Jane Sanders, the wife of former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is currently under federal investigation. The probe concerns a 2010 land purchase orchestrated by Jane Sanders, who was, at the time, president of Burlington College in Burlington, Vermont. The Sanders camp contends the investigation is a political ploy to stymie Bernie Sanders’ political future. But the investigation is heating up, according to The Washington Post. Here is what else you need to know:

Land Deal

In 2010, Jane Sanders purchased $10 million-worth of land to build a new Burlington College campus. She promised the owner of the 33-acre property, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, that she would pay off the purchase with private donations. Jane Sanders told trustees that $2.6 million in donations had already been pledged to the college and projected a surge in enrollment in the coming year.

To finance the exchange, the college borrowed $6.7 million from the People’s United Bank. The diocese provided the college with an additional loan, expecting to be repaid based on Jane’s assurances.

Jane Sanders Resigns

Soon after the purchase was complete, the diocese realized that Jane Sanders’ promises had been largely overstated. Enrollment did not substantially increase, and the donations Sanders said had already been pledged fell well short of the $2.6 million she promised. Following an uproar from the board of trustees, Jane Sanders resigned in 2011, and the college closed in 2016.

According to David V. Dunn, a former Burlington College trustee, neither of Jane Sanders’ promises–the increased enrollment and $2.6 million in donations–were true. However, there were other management issues that contributed to her firing.

“I don’t believe that there was fraud in terms of willful intent,” Dunn  told the New York Times. “I believe that there was information that was misrepresented.”

Politically Motivated?

Jeff Weaver, the spokesman for Jane and Bernie Sanders, considers the investigation to be politically motivated. He said the probe was launched because of Brady Toensing, a lawyer who sent a letter to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont in January alleging potential bank fraud.

“We request an investigation into what appears to be federal loan fraud involving the sale of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington headquarters,” Toensing wrote in the letter.

“This apparent fraud resulted in as much as $2 million in losses to the Diocese and an unknown amount of loss to People’s United Bank, a federally financed financial institution,” said Toensing, who at the time was the vice chairman of the Vermont Republican Party. Toensing later became the state chairman for President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Unsurprisingly, Bernie Sanders sees the investigation as little more than a political ruse. He highlighted the timing of the inquiries into his wife’s college in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper:

“Right in the middle of my presidential campaign–and I know this will shock the viewers–the vice chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, who happened to be Donald Trump’s campaign manager, raised this issue and initiated this investigation.”

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 Jane Sanders Bank Fraud Investigation: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the Senate overwhelmingly backed a bill that would impose additional sanctions on Iran and Russia. The Senate’s move sent a clear signal to the White House that any conciliatory actions toward the Kremlin would have to go through Congress.

The bill, which passed by a vote of 98-2, would ensure that President Donald Trump could not unilaterally lift sanctions against Russia; any attempt to do so would have to be approved by Congress. The legislation is expected to head to the House in the coming weeks. The two Senators that voted “no” were Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement after the vote. He said:

With passage of this legislation, the Senate reasserts congressional authority–while providing the Trump administration appropriate national security flexibility–and sends a clear signal to both Iran and Russia that our country will stand firm in the face of destabilizing behavior and that Congress will play a leading role in protecting our national interests.

The expanded sanctions on Iran were in response to its ballistic missile development, and its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Tehran also aids Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

An amendment was added to the popular Iran sanctions bill to expand existing sanctions to Russia–citing its election meddling, its seizure of Crimea in 2014, and its support of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia is also the primary backer of Assad.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that the Russian sanctions stand. Yet in a hearing this week, he said the administration would like “flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation.” Tillerson urged Congress to allow him room to maneuver.

Congressional aides told Reuters that the House will likely pass the bill, and support in both chambers will be strong enough to override a veto if the president takes that route.

In a statement following Thursday’s vote, Sanders said he supports additional sanctions against Russia, but believes tightening sanctions against Iran “could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners, and Iran in 2015.” Sanders added that Iran’s “policies and activities” are deeply concerning.

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 Senate Votes to Make it Harder for Trump to Lift Russia Sanctions appeared first on Law Street.

Wednesday morning, at a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Virginia,  a man opened fire on a group of Republican congressmen who were practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) was shot and is in stable condition, but needed surgery. At least two police officers and one staffer were injured as well. The shooter, identified as 66-year-old James Hodgkinson, has died, according to President Donald Trump.

The incident comes at a time of intense political polarization in D.C. and across the country, a fact that Wednesday’s tragedy only underscored.

Who is Steve Scalise?

Scalise, the third-ranking Republican in the House, was reportedly “in good spirits and spoke to his wife by phone” after being shot in the hip. He is being treated at a nearby hospital. The 51-year-old has been in Congress since 2008, and in 2014 was elected to the position of majority whip. Before he was elected to the House, Scalise served in the Louisiana legislature. He recently helped pass the American Health Care Act, House Republicans’ Obamacare replacement. According to his House biography, Scalise and his wife have two children, and own a home in Jefferson, Louisiana.

There’s a Congressional Baseball Game?

This annual charity baseball game, in which Republican and Democratic congressmen face off at Nationals Park, began in the early 20th century. This year’s game is scheduled to be played on Thursday, and will reportedly go on. After years of Democratic dominance, Republicans won last year’s game 8-7. A showing of bipartisanship, the game is also meant to raise money for charity.

The Shooter

Shortly after spraying a baseball field full of GOP congressmen with bullets, Hodgkinson was shot by Capitol Police. Hours later, he reportedly died while being treated at a hospital. Short and stocky with a wispy white goatee, Hodgkinson, a native of Belleville, Illinois, had reportedly been in Alexandria for two months. Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC), who was present at the scene, told BuzzFeed News that Hodgkinson came up to him before the attack and asked if the players on the field were Democrats or Republicans. Duncan’s account has not yet been corroborated by other sources.

According to the Belleville News-Democrat, Hodgkinson belonged to a number of anti-Republican groups, including “Terminate the Republican Party,” “Donald Trump is Not My President,” and “The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans.” Hodgkinson also has a criminal history: he was reportedly arrested in 2006 for assaulting his girlfriend.

PHOTOS: Shooter identified as James T. Hodgkinson pic.twitter.com/77fnpblbBZ

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) June 14, 2017

Politicizing a Tragedy

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, people on both sides of the aisle took to Twitter with political takes. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, retweeted Harlan Hill’s claim that the recent, highly controversial Shakespeare in the Park performance was to blame for Wednesday’s attack:

Events like today are EXACTLY why we took issue with NY elites glorifying the assassination of our President

— Harlan Z. Hill (@Harlan) June 14, 2017

Others branded the attack as “leftist terrorism,” referring to the shooter’s apparent support for the Bernie Sanders campaign:

The Orlando massacre was about islamic terrorism.

The shooting of Steve Scalise is about leftist terrorism.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) June 14, 2017

But still, with all of the politicizing and vitriol, there were some hopeful signs to be found on Twitter:

House Democrats pray for Republican colleagues and others injured in a shooting at a GOP baseball practice https://t.co/9zo4CnICPv pic.twitter.com/0VYxEJ93jA

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) June 14, 2017

And back at the Capitol, as Scalise’s colleagues prayed for his quick recovery, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) delivered a statement, saying “an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.” Sanders also issued a statement, saying he had “just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign.” He added: “Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.”

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 GOP Baseball Practice Shooting: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Weeks after House Republicans passed a health care bill, GOP senators are drafting their own version of a law that would repeal and replace Obamacare. Among a variety of differences between the two Republican efforts, one is especially rankling to Democrats: the senators of the Budget Committee are cobbling together their bill in secret. According to a number of Senate aides, nobody outside that committee, including a number of Republican senators, has seen the bill’s precise language.

Influential Senate Democrats took to Twitter to pillory the secretive Republican process:

My advice today: focus 10% of your attention/outrage on Sessions testimony, 90% on the secret health care bill that is speeding to a vote.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 13, 2017

 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Republicans “are trying to pass a health care bill in the dead of night.” He added:

If they were proud of this plan, they wouldn’t hide anything – they’d crow all about it! What exactly are they trying to cover up? 5/7

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 12, 2017

Republicans are hoping to vote on the bill by the July 4 recess, which gives them a window of a couple of weeks to finish drafting the bill, and send it to the Congressional Budget Office for a review. The CBO, a non-partisan analysis agency, released its evaluation of the House health care effort a few weeks after the bill was passed. It found that the bill could result in 23 million more uninsured Americans.

A CBO evaluation could take up to two weeks, so if Republicans hope to vote on the Senate bill by July 4, it would have to be completed in the coming days. But even as the bill nears completion, some high-ranking Republican senators are being kept in the dark as well.

“I want to know exactly what’s going to be in the Senate bill, I don’t know it yet,” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) recently told reporters. “It’s not a good process.” And Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said “this is not the best way to do health care, but it’s the way we’re having to do it,” adding that the only thing about the bill he’s aware of is that “they’re writing it.”

While the particulars of the bill are largely unknown, there have been reports about some of its broad outlines. Overall, the bill is expected to be left of the legislation the House passed last month. Medicaid expansions would be phased-out over seven years instead of two, and tax credits would be offered to a broader range of low-income individuals.

Once the bill is out in the open, and hits the Senate floor for a vote, it faces a fractured chamber, not to mention a complete lack of Democratic support. To pass, the bill will need the support of a diverse contingent of Republican Senators–the more conservative members, like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and more moderate ones, like Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Meanwhile, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), tweeted perhaps the most creative critique of the secretive Republican effort:

BREAKING: Senate Republicans just released the schedule of hearings, committee markups and public testimony for their health care bill. pic.twitter.com/iHtXyZqyMW

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 12, 2017

Alec Siegel

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

The post Senate Republicans’ Health Care Effort is Cloaked in Secrecy appeared first on Law Street.

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

The Search for Steve Stephens Continues

Police officers in Cleveland are looking for a suspect who fatally shot an elderly man yesterday and shared the murder on Facebook. The suspect, Steve Stephens, claimed that he was going to kill more people and police have warned the public against approaching him, as he is armed and dangerous. He is believed to have left the state and the warning has been expanded to the whole Midwest.

Cleveland police chief says they know Steve Stephens is out there: “We talked to him via cell phone.” pic.twitter.com/Hwxn4oL9jK

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 17, 2017

The disturbing Facebook video has been taken down, but reportedly it showed Stephens driving in his car, complaining about a woman, and then saying he found somebody to kill as he approached an elderly black man. That man was later identified as Robert Godwin Sr. He was 74 years old. Stephens made Godwin say the woman’s name and then told him, “She’s the reason, uh, this is about to happen to you,” before shooting him. Authorities found no links between Stephens and Godwin.

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 RantCrush Top 5: April 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In a memo sent to the acting director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons on Thursday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the federal government will continue to contract private prisons to help house federal inmates. In doing so, Sessions is reversing a directive the Obama Administration gave in August 2013 to begin phasing out the government’s reliance on for-profit prisons.

“The memorandum changed long-standing policy and practice, and impaired the Bureau’s ability to meet the future needs of the federal corrections system,” Sessions wrote, referring to the 2013 memo that was written by then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. “Therefore, I direct the Bureau to return to its previous approach.” A Justice Department spokesman later clarified that private prisons give the Bureau increased “flexibility” in housing federal inmates.

For a little over a decade, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been contracting private prisons to house a portion of federal inmates. As the prison population began to swell over the past few decades, hitting record levels under the Obama Administration, the federal government decided to outsource its imprisonment activities. By 2013, private prisons held 15 percent of the federal inmate population, or about 30,000 total prisoners. The prisoner population began to drop in 2013, and the Obama Administration decided private prisons, with their high costs and safety concerns, were no longer necessary.

“They do not save substantially on costs, and as noted in a recent report by the Department’s Office of Inspector General, they do not maintain the same level of safety and security,” Yates wrote in her August 2013 memo. President Donald Trump fired Yates last month, when as acting attorney general she refused to enforce his ban on refugees and travelers from seven largely Muslim countries.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website, most of the private prisons the federal government contracts hold “criminal aliens who may be deported upon completion of their sentence.” Of the more than 189,000 federal prisoners in the U.S. today, 12 percent, or about 21,500, are housed in private facilities. The rest are distributed among the 122 federal prisons spread across the country or in “other types of facilities.”

In a scathing series of tweets on Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) called out the Trump Administration’s decision to continue using private prisons as a “reward” for the “hundreds of thousands of dollars” private prisons donated to Trump’s presidential campaign. Sanders added:

We must end private prisons in America. Corporations should not be profiting by incarcerating our fellow Americans.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 23, 2017

And Cory Booker, the Democratic Senator from New Jersey, said for-profit prisons undermine “the cause of justice and fairness” by adding a “profit motive to imprisonment.” He added, referring to the Sessions memo: “This damaging decision cuts against our deeply held values of justice and liberty, while creating vast wealth for private prison operators.”

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 Jeff Sessions: Justice Department Will Continue Using Private Prisons appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump made good on one of his campaign promises on Monday, signing an executive order to pull the U.S. from negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. The deal, a 12-nation free trade agreement molded by President Obama but never introduced to Congress, was a lightning rod for anti-trade rhetoric throughout the campaign.

“We’ve been talking about this for a long time,” Trump said while signing the document to formally withdraw the U.S. from the pact. He added that his decision would be a “great thing for the American worker.”

Obama spent eight years pushing his signature trade achievement. Trump’s executive action dashes any chances of a U.S.-led free trade agreement in the Pacific region. It is also an abrupt change in Democratic and Republican orthodoxy, both of which prize global trade ties and U.S. leadership on the world stage. Trump is rebuking that decades-old mode of thinking.

During his Inaugural Address on Friday, Trump made his most recent promise to follow through on his “America first” ethos: “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs,” he said. “Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.”

Dumping the TPP was not the only executive order Trump signed on Monday. He also froze federal hiring, excluding the military, and rolled back federal funding for non governmental organizations that work with organizations that perform abortions.

Up until the primary season, Obama, and many other lawmakers from both parties, thought the TPP would usher in a new era of U.S. economic leadership. The agreement featured some of the Pacific Rim’s largest economies, including Japan and Australia, and would have eliminated tariffs and provided a framework for solving trade disputes. It would have strengthened the fiscal ties of 12 countries that make up 40 percent of the world’s economy.

But then came Trump on the right, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on the left. Both tapped into an anti-globalization fervor that was gripping parts of the country, forcing Hillary Clinton to take a similar stance on the issue. Clinton once called the TPP the “gold standard” of trade agreements, but as the anti-trade rhetoric gained traction, she switched her position.

Now that Trump is in the driver’s seat, U.S. trade policy, and perhaps its broader influence around the world, is set for a new course. Trump’s style of governing will be informed by two rules, he said in his Inaugural Address: “buy American and hire American.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump Officially Pulls the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership appeared first on Law Street.

Hey there, welcome to the Thursday edition of RantCrush! There have only been five days in 2017 so far, but we’ve already seen a lot of viral law and policy stories. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Apparently, People DO Care About Obamacare

Republicans in Congress have long said that repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is one of their top priorities. But that doesn’t mean that all of their constituents necessarily agree. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) sent out a Twitter poll yesterday asking if Obamacare should be repealed, and the results likely weren’t what she expected.

Do you support the repeal of Obamacare? RT if you do, and share what you want to see as the replacement.

— Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) January 3, 2017

Respondents to the poll overwhelmingly said that they didn’t want an Obamacare repeal. And while Twitter polls are certainly not an accurate or representative way to gather information, other (legitimate) polls have indicated that most Americans don’t want to fully repeal the law. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll from December found that only 26 percent of Americans support a full repeal.

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 RantCrush Top 5: January 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

How do Superdelegates Work? And Why are People so Mad?

“Democratic Convention @ Invesco” courtesy of rabidmoose; License: (CC BY 2.0)

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

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 ICYMI: Top 10 Election Posts of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, I hope you’re enjoying your Thursday! If you’re like me, the weeks feel extra long when waiting for the holidays to come. But the last story today features some new takes on classic holiday songs that may help you bide that time! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

EPA Critic to Head the EPA

This morning, Trump’s transition team announced that the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency will be a firm critic of the agency, climate change denier Scott Pruitt. Pruitt is Oklahoma’s Attorney General, and has close ties to the fossil fuel industry. He has fought President Obama’s climate efforts and has sued the agency he will now be leading, first over the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector and then over regulations of methane emissions from the oil and gas sectors.

The man who Trump just appointed to lead the @EPA sued the agency on behalf of the coal industry to kill enviro + public health regulations. https://t.co/ekXsqhmyXM

— Erin Schrode (@ErinSchrode) December 7, 2016

Many believe that this appointment will be disastrous for the environment. “Our country needs–and deserves–an EPA administrator who is guided by science, who respects America’s environmental laws, and who values protecting the health and safety of all Americans ahead of the lobbying agenda of special interests,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

“We are in danger. The whole country is in danger.” A lawyer who knows Scott Pruitt reacts. https://t.co/EOdsPbniPI

— Nicholas Thompson (@nxthompson) December 8, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Trump visited a Carrier Corporation factory on Thursday, officially sealing a deal that will keep 1,000 manufacturing jobs from leaving Indiana for Mexico. Making good on his campaign promise to protect American factory jobs from cheap overseas labor, if in an incremental way, Trump hashed the deal out with  Vice President-elect and former Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

The deal was a response to Carrier’s decision earlier this year to lay off 2,000 workers at two of its Indiana plants, one in Indianapolis and another in Huntington. Trump was irate at the air-conditioning company’s announcement, using it as an example in his crusade to save American factory jobs, particularly in Rust Belt states, many of which were key to his victory last month.

Carrier released a statement on Wednesday, saying the deal “benefits our workers, the state of Indiana and our company.” The statement continued:

Today’s announcement is possible because the incoming Trump-Pence administration has emphasized to us its commitment to support the business community and create an improved, more competitive U.S. business climate. The incentives offered by the state were an important consideration.

Trump and Pence offered a package of financial incentives to Carrier: the company would receive $700,000 per year, $7 million total, in tax breaks from the state of Indiana. Trump also threatened to cut $5-$6 billion in federal contracts from Carrier’s parent-company United Technologies, which accrues substantial profits from military contracts, including from the Pentagon, its largest customer.

Trump’s Carrier deal shows corporations they can:

Threaten to outsource jobs
Actually outsource jobs
Still get a tax cut

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 1, 2016

Not everyone was a fan of the agreement. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), in an op-ed in The Washington Post on Thursday, said United Technologies “took Trump hostage and won.” Sanders, who like Trump campaigned on preserving American jobs, said Trump’s “Band-Aid solution” is a short-term fix. He added:

We need to re-instill an ethic of corporate patriotism. We need to send a very loud and clear message to corporate America: The era of outsourcing is over. Instead of offshoring jobs, the time has come for you to start bringing good-paying jobs back to America.

While Trump’s handshake with Carrier might make 1,000 workers and their families happy and secure, for the time being, the longer trend of job losses primarily to automation and increased efficiency will be difficult to reverse. According to an analysis from The New York Times, the U.S has lost nearly five million manufacturing jobs since 2000.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump Strikes Deal with Carrier to Keep Manufacturing Jobs in the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Democrats chose their next leader on Wednesday: Chuck Schumer of New York. He will be succeeding Harry Reid (NV), who will be retiring after the current term. Republicans stuck with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Both struck a conciliatory tone, in regard to working with the opposing party and President-elect Donald Trump, in interviews with reporters after the closed-door vote.

“It’s time to accept the results of the election, to lower the tone and to see what we can do together to make progress for the country,” McConnell, 74, said. Schumer, when asked about collaborating with Trump said, “Where we can work together we will,” adding: “On issues where we disagree, you can expect a strong and tough fight.”

Honored & humbled by the support of my colleagues to be the next leader of our caucus & by the support from so many of you. Thank you.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) November 16, 2016

Schumer, 65, also announced a 10-member Senate leadership team, comprised of lawmakers that run the left-leaning ideological gamut, including progressives like Bernie Sanders (VT) and Elizabeth Warren (MA), and moderates like Joe Manchin (WV). Aides said that Schumer and the members of his leadership team were chosen unanimously.

Majority Leader McConnell is not exactly known for acquiescing to the opposing party. He spent much of the spring and summer refusing to allow Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a confirmation vote from Senate Republicans. He has shown some signs of collaboration, however. In 2013, he worked with Vice President Joe Biden to raise taxes on the rich.

McConnell will have more leverage this time around, and Senate Democrats will likely be under pressure to cooperate with Republicans, as 23 of the 33 seats up in the 2018 midterms belong to incumbent Democrats. Schumer shares certain priorities with Trump, like investing in infrastructure projects, that could bode well for avoiding a gridlocked Senate, much like the Republicans have been under President Obama.

In his remarks after Wednesday’s vote, Schumer seemed ready to move on from last week’s surprising outcome. “We heard the American people loud and clear,” he said. “They felt that the government wasn’t working for them. They felt that the economy was rigged against them in many places and that the government was too beholden to big money and special interests.” He added that Democrats will pursue a “bigger, bolder, sharper-edged economic message” in the future.

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 Schumer and McConnell Named as Senate Leaders appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Bernie Sanders’ Twitter account sent out a series of tweets describing the price hike on insulin from pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Co. The tweets linked to a Washington Post article that details the increasing prices from the day insulin was discovered in 1921 until today. Sanders’ tweets attacked the drug industry, accusing the companies involved of corporate greed.

A bit of backstory is necessary: the researchers who discovered insulin debated whether to patent it at all since their main purpose was to help humanity. Their discovery made it possible for people to live with a disease that had previously meant a death sentence. Eventually they sold the patent for $3 to the University of Toronto.

Why has the price of Humalog insulin gone up 700% in 20 years? It’s simple. The drug industry’s greed. pic.twitter.com/SUeSbsr2Ka

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

Sanders’ tweets, which were not signed by him personally but sent out by staff members, caused Eli Lilly’s stock price to drop 2.4 percent. The price of $72.02 per share was the lowest it has been since March 31. Prices soon stabilized again, and Eli Lilly released a statement defending its pricing.

“A permanent solution that gives everyone who uses insulin reasonable access will require leadership and cooperation across many stakeholders, including manufacturers, (pharmacy benefit managers), payers, and policymakers. That’s because the answer itself isn’t simple.”

Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk clearly care more about their profits than their patients. It’s time to end their greed. pic.twitter.com/MqCsHNjzcO

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

This year marks 75 years after the original patent on insulin expired and three companies in particular have made improvements to insulin that leads to the creation of more patents and garnered the owners billions of dollars. One of those companies is Eli Lilly; its insulin Humalog has gone up in price from $21 in 1996 to $255 today. That’s a 700 percent increase.

But why isn’t competition keeping the prices down? The pharmaceutical industry claims drug improvement raises prices, but experts question this and believe the changes to the drugs are only to cover up for price hikes as well as to create new patents. David Nathan from Harvard Medical School said to the Post:

I don’t think it takes a cynic such as myself to see most of these drugs are being developed to preserve patent protection. The truth is they are marginally different, and the clinical benefits of them over the older drugs have been zero.

Many people can’t even afford to get their insulin. Around six million Americans depend on it, and though many get it through health insurance, there are also many without insurance or in between insurance plans because of different life changes.

In the richest nation in the world, diabetes patients are being forced to decide between eating and paying for the drugs they need. pic.twitter.com/Mnq4NSgiPz

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

Sanders has targeted the drug industry before and influenced the stock market through his tweets about Ariad Pharmaceuticals’ high prices for a leukemia drug. Hillary Clinton is doing pretty well too–she has tweeted both at the industry in general, causing Nasdaq shares to fall last year, and about the EpiPen by Mylan NV, whose shares fell by 6.2 percent. If these progressive politicians keep it up, maybe things will change after all!

