light of this during Wednesday’s episode of the “Late Show.”

Colbert mocked Kasich’s mathematically impossible odds, as well as a recent video released from a pro-Kasich Super PAC imagining Kasich winning the nomination. In typical Colbert fashion, the comedian crafted his own heavily photoshopped ad imagining a world where Kasich is in fact president…and a five-term one at that!

In Colbert’s fantasy, President Kasich prompts Obama to resign early to make way for him, defeats ISIS, balances the budget, and defeats spider beasts from space. And we can’t forget to mention that he also throws the winning pass in the Super Bowl with three seconds left to, who else, John Kasich!

Sadly Kasich will likely never do any of these things, but it still makes us laugh.

Unfortunately, there has been lots of speculation that Kasich could announce he’s dropping out today, but that has not yet been officially confirmed.

Watch Colbert Imagine Kasich as President Below

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 Stephen Colbert: “Quitters Never Win…but They Still Beat John Kasich” appeared first on Law Street.

This week in politics there have been plenty of fun attacks on presidential candidates. But who has been doing the best job of making these sly rhetorical slams?

Without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, here are the top three political burns of the week.

#1… Elizabeth Warren

To be fair, this one occurred a little over a week ago, and Elizabeth Warren isn’t running for President. But, this one was too good to leave out.

Last Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren roasted Ted Cruz on Facebook and Twitter in response to an email he had sent out to constituents about the hardships he has endured while running for President. In his laundry list of “sacrifices” he has made, Cruz included being constantly attacked in the media, a lack of sleep, and little to no personal time.

Yesterday @TedCruz sent a campaign email whining about the “significant sacrifice” he’s made to run for President. pic.twitter.com/yKtLpWG0Ou

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

Warren had absolutely no sympathy for Cruz and proceeded to go on an eleven tweet rant calling him out on his BS–here are some of the gems.

Hey @TedCruz: Maybe you should spend less time complaining about your “significant sacrifices” – & more time doing something about theirs.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

You chose to run for President, @TedCruz. You chose to make your “sacrifices.” Working people don’t have a choice.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

And @TedCruz? Working people work more, get paid less, can’t save, get mistreated, struggle with illness & family – but they don’t whine.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

All there is to say about that is “you go girl!”

#2… Donald Trump

Trump’s burns this week deserve praise, but not for being witty or clever. Instead, these burns should get a gold star for being so basic and childish that they are inherently hilarious.

In typical Trump fashion, he chose to insult his fellow Republican candidate John Kasich. He didn’t insult Kasich on his lack of merit or political ineptitude, instead he went something a little more personal: his eating habits. Trump went straight for the jugular claiming that:

He has the news conference all the time when he’s eating. I have never seen a human being eat in such a disgusting fashion. I’m always telling my young son, Barron, always with my kids, all of them, I’d say ‘children, small little bites.’ This guy takes a pancake and he’s shoving it in his mouth, it’s disgusting.

For reference, this is the “disgusting fashion” Trump was referring to:

9 photos of John Kasich eating on the campaign trail https://t.co/db2k4N5RgR pic.twitter.com/SL0lh5Duma

— POLITICO (@politico) April 26, 2016

Good one Trump! You really got him good!

#3… Ted Cruz

Coming in last place, the final “insult of the week” was Ted Cruz’s attempt to attack Donald Trump for his views on bathroom use in states like North Carolina. After Trump announced a few days ago that people should be allowed to use whatever bathroom they please, Cruz jumped all over him arguing women and children need protection.

While Cruz had solid intentions of being evil and hurtful to Trump in his attack, something tells me no one is all that bothered by Cruz calling Trump “stark-raving nuts.” In fact, that insult doesn’t even sound all that human. Ah well, better luck being mean next time, pal!

Overall, it’s been an entertaining week in political banter, and I’m certainly looking forward to the insults that are yet to come in the next couple of months. They should be interesting to watch!

Alexandra Simone

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

The post Top 3 Political Burns of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Going to a Trump campaign rally is kind of like going to a WWE match.

The rallies tend to draw a certain kind of crowd, they’re big on theatrics, and there’s a strong possibility that at some point there could be some real violence.

In fact, a Trump rally in Tucson, Arizona erupted into violence Saturday when a white anti-Trump protester carrying a sign that read “Trump is Bad for America” was allegedly sucker punched and kicked by a black Trump supporter.

Despite this, Trump declared his rallies “lovefests” on Sunday, telling ABC’s “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos, “We don’t condone violence. And I say it. And we have very little violence, very, very little violence at the rallies.”

Trump may be okay living in denial, but Twitter isn’t.

The alarming number of attacks on protestors at Trump rallies have inspired users to begin mocking the Republican presidential frontrunner using the trending hashtag #SaferThanATrumpRally.

So in no particular order here are 15 things that are apparently way safer than going to a Trump rally.

Marrying OJ #SaferThanATrumpRally pic.twitter.com/OO5Lc96nCL

— MJ (@MJGWrites) March 21, 2016

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 Pretty Much Everything is #SaferThanATrumpRally appeared first on Law Street.