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 Insulin Brand’s Stock Plummets After Bernie Sanders Tweets About Price Hikes appeared first on Law Street.

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

Bernie Sanders Wants to Break Up the AT&T-Time Warner Merger

When we heard that AT&T was in talks to buy media company Time Warner for a whopping $85 million, we immediately thought of the game “Monopoly.” I mean seriously, Time Warner is a HUGE asset. The media company owns HBO, CNN, Cartoon Network, TBS, AND Warner Bros. Some people are salivating, waiting for the deal to go through, while others, like Bernie Sanders, are calling for legislators to BREAK IT UP!

The administration should kill the Time Warner/AT&T merger. This deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people. https://t.co/S8c4ldDqhi

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) October 23, 2016

A deal this big certainly raises concerns, but what some people are really worried about is how it will affect the “independence” of CNN. Media buffs, particularly those on the far right who are critical of the “mainstream media,” are calling foul:

Sure. https://t.co/vYLNENisd6

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 24, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 24, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

U.S. Transfers Internet to ICANN, Sparks Criticism

On Saturday, the U.S. government handed over its control of the internet’s DNS, or domain name system, to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Besides its very boring name, the implications of this handoff became clear as Senator Ted Cruz and others claimed free speech was being threatened by this move.

In September, Cruz said at a congressional hearing: “imagine an internet run like many Middle Eastern countries that punish what they deem to be blasphemy.” This certainly sounds crazy awful but ICANN said those claims were unfounded, that the turnover was based on accountability, and that it does not have the ability to regulate content on the internet.

ICANN is a group made up of technical experts and business and government representatives.

STILL, the internet is filled with people worried about what the change will do to their precious virtual world.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 3, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Let’s Be Blunt About Malia Obama

A video of Malia Obama supposedly smoking a joint at Lollapalooza has surfaced online and everyone is going insane. She’s getting shamed like there’s no tomorrow, and folks are saying things like “nice parenting OBAMA” and “so much for all-American girl status.” But mostly no one cares, because no one cares if you smoke weed anymore.

Amid the hate, mostly aimed at Papa Obama (who also smoked marijuana as a young lad) people are standing up for Malia and it’s awesome.

I don’t care if Malia Obama is smoking cigarettes, or smoking pot. I don’t care if she’s licking toads, for God’s sake. Let her be a teen.

— Jeff B/DDHQ (@EsotericCD) August 10, 2016

Why y’all trippin?
Malia Obama smoked weed & she’s going to Harvard.
Most of y’all smoke weed & didnt get past 10th grade.
Let her rock b.

— VI Seconds (@visecs) August 10, 2016

Now that Malia Obama’s smoked weed she probably understands that it’s a gateway drug to becoming president.

— Kashana (@kashanacauley) August 10, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 11, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Law Street Media is attending both the RNC and DNC conventions, and bringing Law Street readers the inside scoop. We’ll be doing day-by-day rundowns and exclusive features. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat for even more content.

Here’s a look at the second day of the festivities, courtesy of Law Street reporters Alexis Evans and Anneliese Mahoney:

Protests Continued Around Philly

Given the divisive nature of the Democratic National Convention, protests continued around the city of Philadelphia for much of the time we were there. These events ranged from showing continued support for Bernie Sanders, to demonstrations against Israel, to protests against drone warfare. Here are some pictures from near the Pennsylvania Convention Center, where part of the convention took place:

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Alexis Evans for Law Street Media

Was this the Most Powerful Speech of the Convention?

Hillary Clinton was, quite obviously, billed as the headliner for the last night of the DNC. But one of the most powerful speeches came from Khizr Khan, the father of Army Captain Humayun Khan. Captain Khan, a Muslim American, died serving our country in Iraq. Khan’s powerful speech was possibly one of the strongest rebukes against Donald Trump yet–everyone particularly loved the moment when he challenged whether the Republican nominee has ever read the U.S. Constitution, and then offered Trump his own pocket version. Put simply: if you want to see one of the best moments of the convention, you need to watch this speech.

A DNC highlight: Khizr Khan spoke as a Muslim father who had lost his son in war. Here’s the full video https://t.co/EabNEsIYzX

— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) July 29, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Speech Riled up the Crowd

Clinton’s speech seemingly started a bit slow, but quickly picked up gusto. But regardless of what you think of Clinton’s politics, it truly was a historic moment. Watching Clinton accept the Democratic nomination on the national stage was a monumental moment for many women (and men!) in the U.S. Here are some of the reactions:

@HillaryClinton we noticed the historical reference in wearing all white. We feminists thank you. #ImWithHer pic.twitter.com/bd78CDaFvb

— Laurel Davila, CPA (@laureldavilacpa) July 29, 2016

A woman’s place is in the White House. #ImWithHer

— Nev Schulman (@NevSchulman) July 29, 2016

My great grandmother walked 10 mi from her farm 2B among the first women allowed to vote. Think about that & how far we’ve come. #ImWithHer

— (((#BoycottTrump))) (@puppymnkey) July 29, 2016

My wife and two daughters watching. My youngest daughter asked, “Is she taking on that bad man?” #ImWithHerpic.twitter.com/SrdkLEwIvw

— Geoffrey Colon (@djgeoffe) July 29, 2016

We Performed a Card Stunt?

When we arrived at the arena last night, there were packages taped to all of our chairs. Was it a present?

No, it was a “card stunt.” Here were the instructions:

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Then we received instructions about what exactly we were supposed to do–which were unnecessarily long and complicated when the point was just “when we say so, hold up your card.”

When it came time to do the “card stunt” it didn’t go so well, mostly because a lot of people had opened their cards beforehand, a lot of people didn’t try, and also because honestly, trying to get about 50,000 people to hold things up in unison is very tricky.

[P] Analysts are still trying to decipher what that final card stunt at the DNC was supposed to spell.

— Paul and Storm (@paulandstorm) July 29, 2016

But, in case you were wondering, here was what it looked like to those of us who held up our cards: 

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

THERE WERE SO MANY BALLOONS

After Clinton’s speech, a bunch of balloons were released from the ceiling. This was very exciting.

THERE ARE SO MANY BALLOONS #DemsInPhillypic.twitter.com/5kEP5ocDl8

— Anneliese Mahoney (@amahoney8672) July 29, 2016

But we weren’t the only ones who were excited. The politicians down on the floor had a wonderful time playing with the massive balloons as well, particularly Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine.

Tim Kaine is just lettin’ loose! https://t.co/LIFy6wWHVG

— Matt Fuller (@MEPFuller) July 29, 2016

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 What’s up at the DNC?: Law Street’s Day 4 Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Dear Members of the Bernie or Bust Movement,

We’ve seen you in full force at the Democratic National Convention this week. Whether you were sobbing as the live camera coverage panned over your section of the crowd, silently sitting with duct tape over your mouth, or booing every time anyone at the DNC said something positive about Hillary Clinton, this letter is for you. Listen up, because before the November elections you all have a choice to make, and it’s an important one. Who are you going to vote for? Because, as I’m sure you all know somewhere deep down inside, doing nothing is not going to cut it.

It’s time to take a look at some of this week’s most savage Bernie or Bust attacks and hash out exactly why you all need to grow up and get on board with someone (hopefully Hillary) this election cycle.

The first big blow to Bernie babies was Sarah Silverman’s shoutout earlier this week.

In direct response to the nonsensical “Bernie!” chants that have been disrupting the convention all week, Silverman politely says what we’ve all been thinking: “to the Bernie or bust people you’re being ridiculous.” While it may sound harsh, it’s the truth. On the unity themed night of the DNC none of this Bernie nonsense should have been happening, period. If the Democratic Party wants any chance at defeating Trump, togetherness is going to be the only way to accomplish it–and that does not allow for any of your disruptive Bernie ridiculousness. Judging by the eruption of cheers after Silverman squashed the Bernie chants, I would say a lot of convention-goers agree with her.

If you want a more scripted take on why you’re being ridiculous, check out Seth Meyers’ new segment “Hey!,” which explains exactly why we need you on board with Hillary this fall.

Meyers quickly points out exactly why we need you on our side, Bernie Bros. We do not have time to fight over who should be the one to stop “racist demagogue” Donald Trump from taking office–we just need someone to do it. And, newsflash, that someone is not going to be Bernie Sanders.

Look, I know you’re Bernie or bust but the results are in. Bust won. We don’t have time for this. Donald Trump is ahead in the polls. The house is on fire; stop crying because we’re not putting it out with your hose.

Meyers also points out that you all have done a great job! Part of the reason Sanders stayed in the race as long as he did was to weave his goals for the Democratic Party into Hillary’s platform and he did just that. We now have what is perhaps the most progressive party platform the nation has ever seen. Take pride in that fact and get behind the platform, no matter who the figurehead of it happens to be.

Finally, we heard from the big man himself–President Obama. While his statements may not have been directly in response to the Bernie or Bust movement, they apply to you all oh so well. Stop booing. Stop it.

If you are out there booing, put your voice to better use! We get it. You’ve poured your heart and soul into what Sanders supported and continues to support. You’ve been with him from the beginning and it feels impossible to let go. But, quite honestly, it’s time to get over yourselves. It’s time to take off the robin hood hats, put down the nasty signs, rip off that duct tape over your mouths and let your voices be heard! Donald Trump can NOT be our next president.

If you want an even more progressive platform, fight for it. If you want Sanders’ ideas to be more prevalent in our government, fight for them. Just like Obama said in his speech at the DNC, it’s time for everyone to be as vocal, organized and persistent as you all, Bernie supporters, have been. If there’s one thing you can be certain of this election season, it’s that there is no way in hell a Donald Trump presidency is going to bring you closer to the progressive goals you so fervently seek to promote.

So, with all the love in the world (from a former Bernie lover and a hesitant Hillary supporter), it’s time to cut it out, Bernie-or-Busties. Get with the program and pick a side to be on rather than causing a ruckus. Even though you won’t have a President Sanders come November, you will have a president. Take a stand and have a voice in who that person will be and think about who is most likely to bring Americans a living wage, racial justice, and some political reform in the next few years. My bet is you may not settle on Trump.

Best of luck, both to you and, quite frankly, all of us.

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 An Open Letter to Members of the Bernie or Bust Movement appeared first on Law Street.

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

Trump: Russia Should Find Hillary’s Emails

As the fallout from the DNC email leak continues and more evidence points toward Russian involvement, Donald Trump just had to involve himself in the controversy. In a press conference earlier today, Trump called on Russia to find the emails deleted from Hillary Clinton’s email server before it was turned over to the FBI. But reaching out to Russia right now might not be the best thing for Trump, as some circumstantial evidence points to ties between him and prominent Russians. Some critics went as far as to suggest a new logo for the Trump campaign:

pic.twitter.com/bvpPN83mHc

— Rick Tyler (@rickwtyler) July 27, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 27, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Here at the DNC, there’s a cushy little area for the press. Giant tents, creature comforts like snacks and water, and (most importantly) enough charging stations for our phones/laptops/tablets/obscene amount of technology we lug around. The DNC media tent is, for many, a peaceful workspace, and a quiet respite from the complete and utter craziness that is the Democratic National Convention.

Tonight it was a little less peaceful.

Sanders supporters walked out of the convention in protest after Hillary Clinton became the official Democratic nominee, and ended up staging a sit in inside and around the media tent.

Here are some scenes from the protest:

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Alexis Evans for Law Street Media

Many of the protesters were the picture of tranquility, with taped mouths, or cloths wrapped around their faces. Many clutched each others’ hands, while others held signs ranging from protesting TPP to outright animosity toward Hillary Clinton.

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans talked to a protester, 20-year-old Caitlin Gladwell, who explained that the protest was arranged via social media, around when the North Dakota delegates were announced. She explained that there wasn’t a theme to the protest, saying:  “No it was just meant to be a walkout, saying we are walking out of there, we’re not going to lie down and accept this decision by the DNC.” When asked if she could ever see herself actually voting for Hillary Clinton she stated:

I don’t know. I will have to go home and do a lot of self thought a lot of research and see what her actions are in the coming months. The number one thing she could do is come clean and take responsibility for the email scandals. And then maybe some of us might considering trusting her.

Stay updated on the conventions by following Law Street on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat for even more content.

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 Sanders Supporters Take Over DNC Media Tent to Protest Clinton’s Nomination appeared first on Law Street.

Some of the exchanges question Bernie Sanders’ faith. Some show attempts to undermine his campaign’s credibility. One describes him as an outsider with “no understanding of what we do.” Monday morning, the FBI announced they will be investigating the leak of the nearly 2,000 emails sent between top Democratic National Committee members, which were released by WikiLeaks on Friday. Hillary Clinton insists the leak is the work of Russia, in an attempt to give Donald Trump a boost.

The emails–part one of WikiLeaks’ “Hillary Leaks series”–proved so damaging that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chairwoman, announced her resignation on Sunday. She will address delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this week before ceding her post to Donna Brazile, the vice chairwoman of the DNC. Monday morning, Wasserman Schultz was booed at a Florida delegate breakfast in Philadelphia.

While journalists have been combing through the emails, which include over 8,000 attached documents, some shocking exchanges between key party figures have been revealed. In one, Brad Marshall, chief financial officer of the DNC suggests questioning Sanders’ Jewish beliefs as a way to dissuade pious voters in Kentucky and West Virginia from voting for him:

He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist…It’s these Jesus thing.

In a statement issued on Sunday, Sanders, who has been claiming that the DNC rigged the primary fight in favor of Clinton for months, thanked Wasserman Schultz for her years of service, but said she made the “right decision” by resigning. “The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race,” he added.

The Democrats are in a total meltdown but the biased media will say how great they are doing! E-mails say the rigged system is alive & well!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 24, 2016

For her part, Clinton also thanked her “longtime friend” for her five years as DNC leader, and announced she will act as a Clinton surrogate in Florida, a key swing state, as well as other states. “I look forward to campaigning with Debbie in Florida and helping her in her re-election bid–because as President, I will need fighters like Debbie in Congress who are ready on day one to get to work for the American people,” Clinton’s statement read.

Trump quickly seized on the second email scandal involving his rival party during the campaign. He took to Twitter to publicize his views on the matter, firing off a round of tweets Monday morning: “Crooked Hillary Clinton knew everything that her ‘servant’ was doing at the DNC–they just got caught, that’s all! They laughed at Bernie.”

The Democratic Party will seek to show itself as unified, in contrast to the fractured Republicans, during the convention in Philadelphia this week. But the email leak could prove difficult to paper over, especially for Sanders’s supporters and delegates who remain steadfast in their support, even as the senator endorsed Clinton and ended his White House ambitions a few weeks ago.

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 DNC Emails: Wasserman Schultz Resigns, FBI to Investigate the Leak appeared first on Law Street.

He remained committed to his own campaign as long as he could. But on Tuesday morning, in front of a packed high school auditorium in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders finally budged, endorsing Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee.

“This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face, and there is no doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate to do that,” said the 75-year-old Vermont senator, who electrified the progressive wing of the Democratic Party during his campaign.

Sanders represents the final–and perhaps most coveted–endorsement of the former secretary of state from key liberal figures. President Obama endorsed Clinton in June, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), another progressive stalwart, followed a few weeks later, stoking rumors of an all-female Democratic ticket.

#BernieSanders just endorsed #Clinton, did she blackmail him or threaten his life? Either way this is bad for the world.

— Partisangirl (@Partisangirl) July 12, 2016

And although his presidential hopes are all but officially dashed (the Democratic National Convention in less than two weeks will likely be the final blow), Sanders has his thumbprints all over the party’s platform, which was released as a draft on July 1. At Tuesday’s rally, Clinton touched on points likely to go over well with Sanders supporters, a cohort that has proved difficult to attract to her side.

She was steadfast in her opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that she has supported in the past. She spoke on raising the minimum wage, as well as shaking up the way political campaigns are financed. All of the aforementioned issues were touchstones of the Sanders campaign. “These aren’t just my fights. These are Bernie’s fights. These are America’s fights,” she said. Sanders was hopeful that the party’s platform will get pushed through a White House and Congress dominated by Democrats. He said: “Our job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratically controlled Senate, a Democratically controlled House and a Hillary Clinton presidency – and I am going to do everything I can to make that happen.”

I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters. They are not happy that he is selling out!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 12, 2016

And indeed, the sea of Clinton supporters at the Portsmouth rally was punctuated by Sanders supporters who remained by his side, even as he embraced the candidate that they vehemently booed. According to a recent Reuters poll, Sanders supporters might not budge simply because Clinton increasingly absorbs his talking points. The poll found that only 40 percent of Sanders supporters signaled that they plan to back Clinton in November.

Donald Trump, Clinton’s counterpart on the Republican side, jumped on Tuesday’s endorsement as an opportunity to court disillusioned Sanders supporters. He tweeted before and after the rally, and released a statement on his website, saying: “Bernie’s endorsement becomes Exhibit A in our rigged system – the Democrat Party is disenfranchising its voters to benefit the select and privileged few.”

To all the Bernie voters who want to stop bad trade deals & global special interests, we welcome you with open arms. People first.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 12, 2016

Trump wasn’t the only opportunist after the endorsement. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, both third party possibilities, criticized Sanders and called on his supporters to join their campaigns. But a unified party finally emerged on Tuesday, as Sanders and Clinton clasped hands and raised them in the sky in a show of unity. “I can’t help but reflect on how much more enjoyable this election will be now that we are on the same side,” Clinton said.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Bernie Sanders Officially Endorses Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. The shooting of 12 police officers in Dallas, Texas during a protest has left many concerned and downright furious about the future of gun violence in America. See what the nation’s top leaders had to say:

The Presidential Candidates React to #Dallas

Last night Dallas law enforcement officers were shot during a protest. The protests were in response to Alton Sterling and Philando Castile’s recent deaths. The assassinations of these five police officers has left many with a sour taste in their mouth and presidential candidates Trump, Clinton, and Sanders have each offered their words of condolence and solidarity.

Hillary Clinton:

I mourn for the officers shot while doing their sacred duty to protect peaceful protesters, for their families & all who serve with them. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 8, 2016

Donald Trump:

Prayers and condolences to all of the families who are so thoroughly devastated by the horrors we are all watching take place in our country

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 8, 2016

Bernie Sanders:

The attack on police officers in Dallas last night is horrifying and despicable. We must as a nation stand against violence of all kinds.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) July 8, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Bernie is Having a Hard Time Reconnecting on the Hill

Senator Bernie Sanders went to a meeting with House Democrats on the Hill, and it apparently didn’t go so well. According to reports, Sanders was booed by several lawmakers after he said “the goal isn’t to win elections, the goal is to transform America.” Lawmakers in the meeting are claiming the exchange was more pleasant than that, and just featured some “expressions of disagreement.” But given that the rift between Sanders and Clinton threatens to split the party come November, should we really be surprised that not everyone is “feeling the Bern?”

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 7, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Has Bernie Sanders finally given up? It appears that might be the case, as he announced on C-SPAN this week that “it doesn’t appear that [he’s] going to be the nominee.”

After admitting that he probably won’t be the nominee, Sanders mentions that his campaign’s goal is still to push a progressive platform. He notes that he isn’t giving up on transforming the Democratic party just yet.

On top of the C-SPAN bomb drop, Bernie also announced on MSNBC that, come November, he will be voting for Clinton.

JUST IN: @BernieSanders says “yes,” he will vote for @HillaryClinton in November https://t.co/6FT0ZLi0JG

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) June 24, 2016

Although Sanders seems to be giving a lot of hints at the fact that he won’t be president, he has yet to drop out of the race. With a Sanders win essentially mathematically impossible–barring any election fraud accusations–it’s hard to say why he hasn’t pulled the plug yet. Perhaps staying in the race is the best way to push Clinton’s agenda further left. Perhaps he enjoys the political limelight. Perhaps he’s saddened by the fact that ending the campaign will be the end of his last legitimate chance at becoming the leader of the free world. Whatever the reason, it’s clear that Sanders is prepared to step back any day now and put his weight behind Clinton.

Of course, there are still die-hard Berniebros holding out hope that Sanders will win the nomination–swearing they won’t vote for “$hillary” under any circumstances. In fact, there are many conspiracies on exactly how Sanders will become our country’s leader. According to some YouTube commenters, Sanders will storm into the lead after Clinton is indicted by the DOJ.

Bernie Sanders can’t say it yet publicly, but he’s waiting as many of us are for the FBI to recommend criminal indictments against Hillary Clinton and then for DOJ head Loretta Lynch to indict her. Then the super-delegates will wisely defect from Hillary over to Bernie when they vote at the convention in Philadelphia next month.

According to other commenters, Sanders actually has the votes to win but election fraud is making it look like Clinton is in the lead.

There is a lawsuit going on to set the record straight. BERNIE THEY SAY YOU WON. These are the same guys who made sure the record was straight so that Obama rightfully won in 2008 and 2012. Don’t lose hope because we haven’t!!!!!! #BernieorBust!! And if they don’t get the lawsuit together before the general election, then I will be voting for Ms. Jill Stein. #ThankYouBernie

Best of all, some commenters just think Sanders has something up his sleeve. They claim that he winks in the C-SPAN video right before he says that it doesn’t appear he will be the nominee. What could this wink mean? Some are taking the wink as a sign of his resilience, claiming it means he isn’t giving up quite yet.

Whatever the results of this election are, it’s pretty clear President Bernie Sanders is almost certainly not one of the possible outcomes. It’s nice to know that, after months of what has been a pretty one-sided Democratic race, Sanders has finally come to terms with his campaign’s inevitable end. Plus, with what was essentially an endorsement of Clinton this week, the Democratic party may actually have a shot at keeping the White House this fall, which could mean another four years of progressive policies, even if the country doesn’t quite seem to be #feelingthebern.

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 Bernie Sanders May Be Backing Down appeared first on Law Street.

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

Trump Tries to Steady His Campaign With Anti-Clinton Speech

Trump’s anti-Hillary Clinton speech aired this morning at 11AM and he was more egotistical than ever. Trump said: “All these problems can be fixed. But not by Hillary Clinton, only by me.” He went on to make a preposterous demand that Bernie Sanders’ voters join Trump’s campaign and vote for him. Trump also called Clinton a “world class” liar. But it looks like Trump, too, is familiar with dishonesty, as CNN fact-checked his speech and found it was littered with false claims.

Maybe he is a genius. Now Trump gives a speech crammed with lies & everyone gushes because he managed not to say anything overtly racist.

— Julian Sanchez (@normative) June 22, 2016

We’re playing the “rigged” drinking game. Haven’t been this blasted since the Nevada caucus. #TrumpSpeechpic.twitter.com/xZyOJK8b9V

— Full Frontal (@FullFrontalSamB) June 22, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 22, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Samantha Bee Lets Her Rage Rip After The #OrlandoShooting

Last night, Samantha Bee took on the Orlando mass shooting. And let me tell you, she is pissed, as we all should be, about how easy it is to purchase incredibly deadly assault rifles and the new normal of mass shootings. No matter what you feel or think about the shootings and gun laws, Bee’s blistering, yet lucid rant will most definitely make you feel something:

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On a quiet Thursday afternoon about 3,000 of Bernie Sanders’ supporters packed into a skatepark outside of RFK Stadium in Washington, DC to watch him rally once again–many likely thinking that this could be their final time to see him before he suspends his campaign.

Image Courtesy of Scott Zimmerman

What was different about Thursday’s speech was, well, nothing. Filled with his normal rhetoric and fiery and inspirational pushes for equal rights and justice for all Americans, Sanders caught the attention of the crowd and continued to push his idea of the “political revolution.”

.@BernieSanders said exactly the right thing. Get through DC, take a break, get with HRC, get to work beating Trump.

— Steve Schale (@steveschale) June 9, 2016

Unfortunately, Sanders did not stray from his talking points and discuss his Thursday meeting with President Barack Obama where he reportedly indicated that he is willing to back the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. He also didn’t bring up the president’s endorsement of Clinton, which occurred just hours before he spoke. He made no mention of any of those events and no mention that it is time to unify as Democrats…instead saying that the results from California aren’t even all in yet.

So if @BernieSanders ultimately wins California (might still happen) & then Washington DC … DNC in Philly will be interesting.

— Ben Goren (@BanGaoRen) June 10, 2016

However, amidst all of the impassioned speeches and cheers from the crowd, you could sense the feeling of denial in Sanders’ voice, and you could feel that it was his last stand.

Instead of using the time and the platform to urge his supporters toward unification of the party, he further polarized them. Chants of “Never Hillary” echoed through the crowd as he spoke about big money in politics. But he is doing his supporters a grave disservice by telling them that there is still hope. The naiveté of the situation is troubling, and is going to leave a lot of die-hard supporters left feeling even more so that the entire system was against them.

Image Courtesy of Scott Zimmerman

Of the many people I met in the crowd, few said they are willing to switch to Clinton. Some said they would even vote for Trump, and many others said they just wouldn’t vote.

Sanders stressed that women (along with other groups) did not used to have the right to vote, yet now his silence–or in some cases contradictory rhetoric–is being inferred by many of his supporters as a signal to not exercise that privilege. By not owning up to the idea that his campaign is coming to a close, he is further hurting Clinton’s chances against Trump. As the Democratic party continues to be divided, it is hard to imagine what November will look like between Clinton and Trump.

Today, as D.C. votes, it will most likely be Sanders’ last day in the race. Even if he does not drop out, it will still signify a deficit that will not be overcome no matter how many times Sanders tries to say more people voted for him. There’s a message here for Sanders: you joined the presidential race to catalyze institutional change, but that does not mean that you can just pretend that there is a secret outcome that has been robbed from you.

Bernie Sanders refuses to concede the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton https://t.co/VB3QxknsOf by @yamiche pic.twitter.com/Byh5UHccBT

— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) June 13, 2016

If Sanders chooses to stay and continues to cause division, votes will be split between the Democratic nominee and other parties, giving more power to Trump. So, if Sanders really want to see his political revolution happen, he may need to get a grip and work with Clinton this round until he gets his shot.

Image Courtesy of Scott Zimmerman

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 Bernie Sanders’ Rhetoric is a Disservice to his Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton made history and secured the amount of delegates necessary to be the Democratic nominee. But while she celebrated her win, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders vowed to continue his fight for the White House.

And Sanders’ subsequent comments are a bit of a shame. While there are some positives to him continuing in the race, there are also some very powerful negatives.

First off, I think it is important to note that Sanders is playing a game that he is familiar with: while yes, he is an Independent, he has been in politics for almost four decades. When votes started going Clinton’s way, he claimed that the election was rigged and riled up his supporters over the notion that the system was out to exterminate him. He talked about superdelegates like they had never existed in previous primaries, and complained that they are undemocratic–while now saying that he is going to win the nomination by flipping superdelegates–something that he has yet to accomplish.

Image Courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

In addition, it is troubling that Sanders, who hails himself as a revolutionary, ignored the fact that Clinton had just made history as the first woman to receive a major party nomination, stubbornly refusing to even bring it up during his speech Tuesday night.

When the Associated Press announced that Clinton had enough delegates to clinch the nomination, anger poured onto social media from Sanders’ supporters who felt that once again, everything was against them–even basic math. His supporters called out that this announcement was a breach of journalistic integrity…because how dare the AP do the research and talk to every superdelegate (who according to Sanders supporters, apparently don’t even count at this point)? The superdelegates will be decided in July, they wrote, adding that there is so much time for the superdelegates to flip and that the AP was just in the pockets of the establishment.

@AP_Interactive @AP STOP REPORTING FALSE FACTS. You should be ashamed of the reporting you’re doing. Superdelegates don’t count until July.

— Jacob Sever (@JacobSever) June 8, 2016

Some of these people probably supported the superdelegate situation in 2012 when now-President Barack Obama was in the same position, and Clinton had conceded. That race was closer mathematically than this one.

The AP ultimately decided to issue a statement regarding the findings, in which the AP sasses the critics who claim the news organization just made everything up–implying that those critics do not understand how the American political system works.

We are at the point in this election where Sanders has the opportunity to do something incredibly influential for his many supporters: show them that sometimes you lose, but you need to get back up and keep fighting in other ways. He can either teach them to fall with grace, or to reject a system that probably isn’t going to be systematically changed anytime soon and stop participating forever.

Vox’s Matthew Yglesias put it well when he said:

Those lessons, clearly visible from Sanders’s own career, are that big change is hard and if you try for it you are likely to lose, but just because you lost is no reason to give up. It’s also no cause to whine about how you’ve been cheated or take refuge in denial that it’s truly over. You need to dust yourself off, move on to the next thing, and try to win more votes in the future.

If Sanders continues to hold onto, and reiterate to his supporters, that he will be able to pull off a miraculous win at the convention, then he is lying to his fanbase. Not only will he find difficulty in persuading Clinton’s superdelegates (who supported her before Tuesday) to switch to his side, but he would also need a whole lot of them to do so in order to make up for his deficit. However, the one thing he does have going for him is that people will listen to him, they will be fired up, and they will believe that he actually can win this–even if it is a far-reaching idea.

Yglesias added:

People who’ve already emotionally invested themselves in the Sanders campaign — already gone to rallies and argued with uncles and called out corporate media shills on Twitter — are going to be highly predisposed to align themselves with whatever tactical notions Sanders puts out there.

Not to mention that Sanders’ last ditch effort for delegates looks an awful lot like college students around the country scrambling to get an A in a class that they have a C in walking into the final: “Hmm…let’s see…I just need to pull off a 170 percent on the final to get an 89.5 in the class…I can do that!”

Unlike Sanders, however, college students, at some point, concede to their studies and focus on another subject that they know they will get a better grade in.

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 Should Bernie Sanders Stay in the Race? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday night it became all but official: Hillary Clinton at last became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and the first woman to win a presidential nomination for a major political party. Out of the six states that voted on Tuesday, Clinton won four.

”Tonight’s victory is not about one person, it belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible,” she said in a speech at a rally in Brooklyn on Tuesday night.

Clinton won California, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota, while Bernie Sanders won Montana and North Dakota.

Clinton has already had a long career in politics–as first lady, senator, secretary of state, and two times as a candidate for president. And it hasn’t been without obstacles, ranging from her husband’s alleged affairs and the Lewinsky scandal in 1998, the eight hour questioning over her handling of the Benghazi terror attacks in 2012 by the Republicans (which gave birth to the GIF below), and most recently the use of her private email server for classified State Department business.

Well this is just a tremendous GIF. #BenghaziCommittee pic.twitter.com/Bnpi6rcQ43

— Dan Zak (@MrDanZak) October 22, 2015

One big issue for Clinton has been falling numbers in surveys about her trustworthiness. In a national poll in March, only 37 percent of participants said they think she is an honest and trustworthy person, which is a notable low. But that didn’t stop her from securing the nomination.

What’s next?

The next step for Clinton is to try and win over the Bernie supporters, which is easier said than done considering his supporters don’t seem to trust her. Sanders has done better in the primary than many had dared to hope for, and many supporters have said they would rather vote for Trump than for Clinton, perhaps in an attempt to push Clinton further to the left. Either way, she may need Sanders’ help and endorsement to win over some young liberals that would prefer him in office.

Let’s keep making history, together.https://t.co/7IIvZVW3HY

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 8, 2016

Reports came Monday night from the AP that Clinton had won the nomination, based on votes from superdelegates who actually haven’t cast their votes yet, since that will officially happen at the Democratic National Convention in July. This upset Sanders supporters, and his advisers worried the news would affect the voter turnout on the Tuesday. The possibility that superdelegates can change their minds is what has kept Sanders’ side going, and his campaign manager Michael Briggs said in a statement on Monday:

It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgment, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee’s clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer.

On Tuesday night, Sanders still pledged to stay in the race until the very end, and thanked all his supporters for being part of a political revolution. The next, and last, primary election will be held in Washington D.C. on June 14.

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 Hillary Clinton Becomes First Woman to Clinch the Presidential Nomination appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Why Are People Overdosing On Anti-Diarrhea Drugs?

It seems like America’s drug problem has reached a bizarre new low. People are taking crazy high doses of anti-poop meds, like Imodium, to get high. Sounds like the plot of a comedy sketch, I know, but this is serious. The appeal comes from users being able to achieve heroin-like highs from taking 300 mgs of the meds at once. National poison control centers are reporting a 71 percent increase in calls involving anti-diarrhea drug overdoses, but the FDA doesn’t have enough information yet to tackle the issue.

WARNING: It’s a heroin like high, all from taking anti-diarrhea drugs. FDA issues warning. https://t.co/mxXMYoFaMg pic.twitter.com/RRBi8oXY9L

— Tim Williams (@realtimwilliams) June 8, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton is coming under social media fire for a clothing choice she made two months ago. The unassuming tweed jacket she had on during an April speech about income inequality didn’t make any sort of splash that day, or even that month. But now it’s all over the news, after a New York Post article about her campaign’s fashion choices valued that particular Giorgio Armani jacket at $12,495.

.@HillaryClinton wears $12,000 Armani jacket while ‘fighting’ for income equality: https://t.co/7QL3WF7kci pic.twitter.com/QQ4nEu8cW3

— BULLETT Media (@BULLETTMedia) June 7, 2016

According to the New York Post, her stylists have recently aimed for more simplistic outfits, trying not to continue Clinton’s previous trend of wearing brightly colored pantsuits. The idea, apparently, was that a more minimalist approach would draw attention away from Clinton’s clothes, and allow her words to be the focus of discussion. The goal was for people to not talk about her clothes–which is impossible. Hillary Clinton can’t afford to wear the same thing every day, like Trump or Sanders. She has to think about what she wears more than her counterparts because no matter what, it will be a subject of discussion.

This back-to-basics plan may have backfired, as Clinton went from a “Pantsuit Peggy” to an “Armani Alicia.” “Veep” fans might be reminded of Selina Meyer’s attempt to stand on a wooden crate to appear down-to-earth, only to learn that it was reinforced with steel and cost $1,200. But why do we reject expensive items like an Armani jacket? When we criticize wealthy people for making exorbitant purchases, we’re mad at them for having money. Would we prefer they hoard their money like a dragon, not turning their payment into paychecks for the people they purchase from? Is it not enough that Clinton donates hundreds millions of dollars every year? You can be mad at Clinton for any of her policy decisions or Senate votes that you disagree with, but throwing shade her way for buying a jacket is a senseless critique.

While we do know that Clinton’s campaign is spending a lot of money to dress one woman, we don’t know how much she paid for the jacket, or if she paid for it at all. Clinton might have been offered this jacket from a representative at Armani, Clinton’s buyer may have cut a wholesale deal on the jacket, or maybe Hill walked into Bergdorf Goodman, slapped 120 Benjamins on the table, and wore the damn jacket home. Regardless, the $12,000 figure is exorbitant and eye-catching, which is why that’s the number in every story about “Hillary the hypocrite.” But does wearing an expensive jacket invalidate your economic plan? Does having a pricy wardrobe mean you can’t care about bolstering the American middle class?

The answer to these questions is of course not. It isn’t hypocritical for a wealthy person wearing expensive clothes to think there should be fewer Americans living in poverty. The Bernie Sanders brag about not having money doesn’t make him any more suited to shape policy on taxes. You don’t need to be middle class to help the middle class. You have to be smart to help the middle class.

Tackling income inequality doesn’t involve slapping millionaires across the face, putting limits on their credit cards, and shutting down Giorgio Armani, Bugatti, and Sotheby’s. It involves creating a set of laws designed to raise wages across the country and end corporate tax loopholes. If the plan is solid, it doesn’t matter how you dress it up.

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 Hillary’s $12,000 Jacket Doesn’t Mean Jacksh*t appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Cambridge Professor: “Netflix & Chill” Is A Lie

Sorry, not sorry, says Cambridge Professor David Spiegelhalter. The expert bashed all our dreams by explaining that while it may seem like “Netflix and Chill” leads to more sex, people between the ages of 16 and 64 are actually having less sex than just a few years ago.

15 minutes into Netflix and chill and we are still watching Netflix. #notcomplaining

— The *Zack* Impact (@zackdelveaux) June 7, 2016

Speigelhalter predicts that at this rate couples in the year 2030 might not be getting down at all. The reason? Couples now spend too much time binge-watching shows. Oh what a terrible, frightful future!

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 7, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Hillary Clinton’s email scandal: both issues have lingered in the media and on the minds of voters for the duration of this presidential campaign. These two controversial topics intersected recently, when the State Department announced that Clinton’s TPP related emails will not be ready for public release until late November, well after votes are in and a new president is elected.

TPP is a 12-nation trade deal involving partners from the Americas and Asia–Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia along with America and seven others–that is currently stalled in Congress, with friction coming from both sides of the aisle. The Obama Administration has been pushing hard for the deal. It’s also proved a contentious issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump–two men who often decry trade deals’ impact on the middle class American worker–have paraded the TPP as detrimental to those who have been hurt in the past by trade. Clinton’s history with TPP is a roller-coaster ride of support and opposition.

During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton voiced support for the controversial trade bill on 45 separate occasions, at one point in 2012 saying: “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.”  But Clinton reversed course in October 2015, saying in an interview with PBS that she “did not work on TPP” and that she was “not in favor of what [she had] learned about it.” Analysts and opponents saw this as a forced move to the left in reaction to the rejection of the TPP by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the support that their positions drew from progressives.

At an event at The Brookings Institution–a think tank in Washington D.C.–last week, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and a Senior Brookings Fellow Robert Kagan discussed the tenets of the plan, its strategic importance to U.S. foreign policy, and how it has been used as a policy point by candidates.

“It’s unfortunate that in this campaign Clinton has had to come out against TPP because presumably she’s going to have to reverse herself on that and explain why,” Kagan said in front of a room of foreign business leaders.

Pritzker reiterated the trade deal’s strategic importance regarding American influence on the world economic stage. “It’s about whose going to set the rules of the road for trade in the 21^st century,” she said. “That means setting labor standards, setting environmental standards, ensuring access for e-commerce. It means protecting IP and trade secrets, or strengthening national security.”

Initially, the State Department said Clinton’s TPP related emails were going to be released–per a FOIA request from the International Business Times–in the spring. And although some of the emails have been released,  they do not provide a comprehensive picture regarding Clinton’s role in shaping the agreement, which is what IBT was originally after. Simple State Department requests require an average of 111 days to process. If completed by the last day of November, as the State Department claims, the duration of this request would span 489 days.

“In my opinion it is more incompetence than maliciousness, but either way, it is a gross error by FOIA processors to not get these documents out before the election,” said Nate Jones of the National Security Archive, a group that assists journalists in filing FOIA requests.

And on Monday, after news of the delay broke, the Donald Trump campaign predictably weighed in: “Hillary is 100 percent controlled by corporate interests, including foreign corporate interests, and it is essential these emails see the light of day.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post State Department to Withhold Some Clinton Emails Until After Election appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

North Korea Says Trump Is The Bomb

An op-ed in North Korea’s state sponsored DPRK Today had nothing but glowing praise for Republican nominee Donald Trump. It called him a “wise politician” and “far-sighted presidential candidate.” This may have a lot to do with Trump’s serious proposal to remove American troops from South Korea if the country does not pay defense costs. The paper encouraged South Korea to avoid paying costs so that the countries may unify in the future without Washington’s meddling. North Korea also urged Americans not to vote for Hillary Clinton and criticized her nuclear weapon policy.

When the US is being trolled by North Korea, you know that it is a rather odd election season. https://t.co/RAWfHsrEj7

— Charles Hawley (@charles_hawley) June 1, 2016

Was Jerry Brown’s Clinton Endorsement Genuine or Desperate?

Answer: genuinely desperate. California Governor Brown delivered a “lukewarm” letter supporting Hillary Clinton for president. He said she was the only one who could defeat Trump. Jerry also gave a sincere nod to Sanders, quoting his “1 percent” platform. All in all, the governor seems to be echoing the same sentiments as many voters: “Hillary is experienced and I am feeling the Bern but we can’t let Trump win.”

Jerry Brown’s endorsement of Hillary is based on a simple calculation: She’s going to win. https://t.co/GdlzV1cgoM

— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) May 31, 2016

People have feelings about this Texas town selfie statue

America’s new favorite pastime has been immortalized with this “selfie statue.” The statue, located in Sugarland, Texas, cost a smooth $35,500. And many were left wondering if there was a better use for those funds like, IDK, making texting while driving illegal, as the town of Sugarland is apparently having problems making that a priority. In the meantime, people are hitting up the selfie statue for selfies at lunch.

THERE’S A SELFIE STATUE IN MY TOWN. pic.twitter.com/hEV0MLM04L

— ¯\( ˘͡ ˘̯)/¯ (@Gemrick) May 28, 2016

Meet David French, Bill Kristol’s Third Party Write In

His name has been floating around and rumors say he could be our chance for a third party candidate. David French was recently called upon by Bill Kristol to enter the 2016 race as an independent. Move over Trump, looks like we have another winner on the stage. That is if David French, a conservative lawyer and National Review columnist, decides to take on the challenge. Looks like he’ll be facing some tough questions, though:

But what would David French have done about the gorilla?

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) May 31, 2016

Soccer Drama…Again

What the flying f***? The U.S. Soccer Federation has asked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to dismiss a complaint made by the National Women’s Soccer team over unfair wages. The Federation claims that the wage difference is based off of factors other than discrimination. Popularity and fandom play a role in how much soccer teams are paid. Which really shouldn’t make a difference because the women’s team plays just as much as the men’s, and have often won more.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

#JusticeForHarambe: Silverback Gorilla Killed Over Poor Security

#JusticeForHarambe tops the charts today as outrage grows over the killing of a Cincinnati Zoo silverback gorilla named Harambe. This past weekend a three-year-old boy fell into Harambe’s enclosure. Fearing for the child’s life in the hands of a 450-pound animal, zoo officials shot and killed the gorilla and saved the child. While some applaud the zoo’s actions, many others, including conservationist Jeff Corwin, are disgusted with the event, and blame the child’s parents for not watching out for the boy.

Disgusting how this endangered and amazing animal had to die due to the negligence of a parent! #JusticeForHarambepic.twitter.com/vHUV80tKDh

— J (@JStahh_) May 31, 2016

World Renowned Physicist Doesn’t Get Trump’s Rise

Even Stephen Hawking, the great explainer of the universe, can’t explain why Trump is Trumping right now. But he did deliver a pretty good burn when he said: “[Trump] is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.” According to math and Urban Dictionary, this makes Trump the king of dumbasses. Hawking ended his comments by warning about the imminent threat of climate change, which Trump continues to publicly deny.

Stephen Hawking said he cannot work out why Donald Trump is so popular. Because only morons get it. Trump is the Jimi Hendrix for Morons.

— Kevin Flood (@FLOOKLYN) May 31, 2016

LGBTQ Equality May Be Coming to Pixar

As rumors tend to do, the idea that Pixar’s “Finding Dory” may feature a lesbian couple has spread like wildfire across the interwebs. And as always with controversial news, people either really love it or really hate it. In a recently released trailer, fans are speculating that the two women shown pushing a baby in a stroller are a couple. With the premiere only weeks away, Pixar should brace for some public outrage. But such is the price you pay for making (awesome) history!

ppl are freaking out bc a lesbian couple is in Finding Dory but no one cared when a girl fell in love with a bee smh pic.twitter.com/fHbiwSKYXp

— Dory (@Dory) May 31, 2016

Oh My Data: MySpace Breach Could Be Biggest Ever

This week, the old social media network was hacked. MySpace was compromised along with 417 million passwords and emails. Even though MySpace isn’t very popular anymore, information on any account made prior to 2013 can be used to leverage other attacks. And let’s be real, everyone had a Myspace. The hacker known as Peace has since listed the stolen information for sale on the Deep Web. This has got to be the most 2000s thing to happen this week.

.@Myspace hacked: info on millions of users stolen, Time Inc. confirms https://t.co/poOZJfHtoLpic.twitter.com/9HfPzfQ0Ss

— Variety (@Variety) May 31, 2016

#BernieInOakland: Protesters Get Carried Away

Why is #BernieInOakland trending? A few protesters at Sanders’ rally in Oakland Monday attempted to storm the stage. Swiftly, Secret Service managed to stop them before they made it there. Now unlike those violent Trump folk, these guys were cute and fluffy and meant no real harm. Direct Action Everywhere, an animal rights group, just wanted Sanders to expand his platform on radical animal rights, just as Hillary has done. They thought that this would be the best way to get Sanders to notice them. Were they right? Well, no. But this video is still pretty thrilling to watch:

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 31, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The potential for a Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders debate has captured everyone’s attention lately–a lot of supporters on both sides want to see the two contenders face off before the June 7 primary in California. In a storyline that would seem right at home in a political comedy, Trump originally said he wanted to debate Sanders, and then backed out. Now, Sanders is going after Trump, nicknaming him “Mr. Macho” and mocking him for not wanting to debate.

And some Sanders’ supporters have gone even further, starting the hashtag #ChickenTrump on social media. Check out the slideshow below for some of the best tweets:

#ChickenTrump pic.twitter.com/NcgJopUN48

— Captain Truth (@TruthTeamOne) May 31, 2016

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 #ChickenTrump Trends After Trump Backs out of Debate with Sanders appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Will the #BernieTrumpDebate ever happen?

Looks like the #BernieTrumpDebate is one big pipe dream. Donald Trump told Jimmy Kimmel last night that he’d love to debate Bernie Sanders for charity. Now that would be great TV! While many sources say the debate will never happen, seems like Sanders is up for the challenge:

Has Casey Anthony been outed by her attorney-slash-lover?

Remember Casey Anthony? The Florida woman accused of killing her young daughter is back in the news. New documents report that she paid her defense attorney, Jose Baez, with sex. What’s more? Baez supposedly ratted out his client, saying she actually did kill her daughter. Anthony was found not guilty in 2011. We’ll see what this new information does for her so-called innocence!

Years later, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman are making headlines. smh #Florida pic.twitter.com/ppWYMwI5Lt

— Gavin (@renovargas_) May 26, 2016

Elizabeth Warren Hits Trump Right on the Money

Warren seems to have made it her personal mission to make sure Trump never reaches the White House. At the Center for Popular Democracy, Elizabeth Warren and her “goofy” self took to the mic to slam the presumptive GOP nom, calling him a “small, insecure money grubber.” Ouch! The mudslinging has never been more real!

Taiwanese president criticized for being single…Seriously?

These days women are criticized for pretty much everything, especially women in powerful positions. This week a Chinese military official criticized Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen for being unmarried, claiming she was “extreme” and “emotional” because she didn’t have a husband. Should Tsai’s relationship status influence her politics? NOPE. Should China mind its business? YAS. Keep stuntin’ Ing-wen!

Taiwan president accused of being “extremist” and “erratic” because she’s single: https://t.co/NPhhu96dJj pic.twitter.com/Z8YV8WSSpm

— Women in the World (@WomenintheWorld) May 25, 2016

Marijuana Legalization is on the Come-Up in W. Virginia

Delegates in a West Virginia special budget session introduced a bill legalizing marijuana in the state. The bill would decriminalize the drug and permit use, growth, and possession of certain amounts by those over age 21. West Virginia faces a financial crisis and the hope is that legalization would alleviate the money problems.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 26, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Tommy Chong: Comedian Says Being Dropped From Bernie Sanders’ Event Is an ‘Insult’

At this point, can Bernie Sanders afford any more enemies? After Sanders took back his invite to have Tommy Chong, famous for his weed advocacy, speak at an LA rally, Chong took to social media to express how hurt he was to have been “burned” by his preferred candidate. Later it was discovered that the Sanders campaign dropped Chong due to a scheduling conflict. But I’m certain Chong will find ways to cope.