As primary season heats up, the candidates still remaining in the presidential race have begun fine-tuning their higher education plans. Candidates from both sides of the aisle have spoken about how they would change, revamp, and, in some cases, fix higher education. But aside from Marco Rubio, only those from the Democratic party had rolled out specific plans to address rising tuition costs and astronomical student debt prior to the first primary contest in Iowa.

While we evaluate who’s still left in the race, let’s begin to look at the remaining candidates’ positions on higher education. Keep reading to learn more.

Bernie Sanders

As previously noted, Bernie Sanders’ education plan aims to make postsecondary education free at both community colleges and public four-year universities.

Historically Black College and Universities

In an appeal to lure African American voters and young people, Sanders asserted that tuition-free education would not force private historically black college and universities (HBCUs) to close down.

Representing the 6^th District of South Carolina and an influential power broker in presidential primary races, Congressman James Clyburn expressed his concerns over the prospect of free public education and the impact on black colleges.

“You’ve got to think about the consequences of things. If you start handing out two years of free college at public institutions are you ready for all the black, private HBCUs to close down? That’s what’s going to happen,” Clyburn said.

In a recent interview with MSNBC’s Tamron Hall confirming his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, Clyburn also said of the Sanders tuition-free education plan and the America’s College Promise plan proposed by the current administration, “there are no free lunches so there will be no free education.”

Student Loans and Interest Rates

Part of the Sanders education plan also includes lowering the interest rates on student loans. Sanders hopes to reduce loan interest rates to what they were 10 years ago. In 2006, undergraduate student loans hovered around 2.37 percent, which would cut the current rate of 4.39 percent nearly in half.

Sanders believes students should be able to refinance their loans in a similar fashion as auto loans. According to Sanders, if a loan for a car can be obtained at a 2.5 percent interest rate, why are students forced to pay between 5-7 percent for multiple decades? From the beginning, Sanders has vowed to prevent the federal government from making money on student loans but it remains to be seen just how he’d stop the profiting.

Hillary Clinton

There are commonalites between Democratic candidates Sanders and Clinton surrounding student debt and tuition-free community college. While Sanders believes there is a way to make both two-year and four-year public colleges tuition-free, Clinton’s New College Compact plan stipulates that students should never need to borrow to pay for tuition, books, and fees to attend a public in-state university. The Clinton education plan also calls for the ability for Pell Grants to be used for living expenses.

Historically Black College and Universities

As part of her plan to attract minority voters and young people, part of Clinton’s education plan includes a $25 billion investment in HBCUs, hispanic serving institutions (HSI), and other minority serving institutions (MSI) serving a high percentage of Pell Grant recipients in an effort to lower cost and increase student outcomes. This fund would also help low to moderately endowed nonprofit private institutions within the HBCU system. Contrary to Sanders, Clinton plans to invest in private postsecondary education, acknowledging that private colleges also help under-served students graduate.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio’s higher education plan, which emphasizes access and affordability, includes cheaper options for online education. Rubio also calls for students to treat themselves as commodities when applying to college, and asks students to embrace what he refers to as “human capital contracts” by selling themselves to private investors.

He asserts that students should know how much they could expect to earn before taking out a loan to pay for their education. Rubio maintains that the current higher education system in this country is outdated, broken, and “needs a disruption,” citing that college is too expensive, time consuming, and inflexible. Rubio uses partisan language to explain that the Democrats’ approach to fixing higher education is the same one attempted in Washington for decades by pouring money into an outdated system and raising taxes.

Income-Based Loan Repayment

There are some facets of Rubio’s education plan that are consistent with Clinton and Sanders. They are in agreement on investing in student success and wanting to simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). However, Rubio wants to implement an automatic income-based student loan repayment plan in order to ease student loan debt. The current administration has already enacted repayment plans that are income-based as an option, but Rubio believes this should be the sole universal method for federal student loans.

Ties to Corinthian Colleges

In an effort to move higher education into the 21^st century, Rubio wants to ease access to state colleges and online education opportunities, and reshape accrediting entities to accommodate non-traditional education. This may raise concern with voters based on his ties to the for-profit Corinthian Colleges, which have contributed to his Reclaim America Pac.

Last spring, Corinthian Colleges filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and shut their doors for good, which adversely impacted over 16,000 students. In December of 2015, the Obama administration began the process to forgive nearly $28 million in federal student loans for over 1,300 students that said the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges violated their rights on grounds that they used deceptive tactics to convince students to take out loans. Now up to 350,000 students could be forgiven for taking out loans to pay tuition.