These Writers Have Some Serious Fightin’ Words for Trump

Renowned writers like Stephen King, Junot Diaz, Amy Tan, and Dave Eggars are standing up against Trump. As a lover of books and everything literary, it’s awesome to see the writing world stand up to this nasty businessman. If you too want to see Trump go down by way of America’s best authors, check out this kickass petition letter and join me in my happy dance.

State Department Slams Hillary with Cybersecurity Audit

Remember that email thing that’s become the proverbial monkey on Hillary Clinton’s back? A report sent to Congress by the State Department’s inspector general states that the former Secretary of State “disregarded cybersecurity guidelines.”

And it wasn’t just Hillary! Looks like this is a “longstanding” issue. Previous SOSs have done a poor job at managing computer information. This isn’t surprising because all Secretary of States are kind of ancient and therefore tech illiterate. Right?

When you email on a private server and it’s completely against State Dept rules: pic.twitter.com/IIH7HV3xFg

— Zachary T. Osborne (@ZTOESQ) May 25, 2016

Charlie Baker : Governor of Massachusetts Says He Does Not ‘Plan to Vote for President’

Can you do that? Can you just NOT VOTE for president? Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker thinks so. He voiced his opinion on the Boston Herald Radio today and told the host that he vows not to vote for Clinton or Trump. Even the Libertarian ticket is leaving a bad taste in his mouth. If you’re also fed up with the candidates, call up Charlie Baker for drinks on election day.

Chris Kyle: Late Navy SEAL and Subject of ‘American Sniper’ Embellished Military Record, Report Says

In a report released by The Intercept, late Navy SEAL Chris Kyle is said to have stretched the truth regarding his military record–essentially how many honors and medals he received during his career. An anonymous interviewer said: “The SEAL leadership was aware of the embellishment, but didn’t want to correct the record because Kyle’s celebrity status reflected well on the command.” These embellishments are found in Kyle’s autobiography, “American Sniper,” which was made into a film of the same name.

Rant Crush

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

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

The Democratic Party may be considering getting rid of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the Democratic National Committee chairwoman before the party’s national convention. She hasn’t exactly been getting along with Bernie Sanders or his supporters lately, and some Clinton supporters believe she is too divisive to be able to consolidate the party.

A controversial chairperson could worsen the Democrats’ chances to defeat the Republicans in the general election, and some senior Democratic aides have (for the most part, anonymously) expressed the opinion that Wasserman Schultz is already “too toxic,” saying that the only way to have a good shot to win in November is to replace her. Critics are now using the hasthtag #DumpDebbie on Twitter to call for her removal.

Wasserman Schultz has long had a complicated relationship with the Sanders campaign. His campaign actually sued the DNC in March, saying the DNC wrongfully shut off its access to important voter data.

More recently, Wasserman Schultz criticized Sanders after his supporters went a little crazy at the Democratic convention in Nevada, stating that his lukewarm response was unacceptable and probably just added fuel to the fire, even though he did condemn the violence. Sanders started a fundraiser for her primary challenger Tim Canova last weekend.

I am proud to know that @BernieSanders is favoring our progressive campaign to #RetireDWS. https://t.co/yUyWoN5xBS #ProgressforAll #fl23

— Tim Canova (@Tim_Canova) May 21, 2016

There hasn’t been any formal action to replace Wasserman Schultz so far, and some Democrats still ardently defend her, like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. Nutter pointed out that Sanders is a recent Democrat while Wasserman Schultz has been leading the party and shouldn’t just be pushed out.

At the same time, DNC spokesperson Luis Miranda denied that anything serious is going on, saying that there are a whole lot of high profile members of Congress expressing their support for Wasserman Schultz on the record, and there are just a few who disagree and want to stay anonymous.

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 Are the Democrats About to Drop Debbie Wasserman Schultz? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Officer Involved in Freddie Grey Death Acquitted of All Charges

The recent news that Edward Nero, one of the officers that may have been involved in the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, has been found not guilty, struck some as a relief and  filled others with fear and anger. Since his death, Freddie Gray’s name has become a rallying cry for the fight against police brutality and for the Black Lives Matter movements. Despite the verdict, the story is far from over. Nero remains on administrative duty while the Baltimore Police Department continues an internal investigation on him and the five other police officers involved. Whether this event was a race and/or police brutality issue remains up for debate.

Baltimore Police Officer Edward Nero enters courthouse. Judge expected to issue verdict in Freddie Gray death trial.https://t.co/CawQGWcUQC

— AJ+ (@ajplus) May 23, 2016

Hollywood: A Haven For Pedophiles?

Not everything can be like they are in the movies, not even in Hollywood. This comes as no surprise to Elijah Wood, a former child star, best known for his role in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, who claims Hollywood has a problem with child predators. The shocking allegations first appeared in this weekend’s edition of the Sunday Times when the actor said “that Hollywood is in the grip of a child sexual abuse epidemic, with rich and powerful industry figures abusing child actors with impunity.” 

Elijah Wood honestly comments on the reality of abuse of child stars in Hollywood: https://t.co/lIuAW1JPNR pic.twitter.com/7KUveiKC3q

— Entertainment Weekly (@EW) May 23, 2016

Bernie Sanders Pits Self against the Democratic Establishment

Bernie Sanders is shaking up the establishment. I mean, no surprise, that’s his whole shtick, right? But now he has officially declared war on the DNC by endorsing Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s opponent Tim Canova, furthering an all-out divide in the Democratic party. Some worry that this divide leaves all hope for defeating Donald Trump teetering at the edge. Even some Bernie-or-Bust supporters are shaking in their boots and wondering where  quirky, cute old man Bernie went. One thing is for sure, tensions have skyrocketed.

.@BernieSanders: If I’m elected, the DNC chair is out https://t.co/Xzga5cCku3

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) May 23, 2016

Four Die on Mount Everest

OMG. Like if you know you might die on the mountain, why the f*** climb the mountain? Four brave souls were taken by the formidable Mount Everest over the past weekend. More than 250 people have died on Everest since its first recorded ascent in 1953. The most common cause of death is altitude sickness from the infamously thin mountain air, or fatal swelling of the brain.

Scumbag Leo Takes Private Jet to Accept “Green” Award

We all know Leo DiCaprio, the guy who recently snagged an Oscar for “The Revenant” and never misses an opportunity to plug human and environmental rights whenever he’s in front of a mic. His Instagram is completely dedicated to supporting ocean wildlife and climate change yet, this week he is being called a huge hypocrite.

Why? For cashing in 8,000 miles in private jet time between New York and France while accepting awards and honors for environmental advocacy along the way. Lifestyles of the rich and famous activists are quite busy but was this just a major dick move?

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 23, 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

J-Law v. D-Trump

Actress Jennifer Lawrence has some harsh words for Donald Trump. She told “The Graham Norton Show” that she recently found out that they were both at the same concert. She told the hosts she wanted to track Trump down and yell at him, saying: “I had my full security, like, I was like, ‘Find Donald Trump.’ ‘Cause I was just, I was adamant on finding him and then making a video of me going, ‘Hey Trump, f— you!'”

via GIPHY

Nevada Primary Problems Continue

The Bernie Sanders campaign and its supporters continue to fight with the Democratic party in Nevada over the results of the primary. Sanders supporters claim that the primary is unfair, but other Democrats say that death threats some of his supporters have sent to party officials went way too far. Here’s a good explainer from Vox on exactly why so many people are really pissed.

A Tasty Way to Protest Voter ID Laws

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield–also known as Ben & Jerry–are getting involved in politics again. The company is releasing a new flavor, called Empower Mint, to protest voter ID laws in North Carolina. Greenfield said:

The reason Ben & Jerry’s chose North Carolina is there’s a lot of activity in terms of voter rights and overcoming voter suppression efforts there. There’s also a real history of civil right struggle in North Carolina. For us, it’s about the groups doing work there.

Introducing Empower Mint. Creamy mint & fudgy brownies & churned for a cause: Democracy. https://t.co/tHL8tdRaodpic.twitter.com/RKs2yTQOwd

— Ben & Jerry’s (@benandjerrys) May 17, 2016

Remember to Close Your Tabs

Mike Webb, who is running for Congress in Virginia, shared a screenshot of his computer on his Facebook page. However, he had forgotten to close out of a couple tabs that were clearly searches for porn.

Mike Webb, He’s looking at adult women, that’s a refreshing change. pic.twitter.com/SKKN3qiJfC

— Thomas Delmore (@IronFist1982) May 17, 2016

His excuse for why he had tabs of porn open? He claims he was “testing them for viruses.” Sure, Mike Webb, and we were all born yesterday. 

Seriously Guys, Leave Wild Animals Alone

Yellowstone baby bison euthanized after bonehead tourists thought they were saving it: https://t.co/l5vWgqDJc7 pic.twitter.com/Egsz6wg78R

— Slate (@Slate) May 18, 2016

People are smad (sad and mad) after a story about a couple visiting Yellowstone who saw a baby bison by itself. They thought it would be cold–despite the fact that bison are animals that live outdoors–so they put it in their SUV. Rangers tried to reunite the animal with its herd, but it was rejected. Unfortunately, the calf had to be euthanized because it couldn’t be cared for by the rangers, and couldn’t be sent somewhere else for care due to a quarantine in effect to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 18, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s Democratic primaries ended with victory for Sanders in Oregon, and for Clinton in Kentucky–although she finished that primary with only half a percentage point more than Sanders. The fact that Sanders keeps winning some states points, according to some, to weaknesses in Clinton’s strategy. But more importantly, it indicates that a big group of voters still want Sanders in the White House and agree with his ideas, so maybe it’s not over quite yet. And in a speech in California, Sanders once again asserted that he would not give up until the last vote is cast, saying “Don’t tell Secretary Clinton, she might get nervous–I think we’re going to win California.”

As of now, Clinton has a total count of 2,291 delegates compared to Sanders’ 1,528–this count includes superdelegates. There are 946 delegates still up for grabs. It has long been seen as a matter of course that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, but as Sanders keeps going strong and party unification seems far away, tensions have increased between the two sides. Last Saturday it boiled over for some Sanders supporters, who started revolting after a number of Sanders delegates were deemed ineligible by throwing chairs and yelling at the Democratic convention in Nevada. They claimed that the elections are rigged and expressed death threats aimed at the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party, Roberta Lange.

Sanders’ seemingly mellow response to the violence has surprised and upset many. He only spent one sentence on it in a press release on Tuesday, but focused mainly on the same thing the angry supporters had been saying, namely how the party interfered with a fair and Democratic process. He was urged by some Senators and party leaders to take control of his supporters. Some voices in the Democratic Party also asked the Bernie supporters themselves to be sensible and support the candidate who gets the most votes and delegates, since it is more important that the party stands united against the Republicans.

After all, the results in Kentucky and Oregon do show that Clinton still is the probable nominee. To have an actual chance to win the whole thing, Bernie would have needed a much bigger margin in Oregon–over four times bigger than it was. But the fact that he is still running means that Clinton needs to divide her focus between beating Sanders in the remaining states, unifying the Democratic Party, and fighting Trump–all tasks that will certainly continue to take some extra effort.

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 Sanders Wins Oregon, Clinton Wins Kentucky: Party Struggles with Unity appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Trump: Maybe I should start focusing on ‘Crazy Bernie’

This past Tuesday, Bernie Sanders declared victory against Hillary Clinton in the West Virginia primary and caught the eye of the one and only GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump. In tweets commenting on the West Virginia and Nebraska primaries, Trump finally gave Bernie Sanders a nickname: ‘Crazy Bernie.’ But that’s a pretty weak moniker compared to the names he’s given to his other opponents like ‘Lyin’ Ted’ and ‘Crooked Hillary.’ In any case, now that Trump has finally “called” him out, does this mean ‘Crazy Bernie’ has been invited to play ball with the big boys?

I don’t want to hit Crazy Bernie Sanders too hard yet because I love watching what he is doing to Crooked Hillary. His time will come!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 11, 2016

The Internet Has Spoken: Donald Trump is Worse Than Nickelback

A recent poll shows that Donald Trump is more hated than alt-rock band Nickelback, which has got to be one of the the craziest developments of the 21st century. Because, you know, the internet hates Nickelback. 

RT this or donald trump will appear in your bedroom tonight naked and belting the song “far away” by nickelback pic.twitter.com/cfgc2xJwuC

— Meme Bob (@BrittneyNKelly) March 21, 2016

But it seems Donald Trump is way less popular, despite being the GOP frontrunner.

Four Pilots Challenge Their Airline’s Breastfeeding and Maternity Policies

Some airplane pilots are mothers too, but Frontier Airlines doesn’t quite seem to get that. Four female pilots for the airline filed formal complaints with the help of the ACLU, claiming its policies do not accommodate pregnant and nursing mothers, making it difficult for the employees to work AND provide for their families. Should career women have to choose?

Budweiser: Company Announces Beer Label Change to ‘America’ Until Presidential Elections in November

Coming May 23, Budweiser will be renaming its popular brew “America” for the summer. You may be wondering, is this a publicity stunt? Well, yeah! Plus what’s more American than a patriotic beer that literally says America for us all to imbibe during the craziest presidential race ever? Some say it’s a risky effort for the brand as it may alienate some people. Which makes sense, because the announcement has since attracted the King Alienator Donald Trump, who takes credit for the label change. But we’ll see what good the new beer name will do him come November.

No, Harry Potter Doesn’t Cause Brain Damage

Fans of Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, and other fantasy series are pretty incensed after a school principal in the UK wrote a now-viral letter about how reading popular fantasy books “can damage the sensitive subconscious brains of young children, many of whom may be added to the current statistics of mentally ill young children.”

Obviously, that’s ridiculous. Or, if we treat the fun-hating principal like a Boggart just trying to scare us: riddikulus. 

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 11, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The primaries in West Virginia last night ended with victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Even though Hillary Clinton leads with a pretty much insurmountable margin, Sanders’s recent victories show that he still has strong support from voters, and he has pledged to not give up until the nomination is officially decided.

This means Clinton has to divide her focus between winning the Democratic nomination on the one hand, and on the other, defeating Donald Trump in the general election. For Trump, it was an easy win in both West Virginia and Nebraska last night–winning more than 75 and  60 percent of the vote respectively. His success comes despite rumors that Ted Cruz might get back into the race if the results turned in his favor. Which they didn’t.

Here’s a recap of what went on last night:

• In West Virginia, Sanders won almost every demographic. One big reason is concern about the economy and the state’s large population of working class households and coal workers. Some argue that Clinton alienated coal workers in March when she commented that her climate policies would put many coal miners out of business.

• Even though Sanders won big last night, he now needs more delegates than remain in the coming elections to have a chance to beat Clinton in pledged delegates alone. Otherwise, he will need to win two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates and also win over some superdelegates.

• About three-quarters of Democrats in West Virginia said they did not want the next president to continue Obama’s policies, and four in 10 want less liberal policies, two groups that did not favor Clinton.

• Trump’s victories do not mean everything is under control for the GOP. Polls show concern from Republican voters–with 58 percent of voters in West Virginia feeling that the party is divided but will be able to unify later on, while only half of the voters in Nebraska believed that it will be able to do so.

Next up is the Kentucky primary for the Democrats and the Oregon primary for both parties, which will take place on May 17.

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 A Small Boost for Sanders, Who’s Determined to Keep Going to the End appeared first on Law Street.

If you see a recipe floating around the internet for DIY Bernie Sanders’ themed glowsticks do not follow it.

I repeat DO NOT FOLLOW IT….unless you really want to feel the Bern burn!

Turns out, this crafty supporter swag’s “how to”  is actually a step by step recipe for a homemade chlorine bomb.

‘Bernie Sanders Glowsticks’ Meme Attempts To Trick Supporters Into Making A Deadly… https://t.co/tUDphG5uXO pic.twitter.com/DBNK5G9UdT

— Inquisitr News (@theinquisitr) May 10, 2016

The instructions require you to mix crushed chlorinated swimming pool tablets with isopropyl alcohol, and then shake the ingredients inside a tightly closed bottle. The chemical reaction causes a rapid increase of chlorine gas to build up inside of the pressurized bottle, resulting in a small explosion.

Here’s a video illustration.

The video above appears to demonstrate the reaction using a plastic bottle that is approximately 300ml. The actual Bernie glowsticks post gives instructions for how to make a 2-liter bomb. Take a look at the gif below made by Mic News from this clip to see what a 3-liter chlorine bomb can actually do.

The explosion alone is potentially very dangerous, especially if the device combusts while in an individual’s hand. Additionally, there are also negative side effects associated with chlorine gas exposure. According to the CDC, chlorine gas can cause burning pain, nausea and vomiting, difficulty breathing, and in extreme cases, pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs.)

The origins of the meme are unclear, but it has been posted onto the subreddit r/killthosewhodisagree under the thread “Let’s Trick Sanders Supporters into Killing Themselves.”  So Sanders supporters, you may want to stick to buying glow sticks in the store for now.

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 Someone May Be Trying to Blow Up Berniebros appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Senator Ben Sasse’s Epic Facebook Rant

Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) went on a pretty intense Facebook tirade against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on Facebook, calling for a third party candidate to join the scuffle. Part of the “never Trump” brigade, Sasse also took to Twitter to voice his displeasure with his party’s seemingly inevitable nominee.

Thought experiment: Why shouldn’t America draft an honest leader to focus on 70% solutions for the next four years as a caretaker? An adult?

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016

Joe Paterno May Have Known About Jerry Sandusky’s Abuse in 1976

Newly released court documents about the Jerry Sandusky abuse scandal have sparked outrage. The Penn State University is suing its former insurance company in an attempt to determine who is liable to pay the victims of Sandusky’s abuse. These papers revealed that “PMA claims … in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Football Coach Joseph Paterno, that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.” That’s a horrific 12 years before the previous earliest-known allegation of abuse against Sandusky.

Trump’s Epic Fail of a Cinco de Mayo Tweet

Trump sent out quite a whopper of a Cinco de Mayo tweet yesterday:

Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics! https://t.co/ufoTeQd8yA pic.twitter.com/k01Mc6CuDI

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 5, 2016

There are many, many horrifying things that can be said about this tweet, but the flawless Samantha Bee summed it up perfectly with her own taco bowl pic, captioned: “The best taco bowls are made by hardworking immigrants who don’t like being called rapists by a rich prick. I love inauthentic Mexican food!”

Tow Trucks Get Political

A tow truck driver who supports Donald Trump for president refused to provide service to a woman with a Bernie Sanders sticker on her car in Greenville, South Carolina. After seeing her sticker, as well as a Sanders lawn sign, he claimed that “every business dealing in recent history that I’ve had with a socialist-minded person, I haven’t got paid.” Then, he encouraged her to call the government to tow her car, and drove off. Needless to say, I think we all know how Bernie would react:

Pope Francis Gives Tough Speech on Migrants in Europe

Pope Francis just gave a pretty hard-hitting speech about the treatment of migrants in Europe. He was speaking as the recipient of the Charlemagne prize for his work on behalf of European solidarity, and asked: “What has happened to you, the Europe of humanism, the champion of human rights, democracy and freedom?” After that speech, we’ll have to see if Europe can get its act together.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: Friday, May 6 appeared first on Law Street.

At this point, Hillary Clinton is for all intents and purposes the Democratic Party’s nominee. While there are still a few contests to go, Bernie Sanders has been all but mathematically eliminated from the race. Yet a lot of people are still upset about the fact that Sanders isn’t going to be the nominee–or maybe they’re just upset that Clinton will be. As a result, #DropOutHillary is trending on Twitter, and has been for the last few days. And while it’s certainly reasonable to use social media to vent about your preferred candidate, it may be time for some Sanders supporters to face the facts: Clinton will almost certainly be the nominee, and if we don’t want a Donald Trump presidency, it may be time to rally around her.

Here’s a sampling of some of the tweets, but they mostly either attack Clinton’s record, extol Sanders’, or bizarrely accuse Twitter of trying to suppress the hashtag:

#DropOutHillary You are being forced on us by #ElectionFraud, empty suit MSM, & corruption. We will rebel against this as profoundly as 1776

— Steven Wilson (@ibstevie) May 5, 2016

#DropOutHillary not allowed to trend after 500k tweets and no.1 worldwide? Why @twitter @Support ?

— Travis W Shores (@travisshores1) May 5, 2016

#DropOutHillary because the first woman president should be someone we can be proud of

— Diane Wald (@sleeperina) May 5, 2016

IS THIS REALLY A QUESTION ANYMORE???? @HillaryClinton @realDonaldTrump @BernieSanders #DropOutHillary #HillNo pic.twitter.com/pWDnrwLqlB

— J4D4BL00M (@mizt1f) May 5, 2016

#DropOutHillary because you’re a thief. You & the DNC have stolen our votes & disenfranchised us. #ElectionFraudpic.twitter.com/2l2OZPJleq

— Carol Leonard (@laughingcat2016) May 5, 2016

The anger against Clinton is palpable, particularly for some parts of the electorate. Fellow Law Streeter Sean Simon wrote an article about the hatred that many Americans have for Clinton (and Trump), pointing out that “if you don’t like one of them, chances are you really hate them.” That disgust for Clinton seems to be in full force right now, but as we get closer to the almost inevitable race between Trump and Clinton, it will be deeply problematic for the left if that kind of rhetoric doesn’t abate.

Clinton will be countering more attacks from Trump any day now, and if she has to deal with the same problems from the left, Trump’s jabs will hit even harder. Take the hashtag #DropOutHillary as an example–if you check news stories on the trending topic, a large chunk are by gleeful conservative outlets.

Public discourse should always allow us to vet, question, and debate our candidates. But calls for Clinton to drop out rather than discussing her platform in a constructive manner are unwarranted, unrealistic, and ultimately damaging. So for those advocating #DropOutHillary, is it really worth strengthening a Trump candidacy?

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 #DropOutHillary: Some on the Left Not Happy with Democratic Party’s Choice appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Rizzo

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

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

Last night, President Barack Obama’s final White House Correspondents’ dinner as sitting president was held at the Washington Hilton in D.C. Celebrities, reporters, and politicians all dressed up in their finest for a night of (mostly laughs), and Obama didn’t disappoint. Check out five of the funniest moments from Obama’s speech last night.

Obama vs. Donald Trump

It should come as a surprise to no one, but Obama went after the walking joke that is the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. Obama pointed out that Trump hadn’t attended the dinner, saying:

Well let me conclude tonight on a more serious note. I want to thank the Washington press corps. The free press is central to our democracy and … nah! I’m just kidding! You know I’m gonna talk about Trump! Come on!

And it is surprising: You’ve got a room full of reporters, celebrities, cameras — and he says no.

Is this dinner too tacky for The Donald? What could he possibly be doing instead? Is he at home, eating a Trump steak, tweeting out insults to Angela Merkel? What’s he doing?

And he ended his Trump tirade with this zinger:

And there is one area where Donald’s experience could be invaluable and that’s closing Guantanamo because Trump knows a thing or two about running waterfront properties into the ground.

While the Trump-talk certainly wasn’t a surprise, it was a lot of fun.

via GIPHY

Sanders & Clinton Get Jabs Too

While Obama was harshest on Trump, he also made some comments about the two Democratic candidates still in the race. About billionaire-basher Bernie Sanders, Obama said:

For example, we’ve got the bright new face of the Democratic Party here tonight, Mr. Bernie Sanders. Bernie, you look like a million bucks. Or, to put it in terms you’ll understand, you look like 37,000 donations of $27 each.