John Kasich

GOP Candidate Governor John Kasich of Ohio plans to keep college affordable by focusing on the 100 percent performance-based funding formula that emphasizes completion and graduation rates. The formula that has kept Ohio a leader in the nation with regard to freezing tuition rates for the next couple of years, Kasich plans to expand what has worked in Ohio to a federal level. The remaining focuses of Kasich’s education plan are centered heavily on K-12 education.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz

Neither Donald Trump nor Texas Senator Ted Cruz have released their plans for higher education. However, in recent weeks Trump has been accused of scamming students with his for-profit Trump University, which began operating in 2005. Rubio attacked Trump, calling the university a “fake school,” and claiming the university has been defrauding students out of thousand of dollars after reports were revealed that students are currently suing Trump for restitution.

Conclusion

As the field narrows, voters are going to need to decide who their next president will be based on issues extending far beyond higher education. That said, the candidates left standing need to be clear about all of their plans. That includes laying out specifics on how to implement each education plan, including how they will be paid for, and who in the new president’s cabinet will oversee these implementations.

Some of these higher education plans are more radical than others, but hopefully as the election season gathers steam, voters will finally be privy to what higher education will look like for incoming students, new graduates paying back student loans, and mid-career professionals who may seeking relief from drowning in student loan debt.

Resources

Real Clear Politics: 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

Buzzfeed: Clyburn: Sanders’ Education Plan is a Disaster for Private Black Colleges

Center for Responsive Politics: Corinthian Colleges 2014

New York Times: Ben Carson Seeing No Path Forward, Signals End of Candidacy

New York Times: Super Tuesday Results

Washington Post: Students of Defunct For-Profit Colleges to Receive $28 Million in Loan Forgiveness

Think Progress: Rubio Attacked Trump for Running a ‘Fake School.’ But There’s Just One Problem

Jamal Evan Mazyck

Jamal Mazyck is currently pursuing an Ed.D. in educational leadership and is a graduate research assistant at San Diego State University. When he is not writing, researching or tweeting about the ins and outs of higher education, he can be found on the tennis court and running half-marathons. Contact Jamal at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What are the Candidates’ Higher Education Plans Post-Obama? appeared first on Law Street.

During the recent Democratic debate in Charleston, South Carolina, front-runner Hillary Clinton, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley each became increasingly combative with one another when discussing their positions on important issues for voters. With the Iowa caucuses quickly approaching, these debates are becoming more crucial as voters begin to sift through many of the issues discussed including gun control, healthcare, Wall Street, immigration, and foreign policy. Although minimally discussed during the debate, tuition-free education may become a campaign defining issue. Many candidates have tuition and debt relief initiatives on their platforms, but what exactly is tuition-free higher education and who supports it? Keep reading to learn more.

Tuition-Free Education

Tax-funded education is not exactly a new phenomenon, but most recently tuition-free education programs at the state level have been launched in Tennessee and Oregon for community colleges. Many other states have similar programs on the table at the two-year level, but Sanders is the only candidate in this presidential cycle to propose a federal program for tuition-free higher education at the public university level.

Specifically, the self-proclaimed “Democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders mentioned during the debate in Charleston that his education plan includes free education at both two-year and four-year public institutions. Midway through the debate, one of the moderators Andrea Mitchell asked Sanders how, among many other issues on his platform, would he pay for this education initiative. Sanders responded by stating that he wants to rebuild our infrastructure and close the loophole that allows major corporations to stash millions in the Cayman Islands and not pay a nickel in taxes.  Sanders continued through his want list saying,

I want every kid in this country who has the ability, to be able to go to a public college or university tuition-free and by the way, substantially lower student debt interest rates in this country as well.

Among other seemingly expensive programs, his tuition-free education plan would be paid for by Wall Street taxes, according to Sanders. “We bailed out Wall Street, now it is Wall Street’s time to help the middle class,” Sanders explained.

How do the Conservative Candidates Feel?

With the exception of a few Democratic candidates, higher education issues have not been at the forefront of topics to tackle on the campaign trail. Many of the GOP candidates have instead chosen to focus their education positions in the K-12 sector.

As a whole, many Republicans have begun to move away from the Common Core values that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush famously supported, which seek to establish consistent educational standards across the states. But the GOP candidates differ a lot with their plans, with Dr. Ben Carson going on record in support of reducing tuition costs and student debt, while Ted Cruz publicly denounced Common Core in favor of local control of education. However, Donald Trump, the current party front-runner, has yet to roll out an actual education plan.

The International Take on Free College

The Sanders campaign aims to make college education tuition-free nationwide in hopes to prepare more Americans for the workforce and alleviate student debt. But according to the Sanders campaign, the idea is not as radical as some would have you believe.

Germany has already eliminated fees for their able college students by making their citizens pay much higher percentages in taxes than people in the United States. Unfortunately in an effort to keep costs down, many of these German universities place students in larger classrooms and forgo non-essential campus amenities. Denmark and Sweden also have tuition-free higher education for its citizens, and Chile, Finland, and Norway, will soon follow.

Who’s on Board with Sanders’ Plan?

Clinton

Although Clinton is currently leading by 25 points, her lead is slipping, according to the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. As the first nomination contest in Iowa approaches, her stance on education may be the tipping point for securing likely voters. Like Sanders, Clinton believes that student debt is problematic and has also become a proponent for tuition-free education–at least for community college students. On Clinton’s campaign website she said, “we need to make a quality education affordable and available to everyone willing to work for it, without saddling them with decades of debt.”