Obama also joked about Hillary’s slogan, pretending it was “Trudge up a Hill” as opposed to Bernie’s more youthful “Feel the Bern,” and her seeming inability to connect with younger voters:

You’ve got to admit it though, Hillary trying to appeal to young voters is a little bit like your relative who just signed up for Facebook. ‘Dear America, did you get my poke. Is it appearing on your wall? I’m not sure I’m using this right. Love, Aunt Hillary.’

And a Little Fun at His Own Expense

Obama didn’t shy away from making fun of himself a bit, particularly when it comes to his meetings with world leaders. He made a reference to Prince George greeting the President in his bathrobe:

Even some foreign leaders, they’ve been looking ahead, anticipating my departure. Last week, Prince George showed up to our meeting in his bathrobe. That was a slap in the face. A clear breach of protocol.

Which (side note) led to this adorable picture:

Toddler prince meets President; bathrobe steals the show https://t.co/ofE5Q2cYxP #PrinceGeorge #bathrobe pic.twitter.com/OxnMZzuwZ2

— Acculturated (@Acculturated) April 26, 2016

Obama also commented on his recent meeting with his younger and very handsome Canadian counterpart, Justin Trudeau:

In fact somebody recently said to me, ‘Mr. President, you are so yesterday. Justin Trudeau has completely replaced you. He is so handsome and he’s so charming. He’s the future.’ And I said ‘Justin, just give it a rest.’ I resented that.

via GIPHY

An Actual, Physical Mic Drop

As a fitting farewell to his last White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama left the stage with the comment “Obama, out” and a literal dropping of the mic.

WATCH: Pres. Obama drops the mic at end of #WHCD remarks: “Obama out” https://t.co/cpmMPwSnpo

— ABC News (@ABC) May 1, 2016

John Boehner Video

Finally, I’m just going to let this fantastic video about what Obama will do when he’s no longer in office (also starring Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, and John Boehner) speak for itself:

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Top 5 Moments of Obama’s Last White House Correspondents’ Dinner Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Both Republicans and Democrats have been enamored with “outsiders” this election year: whether it’s Trump’s meteoric rise among the GOP voters desperate for a “non-politician,” or the Bernie Sanders voterbase raving about the necessity of a politician who isn’t connected with the D.C. elites. Every candidate has been adjusting their message to avoid seeming too familiar with the current state of politics. Trump says it’s time to stop listening to the experts. Bernie wants to tear down the establishment. Cruz is running on the idea that he won’t work with Washington, but that he has worked against it.

Basically, experienced and accomplished politicians are trying their best not to seem experienced or accomplished, because those qualities scare and confuse the average American voter. For candidates like Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Hillary Clinton, this poses a huge problem. How can you tell people you’re ‘not a politician’ when you’ve been in office since the seventies? How do you resist looking like an ‘insider’ when you’ve literally lived inside the White House before?

In order to save his campaign after a brutal Tuesday, in which Cruz placed last in four out of five contests, Cruz is bringing in his own outsider. Ted Cruz, the man who is currently not winning the Republican nomination, announced Wednesday that if he secures the Republican nomination (a huge if), he’d select Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential candidate.

Fiorina’s only real experience in the political sphere was a failed Senatorial campaign against Barbara Boxer. You may remember her from her stand-out performance in the Republican debate where she invented a fictional video of an aborted fetus’s organs being harvested and told the nation about it in gory detail. Fiorina is often heralded as a successful businesswoman–after all, she was the female CEO of a Fortune 500 company, certainly no small accomplishment. Her business acumen has been questioned, however, and by questioned I mean constantly assailed, with reports arguing she was disastrous and terrible. Fiorina laid off over 30,000 employees, and was forcibly ousted from her position. In short, Carly Fiorina is all fire and no function–the antithesis of a pragmatic, predictable insider who knows her way around Washington.

The veepstakes shouldn’t begin until nominations are made, or at the very earliest when a nomination is a foregone conclusion. In that sense, this kind of move is way too early, as we shouldn’t be seeing these sorts of announcements until late May, even June. But the reason this feels like a last-ditch effort is because this kind of is a last ditch effort. If Cruz wanted to adjust the image of his campaign to be more outsider-friendly, he should have done it before he was lagging so far behind that nothing he does will have much effect.

So why is this happening? Could it be that the American public trusts unproved talent simply because that candidate hasn’t had a chance to fail yet? Do we shrug at experience because we’re impulsive gamblers who would rather let someone new take the wheel just because it’s more interesting? There’s no clear answer, and it’s hard to understand the why behind the impulsive and nonsensical behavior of the primary voters. The only safe bet is that Cruz’s pick of Fiorina is bizarre, telling, and destined to flop.

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 Cruz Finds His Outsider: Too Early and Too Late appeared first on Law Street.

Berniebros are demanding answers to #WhatsInHillarysPurse in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s eyebrow-raising hot sauce admission.

Last week Clinton declared that she always has a bottle of the peppery condiment on standby after being asked the question “what’s something you always carry with you?” during a radio interview with “The Breakfast Club.” Because “hot sauce” likely wasn’t the presidential-yet-still-feminine answer that listeners had anticipated, Clinton was accused of pandering to minority voters with a popular Beyoncé reference.

Of all the Clinton hot sauce skeptics out there, The Berniebros [sic] were definitely the most savage. This douchey subset of Bernie Sanders supporters, known for bullying others into “feeling the Bern,” capitalized on the political misstep by speculating what else may be hiding in the former Secretary of State’s bag.

Under the hashtag #WhatsInHillarysPurse, critics took turns taking jabs mainly at Clinton’s personal life, her emails, and her overall credibility. Here’s what they had to say.

#WhatsInHillarysPurse Several flash drives full of incriminating evidence. Right next to the hot sauce.

— Roberto Sandernista (@Gungledink) April 25, 2016

#WhatsInHillarysPurse Her memoirs from Bosnia (Foreword written by historian & fellow truth-teller Brian Williams) pic.twitter.com/JCwwa7iGXG

— Bilal Raza Rizvi (@bilalraza) April 25, 2016

Stolen votes from Brooklyn and the Bronx #NYPrimary
#WhatsInHillarysPurse

— JeSuisNotWithHer (@RenagadeGirl) April 25, 2016

Server wipes#WhatsInHillarysPurse pic.twitter.com/Q6R7MALvJ4

— Brendan McInnis (@BrendanMcInnis) April 25, 2016

Bill’s Leash
…………………..And It Is VERY Short#WhatsInHillarysPurse

— McMannofthepeople (@McMannofthepeop) April 25, 2016

Nothing. The contents have been scrubbed, shredded, and trashed. #WhatsInHillarysPurse

— Shannon Knutsen (@STKnutsen) April 25, 2016

Clinton’s supporters were quick to call the hashtag a sexist attempt at discrediting the female candidate, since no one seems to be wondering what’s in the wallets of her male contemporaries.

Not saying I’m a Hilary supporter but #WhatsInHillarysPurse is super sexist. Nobody’s asking what’s in Trump’s pockets or under his toupee

— Tiffany D. Jackson (@WriteinBK) April 25, 2016

Some of Clinton’s supporters even chose to adopt the hashtag to show support for the Democratic frontrunner instead.

Hashtags don’t win you squat. #WhatsInHillarysPurse? Try millions more popular votes and an insurmountable pledged delegate lead.

— Joseph Hughes (@nczeitgeist) April 25, 2016

#WhatsInHillarysPurse? A Thermos full of Bernie tears! pic.twitter.com/O5T2Uhn9mW

— Hillary’s Uterus (@HillarysUterus) April 25, 2016

While the actual contents of Clinton’s bag are probably top secret, one thing may be certain. If Sanders doesn’t win 59 percent of the remaining delegates, Hillary will definitely have the Democratic nomination in the bag.

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 #WhatsinHillarysPurse: Hillary’s Hot Sauce Inspires Sexist Hashtag appeared first on Law Street.

Bad Lip Reading features one of the simplest yet most entertaining concepts on the internet. A Youtube channel run by an anonymous creator, it takes videos of celebrities, politicians, and movie trailers and dubs in ridiculous things for the speakers to say. Bad Lip Reading has long been spoofing this year’s crazy cast of presidential candidates, but its rendition of Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s last debate in New York is one of the best yet. Check it out below:

One of the highlights is when Bad Lip Reading graduates from just dubbing in silly things for Sanders and Clinton to say, and moves on to spoofing Sanders’ hand motions as well, by having him play a game of charades called “Time to Act.” Prompts included “you ask the waiter for the check” “you see a bee” “prostate exam” “timid Napoleon” and “your hand is a baby bird, your fingers are the beak.”

In the spot, which features more Sanders than Clinton (perhaps because of his more characteristic charisma and hand gestures) the Vermont Senator also takes a break from the debate to sing a quick song, “Why is it creepy to juggle in bed? When God gave us hands, and God gave us balls, and God gave us beds?”

Bad Lip Reading has certainly been having plenty of fun this election cycle, like with this interpretation of Republican hopeful Ted Cruz’s words:

Or this nonsensical version of the first Republican debate back in the summer of 2015:

As the primary contests yield nominees who will inevitably face off many times  before the general election, Bad Lip Reading will probably have even more fantastic fodder. I, for one, can’t wait.

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 Bad Lip Reading Takes on Latest Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

During the current 2016 primary, Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has been careful to emphasize that (despite some right wing attacks that say otherwise) he’s not a communist or a socialist. However, Sanders and his team are now possibly going to have to take that fight to court. Sanders’ legal team is fighting to stop a man named Daniel McCall and his company Liberty Maniacs from selling t-shirts, coffee cups, and other merchandise emblazoned with the words “Bernie is my comrade.”

The merchandise uses what looks like Sanders’ own campaign logo for “Bernie’s” name. Then, a picture of Sanders is featured along with some of history’s most famous communists and socialists–Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladomir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Lawyers Do Not Appreciate Your “Bernie is My Comrade” T-Shirthttps://t.co/ctq5Qedojgpic.twitter.com/vkXrWpxZVW

— ALC (@Arthur59611540) April 19, 2016

‘Bernie is My Comrade’ shirts: Merchant issued cease and desist order by Sanders allies https://t.co/ntA7h4gFTTpic.twitter.com/piCbjuNvqL

— Red Alert Politics (@RedAlert) April 17, 2016

The Sanders campaign sent McCall a cease and desist letter alleging that McCall was infringing on its copyright and trademark; it also demanded that the company destroy or take down the items from the internet. In response, McCall’s lawyer has now accused the campaign of “trademark bullying.” McCall told Buzzfeed news: 

I was surprised Bernie’s campaign would have done that. He didn’t seem to be the type of candidate, the type of guy, who would do something like this. I’m waiting to see what happens, but I would think Bernie, or one of his staff members will step in and put an end to it. It appears to be pretty silly.

His lawyer, Paul Levy also responded to the lawsuit, and made a point about free speech: 

That contention is absurd. You cannot use trademark theories to silence members of the American public who disagree with your client’s views and oppose his candidacy. They can hardly express their views in that respect without identifying the candidacy about which they wish to speak; and it is precisely because the logo is so recognizable that it is an excellent way of specifying which ‘Bernie’ is the subject of commentary.

While its understandable that Sanders’ campaign doesn’t want to be affiliated with some of history’s most reviled dictators, we’ll have to see if the campaign prevails in this copyright fight. 

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 Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Tries to Stop “Bernie is my Comrade” Gear appeared first on Law Street.

The cofounders of Ben & Jerry’s, aptly named Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, were arrested at the U.S. Capitol building on Monday. Cohen and Greenfield were participating in continued protests advocating for campaign finance reform, voting reform, action on climate change, remedies to systemic inequalities, fair pay, immigration reform, pushing the Senate to consider President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court and a whole host of other progressive issues.

The movement that Cohen and Greenfield were participating in is called “Democracy Awakening” and is closely affiliated with the similar “Democracy Spring” movement. Protests at the Capitol have been waging on for the last few weeks, and more than 1,000 protestors have already been arrested; Cohen and Greenfield were just the latest to join the list.

A post on Ben & Jerry’s website explained the cofounders’ motivations for joining the protests.

It all comes down to a simple idea that we believe in whole-heartedly: if you care about something, you have to be willing to risk it all—your reputation, your values, your business—for the greater good.

The post continues:

Protesting injustice has been on the agenda all weekend. We’ve been in Washington, D.C. with Democracy Awakening, a remarkable event that brought together hundreds of groups and thousands of people in an effort to fix our broken democracy. There are two trends that everyone from Greenpeace to the NAACP has realized are making it impossible for much good work to get done. The first is the flood of unregulated cash flowing into campaigns and elections. And the second is the wave of attacks in many states on citizens’ right to vote.

Cohen and Greenville are certainly no strangers to getting involved in the political arena. Cohen in particular has been a very outspoken advocate for fellow Vermonter Bernie Sanders. In an interview outside a Donald Trump rally that Cohen was protesting, he explained that he had come up with the perfect Bernie-themed ice cream flavor–“Bernie’s Yearning.” According to Cohen’s explanation:

When you open up the pint, there’s this big disc of chocolate covering the entire top, and below it is just plain mint ice cream.The disc of chocolate represents the 90 percent of the wealth that has gone to the top 10 percent over the last 10 years.

The way you eat it, you take your spoon, you whack that big chocolate disc into a bunch of little pieces, you mix it around, and there you have it: Bernie’s Yearning.

According to the statement on Ben & Jerry’s website regarding their arrests, they won’t be slowing down any soon when it comes to their activism.

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 Ben & Jerry’s Cofounders Arrested Protesting at Capitol appeared first on Law Street.

A 10-month-long contract dispute has finally come to a head as 36,000 Verizon employees went on strike Wednesday. The strike began after Verizon and the two labor unions that represent Verizon’s wireline service workers could not reach an agreement before the two unions’ proposed deadline of 6 am, Wednesday. On Thursday, a large group of low-wage employees in other industries walked out of work in an effort to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

Both the strike and the fight for $15 protest come after New York and California passed laws to increase their minimum wage laws. Some point to this as a pattern, in which low-wage workers are finally trying to make up for years of stagnant pay and economic hardship. For others, this is merely another blip in the perennial struggle between labor and business. Either way, this is one of the largest strikes in recent history and has quickly become a political issue.

What do both sides want?

The primary point of disagreement between Verizon and its workers is the company’s desire to have more flexibility with its workforce and the workers’ hope for sustained job security. Verizon argues that the company needs to adjust to meet the changing economy’s demands. It claims that it has offered reasonable solutions to prevent benefit costs from increasing dramatically and has offered significant pay increases. Meanwhile, workers argue that it is unfair for their company to force them to relocate and travel long distances for work, noting that if they refuse to do so they will likely lose their jobs.

An interesting aspect of the strike is that it seems to have less to do with wages specifically. Verizon has offered a 6.5 percent pay increase and most of the two unions’ complaints have not focused on wages. Verizon frames the negotiations as an effort to allow the company to get with the times, while workers argue that the contract should focus on protecting decent paying middle-class jobs.

Some Context

Underlying the negotiations is the changing importance of the wireline side of Verizon’s business. As Verizon shifts its focus to its rapidly expanding wireless service, its wireline service–which includes television, phone, and internet–has actually decreased. The wireless side of the company, which is largely ununionized, has seen its profits soar while the more costly wireline service has contracted slightly as landline phone and television service becomes less popular. In light of this change, the company wants to cut costs on the less profitable component of its business by stretching its workers more.

While the workers are right when they say Verizon’s profits have soared in recent years, the bulk of that increase came from the wireless business. Over the last several years, Verizon has made a clear effort to transition much of its business to wireless. In 2013, Verizon Communications bought Vodaphone out of its 45 percent stake in Verizon Wireless, giving the company full control over the wireless side of the business. In February 2015, Verizon sold a large chunk of its landline service to Frontier Communications. The deal, which included most of the company’s wireline infrastructure in the western part of the United States, allowed Verizon to buy additional wireless spectrum, further shifting its business in that direction. Aside from its recent announcement to bring FIOS infrastructure to Boston, Massachusetts, Verizon has been relatively uninterested in expanding its wireline service.

So Who’s Right?

Naturally, this question is the most difficult to answer. But when you take a closer look at the dynamics at play it tells us a lot about current labor dynamics in the United States. Can Verizon’s wireline business continue to be a source of good, middle-class jobs as it has been for decades, given that the company wants to shift toward wireless? More to the point, what happens to workers when technological and economic shifts make certain businesses less profitable? Unfortunately, these are questions that we probably won’t have a consensus on anytime soon, if ever.

According to a press release from Verizon, the workers on strike make an average of $130,000 per year, including salary and benefits, which indicates that wages aren’t the entire problem. It also doesn’t seem like the workers went on strike because their wages aren’t high enough. Instead, they fear that Verizon is trying to make it easier to ship jobs overseas and continue its shift away from wireline services. Although there is a significant market for Verizon FIOS, its fiber-optic internet service, its landline telephone, and video services are not as profitable as they have been in recent decades.

The exact details behind the negotiations are hard to pin down, but the dispute may end up taking some time to resolve. In the meantime, Verizon has been training non-union workers to fill in for the strikers. But even if the dispute is settled soon, it seems likely that the underlying debate will continue for quite some time. As Bernie Sanders gains national attention on a campaign to fight for workers and the push to increase the minimum wage maintains the spotlight, developed economies will have to answer some tough questions about the future of middle-class jobs in a time of rapid technological change.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post What’s Going on with the Verizon Strike? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

#1… John Kasich

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

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

— Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) April 7, 2016

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

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

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

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

#2… Donald Trump

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

#3… Bernie Sanders

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

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

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

#4… Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

#5… Ted Cruz

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

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

— Dawn Murray (@dawnellemurray) April 7, 2016

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

Alexandra Simone

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

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

Yesterday, 400 protestors were arrested at the U.S. Capitol Building; they were affiliated with Democracy Spring, an organization protesting the relationship between money and politics. The protestors were arrested for “unlawful demonstration activity,” like crowding and obstruction. However, the organization promises to continue its efforts, and bring protestors back to the Capitol Building throughout the week.

The protestors marched 140 miles from Philadelphia to Washington D.C. to protest at the Capitol Building. The aim of the protestors is to: “draw attention to our corrupt campaign finance system and rigged voting laws.” Democracy Spring claims that over 3,500 people from 33 states have committed to joining the protests. According to Reuters:

Police arrested those who sat on the stairs of the East Front of the Capitol, the seat of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Hundreds Protesting Political System Arrested On Capitol’s Steps #DemocracySpring https://t.co/ypZ9HHK04p pic.twitter.com/Sw7KVRMkjB

— My name is (@RevoltPolitic) April 12, 2016

#DemocracySpring brought chairs for Elders sit-in at the US Capitol pic.twitter.com/EhxxosFFKb

— Paulina Leonovich (@Polly_evro) April 12, 2016

Protesters are out en masse. Police are out en masse. From the media, cricket chirps. #democracyspring In DC now! pic.twitter.com/r04KoEQWDV

— Doug Hughes (@DougHughesDCfly) April 12, 2016

Campaign finance reform has played a big part in the 2016 election thus far. The populist non-establishment candidates in both parties–Donald Trump on the Republican side and Senator Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side–have run on platforms that heavily emphasize campaign finance reform.

According to Kai Newkirk, a Democracy Spring organizer, the aims of the protest were to encourage Congress to take action:

And there are four bills, in particular, that we’ve identified—two that deal with big money in politics and two that will protect and expand the right to vote and voter access. One would set up public finance, a citizen funding of elections, so that anyone can run for office without raising money from billionaires. Another is an amendment that would overturnCitizens United. The third would restore the damage that was done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. And the fourth, the Voter Empowerment Act, would do many positive things to make it easier for people to get to the polls and to be able to vote.

The protestors are also encouraging Congress to nominate a Supreme Court justice who will rule in favor of campaign finance reform. While some of the protestors today were arrested, in light of the current ire against money in politics, commotion at the Capitol seems likely to continue for the next few days.

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 Democracy Spring Protestors Arrested at U.S. Capitol appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no denying the fact that Hillary Clinton is dominating the Democratic primaries. That said, underdog Bernie Sanders hasn’t let the presidential primary race turn into a runaway. On Saturday, Sanders nabbed sweeping victories in the caucus states of Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, giving him a nice bump in electoral delegates.

In response to the wins, CNN credited the Vermont Senator’s success to a tendency to do well in “largely white and rural” states, warning that in order for Sanders’ to win he needs to “replicate this success in other, more ethnically diverse states that hold primaries.”

That description didn’t sit well with some of Sanders’ minority supporters.

Leslie Lee III, a writer in English teacher from Baton Rouge, Louisiana currently living in Yokahama, Japan, responded to the stereotype with some sarcasm. Lee jokes,

.@HillyesRose @MisaelFrancoO @TheBpDShow @cenkuygur Ever since I voted for Bernie, I’ve been bingewatching Friends. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— L. (@tokyovampires) March 27, 2016

And just like that the hashtag #BernieMadeMeWhite was born!

It didn’t take long for other minority Sanders’ supporters to jump on the hashtag’s bandwagon.

.@tokyovampires ever since I voted for Bernie I traded in my Timbs for Vans. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— Benjamin Dixon (@TheBpDShow) March 27, 2016

Then it sort of just spiraled out from there.

Ever since I voted for Bernie I deny racism and wear shorts in February. The media was right. #Berniemademewhite #FeelTheBern

— Aristotle McFly (@hollowman928) March 27, 2016

@TheBpDShow @tokyovampires I stopped seasoning my food. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— C. (@Maxplatypus) March 27, 2016

#MSM But how can Bernie win Hawaii with only young white men supporters? Check out #BernieMadeMeWhite for obvious answer. #FeelTheBern

— Fortitude (@Fortitude_1) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite Ever since I started to #FeelTheBern, I only dance like this pic.twitter.com/synwO93Xct

— SanBernaDingDong (@noreallyhowcome) March 27, 2016

Check out the #BernieMadeMeWhite tweets. So good. pic.twitter.com/unDPfbNo6z

— laurie allee (@laurieallee) March 27, 2016

Dear CNN, white power???#BernieMadeMeWhite @BernieSanders pic.twitter.com/0MmWWsbWmh

— tᕼe ᒪᑌᑕᗩᔕ ᗷᖇOᔕ (@lucasbros) March 27, 2016

Ever since I started supporting Bernie I suddenly lost my rhythm. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— lyn (@dlynaffor) March 27, 2016

Will someone please show me how to do my hair? It’s all so confusing since #BernieMadeMeWhite pic.twitter.com/rDI5QFoxiQ

— Coco Hops (@coco_hops) March 28, 2016

Ever since I started supporting Bernie, Don’t Stop Believing became my karaoke staple #BernieMadeMeWhite

— Jason Alexander (@soulcreator) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite My whole black family is losing its taste for hot sauce and spreading mayo on everything

— Chris Hamilton (@dteg32) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite and now I am looking to move out of this neighborhood, you know, cause of the property values, of course.

— Carolyn Hyppolite (@CKHyppolite) March 27, 2016

Finally I have white privilege.#BernieMadeMeWhite

— WesleyZ3 (@50th_President) March 27, 2016

And just like that #BernieMadeUsWhite #BernieMadeMeWhite #BernieMadeMeMillenial #BernieMadeMeMale pic.twitter.com/maiHJ3VHQc

— Dallas Fowler (@YoDallas) March 28, 2016

If loving him is wrong, i don’t wanna be right #BernieMadeMeWhite #BernBabyBern pic.twitter.com/qt5n4epz2e

— suZee (@BigOlSoulSista) March 28, 2016

I’m so thankful that #BernieMadeMeWhite.