Clinton agrees with Sanders with regard to reducing debt so students shouldn’t have to take out loans to pay for a quality education, as stipulated through her New College Compact education plan, but differs, however, in making tuition free at the university level.

In addition to Clinton’s education plan aiming to improve the amount of students able to attend college debt-free, the New College Compact program insists that students should be able to access higher education at the two-year level tuition-free, indicating that states need to reinvest in schools to improve student outcomes and graduation rates. Part of the Clinton campaign strategy is to build upon the presidency of Barack Obama and access to higher education is an indicator of such alignment. The New College Compact plan that includes a free community college provision mirrors the America’s College Promise program launched by the Obama Administration at this time last year.

O’Malley

The third Democratic presidential candidate, Martin O’Malley, found it difficult to get a word in on any of the issues he deemed important in Charleston, SC, which was the last debate before Iowa. Polling at an estimated 2 percent, securing the nomination for O’Malley is going to be an uphill battle. If viewers heard more from O’Malley, we may have been privy to his position on tuition-free education.

In contrast to Sanders and Clinton, O’Malley does not support a tuition-free higher education plan of any sort. Instead he proposes that college be debt-free for students, which coincides with the other democratic candidates’ platforms.

In agreement with the student-debt positions of Sanders and Clinton, O’Malley’s debt-free education proposal requests immediate relief to student borrowers, freezing public tuition rates, reduce tuition costs, increasing college preparedness, and holding for-profit colleges accountable. The O’Malley plan also aims to address other fees not associated with tuition that contribute to student debt by increasing Pell Grants, expanding work study programs, and providing childcare on campus, which have not largely been discussed by the other Democratic candidates.

What does this all mean?

Education has been a dividing issue for candidates for decades and the current presidential cycle will be no different. With many of the conservative candidates using sound bite opportunities to discuss their disdain for Common Core, while the liberals center their education conversations on the student debt crisis, the discussion will have an impact on the decisions for voters on both sides of the political aisle.

For those willing to discuss tuition-free education, the most eye-opening plan comes from candidate Sanders. His campaign hopes to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. Although Clinton supports tuition-free programs, her plan would only apply to two-year colleges, and would emphasize relieving students of crippling debt. O’Malley wants to help American families that are being crushed by $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loan debt, but his plan does not include a tuition-free education. He does, however, consider other fees associated with the total cost of college, that go beyond just tuition.

These education plans will be heavily scrutinized, along with initiatives yet to emerge from other candidates since the economic success of the country is contingent on the preparedness of its workforce. The federal government has also benefited from student loan interest rates and with the cost of college in the United States exponentially rising, more students are receiving financial aid assistance through loans more than ever before.

Conclusion

A college education has been categorized as an indicator of lifetime income earning potential. Whether paying for college outright, or through loans, the future of the country rests on the ability to contribute to the economic. The idea that tuition-free higher education will eliminate student debt is not going away and remains to be seen how Americans will respond this November.

Resources

Primary

RealClear Politics: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Additional

Bloomberg Business: Borrowers Fall Further Behind on $1.3 Trillion in student Loans

Los Angeles Times: Jeb Bush’s Embrace of Common Core is a Campaign Lightning Rod

Los Angeles Times: Why You Can Get a Free Education in Germany But Not in California

Marketplace: How German Higher Education Controls Costs

NBC News: Poll: Clinton holds 25-Point National Lead Over Sanders

Jamal Evan Mazyck

Jamal Mazyck is currently pursuing an Ed.D. in educational leadership and is a graduate research assistant at San Diego State University. When he is not writing, researching or tweeting about the ins and outs of higher education, he can be found on the tennis court and running half-marathons. Contact Jamal at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tuition-Free Education: Presidential Candidates Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

Clad in a jangle-y, fringe-y sweater, Sarah Palin grabbed a gooseneck microphone Tuesday night, beamed and said, “This is gonna be so much fun.” And boy, was she right.

Palin, second only perhaps to Donald Trump himself, understands the spectacle of the media–after all, the two have both starred in their own reality television shows. During her endorsement speech, Sarah Palin announced that Trump wouldn’t “pussyfoot around” and would “kick ISIS’ ass.” Remember when she was almost the Vice President of the United States? And we thought that was the height of lunacy.

That sweater, by the way, has now sold-out from Saks Fifth Avenue at its original $695 price. For a cheaper option, coat a magician’s cape in clear glue, stand in your kitchen, and detonate a firework in your silverware drawer.

As soon as Sarah Palin’s frantic, wholly non-sequitur speech went online, various internet communities quickly created send-ups.

Vine only has six seconds to lampoon Palin, but thankfully she packed as much material as possible into that short time, with this unintelligible description of “Trumpeters”–Trump’s most ardent supporters.