Can we stop worrying about racial profiling and hate crimes now? pic.twitter.com/NqE1zD5bSz

— Simran Jeet Singh (@SikhProf) March 28, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite We are not invisible despite the media propaganda machine would have you believe pic.twitter.com/qGeuBKm2zD

— Nativespirit (@N8tive2spirit) March 28, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite & male so I don’t have to worry about maternal healthcare, paid family leave, or gender pay gap. pic.twitter.com/QXO48QiKtB

— Ashlyn Shockley (@ashlynshockley) March 28, 2016

This isn’t a picture of two friends, it’s actually a before and after voting for Bernie pic. #BernieMadeMeWhite pic.twitter.com/lHH9QJvTfB

— Lauren Sandernista (@welknett) March 27, 2016

The moral of the story is that Sanders’ supporters really don’t like being generalized, because white males aren’t the only demographic “feeling the Bern.” Don’t get me wrong, Sanders still has a long way to go. His campaign has struggled to secure the black and latino vote, which has repeatedly propelled Clinton to victory. With three more months still remaining in the primary race, he’ll need to rally more support among all demographics if he hopes to secure the nomination.

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 #BernieMadeMeWhite Calls Out the Media Whitewashing of Sanders’ Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

At a campaign event for Bernie Sanders on Friday in Portland, Oregon, something happened that seemed like it would be more in place in a Disney movie than an election event. A bird landed right on Sanders’ podium, leading to raucous cheers from the crowd.

The clip is endearing–Sanders takes his feathered friend’s visit in stride, claiming that the little bird (which the Audubon Society noted was a female House Finch) landing on the podium is really a dove symbolizing world peace. And because pretty much everything that happens in this campaign ends up going viral, the hashtag #BirdieSanders started trending:

Oh man. I have been laughing at this for 15 minutes now. #BirdieSanderspic.twitter.com/KS6bjPb8jn

— Elias Toufexis (@EliasToufexis) March 26, 2016

#BirdieSanders makes my heart flutter. pic.twitter.com/LqO0vRHwf2

— Shab Asgharnia (@shabdamn) March 26, 2016

The Little Bermaid and his BFF, #BirdieSanders pic.twitter.com/R6XK0v4AMU

— Matthew Inman (@Oatmeal) March 26, 2016

#BirdieSanders Nature always knows what’s up ❤️ #FeelTheBern pic.twitter.com/WN94ek4Ps8

— Sunny Bone OH! (@sunnyboneoh) March 25, 2016

Popes have been chosen over less #BirdieSanders

— bernie bro (real) (@anfeardathuil) March 25, 2016

My favorite so far #BirdieSanderspic.twitter.com/cI4tfReOzt

— Bernie Tweeters (@Tehelmin) March 26, 2016

It’s a little ironic that the rally was in Portland, given that the hit sketch show “Portlandia,” which takes a satirical look at the city, once aired a sketch about how you can make an item popular by “putting a bird on it.”

The fact that #BirdieSanders went viral so quickly, again shows the dominance the Vermont Senator has when it comes to millennials. As the Observer put it:

Mr. Sanders dominates his competition on Facebook, and news in favor of him trends more often than any other presidential candidate. A recent Washington Post analysis found Mr. Sanders received over 300,000 more votes from people under the age of 30 than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton combined.

Sanders also had a good weekend politically speaking, winning some notable victories in Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska–maybe that bird did bring him some extra good luck after all.

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 #BirdieSanders Inspires New Election Memes appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Rizzo

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

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

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.

This weekend on Saturday Night Live, Larry David once again reprised his role as Bernie Sanders–a role that, as the weeks go by, it truly seems like he was born to play. SNL’s cold open, which also satirized Ben Carson and Donald Trump, hit some of this week’s increasingly bizarre primary stories head on.

Here’s the full skit:

While the skit made fun of Carson’s creepiness and Trump’s racism and the violence against protestors at his rallies, the real butt of the skit’s joke seemed to be Sanders’ supporters. The skit particularly hit hard on how young and white those supporters are. Some of the standout quotes to that effect included:

My message is resonating with a very diverse group of white people. And I’ve got supporters of all ages — 18-year olds, 19-year olds … That’s it.

I want to thank everyone who voted for me, and apologize to everyone else for making your Facebook feeds so, so annoying. I mean, I love my supporters, but they’re too much, right? I’m great, but I’m not five-posts-a-day great. With all due respect to my supporters, get a life.

The young people love me, Tapper, because I’m like them: I’ve got a lot of big plans and absolutely no idea how to achieve them.

SNL did take a couple shots at Sanders himself too–for example at one point “Jake Tapper” circles back to “Sanders” for a comment, to discover that the Democratic candidate is in his pajamas. When asked how he got into his pajamas so quickly, David’s Sanders character discloses that he wears the pajamas under his suit at all points, hence the bagginess of his suits.

SNL also took on Hillary Clinton later in the episode, once again played by the fantastic Kate McKinnon. In that skit, Clinton attempts to appeal to millennial voters, and decides the best way to do so is just to turn into Bernie Sanders. Throughout the course of the “campaign ad” she imitates Sanders’ Brooklyn accent and eventually ends up looking like him.

As this election cycle continues on and on, it’s nice to know that SNL will probably be around to add some great, and much-needed, levity.

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 Larry David Wins SNL With Bernie Sanders Impression…Again appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential elections are upon us and for some of us young folk, myself included, this is the first presidential election we will be voting in. It’s an exciting time! We’re fulfilling our civic duty for the first time, making choices that will impact our futures in this country, and taking part in the democratic process we hold so near and dear to our hearts in this country. So, why am I angry? Because, for the first year I get to have a say in who gets to be president, all of my choices feel like a bad joke.

Starting with everyone’s favorite front runner, Donald Trump, let’s take a look at why I just can’t buy into voting for these candidates in my first election.

Where do you even begin when it comes to Trump–that he’s a big bully? Whether it’s attacking other candidates with rude remarks, threatening to ban Muslims from the U.S., or refusing to denounce the KKK, Trump has been a misogynistic, racist candidate since day one. One thing that’s certain is that he wouldn’t stop this abhorrent behavior as president. Whether you think his policy plans to build a wall in between the U.S. and Mexico are funny or just think it would be hilarious to elect this man president, think about exactly what Trump as a leader would mean for America before you cast that ballot–it’s not a great thought, folks.

If you just aren’t quite willing to jump aboard the TrumpTrain, it looks like Ted Cruz might be your next viable option, right? Wrong.

If Cruz is right about one thing, it’s that the Democrats sure are laughing at this pool of Republican nominees. Aside from rumors that Cruz may be the zodiac killer–which he hasn’t denied yet–and viral videos of how uncomfortably he acts around his children, what are Cruz’s actual plans for running the country? Well, he’s an active supporter of gun rights in our country, despite the fact that we’re currently plagued with firearm deaths. He also plans to increase deportation of immigrants, which is slightly better than building a gigantic wall between the US and Mexico. At the end of the day, the biggest hesitation when it comes to Ted Cruz is the fact that his facial expressions always just kind of look like he is struggling to escape an unsettling situation. There’s just something so unappealing about the thought of having to spend the next four years feeling uncomfortable everytime you look at the leader of your country’s face.

Next up on the chopping block, Marco Rubio.

Now, Rubio is one of the less outwardly mockable candidates of this year’s election. Other than his weird water drinking habits and some odd Nazi metaphors, Rubio has managed to stay pretty gaffe free, so, why not vote for Rubio? For starters, he’s basically out of the race. Even Rubio’s campaign has acknowledged how much of an underdog he is at this point.

The media may treat me like an underdog, but I’m an underdog that can win. https://t.co/i9gFxAgwK3

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 2, 2016

But even with the underdog point aside, Rubio’s staunch conservative social views are pretty off-putting and he certainly doesn’t hesitate to bring them up at every event he can. Plus, in case you hadn’t heard, Marco Rubio can’t even manage to do the job he has right now, with a very low voting rate in the Senate. Sure, campaigning and being a representative at the same time may be tough but come on, Rubio.

And finally, John Kasich.

Kasich might be alright if it weren’t for all the foot-in-his-mouth comments he manages to make on a daily basis. Some of the best? Most recently, his wonderful commentary on women:

How did I get elected? Nobody was — I didn’t have anybody for me. We just got an army of people and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up for me.

No woman should be “leaving her kitchen” to head out to the polls and vote for Kasich this primary season. Making sure that pie comes out as perfect as possible is way more important than giving another misogynistic male candidate validation.

There are also two contenders left on the left: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Compared to some of the Republican nominees, these two seem like saints for the most part, but they each has their flaws.

Bernie Sanders, on one side, is pretty much a socialist.

While it’s easy to side with Bernie on so many issues–like so many American youths have–his plans to accomplish his goals may not be what this country really needs. His tax plans, which would be great for evening out economic inequality, could cause serious economic problems in our country overall. There’s a lack of acknowledgement of the real world implications of a lot of his policies and, without that acknowledgment, his liberal plans feel a lot like a fairytale that could never come true.

What’s so wrong with Hillary Clinton?

Much like this gif suggests, she’s boring. Clinton has a history of flip-flopping on key issues and seems like she cares about things just to attract voters who care about the same issues. She’s also known to be hawkish on foreign policy, has not taken a strong stance against fracking, and will always have Bill Clinton’s scandals and policies looming over her. All in all, Clinton may be the best pick for president, but it’s because she’s the lesser of so many evils–is that really the way people should feel when they’re picking our next president?

Maybe I’m just too picky, or maybe the presidential candidate field really isn’t that great–who knows. It just feels a little underwhelming and infuriating that the first time I get to decide who to put in the White House, it’s going to be based on a “pick the person you hate the least” type strategy. I really wanted someone who I could stand behind unabashedly, but that may just be asking a little bit too much of today’s bipartisan mess of a political system. At the end of the day, the important thing is staying informed and making sure you know your facts before heading to the voting booths this November. And, until the dream presidential candidate appears out of thin air, here’s to whoever can beat Trump!

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 Angry About This Year’s Presidential Candidates? You’re Not Alone appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

How do Delegates Work?

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

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

What about superdelegates?

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

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

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

So… Blame Hillary?

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

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

Kevin Rizzo

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

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

Fans who were excited by the prospect of Bernie Sanders appearing in this week’s episode of “Saturday Night Live,” also featuring Larry David, were not disappointed. Though he wasn’t in the cold open, nor did he pop up in the Sanders’ themed sketch, which poked fun at his campaign, Sanders did show up alongside David in a sketch about the tumultuous road to America on a ship in a rough storm.

The sketch subtly calls out some of Sanders’ political platform, as his character, Bernie Sanderswitzky, chastises David’s character for claiming to be more entitled to a seat on a lifeboat than anyone else, because of his wealth. “I’m so sick of the 1 percent getting this preferential treatment. Enough is enough!” Sanderswitzky yells out upon his arrival on the ship, as the live “SNL” studio audience claps and cheers. There is also a cute joke about Sanders being a socialist; Sanderswitzky has to clarify that everybody working together to get through a problem isn’t socialism, but, rather, democratic socialism.

In addition to the political humor, there are also some funny references to Sanders’ Jewish heritage and his New York accent. All in all? A great success and some helpful positive publicity for Bernie Sanders as we round the corner towards the New Hampshire primaries, where he is predicted to win with flying colors.

There was also a nice feature sketch on Sanders where Larry David played the Senator and joked about him losing by less than one percent in the Iowa caucuses. As an added bonus, the skit’s title, “Bern Your Enthusiasm,” is a great play off of David’s show, “Curb Your Enthusiasm!”

Overall, it was a funny night for Bernie Sanders fans everywhere, and a nice tension release in what has been a stressful month of election business. It’s always great to see guest stars with good senses of humor, and this sure hits the spot when it comes to making Sanders seem like a down-to-earth candidate willing to make fun of himself every once in a while.

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 Bernie Sanders is a Hit on “Saturday Night Live” appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview with comedian Bill Maher on Friday, feminist activist and bestselling author Gloria Steinem–along with her usual dose of humor-laced progressive statements–said something that was not so progressive. In fact, in their discussion of young female activism and the 2016 Democratic party candidates, Steinem’s statements sounded, dare I say it, sexist. She implied that young women only make decisions based on their love life, and that older generations of women are wiser because of their years dealing with oppression:

Women are more for [Clinton] than men are … First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience … Not to over-generalize, but … men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age.

And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.

Women were quick to take to social media after Steinem’s statements, starting the hashtag #NotHereForBoys.

Let @GloriaSteinem know – we are here to ORGANIZE for and #NotHereForBoys: https://t.co/Iufi6VthIn#FeelTheBern pic.twitter.com/hp8dcUOwGf

— People For Bernie (@People4Bernie) February 7, 2016

#NotHereForBoys. I support @BernieSanders because he stand for #climate action and workers’ rights.

— Aly Johnson-Kurts (@AlyJohnsonKurts) February 7, 2016

>@GloriaSteinem I’m here to elect a candidate not beholden to wall street donation. I’m #NotHereForBoys

— Moumita Ahmed (@MouBerningluv) February 7, 2016

I’m a 2 tour combat vet, here to vote for taxing big banks and businesses, civil rights, free tuition, universal healthcare. #NotHereForBoys

— sarah leifheit (@fleurdesarah) February 7, 2016

I never thought I’d see the day where I was thoroughly insulted by @GloriaSteinem #NotHereForBoys #FeelTheBern #IActuallyHaveABrain ✋

— Chrissy (@Christinker) February 6, 2016

Feminists, especially those feeling the Bern, have been left flabbergasted by Steinem’s statement. It comes from a woman who has praised millennial women for their activism, and who has actually endorsed Bernie as an “honorary woman” during one of his past campaigns. Bernie is, arguably, the most radical candidate in the presidential race, throwing a wrench into her theory that women radicalize as they age. What makes it worse is that Bill Maher, who is funny but sometimes walks the line separating humor and sexism, turned it back around on her, pointing out that if he had said the same thing Steinem probably would have reprimanded him. So what gives?

It goes without saying that, whatever your political stance, you should choose which candidate best matches your beliefs. And while it may have been true when Steinem was in her 20s that women changed their opinions to find men, it certainly is not the case today.

Watch the entire interview below.

Morgan McMurray

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

The post Feminist Gloria Steinem Faces Backlash From Bernie Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve used the app Tinder, a match-making social app which allows you to “swipe right” on potential matches for a chance to chat with them, then you know there’s a fair share of duds. There are the people who can’t hold a conversation, ones who are too flaky to meet for a proper date, and ones who just blatantly want to get into your pants. Now, however, there may be a new Tinder plague, and it’s some Bernie Sanders supporters.

Tinder troll asks her matches to ‘Feel the Bern,’ gets banned https://t.co/8ZoazQ7MHM pic.twitter.com/S20SebyEiX

— Mashable (@mashable) February 5, 2016

That’s right–these ardent fans of Senator Sanders created Tinder profiles, and once they match with you, they bombard you with pro-Sanders arguments, and encourage you to vote for him in the primaries. Often, they’ll include a number to text “WORK” to, which donates $5 tacked onto a user’s phone bill to Sanders’ campaign. There’s even a Facebook page, called “Bernie Sanders’ Dank Tinder Convos” where fans share their ‘intellectual conversations’ with the unsuspecting (and single) public. “I won’t blow you, but Bernie Sanders will blow you away with his progressive policies” is one memorable rejoinder. One particularly jarring experience is seeing Bernie Sanders’ own face on a Tinder profile, as seen in this fake account created by a supporter.

Raleigh woman surprised by Bernie Sanders appearing on her Tinder app. He’s looking for votes, not a date. pic.twitter.com/oyW5q5nBrP

— Steve Daniels (@DanielsABC11) January 29, 2016

Some supporters are even paying up for the chance to spread the gospel of Sanders, by purchasing Tinder’s premium option. This lets them to choose alternate locations to ‘swipe’ in, allowing Sanders supporters all across the country to communicate to New Hampshirites. Curiously enough, I couldn’t find any examples of “Bernie Bros” doing this kind of canvassing, perhaps due to the fact that women get more ‘right swipes’ on Tinder, making their message-spreading more effective. Tinder is not so fond of this unlicensed marketing, as they’ve been banning users who abuse their service for political gains. That’s as it should be–Tinder is a safe space for matching with that kid from your high school calculus class ten years later, and should be reserved for such venerable acts.

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 “Bernie Sanders And Chill”: Using Tinder as a Canvassing Tool appeared first on Law Street.

Presidential campaigns don’t come cheap. While superPACs help funnel donations in the millions from the elite class, candidates prefer to brag about the amount of small donations they’ve received. But Americans are savvy consumers, and are rarely content to give away their money for nothing. This leads to perhaps the most niche market of all: Campaign Merchandise. Much like the booths at a Beyoncé concert, these online shops peddle fun tchotchkes emblazoned with the candidate’s name and face, at hyper-inflated prices.

Consider purchasing a faux-embroidered throw pillow from Hillary’s camp to give your home a dowdy yet socially-conscious touch. Perhaps you’d be more interested in a “Grillary Clinton Spatula” for a burger flip that’s sure to break the glass ceiling. No? Not even a “Chillary Clinton” drink koozie? You’re probably just not jumping on these offers because you can’t decide, so why not go for a Hillary Clinton Shop gift card and pick out your favorite later?

Hillary’s store is a perfect example of the general silliness of the campaign merchandise world, but there are select other examples that almost seem like parody. Jeb Bush, for example, has tried many methods to connect with Hispanic voters, but he may have found the clincher with his $75 “Guaca Bowle.” This item is included in the “Lifestyle” section of his shop, for the consumer who wants to better emulate the Jeb Bush lifestyle.

jeb bush is funding his campaign by selling guacamole bowls……#guacabowle pic.twitter.com/G4UiTESKpj

— lil minkus chellygal (@chelleygal2) September 24, 2015

Be sure to also check out his “Vintage Tank,” which shows a young John Ellis with “a sideburn-mustache combo that would make Burt Reynolds blush.”

Trump’s store is more of a one-note operation, as his “Make America Great Again” hats are among his campaign’s largest expenditures.

Donald Trump blew $450,000 on red hats – made by Latinos #IowaCaucus https://t.co/wpsItFFUtl pic.twitter.com/iCoGPACjT4

— Independent US (@IndyUSA) February 1, 2016

The award for the most insane store might just be Dr. Rand Paul’s. His campaign is now suspended and his shop’s webpage now says “EVEN THE NSA COULDN’T FIND THAT PAGE.” But before he bowed out of the race, Paul had a “fun stuff” section in his shop, where you can buy a $1,000 autographed constitution, as well as a giant (meaning several feet large) birthday card, something called “Rand on a Stick,” an NSA spy cam blocker for your laptop, flip flops, and a “Don’t Drone Me Bro” t-shirt, cementing Rand Paul as the candidate most hip to the ways of the youth. I would link to these, but these soon-to-be-collectibles may need to be hunted down on eBay now that they’re truly “limited edition.”

As for Bernie Sanders, his store is one of the most reserved, filled mostly with cups and shirts with “Bernie” and “Feel the Bern.” The only stand-out product is a “Babies for Bernie” bib, which proves yet again that Bernie polls well with the under-20 crowd.

Ted Cruz rounds out the list with a terrifying image: a photoshopped poster of him shirtless and tattooed:

Errrrmagod!

Shirtless Ted Cruz poster for $50 on his website. #Merica https://t.co/GknvtvYEL6pic.twitter.com/lsx2uiXCi7 — marija bekafigo (@drbekafigo) September 10, 2015

So peruse the options available to you, and pick your favorite candidates’ merch. Plaster their name on your wall, across your forehead, or on your chest, for a “made-in-America” exorbitant cost.

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 Strange World of Campaign Merchandise: Who has the Best Swag? appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, is evidently considering an independent run for President in 2016. According to sources close to the politician and media mogul, he “sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg’s views.” While nothing is definite yet, the moves that Bloomberg and his people are making indicate that he is seriously considering that third-party bid.

Bloomberg’s concerns about the nominees extend to both parties–he reportedly doesn’t want to see a race that comes down to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz on the Republican side vs. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. Edward G. Rendell, the former Governor of Pennsylvania and a past DNC chair told the New York Times that he believes:

Mike Bloomberg for president rests on the not-impossible but somewhat unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders. If Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary is mainstream enough that Mike would have no chance, and Mike’s not going to go on a suicide mission.

However, as much as he may dislike Donald Trump, Bloomberg’s campaign would take a page out of the Republican front-runners book–he would allegedly self-finance his campaign with the $37 billion he has acquired from his media businesses.

If Bloomberg were to join the race as an independent, he would be almost certain to take votes away from whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee. While Bloomberg has bounced around from party to party over his time in politics, many of his positions are significantly more attractive to Democrats than they are to Republicans. For example, he has long been a supporter of stricter gun controls, has donated money to Planned Parenthood, and worked to combat climate change. While he has also held some positions that are more moderate-right leaning, such as support for the financial services industry, it’s presumed that should he run as an independent, he’d draw voters more from the Democratic base than Republican.

Many are saying that the fact that Bloomberg is even considering a run is bad news for Hillary Clinton, who has seen her poll numbers take quite a bit of a hit in recent weeks. But, the primaries still haven’t even officially started, so there’s still quite a long road to go, and probably a while before Bloomberg would make any official moves.

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 Will Michael Bloomberg Jump in the 2016 Fray? 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.

The two recent debates–the Republican debate on Thursday, January 14, and the Democratic debate from Sunday, January 17, were chock-full of strange exchanges and bizarre declarations. They were also strangely poetic; and the perfect reason to create some found poetry based on the standout performances from the debates.

For the uninitiated, Found Poetry occurs when a poet “select a source text […] then excerpt words and phrases from the text to create a new piece.” Politics and found poetry have been bedfellows before, such as when Donald Rumsfeld waxed philosophical about the essence of war in a series of found poems written by Slate’s Hart Seely. For the following found poems, all of the contents come directly from the listed speaker, and were spoken in that order. The titles, however, are of my own creation.

I Have Never Heard of the Geneva Convention

by Dr. Ben Carson

“We’re not going to bomb a tanker

because there might be a person in it”

Give me a break.

 

Just tell them that,

you put people in there,

we’re going to bomb them.

 

So don’t put people in there

if you don’t want them bombed.

You know, that’s so simple.

I Once Saw A Jewish Man on Television

by Ted Cruz

There are many, many

wonderful, wonderful

working men and women

in the state of New York

 

The values in New York City

are socially liberal or

pro-abortion or

pro- gay-marriage,

focused around money and the media.

Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want

by John Ellis Bush!

Donald, Donald — can I —

I hope you reconsider this.

 

So I hope you’ll reconsider.

I hope you’ll reconsider.

 

The better way of dealing with this

the better way of dealing with this

is recognizing that there are people in,

you know, the — Islamic terrorists inside,

embedded in refugee populations.

I Know They Talk About Me In The Back Of P. F. Chang’s

by Donald Trump

China —

they send their goods

and we don’t tax it —

 

they do whatever they want to do.

They do whatever what they do, OK.

 

When we do business with China,

they tax us.

You don’t know it,

they tax us.

 

I love China.

I love the Chinese people

but they laugh themselves,

they can’t believe how stupid

the American leadership is.

I Respect That You’re Taking My Lunch Money

By H. Rodham Clinton

Well, my relationship with him,

it’s — it’s interesting.

 

It’s one, I think, of respect.

We’ve had some very tough dealings

with one another.

 

He’s someone that you have to

continuingly stand up to because,

like many bullies,

he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can

unless you do.

I Don’t Know How To Use My Daughter’s iPhone

by Martin O’Malley

I believe

whether it’s a back door

or a front door

that the American principle of law

should still hold

 

that our federal government

should have to get a warrant,

whether they want to come

through the back door

or your front door.

Wall Street Has More Puppeteers Than Sesame Street

by Bernard Sanders

I do believe

we have to deal

with the fundamental issues

of a handful of billionaires

who control economic

and political life

of this country.

 

Nothing real will get happened

 

Unless we have a political revolution

Where millions of people finally stand up.

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 Found Poetry From Last Week’s Republican and Democratic Debates appeared first on Law Street.

With the Iowa caucuses rapidly approaching and the New Hampshire primary not too far behind, recent poll results on both sides of the aisle have become all the rage. The slow but steady rise of support for Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has certainly been a phenomenon to watch as he works on closing the gap between the support for his campaign and the support for Hilary Clinton’s–the other likely option for Democratic presidential nominee. But why has Senator Sanders been rising in the polls? And who has been boosting these numbers? Recent polling shows that it may actually be millennial women who are blowing up Bernie’s ratings, rather than the “Berniebros” that many have assumed were his main supporters.

Hillary is still polling better nationally, but recent numbers suggest that Bernie may not be too far behind, and the support he has been garnering among young voters may be just what he needs to have a shot at the nomination. In a recent USA Today/Rock the Vote Millennial Poll, people between the ages of 18 and 25 were found to show strong support for Bernie Sanders. Men under 35 are supporting Sanders over Clinton by four percentage points, but the real kicker happens to be (you guessed it) millennial women. They favor Sanders by just under 20 points, possibly disappointing their mothers who belong to the baby boomer generation currently mostly in favor of Clinton.

So why are these millennial women so into Sanders? It all comes down to the issues that they care about. The USA Today poll also reported that some of the issues younger voters cared most about were related to gun control, welcoming refugees, fixing police corruption, and getting rid of extreme poverty. These hot button topics that are worrying liberal-minded millennials are the same issues Sanders’ campaign is focusing on: racial justice, living wages, humane immigration politics, and so much more. In addition, some of the issues Sanders is most passionate about are problems directly influencing young women today, such as expanding Planned Parenthood and making college tuition lower or–dare I say it–even free. This young generation of voters is thrilled with his willingness to engage in some of the most prevalent issues in our country and the solutions he proposes to fix them. Fewer young women are buying into the idea that this opportunity for a woman president has to be seized in order to promote the feminist agenda.

Even with the upward trend in Bernie buzz, there’s still a challenging road ahead for his campaign if he wants to win the Democratic nomination. The biggest roadblock is predicted to be a lack of voter turnout amidst Sanders’ most avid supporters, as millennial voter turn out has been particularly weak in the past few years, with an all-time low in the 2014 midterm elections. But, if these voters do show up, Clinton could be in for yet another presidential nomination upset, and everybody running her campaign seemingly knows it. Clinton’s campaign has gone from practically ignoring Sanders’ presence to directly engaging with him in debates and acknowledging him as a serious opponent.

There’s a little under a month until all the polls and predictions will start giving way to actual results and the Democratic Party will start to find out who their presidential nominee will be–all of the candidates need as much help as they can get. At the end of the day, whether it stems from millennial women’s residual dreams of their own shot at being the first female president, or their honest faith in the Bernie Sanders platform, this support could be just what Bernie needs to snatch the nomination right out from under Hillary’s nose.

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 Millennial Women are Feeling the Bern appeared first on Law Street.

The flavor-making geniuses behind the Vermont-based ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s are no strangers to coming up with some of the most creatively themed flavors on the market. Equipped with a unique knack for mixing ice cream with people and puns, Ben & Jerry’s has given life to some pretty incredible concoctions such as Stephen Colbert’s “Ameri-cone Dream” and President Obama’s “Yes Pecan.”

So when tasked with re-imagining the current cast of presidential candidates as political ice cream flavors, like Spoon University recently did, it’s only right to look to the company for guidance. But as it turns out, one of the co-founders already has an idea for a flavor when it comes to Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders Ben & Jerry’s Flavor: Ice Cream Social-ism http://t.co/nC3fCXeN2q pic.twitter.com/HEqTVyplbn

— Personal Finance (@prsnlfinance) October 14, 2015

At a Donald Trump campaign rally last week, outspoken Sanders supporter and Ben & Jerry’s co-founder and flavor creator Ben Cohen revealed to MSNBC his flavor idea for his fellow Vermonster.

The ice cream would be called “Bernie’s Yearning,” and is a take on the classic mint chocolate chip ice cream. Cohen explained:

When you open up the pint, there’s this big disc of chocolate covering the entire top, and below it is just plain mint ice cream.The disc of chocolate represents the 90 percent of the wealth that has gone to the top 10 percent over the last 10 years.

The way you eat it, you take your spoon, you whack that big chocolate disc into a bunch of little pieces, you mix it around, and there you have it: Bernie’s Yearning.

Unfortunately the metaphorical flavor may never find its way onto consumers’ shelves since the company lost its creative freedom after being bought out by consumer goods giant Unilever in 2001.

But I, for one, am still holding out hope that one day I can live out my new chocolate wealth whacking food fantasy.

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 Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founder Thought up the Perfect Flavor for Bernie Sanders appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama has officially announced that he will not be endorsing a candidate in the increasingly contentious Democratic primary between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. This comes after some speculation that a recent op-ed written by Obama about gun control was essentially criticism of Bernie Sanders, but this morning on “Meet the Press,” Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made it clear that no endorsement was intended, and Obama does not plan on endorsing a candidate in the primary.

McDonough referenced the fact that Obama’s actions come with plenty of precedent, stating: “We’ll do exactly what has been done in the past.” He also added that no matter who the nominee ends up being, he will be “out there” campaigning. According to Fox News this is pretty traditional behavior:

George W. Bush didn’t endorse his party’s nominee in 2008 until March 5, by which point Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had just about locked up the bid. Ronald Reagan didn’t endorse his sitting Vice President, George H. W. Bush, as the Republican nominee until May 1988. Reagan said he wanted to wait until the outcome of the nomination race was clear.

McDonough’s statement came after Obama published an op-ed in the New York Times late last week where he stated: “I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform.”

Some viewed this as an attack on Bernie Sanders, who hasn’t taken as hardline a stance on gun control as Hillary Clinton throughout his career in the Senate. A point of particular contention has been that he supported a 2005 law that would give gun manufacturers legal immunity in instances where their guns are used to commit crimes.

However, Obama’s press secretary, Josh Earnest, indicated that the quote in Obama’s op-ed wasn’t any sort of reference to Sanders, saying:

The President was quite intentional about raising this issue as it relates to gun manufacturers, but that was not any sort of secret or subtle signal to demonstrate a preference in the presidential primary.

Earnest also pointed out that Obama wasn’t “intimately familiar” with Sanders’ voting record. So, while it isn’t surprising that Obama isn’t endorsing any candidate until the primaries are over, in this case it appeared that a repeat was necessary.

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 Hillary vs. Bernie: Obama Isn’t Getting Involved appeared first on Law Street.

Well, it’s been a crazy year. Despite the fact that we will not vote for the next president of the United States until November of 2016, the primaries are in full swing, and Law Street’s been there to provide you coverage of every minute of it. ICYMI, check out our top 10 election posts from 2015.

#1 Top Five Funniest Hillary Clinton Emails from the Recent Release

Image courtesy of Paul Cohn/US Consulate Chennai via Flickr

Hillary Clinton’s emails have become a weird point of contention in the 2016 Presidential primaries. After it was discovered that she had sent emails from a private email address while serving as Secretary of State, many critics clamored for her to release them. Slowly, they’ve been declassified, and we’ve truly gotten to see some gems along the way. Check out the top five funniest Hillary Clinton emails from the most recent declassification here.

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 ICYMI: Top 10 Election Posts of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was the third Democratic debate of 2015. Amidst a data-breach scandal and threats from Bernie Sanders’ campaign to sue the DNC, contentious back-and-forth about how to deal with ISIS, and a still messy Republican field, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Governor Martin O’Malley all had some shining moments on stage. But they also all had some awkward, and funny moments. Check out the top five below:

Hillary’s Gratuitous “Star Wars” Reference

A lot of Americans were pretty excited about the release of the new “Star Wars” film earlier this week. So, at the end of the debate, Clinton played into that hype,

That’s a wrap at the #DemDebate. Now go see Star Wars. https://t.co/2uyOmzf4ST pic.twitter.com/Kcb9bdLlgG

— POLITICO (@politico) December 20, 2015

Since then, there’s been a lot of speculation that her shout out may have been a reference to donor J.J. Abrams, or she may have just been trying to play to young voters who are gravitating more toward Bernie Sanders. Either way it was cute, but seemed a bit forced and camp-y.

Martin O’Malley Calls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Old

Martin O’Malley, who is the youngest of the three contenders by about two decades, pointed out the age difference at one point, stating: “can I offer a different generation’s perspective on this,” while talking about the situation in Syria. It was a cheap shot–but not an unfounded point. If elected, Sanders would be the oldest U.S. president ever, Clinton would be the 2nd oldest if she’s elected.

An Awkward Question About Spouses

This was a “laugh because it’s awkward” kind of funny moment, brought to us by the moderators. Martha Raddatz, an ABC News journalist, asked:

Secretary Clinton — first ladies, as you well know, have used their position to work on important causes like literacy and drug abuse. But they also supervise the menus, the flowers, the holiday ornaments and White House decor. You have said that Bill Clinton is a great host and loves giving tours but may opt out of picking flower arrangements if you’re elected. Bill Clinton aside, is it time to change the role of a president’s spouse?

It was a condescending question to subject any of the presidential candidates to, especially when there are way more important issues to talk about. Some commenters pointed out that there were no questions about abortion, and the stupid spouse question got as much time as systemic racism.

Just the Moderators in General

There were just a lot of awkward and funny interactions between the candidates and the moderators last night, including the candidates, at various times, talking over the moderators. Additionally, they started the debate without Hillary Clinton at one point, while she was in the bathroom, which gave us this hilarious moment:

.@HillaryClinton was late to the podium after a commercial break https://t.co/p7fumApIDe pic.twitter.com/y2jdWLn3dk — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) December 20, 2015

Accidental Innuendo from Clinton

This list wouldn’t be complete without some accidental innuendo from one of the candidates–in this case, Hillary Clinton. While discussing internet security, she made a reference to the concept of backdoors–essentially ways for the government to gain access to confidential, encrypted information. But the way she phrased it was “maybe the back door isn’t the right door,” leading to lots of giggles from less mature members of the audience.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Top Five Funniest Moments from the Third Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Feminism fights for political, social and economic equality for every gender, and this year we saw several amazing examples of that fight. It was a year of struggle, but if feminists in 2015 have proven anything, it’s that we will always push back against anything–or anyone–who tries to bar any group of people from their basic human rights. Here are just a few of my favorite feminist moments from 2015.

1. Celebrities stand up for equal pay.

Image courtesy of [Disney/ABC Television Group/Craig Sjodin via Flickr]

Back in February, the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress, Patricia Arquette, took her opportunity on stage to deliver a powerful message about the wage gap:

To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation we have fought for everybody’s equal rights. It is our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.

While her comments after she left the stage have been called into question, her main point is clear: the wage gap exists and it’s time we acknowledge and fix it.

Then, in October, Jennifer Lawrence called Hollywood out on the fact that she earned less than her male co-stars, and realized her own insecurity with asking for what she deserved:

I didn’t want to seem ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’ At the time, that seemed like a fine idea, until I saw the payroll on the Internet and realized every man I was working with definitely didn’t worry about being ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’

Her fear of being judged for her confidence is something many women struggle with. It is high time we stop apologizing for demanding equality.

2. Feminist Democrats announce their candidacies for President.

It came as no surprise when Hillary Clinton submitted her name for the presidential ballot. Needless to say, America’s first female president would have the potential to move the country rapidly towards true gender equality. If fellow female candidate, Republican Carly Fiorina, had proven herself to be a champion for equal rights, I’d be cheering her on, too. Unfortunately, she has demonstrated that not every woman believes in feminist ideals.

And let’s not forget that men can be feminists as well. Martin O’Malley, the Democratic Governor of Maryland, has fought for not only women’s rights, but equal rights for people of all genders and sexual orientation.

Welcome to MD @MittRomney. FYI, in our State we don’t try to take away women’s health services. We work to expand them.

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) March 21, 2012

Hillary’s main competition for the Democratic bid, Senator Bernie Sanders, was asked by the Washington Post if he is a feminist, to which he replied, “Yes.” His long political career certainly shows that:

In terms of women’s rights, you’re looking at somebody who, to the best of my knowledge, has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record. You’re looking at somebody who’s made a cornerstone, a key part of my campaign, the need for at least three months of family and medical leave; somebody who is fighting to raise the minimum wage over a two year period to $15 an hour, which will benefit everybody, but women actually more than men; somebody who regards it as enormously important that we fight for pay equity for women…So I think if people look at my record, I think they will see somebody who has had a lifelong record of support for the women’s movement and women’s rights.

So whoever becomes the Democratic candidate for POTUS, equal rights will certainly be at the forefront of their platform, and that is truly exciting.

3. “‘Playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

The women of the United States national soccer team took on the Japanese in July for the final game of the FIFA World Cup–and they won. It was the most-watched, televised soccer game ever, male or female, in the history of the U.S.

While honoring the team a few months later, President Obama sang their praises, saying, “This team taught all of America’s children that ‘playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

And of course, he’s right. Now, if only those female athletes would get the same pay as their male counterparts.

4. Same-sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

June was a historic month for marriage equality, when the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Despite push back from people like the county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, justice prevailed and now people of any gender can marry whoever they want to.

5. “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

Image courtesy of Charlotte Cooper via Flickr

The battle to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood has been raging for months, with men and women alike fighting tooth and nail to prove that the medical institution is more than just abortions. Thanks to a slanderous smear campaign of doctored videos earlier in the year, Planned Parenthood’s use of funding and ethical practices were called into question. That campaign was later proved to be based on false claims, and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards valiantly took on the opposition in a brilliant testimony, but the damage had already been done. House Republicans have attempted numerous times to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal support, which would surely cripple the organization that has helped millions of men and women with reproductive and basic health services. Planned Parenthood supporters took to the streets and to social media to show their support, with rallies, parades and campaigns like #ShoutYourAbortion. The outpouring of people standing behind Planned Parenthood proves that the Republican-controlled Congress does not have the interests of most Americans at heart, and brings the issue of reproductive rights to the forefront.

6. Study proves men and women are wired the same. 

In a study published in November in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers have proven that there is no difference between the brains of men and women:

Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain.

They found that, while some characteristics are more common in one gender over the other, those characteristics are not exclusive to one gender, and the brain is made up of complex “mosaics.” Despite an age-old belief, the human brain cannot be classified based on gender. Men and women have the same brains.

7. The U.S. Military opens all combat roles to women.

In August, women everywhere cheered on the success of the first two female soldiers to complete the Army’s elite ranger school. They proved that, at least some women, can handle the same physical and mental challenges that men have been dealing with as rangers for decades. However, unlike the male graduates, the female soldiers could not apply for combat roles in the 75th Ranger Regiment.

That changed in early December, when Defense Secretary Carter made the historic announcement that all roles in all military branches will now be open to women.

The announcement was not met with support across the board, by some in both the civilian population and by some already in the armed forces. Many called into question the physical abilities of females, pointing out that women are held to a lower physical fitness standard, and even going so far as to allege that females in certain combat positions would serve as distractions to their male colleagues.

These arguments are absolutely reflective of the inherent misogyny in American society and the gender stereotypes to which many still cling to. Of course, standards should not be lowered to let women into special forces. Let all the men and women going for those roles succeed or fail based on skill. If men cannot control themselves around female counterparts, that is their fault, not the fault of women.

The pushback is unfortunate, but the opposition will not change the course of the announcement. Despite requests for some positions in the Navy and Marines to still remain closed to females, if women meet the standards set to obtain those roles, they will be able to serve in them. It will not be easy, but women have proven time and again that we can overcome adversity and oppression.

Whether it’s fighting for your country, serving as a politician, acting in Hollywood, playing on professional sports teams, or even raising a family, 2015 has proven that anyone of any gender can do anything.

Morgan McMurray

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

The post 2015’s Best Feminist Moments appeared first on Law Street.

Martin Shkreli has had a pretty rough, but deserved, few months. He first made national news back in September, when the 32-year-old former hedge fund manager, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals AG, and CEO of KaloBios Pharmaceuticals Inc. announced that he was jacking up the price of the HIV drug Daraprim by roughly 5000 percent. Then, he made news again a few weeks ago when he bought the only copy of a legendary Wu-Tang Clan album, despite apparently not intending to listen to it. Another weird story surfaced earlier this week, when Shkreli announced he was going to help Bobby Shmurda, a Brooklyn-based rapper, get out of jail. But now, he’s in the news for a reason that screams poetic justice–he’s been arrested by federal agents on charges of securities fraud.

The charges against Shkreli will likely concern his time at two firms he previously headed, biotech company Retrophin Inc., where he was CEO, and hedge fund MSMB Capital Management, which he managed. Federal prosecutors are accusing him of taking stock from Retrophin. and using it to pay for “unrelated business dealings”–presumably those of MSMB Capital Management. These are not new allegations–he was previously fired from Retrophin for the same thing, and then sued by its board. New York lawyer Evan Greebel was also arrested this morning for conspiring with Shrkeli on the same matters.

The announcement of Shkreli’s arrest was met with mostly jubilee on the internet, given his status as the “most hated man in America.” After he hiked the price of Daraprim, the U.S. pretty much banded together to condemn him; according to the New York Post, it was even bipartisan: “The cocky 32-year-old was condemned by Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, [and] GOP pole-sitter Donald Trump called him a ‘spoiled brat.'” Additionally, Bernie Sanders rejected a $2,700 campaign donation from Shkreli, instead donating it to an HIV clinic.

Shkreli could end up being banned from running a public company, according to Bloomberg Business: “which could put the future of KaloBios into question. Trading in KaloBios shares was halted after the stock fell 53 percent. It’s less clear what the impact could be on Turing, which is privately held.”

There will be a press conference this afternoon from the prosecutors to address the charges being levied against Shkreli, so we’ll have more information then. But for now, let’s all take comfort in the fact that Shkreli seemingly is getting what he deserves.

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 Payback: Martin Shkreli Arrested for Securities Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

“You can agree with her or not, but she is not taking the easy road.”

So said the accompanying video to TIME Magazine’s announcement that Angela Merkel, the first woman to serve as Chancellor of Germany, was its choice for 2015’s “Person of the Year.”

TIME editor Nancy Gibbs announced the win, saying, “For asking more of her country than most politicians would dare, for standing firm against tyranny as well as expedience and for providing steadfast moral leadership in a world where it is in short supply, Angela Merkel is ‘TIME’s Person of the Year.'”

Merkel is more than deserving of such a title, given that since she assumed her position in 2005, she has led Germany with a compassionate yet sturdy hand, and is now one of the most respected leaders in the whole world. Most recently, she opened Germany to hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees when many other countries barred them, and steered Europe through dealing with Greece’s debt crisis.

She is also the first woman to be named Person of the Year since 1986, when Filipino president Corazon C. Aquino took home the trophy. In all, you can count the women who have won as individuals (since it was established in 1927) on one hand– excluding 1975 when it ambiguously went to “American women”.

A few women have won as part of a group, including Melinda Gates (with her husband, Bill, and Bono in 2005) and Soo Mei-ling (along with her husband, the Premier of China, in 1937). Still, it has been nearly 90 years since TIME began this annual tradition, and women barely make up 10 percent of the names.

The criteria for winning is making what TIME considers the largest impact on the world that year, whether it was for better or for worse, and I’m pretty sure there have been more than 10 women since 1927 who have made significant impacts on the world. Some men, like Barack Obama, have even won it twice. He beat out activist Malala Yousafzai in 2012 for his second win. Joseph Stalin has also won it twice, but he definitely falls under the “for worse” category (so does Adolf Hitler, 1938’s “Man of the Year”).

So on one hand, props to you, TIME, for breaking your own cycle and naming an admirable woman a title she has deserved since 2005. On the other, why aren’t women more represented?

People have, naturally, questioned Merkel’s win, especially since the reader’s choice poll had Bernie Sanders winning by a large margin.

TIME readers wanted bernie sanders but instead TIME went with mrs. austerity: angela merkel smh… https://t.co/LG8ETgecYm

— Nicolas G. V-F (@soccerplayer626) December 11, 2015

Angela Merkel Named TIME’s Person of the Year, Bernie Sanders Snubbed https://t.co/V02LEtwtW7 via @YouTube — Gregzilla (@IamGREGZILLA) December 11, 2015

The @TIME Person of the Year means nothing at all to me but how did Angela Merkel win it over Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders?

— Chris Booth (@extra_ChrisB) December 9, 2015

Listen here, Bernie supporters: I’m a big fan of Bernie Sanders. I feel the Bern daily. But Bernie has yet to make significant impacts on the world at large, though he has made strides in the United States. Merkel has been affecting the globe for a while now. I’m sure Bernie will get his chance to be “Person of the Year,” hopefully after a few more women win it. And as for you, Donald Trump…

I told you @TIME Magazine would never pick me as person of the year despite being the big favorite They picked person who is ruining Germany

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2015

Get over yourself.

Morgan McMurray

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

The post Angela Merkel Becomes One Of A Handful Of Women To Win “Person of the Year” appeared first on Law Street.

Bernie Sanders, presidential hopeful and Independent senator from Vermont, just won Time’s poll for “Person of the Year.” The poll is a separate feature from the magazine’s own choice, but does shed a light–although an imperfect one–on current American opinion and zeitgeist.

Sanders garnered just over 10 percent of the vote, the only choice to make double digits. Malala Yousefi came in second, at just over five percent. Pope Francis, President Obama, and Stephen Colbert received 3.7, 3.5, and 3.1 percent respectively–“refugees” were at three percent.

Sanders’ win is impressive, and it’s representative of the fact that he’s certainly had an amazingly influential year. His entrance into the 2016 Democratic primary shook up what many thought was going to be an open-and-shut victory for Hillary Clinton. Although Sanders still trails Clinton in the polls, his campaign is going strong, and he continues to attract fans.

In addition to Sanders’ win, there were some other noteworthy facets of the Time poll. One of the strangest options on the list was American Pharaoh, the first horse to win the Triple Crown since 1978, with 1.4 percent of the vote. But that’s actually a pretty strong showing compared to most of our presidential candidates. Carly Fiorina had .6 percent of the vote, and Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush each had .5 percent. Ben Carson fared a little better at 1.1 percent, as did Marco Rubio. Hillary Clinton was at 1.4 percent. That’s right, a horse either beat or tied six of our presidential candidates in Time’s poll for most influential person of the year.

But, despite the fact that Bernie Sanders won the poll, he’s not actually in contention to be Time’s person of the year. That short list has been disclosed by Time, and includes Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the ISIS leader; Black Lives Matter activists; Caitlyn Jenner; Travis Kalanick, Uber’s CEO; Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, Hassan Rouhani, and Donald Trump. It should be noted that Donald Trump is particularly qualified, given that he beat American Pharaoh by an impressive .4 percent on the online poll.

Time defines its criteria for choosing the person of the year as “the person TIME believes most influenced the news this year, for better or worse.” Time won’t disclose its choice until Wednesday morning, and it will be from that short list. Meanwhile, I’ll be rooting for #AmericanPharaoh2016

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 Bernie Sanders Wins Time Person of the Year Poll, Doesn’t Lose to a Horse appeared first on Law Street.

Vermonters really like Bernie Sanders, and Kentuckians aren’t too fond of Mitch McConnell, according to a recent survey from the polling firm Morning Consultant.

According to the survey–which was conducted over a period of several months polling over 75,000 people in total–83 percent of Vermonters approved of Bernie Sanders’ job performance while only 38 percent of Mitch McConnell’s constituents approved of his performance. McConnell, the Senate Majority leader, was the only Senator whose disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating–38 percent and 52 percent, respectively. The poll’s full results are at the bottom of the article, click here to jump there now.