Is Sarah Palin OK. https://t.co/MckD5il1xt

— Louis Peitzman (@LouisPeitzman) January 20, 2016

In turn, this moment has been blended with other popular Vine trends, such as poking fun at Iggy Azalea’s rapping abilities:

THE INTERNET IS SO ILL https://t.co/iw5ewaxT1J — The Kid Mero (@THEKIDMERO) January 20, 2016

And of course, a mashup, which is the only time you’ll ever see “Ciara, and Missy Elliot feat. Sarah Palin.”

omg. the internet. https://t.co/IlXyEbEBGO

— kelsey mckinney (@mckinneykelsey) January 20, 2016

One personal favorite quote from the speech is:

Trump’s candidacy has exposed, not just that tragic — that ramifications of the betrayal of a transformation of our country, but, two, he has exposed the complicity on both sides of the aisle that has enabled it, OK?

Here Palin demonstrates that she has heard several multisyllabic words before, but never took the time to read up on what they meant, or how they fit into a sentence. Twitter users chimed in on her seemingly endless tirade:

Breaking: Trump names Sarah Palin his running mate, plans to trade her in for a younger woman once he loses interest.

— OhNoSheTwitnt (@OhNoSheTwitnt) January 19, 2016

BREAKING: Sarah Palin endorses Donald Trump in 17 minute run-on sentence.

— Top Conservative Cat (@TeaPartyCat) January 19, 2016

I can relate to Sarah Palin in that I have worn tight pleather to distract people from the fact that I am a nightmare.

— Pony Starwars (@tigersgoroooar) January 20, 2016

And finally, some repurposed poetry. The candidates’ debate performances have also been given the poetic treatment.

I reformatted Sarah Palin’s Trump endorsement speech as Walt Whitman poetry. Lyrical! https://t.co/JADZlE84zJ pic.twitter.com/dugkFIqeUk

— Jason O. Gilbert (@gilbertjasono) January 20, 2016

If you’re in the mood to feel your brain melt inside your skull like ice cream in the Gobi desert, endure the full 20-minute speech at your own risk.

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 The Internet Reacts to Sarah Palin’s Insane “Stump for Trump” Speech appeared first on Law Street.

First, Donald Trump wanted to ban Mexicans. “Build a wall” he said, and make the Mexican government pay for it. And despite the long list of inherent problems with said plan, a large number of people rejoiced at this supposed fix for America’s “immigration problem.”

Now, Trump has moved on from just banning nationalities and has opted for religions as well. On Monday, the current leader in the race for the Republican presidential nomination voiced that he would call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” until we can “figure out what’s going on.” That’s right folks, all Muslims. 

Watch Trump’s Comments Below

These seemingly unconstitutional comments marked a swift change from Trump’s usual anti-Muslim rhetoric, quickly distancing the mogul from his GOP counterparts. Now politicians, celebrities, and entire countries are coming out in droves to denounce Trump’s statements and even ban him from certain parts of the globe.

People for Banning Trump

Several American mayors have begun voicing the desire to ban Trump from entering their respective cities–despite having no legal power to actually do so. St. Petersburg, Florida’s Mayor Rick Kriseman announced the decree on Twitter and Sunnyvale, California’s Mayor Jim Griffith quickly followed suit. Kriseman told NBC News on Tuesday that he felt Trump’s statement deserved an equally “ridiculous” response.

I am hereby barring Donald Trump from entering St. Petersburg until we fully understand the dangerous threat posed by all Trumps.

— Rick Kriseman (@Kriseman) December 8, 2015

Ya know, I think Mayor Kriseman is on to something here… https://t.co/txdhBwBlFS — Mayor Jim Griffith (@JimGriffith_SV) December 8, 2015

It’s not just Americans hoping to ban Trump. As of this afternoon, a petition to prohibit Trump from entering the UK has reached 200,000 signatures and is climbing. The petition first went up on Parliament’s website Tuesday, and only needed 100,000 signatures in order to be automatically considered for debate in Parliament.

The GOP Takes a Stand

Many in the Republican Party wasted no time informing the public that Trump’s statement was not indicative of the party as whole. Speaker Paul Ryan was praised after holding a press conference where he simply stated “this is not conservatism.” Fellow presidential hopefuls Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich also called the proposal “unhinged,” “offensive,” and “outrageous” on social media.

Donald Trump is unhinged. His “policy” proposals are not serious.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 7, 2015

I disagree with Donald Trump’s latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 8, 2015

pic.twitter.com/noMfFeL3vq

— John Kasich (@JohnKasich) December 7, 2015

Emotional Response

New York Daily News took a more emotionally charged stance on the offensive proposal in the form of a political cartoon comparing Trump to Hitler on Wednesday’s cover. The cartoon was modeled after Pastor Martin Niemöller famous poem, “First They Came,” and drew similarities to Nazi Germany.

Today’s @NYDailyNews cover accompanied by an emotional guest column about @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Ue4IXx97gr pic.twitter.com/X9xLdSlaYG — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) December 9, 2015

The Downright Hilarious

However, J.K. Rowling proved she is the master of all things Twitter yet again, with one single tweet that perfectly captured what everyone else was thinking.

How horrible. Voldemort was nowhere near as bad. https://t.co/hFO0XmOpPH — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) December 8, 2015

Even though politicians, countries, and celebrities are strongly against Trump becoming the next president of the United States, a large portion of America still seems to love him. It appears that the more outrageous the statement, the better Trump polls, and his ability to capture the approval of non-traditional voters has proved he’s more than just a sideshow, he’s an actual contender. But will people finally say “enough is enough” when Trump starts condemning more nationalities, ethnic groups, and religions?

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 The Best Reactions to Trump’s Idiotic Plan to Block Muslims From Entering U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s horrific mass shooting that left nine dead at an Oregon community college exemplified escalating concerns over the state of gun safety in this nation. While for many it has sparked outcries for stricter gun control laws, others have responded to the deaths with a variety of excuses that aim to point the finger at the assailant rather than the flawed system.

Republican primary candidates in particular have gone on the defensive post-Oregon, with a number of comments that at many times come across as dismissive, arrogant, and/or utterly ridiculous. So we’ve decided to compile a list of the top five worst Republican responses to the Oregon shooting and present them to you below. We ask that you prepare yourselves now for some head scratching reactions to these nonsensical comments made by contenders vying for the POTUS position.

5. Marco Rubio: “Gun Control Would Not Have Prevented That Attack”

During a “Today Show” interview Florida Senator Marco Rubio responded to Matt Lauer’s questions about the shooting saying, “Many of the proposals that are out there on gun control would not have prevented that attack.” He then said, “We need to start examining why people are taking violent action not what they’re using to commit the violent act with.”

Clearly Rubio’s tactic is to put all the focus on mental illness rather than the concerning accessibility of these firearms. But saying stricter gun laws would have had zero effect on this tragedy is just presumptuous and idiotic.

4. Bobby Jindal: Blames Shooting on Single Mothers

In a bulleted sermon that debuted on his personal website, Louisiana governor and ghost-like candidate Bobby Jindal attempted to make himself relevant by discussing the “cultural rot” he believes contributed to the shooting. However, Jindal’s most offensive critique came in a long-winded rant that insinuated single mothers’ inability to parent young boys is to blame for mass shootings. Jindal said:

And who is it that generally commits these evil acts of mass murder that are becoming routine? It’s almost always young men who have either no father figure in their lives, or a broken relationship with their father. Is this just a coincidence? Of course not.

Now, let’s get really politically incorrect here and talk specifically about this horror in Oregon. This killer’s father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea how or where his son got the guns.

Of course he doesn’t know. You know why he doesn’t know? Because he is not, and has never been in his son’s life. He’s a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He’s the problem here.

Sorry Jindal, but insinuating that one parent households are potential mass murder breeding camps isn’t going to win you any votes with the millions of single parents in the U.S.

3. Donald Trump: Armed Teachers Could Have Stopped the Oregon Shooting

We can always count on Donald Trump for his loquacious political theatrics, but him claiming that arming teachers is the solution to school shootings is just asinine. At a campaign event in Franklin, Tennessee, Trump criticized the fact that the school was a gun-free zone saying, “Let me tell you, if you had a couple teachers with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off.”

2. Ben Carson: “I Would Not Just Stand There and Let Him Shoot Me”

Dr. Ben Carson did Trump one better when he claimed that he could have stopped the shooter, Chris Harper-Mercer, had he been in the Snyder Hall classroom that day. Carson said, “I would not just stand there and let him shoot me.”He continued telling Fox News, “I would say: ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him! He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.’”

Well at least you’ve got some pretty big kahunas, Carson.

1. Jeb Bush: “Stuff Happens”

Bush shrugged off the issue of gun control when he responded to the shooting saying, “stuff happens”, during a campaign event in Greenville, South Carolina. Bush’s full quote was, “Look, stuff happens. There’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something, and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”

Point taken, but Jeb I’m pretty sure that the families of the victims wouldn’t appreciate you dismissing the death of their loved ones as “stuff happens.”

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 Top 5 Worst Republican Responses to the Oregon Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

With Ohio governor John Kasich joining the Republican field for the 2016 presidential election, the numbers have reached an all-time high. Sixteen GOP candidates have now officially declared they’re running for the presidency–the highest number in campaign history. Previous to this year, the all-time high for the GOP as reported by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) was 11 in both 2000 and 2012. What makes 2016 so different than previous years, and why are so many Republicans suddenly running for the nation’s highest office? Surely the chances of winning are slim in such a highly contested field, however it is still early enough that it’s any candidates’ ball game, and there are definitely reasons why so many may have thrown their hats into the ring.

One of the reasons that makes 2016 such a viable year for GOP candidate hopefuls is the mere fact that Republicans no longer want a Democrat running the government.The last Republican president to hold office was George W. Bush and that was back in 2008. Since then it has been a Democratic-run government under President Barack Obama. Now is the best time for Republicans to run granted that there is no incumbent president. As was seen in 2008, Obama ran as one of the younger candidates in history and proved that running at the right time can overcome a lack of experience.