There are currently five senators running for president, and after Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz is the next most popular with an approval rating of 52 percent.

The poll’s findings suggest that Senators from small states tend to be more popular among their constituents. The five most popular senators come from Vermont (with two in the top five), Maine, Wyoming, and North Dakota, all of which are also among the states with the smallest populations. While an important part of Bernie Sanders’ popularity is likely his ongoing presidential campaign, the relative popularity of small-state senators indicate that his campaign is probably not the only factor at play. One possible explanation is that in states with the fewest people, it may be easier for senators to hold views that more closely align with their constituents.

It’s also interesting to look at the senators with the lowest approval ratings. At the bottom of the pack are Senators Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Gary Peters of Michigan, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Menendez is currently facing a federal indictment for corruption charges, Peters was very recently elected, and McConnell holds a particularly polarizing position as the Senate Majority leader and recently finished a very contentious reelection campaign. This also isn’t McConnell’s first time with a  low rating; a 2012 poll found similar results. And while Peters’ approval rating was just 37 percent, his disapproval rating was also low (27 percent), indicating that a large number of respondents didn’t have enough information to evaluate him.

While most Americans have a very negative view of Congress in general, opinions of individual senators are typically much higher. Overall, the average job approval among Democrats and Republicans are pretty close, as each sits just above 50 percent. According to the Morning Consultant data, Democratic senators average a job performance approval rating of 54 percent while Republicans have an approval rating of about 51 percent. The two independent Senators–Bernie Sanders and Angus King–have a considerably higher average approval rating, about 74 percent.

The table below provides the full data from the Morning Consultant poll. In total, the firm polled 76,569 Americans. The median sample size was 1,172 people, varying from 198 registered voters in Wyoming to 6,696 voters in California. When looking at the data it is important to take the margin of error into account, as states with a much smaller sample have a wider corresponding margin of error. For example, the margin of error in the Vermont poll was +/- 6.5 percent, which means that Bernie Sanders’ approval can be somewhere between 89.5 and 76.5.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Who are the Most Popular Senators? appeared first on Law Street.

The three remaining Democratic candidates–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Governor Martin O’Malley, and Senator Bernie Sanders–debated this Saturday night in Des Moines, Iowa. From entertaining observations to shots at the Republican candidates, check out some the best Twitter reactions to the second Democratic debate below:

A Shot at Ben Carson Part 1

Very angry no one had the courage to address Egyptian pyramid grain storage. Good night. #DemDebate

— Bill Corbett (@BillCorbett) November 15, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Best Tweets from the Second Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday night, the three remaining Democratic candidates took to the stage for the second Democratic debate of the primary season. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Governor Martin O’Malley, and Senator Bernie Sanders appeared at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. In light of Friday night’s horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, France, the debate was shifted to focus on national security, terrorism, and foreign affairs. It was an interesting evening–in comparison to the Republican debates, which have ranged from 8-10 participants and have been full of skirmishes between the candidates–it was congenial and at times even boring. But the big takeaway is that regardless of debate performances, it probably didn’t make a difference in Senator Bernie Sander’s quest to unseat frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Let’s start with a disclaimer: the Democratic field is down to three candidates–two of whom are arguably in contention (Sanders and Clinton) and one who, barring a miracle, is fundamentally not (O’Malley). So let’s get O’Malley out of the way now–he has no shot and while he was applauded for some strong answers Saturday night, his poll numbers are so low that even a bump wouldn’t matter much at this point. It’s way more interesting to discuss the overall showdown between Clinton and Sanders, and consider if the debate performances will benefit one or the other.

Sanders was in trouble from the start just based on the timing of the debate itself. Saturday night at 9 PM isn’t exactly a great time for a debate, particularly for the sought-after contingent of young voters. This is particularly a concern for Sanders, who has become an attractive candidate for millennials. According to a poll conducted in mid-October, among those born between 1985-1997, Bernie Sanders is at 54 percent. Hillary Clinton is at a meager 26 percent. In contrast, Clinton dominates among older voters, at 48 percent.

The debate drew in only 8.5 million viewers. While for a political event on a Saturday night that’s pretty good, it’s not good enough. It was the lowest of any of the primary debates so far, including the first Democratic one, and the four Republican debates. Twenty-four million people watched the first Republican debate; that’s almost three times as many people who tuned into Saturday night’s showdown. While the debate was technically the most watched program in its time slot, ABC’s college football game between Oklahoma and Baylor was the top program for the 18-49 age demographic. Essentially, more older people watched the Democratic debate than young people. While that’s not surprising, it is deeply problematic for Bernie Sanders, who needs to keep getting his message in front of the young people he’s proven it resonates for. To be fair, online streaming data isn’t immediately available, and that’s how I, as well as probably a bunch of other young people watched the debate. If online streaming data indicates that a big chunk of millennials watched the debate instead of doing other things on a Saturday night, I’ll stand corrected, but I’d be very, very surprised.

Multiple polls post-debate declared Clinton as the winner–and that’s just based on performance, which of course a subjective marker. But in terms of numbers, she probably won it too. Her base was more likely to watch Saturday night’s debate. If Sanders is going to have a shot at the nomination, and that’s a big “if,” he needs to continue to inspire young voters. While it’s not his fault that the debate was at a truly inconvenient time, Sanders is going to need to continue to seek out alternate ways to get his message across.

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 Why the Second Democratic Debate was a Loss for Bernie Sanders appeared first on Law Street.

It’s understandable that some of the Democratic and Republican candidates may not have put too much thought into their Halloween costumes yet–after all, it’s been a busy few weeks. So, we here at Law Street thought we’d help them out, and come up with some suggestions for a few of the candidates. Check them out below:

Bernie Sanders could go as Larry David

The senator from Vermont wouldn’t even have to get too creative on this one. He’s a dead ringer for comedian Larry David, who actually impersonated him on SNL a few weeks ago.

Bernie Sanders Thinks Larry David Impersonation Was ‘Pretty Good’ – ABC News https://t.co/33XTm0A2rZ#Headlinespic.twitter.com/EMjdzxtusv

— Stormbreaker (@iTwit_News) October 22, 2015

Ted Cruz as Grandpa Munster

According to some, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas looks an awful lot like Grandpa Munster from the Munsters–a 1980s CBS sitcom. It’s seasonally appropriate too, given that Grandpa Munster’s real name was Vladimir Dracula, Count of Transylvania, and a vampire.

Ted Cruz literally is grandpa Munster #GOPDebate@tedcruzpic.twitter.com/BCWQH4gPSa

— Lawyer with wine (@Esq_Wine) October 29, 2015

Martin O’Malley as Taylor Swift

After he regaled the hosts of the “View” with his rendition of “Bad Blood,” O’Malley should reprise his role as T-Swift for Halloween.

Lindsey Graham Could be an iPhone

Given his aversion to technology and email, and the earlier controversy when Donald Trump gave out his personal cell phone number, Lindsey Graham could make a convincing iPhone for Halloween.

Making my iPhone costume! @MaesieKostynuik @MegsDeAngelis #iphonecostume pic.twitter.com/Y2mzeiRvmX

— Julie (@JulieGeneroux) October 30, 2015

Jeb Bush Could be His Brother, or Father

Bush might as well save some money, and repurpose an old costume. I’m sure there are plenty of George W. and George H.W. costumes floating around out there.

Image courtesy of Steve Shupe via Flickr

Hillary Should Dress up as Tech Support

Given all the issues she has had with her email so far in this campaign, Hillary could moonlight as a member of tech support–Geek Squad, perhaps?

Image courtesy of Mike Mozart via Flickr

So there you have it–some suggestions for the 2016 candidates to celebrate Halloween in style. With only hope, they’ll take these suggestions seriously. 

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 Halloween Costume Suggestions for the 2016 Presidential Candidates appeared first on Law Street.

Jim Webb, a former Virginia governor, was running for the Democratic nomination. Now he’s probably not. We should all feel overwhelmingly neutral about this.

Here are the facts you need to know: Webb was doing incredibly poorly–polling at about 1 percent. He did participate in the first Democratic debate, but the only two things that people appear to remember about his performance is that he kept complaining about not getting enough time to talk, and he had a vaguely uncomfortable answer about killing a man while fighting in Vietnam to the question “who is the enemy you’re most proud of?” Yesterday, the media was vaguely interested in the reports that he may drop out of the race and launch an Independent bid. But today, the buzz is that Webb is going to drop out of the race altogether and “mull his options.”

He’s expected to hold a press conference later today to explain his decision to the public. Whether anyone will watch who isn’t a political reporter or stuck in a doctor’s waiting room and can’t figure out how to change the station is unclear.

Webb is almost certain to rail against the Democratic party and the media for not supporting him–an argument he’s been making for a while. For example, he claimed the Democratic debate on CNN was rigged, saying: “It’s very difficult to win a debate when you don’t have the opportunity to speak the same amount of time on issues as the other two did.” He also criticized the DNC, for embracing Hillary Clinton and not aiding the other Democratic candidates.

In the end, this is sort of a shame. Webb is further right-center than the other Democratic candidates in the field. He should have been a legitimate candidate (at least more legitimate than the pretty insane Lincoln Chafee) who forced the leading candidates to talk about issues that may not have come up otherwise. Instead, he came across as uninteresting and whiny.

So, Jim Webb joins the “Scott Walker List of Candidates Who Didn’t Do Anything Interesting Until They Dropped Out.” Whether he eventually re-joins the race as a Independent is essentially irrelevant–he’s not going to suddenly inspire a wave of voters or donors by changing his party affiliation from D to I. So cheers to Jim Webb–the Democratic field is about to get a little less crowded, but honestly, it doesn’t really matter in the slightest.

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 Jim Webb Was Running for President, Probably Isn’t Anymore appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was a big evening for “Saturday Night Live.” Tracy Morgan came back to host for the first time since he was in a serious car accident last summer. But even that celebration was overshadowed by another reappearance–Larry David, a former cast member writer for SNL. David played presidential hopeful and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, showcasing a resemblance that has had many clamoring for David to play Sanders since he started making waves in the Democratic polls.

David was joined by Kate McKinnon, reprising her role as Hillary Clinton. Lincoln Chaffee was played by Kyle Mooney, Taran Killam was Martin O’Malley, and Jon Rudnitsky was the debate moderator, Anderson Cooper. Alec Baldwin, an SNL regular, also showed up to play Jim Webb.

Showing that the best comedy comes from real life, SNL used some of the actual lines from the Democratic debate, including when Sanders informed Clinton that everyone was tired of hearing about her “damn emails.” SNL also incorporated when Clinton decided not to respond to Chafee’s claims that her ethics could use some work with a simple “no.” Some of the satirical lines were also brilliant, including David’s tirade about Super PACs. David, as Sanders, said:

I don’t have a Super PAC, I don’t have a backpack. I carry my stuff around loose in my arms like a professor between classes. I own one pair of underwear. That’s it! Some of these billionaires, they have three, four pairs. And I don’t have a dryer! I have to put my clothes on the radiator. So who do you want as president? One of these Washington insiders, or a guy who has one pair of clean underwear that he dries on a radiator?

David’s similar features, as well as his pretty accurate Brooklyn accent, were a dead ringer for Sanders. Certainly the internet thinks so, as the clip quickly went viral.

Larry David as Bernie Sanders is the Tina Fey as Sarah Palin of this election cycle. #SNL

— Michael Calia (@Michael_Calia) October 18, 2015

 

Larry David is Bernie Sanders on #SNL. As was foretold by the seers of old.

— Matt Fowler (@TheMattFowler) October 18, 2015

As the 2016 primaries continue to (slowly) heat up, there will be a lot of fantastic satirical skits. But SNL just set a very, very high bar.

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 Late Night Political Clip Win: Larry David is the Perfect Bernie Sanders appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

Best Shot on Donald Trump: Martin O’Malley

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

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

Best One Word Answer: Hillary Clinton

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

Second Most Uncomfortable Moment: Lincoln Chafee and Anderson Cooper

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

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

Most Uncomfortable Moment: Jim Webb’s Enemy

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

Best Moment Overall: Bernie Sanders and Clinton’s Emails

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

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

1. Get more of the minority vote

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

2. Get better exposure on traditional media

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

3. Convince Joe Biden to run

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

4. Downplay the “democratic socialist” label

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

5. Break his “no attack ad” policy

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

6. Keep racking up the endorsements.

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

7. Be even more fed up with the system

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

8. Fix his hair

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

9. Release his email record

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

10. Get Tom Brady to admit he deflated the footballs

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

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

Maurin Mwombela

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

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

Well hello there strangers! Long time no see. It has been a busy few months for me, but I’m happy to be back and contributing to Law Street once again. Especially as we are well into presidential campaign season, and that provides endless fodder for social commentary–which of course I enjoy watching and participating in from the safety of my desk.

Given that it is 2015 and the Internet plays a larger role than ever in the day-to-day lives of American voters, it is no shock that the 2016 election will be one for the history books. That fact is already evident, as the front-runners on either side of the political divide are a woman, a Democratic Socialist, and a hairpiece!

Don’t even get me started on him.

Heated political debates run rampant across social media platforms, as they always do, but are joined by viral videos, .gifs and even memes of candidates that are strategically released to try and sway voters one way or another.

The key word here, of course, is “voters,” and if you are over 18 and a United States citizen–that means you! You, the person sitting on their couch watching Netflix, who shared that video of Bernie Sanders on “Late Night with Seth Myers,” or followed the Texts from Hillary Clinton tumblr account. You, weighing the pros and cons of jumping in a Facebook comment feed about the difference between Socialism and Communism. You, an average American citizen, who might not be a Democrat or a Republican, but falls somewhere in between.

It does not matter who you support or what you believe in; if you don’t back those beliefs up by using your right to vote at caucuses, primaries or general elections, you are missing out on a huge opportunity to make a difference. I know it sounds cliche to say this, but it is not a lie that every vote counts.

Now, I have to back up my “go vote!” message with a word of caution: do your research. Since the Internet is such an enormous tool for the 2016 elections, it follows that NOT EVERYTHING YOU READ ONLINE IS TRUE.

I know, shocking. *Calls for smelling salts.*

Beware before you share, my friends. Take a closer look at that website with the article called “PROOF!  [insert candidate name here] IS A NAZI!”. Does it also have a bunch of other articles about conspiracy theories with no actual facts backing it up? If you search for it on Snopes.com, does it say “FALSE” in big red letters? Exactly. Instead of searching for inflammatory information on candidates you dislike, focus on the candidates you do like, and don’t believe everything your Facebook friends post. What issues are the most important to you? Which candidates support your opinion on those issues most thoroughly? These are the types of questions you must ask yourself. Being an educated voter is just as important as being a voter in the first place.

So go, register, and enjoy your right to have a say in who runs our country. I certainly will.

Morgan McMurray

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

The post If You Don’t Vote, Your Opinion Won’t Matter appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday marked the 50th anniversary of Medicare, a program instituted under the Social Security Act in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. To honor the anniversary of Medicare, the National Nurses United held a rally at which Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders spoke. His comments shed further light on his positions on Medicare and American healthcare as a whole.

The rally brought together many different groups of people who all supported expanding Medicare. Many speakers from the National Nurses United spoke before Sanders and shared personal stories of why Medicare should be available for everyone.

Sanders, a big advocate of Medicare, stated, “healthcare is a right, not a privilege of all Americans.”

Sanders appears to strongly believe that everyone deserves health care and has worked hard during his time as a senator to make that happen. Sanders strongly supports Medicare for all, by transforming it into a single payer system. Under this system, a single or quasi-public agency would organize health care financing, but the delivery of care would stay privatized. Sanders’ home state of Vermont is one of the states that has moved forward with this arrangement.

For Sanders, Medicare expansion fits into his overall platform of equality for all. He strongly believes that all Americans should have equal rights and equal opportunities, and affordable healthcare for all is a necessary aspect of that equality. He’s attracting supporters with those kinds of goals, given that 48 percent of Americans polled in 2013 said the healthcare system needs fundamental changes, and 27 percent said the healthcare system should be completely rebuilt.

Medicare, and what to do about the current healthcare system in America, will be hot topics in the 2016 election particularly because this issue will continue to affect Millennials in the upcoming years. Most Millennials are children of baby boomers who are now becoming older, and need to have affordable healthcare in some capacity. The way the healthcare system is set up in America, the older generation depends on the younger generation to take care of them because young people are the ones who pay the most into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, if Sanders’ plan to create a single-payer system reaches fruition, the younger generation will not be entirely held responsible for taking care of the older generation, as the government would play a larger role in organizing health care financing.

Overall, the rally was successful and discussed why Medicare should be reformed and expanded. It’s essential that the future president realizes the need for affordable healthcare for all Americans, and takes action to make it happen.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bernie Sanders: Making Medicare an Issue in 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Symon Rowlands

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

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

ICYMI, check out the best of the week, including human trafficking in Pennsylvania, the Top 10 small colleges with high crime rates, and ten reasons to #FeelTheBern this election season.

#1 Human Trafficking in the U.S.: Pennsylvania Man Sentenced For Horrifying Crime

Human trafficking is the second largest form of organized crime in the world behind the illegal drug trade. The industry affects 12.3 million people each year, and generates more than $32 billion worldwide, yet many Americans don’t necessarily expect it to take place close to home. Yet the two most common forms of human trafficking, sex trafficking and labor trafficking, are on the rise in many states such as Pennsylvania. Read full article here.

#2 Campus Crime 2015: Top 10 Highest Reported Crime Rates For Small Colleges

Student safety is a high priority for all colleges and universities. While colleges and universities are typically safer than the areas that surround them, many schools face important and unique challenges. Law Street’s Campus Crime Rankings were created to serve as a comprehensive look at the safety of our college campuses, and to act as a resource for students, families, and college communities. Read full article here.

#3 Ten Reasons to #FeelTheBern This Election Season

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, self-described Democratic Socialist, is a 73-year-old senator from Vermont, the longest serving independent in Congressional history, and a Presidential candidate. He’s been described as “one of the few elected officials who is fundamentally devoted to dealing with the plight of poor and working people” and he’s gaining ground in the polls on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

 Say goodbye to college debt with #TheBern.

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

Disposable income FTW.

3. #CivilRightsBern: He marched with MLK.

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

If only The Bern could still move like this…

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

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

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

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

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

Get ready for your new favorite holiday.

6. #FlowerBern: Bernie loves the environment.

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

Peace, Love, and Bernie Sanders for President.

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

No further commentary needed.

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

GOP better take its money and run.

9. #EqualityBern: He’s a feminist.

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

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

10. #TheRealBern: He released a folk album.

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

He’s a cool Mayor.

Feel the Bern in 2016…

And move it like Bernie to the Democratic Primaries…

So we can #BernTheHouseDown.

Jennie Burger also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ten Reasons to #FeelTheBern This Election Season appeared first on Law Street.

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.

Although the Republican field for 2016 presidential nominees is quickly becoming as crowded as a particularly small clown car, the Democratic field is starting to get some new contenders as well. As of today, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has just joined the crowd.

O’Malley went back to his roots for the announcement, to the city of Baltimore where he was once mayor. He in some ways embraced the controversy and violence that the city has been experiencing after the recent death of Freddie Gray, pointing out that it is a symptom of larger American problems. He stated:

What took place here was not only about race, not only about policing in America. It was about everything it is supposed to mean to be an American.

While that’s a compelling talking point, O’Malley’s strongest point to his campaign appeared to be his determination to set himself apart from the current Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. O’Malley appears to be positioning himself as left of Clinton (although of course not as far left as fellow candidate Senator Bernie Sanders) and a new voice in comparison to the Bush and Clinton families. One of the lines in his announcement took a shot at both Clinton and presumed Republican contender Jeb Bush. O’Malley stated:

Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he’d be just fine with either Bush or Clinton. Well, I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street—the presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.

Yet O’Malley has an uphill battle–exactly because of that moderate, outsider status he purports to represent. Clinton has long been viewed as a strong leader who is inevitably going to win the Democratic nomination–according to Real Clear Politics she’s polling at an average of 63.6 percent. Based on the same polls at a distant second (12.5 percent) is Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has said multiple times that she’s not running. Vice President Joe Biden–also not declared–is polling at 10 percent. Sanders is just behind him at almost 9 percent. Next, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee have 2.6 and 1.8 percent respectively. O’Malley finally clocks in at just under one percent.

Those aren’t particularly good odds–and that’s probably because there’s been nothing particularly exciting about O’Malley yet. While he may be running as a more liberal counterpoint to Clinton, he’s not as liberal as Sanders. To position yourself between two more dynamic and beloved candidates isn’t really a winning strategy.

Whether or not O’Malley actually has a shot will probably depend on Clinton herself. At this point, the Democratic nomination is pretty much hers to lose–a big scandal or health scare could do her in, but it seems like a pretty long shot. While O’Malley joining the race has made it a bit more crowded, she’s still standing on a very pretty pedestal.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Does Martin O’Malley Actually Stand a Chance? appeared first on Law Street.

Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he is running for president as a Democrat in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week. Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont and a self-identified “democratic-socialist,” will seek to represent the left-leaning side of the Democratic Party. While many view his bid for the Democratic nomination as a long shot, he presents the party’s first challenge to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign has garnered a significant amount of attention in the media and from her Republican challengers, indeed many headlines this week focused on her speech on criminal justice rather than on Sanders’ campaign announcement. However, having a serious challenger to Clinton in the Democratic primary is something that many party members support. A recent Bloomberg poll found that 72 percent of self identifying Democrats and independents think a primary challenger is good for the Democratic Party. While many may question Sanders’ ability to become a significant opponent to Clinton, he has repeatedly said he is “in it to win.”

Describing yourself as a socialist generally does not bode well in American politics, but many of Sanders’ core issues tend to resonate well with populists in the Democratic Party. Sanders is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and identifies economic inequality as one of the most important issues facing the United States. In his interview with the AP, Sanders said, “What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels.”

His opposition to Wall Street and what he calls the “billionaire class” also extends to his desire for campaign finance reform. Sanders actively supports a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and move toward a public-funding system.

Sanders also has strong appeal among environmentalists as someone who recently voted against the Keystone XL Pipeline, and cosponsored a Senate resolution to acknowledge that climate change exists and is a result of human activity. He has also sponsored legislation that would call for a carbon tax and is a strong proponent of alternative energy. He has a 95 percent rating on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, which evaluates congressional members’ voting records on environmental issues.

As a self-identified socialist, Sanders stands politically to the left of Clinton and many establishment Democrats. He supports expanding medicare to develop a single-payer system for all Americans and has opposed several free trade agreements. He has vocally expressed his opposition to Trans-Pacific Partnership as well as giving the president fast-track authority to pass it without amendments from Congress. Although he supported President Obama’s executive action on immigration, which protects nearly five million illegal immigrants from deportation, he has also said that guest workers may lead to greater unemployment of American low-wage workers.

On some issues, however, Sanders’ positions are in line with a large portion of Americans, particularly those within the Democratic Party. Sanders voted against the Iraq war, which Clinton initially voted for and later came to hurt her 2008 presidential bid. He is also a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage, an issue that has gained increasing public support and currently has a landmark case in front of the Supreme Court.

While many believe that Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic Party’s nomination is a foregone conclusion, Sanders has shown that he intends to do more than force Clinton to discuss the issues that are important to left-leaning Democrats. That said, he is considerably behind in early polling numbers, campaign organization, and fundraising, which will all present important challenges as he tries to become a legitimate challenger. The 73 year old from Brooklyn says that he can appeal to a wide audience because of his role as the longest-serving Independent Senator in American history.

Sanders says, “I’ve run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country.”

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Independent Senator Bernie Sanders Running For President as Democrat appeared first on Law Street.