The large number of candidates further demonstrates that there are contributing factors such as the changes to campaign funding policies which further permit individuals running to raise exorbitant amounts of money through fundraising and sponsorship (think Republican Jeb Bush, and Democrat Hillary Clinton.) Although the FEC used to place strict monetary guidelines on candidates, the 2010 SCOTUS ruling on the Citizens United case essentially gutted those stipulations and made it a lot easier for candidates to raise massive sums of cash. Further, the influx of money as a result of the Citizens United ruling may have propelled and incentivized individuals with large personal wealth (think Republicans Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina) to declare their candidacies. CNN recently reported Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders as stating, “We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates.” Sanders quote is clearly reflected by the latest GOP poll as it shows one of the most famously wealthy men in United States, Donald Trump, leading the pack.

While many refer to the 2008 election as the “Facebook Election,” it appears that the 2016 election is covering a lot more than just one social media platform. In fact most of the top candidates in the GOP field are staying very active on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and Periscope. Senator Ted Cruz demonstrated his active social media dedication as he provided a live stream of his first major speech across all mediums of social media on March 23. Although GOP candidates are aware that the competition in their own field alone is very fierce, they also understand that the highly prioritized use of social media in the campaign will allow them many hours in the national spotlight. Many of the candidates may be seeking some sort of business venture, platform, or  political deal as a realistic option from campaigning, and are in a great position with the constant celebrity-like attention they can get through social media.

Having won the previous eight years in the White House, the Democratic party is somewhat unified on its ideals while the Republican party is immensely divided. There are arguably four separate yet equally important constituencies which make up the GOP right now. The four of these are: the libertarians, the Tea Party goers, the social conservatives and the establishment, although of course there’s plenty of overlap as well as other ideologies. With that being said, it is very tough for one candidate to appeal to all four of the subgroups. However, granted that it is still very early on in the race, candidates have time to strategically plan how to reach their respective audiences within the party. Hypothetically speaking, if one candidate can somehow secure the following of all four groups, he or she would skyrocket in the race and have a very high chance of winning.

Whether all 16 candidates are in it to win it or simply for an experience to share some ideas, the fact remains that only one will win the GOP primary and eventually run against the Democratic rival. With that being said there will be 15 qualified (some more than others) and hungry losers looking to further their influence in politics. Candidates who have already lost may join and support a fellow constituent still in the running who shares similar ideals. Losing candidates might also join forces with those still in contention to make it more difficult for the competition to win. It is still early on, however, things are looking rather exciting for the Republican party as the field is stacked and surprises await.

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 It’s Raining Republicans: Why is the 2016 Field So Crowded? 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.

It’s only May 2015 and already the Republican field vying for the 2016 presidential nomination feels awfully crowded. In anticipation of this very crowded field, various outlets that host the presidential debates are already taking steps to limit the number of candidates who will be able to participate in the nationally televised debates. Given the notoriety and celebrity status required to win the nomination in this day and age, this could sink some candidates’ campaigns before they even really begin.

In terms of candidates who have already declared, we have Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. There’s also former Governor Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. It’s also speculated that some combination of former Governor Jeb Bush, former Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Lindsey Graham, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor John Kasich, and business mogul Donald Trump will declare at some point relatively soon. At my count that could be well over a dozen candidates, and I’m sure there are at least a few I’m missing or who will come out of the woodwork to declare.

In light of this potentially huge field, both Fox News and CNN, who are hosting debates in August and September, respectively, have declared that they’re only going to allow the top ten candidates on stage to duke it out for the GOP nomination.

Those announcements, of course, raised plenty of questions, because there’s no good way to determine who the “top ten” candidates are before a single vote is even cast. According to Fox News, the candidates have to “place in the top ten of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by Fox News.” CNN has announced that it will be using a slightly different metric:

The first ten candidates—ranked from highest to lowest in polling order from an average of all qualifying polls released between July 16 and September 10 who satisfy the criteria requirements … will be invited to participate in ‘Segment B’ of the September 16, 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debate.

Either way, Fox and CNN are both taking steps to ensure that the candidates that they allow on stage for the debates are ones who have a fighting chance–although when considering the crowdedness of the field, this may come down to a few percentage points between candidates who make the cut and those who don’t.

With that in mind, apparently CNN has also announced that it’ll give candidates who don’t make the cut for the main debate but who are polling about 1 percent in three national polls the opportunity to speak in a different segment of the September debate.

Given the sheer craziness that was trying to watch the Republican debates in 2012 and the Democratic debates in 2008, both of which had plenty of candidates (although less than 10), it makes sense that the news outlets want to limit the amount of candidates speaking. If they were to go above ten, there would be hardly enough time for each candidate to be able to say anything useful about his or her platform. That being said, missing out on national exposure will end up hurting the lesser-known candidates, and could end up culling the field on the earlier side than past election cycles.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post You’re Not Invited: Republican Candidates Vie for Debate Spots appeared first on Law Street.

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.

The 2016 presidential race may still be far away, but that hasn’t stopped a few candidates from gaining buzz early by officially throwing their names into the “potential president” mix. But before our campaigners get too serious with debates on foreign policy and health care, lets add a little humor into the fold.

Here are the three most ridiculous moments from the 2016 election so far.

Presidential Candidates Turned into Sims

Over Easter weekend the Independent Journal Review (IJR) decided to turn eight Republican presidential candidates into the “Republisims” and drop them into a generated White House on auto-pilot to see what would happen. These lifelike sims immediately began talking to themselves in mirrors, getting into fights with sim Rand Paul, and jumping into the pool to use the the “bathroom island” which was heavily guarded by sim Chris Christie.  Sim Ben Carson lasted the longest out of the bunch, making him your 2016 Republican candidate. Read a hilarious play-by-play here.

Not to be left out, IJR let eight Democrats have their turn as “Demosims,” which was live streamed yesterday. Sorry Hillary, but the winner was sim Vice President Joe Biden.

Watch the DemoSims LIVE: http://t.co/T9J0Pc1Exm pic.twitter.com/wGB3PaS8AM

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) April 21, 2015

Hookers for Hillary

The ladies from an infamous Nevada brothel, the Moonlite Bunny Ranch, are making it clear who their candidate is early with the site HookersforHillary.com. The bunnies explained their reasoning for joining Team Hillary by discussing her stance on various platforms including healthcare reform, preventing trickle-down-economics, and my personal favorite “foreign policy experience. They wrote:

As Secretary Of State, Hillary Clinton gained invaluable experience negotiating with foreign leaders, and the Bunnies can definitely relate to negotiating through a language barrier.The Bunny Ranch entertains customers from all around the globe, and the girls have great respect for any woman who can take powerful men from oppressive cultures and make them bend to her will.  With her eye on the international landscape, the Bunnies are confident that President Hillary Clinton would also avoid a repeat of the Secret Service’s Colombian prostitution scandal by making sure that her detail buys American.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this was the kind of endorsement Hillary was hoping for, and I am pretty sure Hillary wasn’t in the market for domestic hookers for her security detail.

 Waka Flocka Flame 4 Prez

In 2012 Waka Flocka made a promise to the American people.

I’m dead ass running for president in 2016. — Waka Flocka Flame (@WakaFlockabsm) November 7, 2012

Two and a half years later the “No Hands” rapper sat down with Rolling Stone on 4/20 to talk about being president while rolling up some “presidential kush.” Here are some of Flocka’s plans if he becomes president:

• Stop all dogs from coming into restaurants.

• Ban anyone with size 13 feet or over from walking in public because he doesn’t want to see their “big ass feet taking up all the space on the concrete.”

• Require all children to learn all of his lyrics before they graduate or they have to “start all over again from third grade to twelfth.”

And of course, Flocka plans to legalize weed! Watch the aspiring nominee’s campaign video below.

We can’t wait to see what ridiculous moments happen next in this already crazy election. Stay tuned!

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 Top 3 Most Ridiculous Moments From the 2016 Elections…So Far appeared first on Law Street.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced Monday morning that he will be running in the 2016 presidential race, making him the first Republican candidate to officially declare his bid for the presidency.  But if you thought all election birth certificate drama ended with Obama, you were wrong. This time Cruz’s citizenship is under scrutiny, causing some people to wonder if the Canadian-born U.S. Senator can actually become president.

It’s common knowledge that according to the Constitution you must be a “natural-born-citizen” in the United States in order to become its president or vice president. Sorry Arnold Schwarzenegger. But how is it possible for Canadian born Senator Cruz to run for office?

For starters Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada to an American mother and Cuban émigré father, received U.S. citizenship from his mother, but also maintained Canadian citizenship by way of birth. In 2013 when he was being considered as a potential candidate, questions regarding Cruz’s citizenship began to surface, prompting him to release a statement:

Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter.

Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth, and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.

Cruz’s became “All-American” in 2014 when he signed his official “Canadian Renunciation Letter” absolving him of his Canadian citizenship. Despite this, some conservatives like Donald Trump have continued to question Cruz’s eligibility, albeit quite passively, calling it a “hurdle” for Cruz. That’s a stark difference from the attack dog-like aggressiveness from birthers like Trump who not too long ago demanded to see Obama’s birth certificate with their own eyes. That group went so far as to claim that the president was really born in Kenya and his birth certificate was a forgery.

In case you were wondering, Cruz isn’t the first presidential candidate to be born outside of the United States. ABC News was quick to point out that both John McCain and George Romney ran for president, despite being born in the Panama Canal Zone and Mexico, respectively.

So just to make it clear yes, Cruz is American and yes, he is allowed to run for President. Whether or not he’ll even become the Republican nominee is another story, but for now lets put an end to another round of trivial “birth certificate drama.”

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 Ted Cruz’s Presidential Bid: Will There Be Citizenship Questions? appeared first on Law Street.