In a report issued on Monday, a commission created to combat drug addiction recommended that President Donald Trump declare the opioid crisis a national emergency. The Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, formed via an executive order Trump signed in March, is chaired by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and is co-chaired by a bipartisan group of governors and health professionals.

In its interim report–a final review is due in October–the commission said its “first and most urgent recommendation” is for Trump to deem the crisis a state of emergency. The report continued:

Your declaration would empower your cabinet to take bold steps and would force Congress to focus on funding and empowering the Executive Branch even further to deal with this loss of life. It would also awaken every American to this simple fact: if this scourge has not found you or your family yet, without bold action by everyone, it soon will.

More Americans die from drug overdoses than from car accidents or gun violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 142 Americans die each day from a drug overdose; 91 die from an opioid overdose. In 2015, opioids like Percocet, Oxycontin, heroin, and fentanyl were responsible for nearly two-thirds of all drug overdose deaths. The trend is on the rise: Since 1999, according to the CDC, the number of overdose deaths linked to opioids has quadrupled.

The commission–which includes Republican Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and Democratic Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina–recommended a number of other reforms. It asked Trump to waive the barriers that keep patients at addiction treatment facilities from qualifying for Medicaid services. The commission wrote: “This will immediately open treatment to thousands of Americans in existing facilities in all 50 states.”

Regardless of what the Trump Administration decides to do, states are beginning to tackle the opioid epidemic on their own. Earlier this year, the governors of Arizona, Florida, Virginia, and Maryland declared a state of emergency for the epidemic. But if the federal government declared the opioid crisis a state of emergency, would that make a tangible difference?

“It’s really about drawing attention to the issue and pushing for all hands on deck,” Michael Fraser, the executive director of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, told the New York Times. “It would allow a level of attention and coordination that the federal agencies might not otherwise have, but in terms of day-to-day lifesaving, I don’t think it would make much difference.”

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 Should the Trump Administration Declare the Opioid Crisis a National Emergency? appeared first on Law Street.

Putin Reacts to New American Sanctions

At the end of last week, Congress passed a bill that would levy sanctions on Russia for its involvement in the 2016 election-related hacking, as well as its annexation of Crimea in 2014. President Donald Trump has indicated he will sign it–although even if he chose to veto it, it appears that Congress has the votes to override his veto. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded to the measures yesterday, ordering a reduction of U.S. diplomatic staff by 755. That would bring American staff to 455 at all the diplomatic missions across Russia. Russia is also seizing some American property in the country.

The Russian government says that the affected diplomats must leave the country by September 1, although State Department numbers indicate that many of the people working at diplomatic missions in Russia are local hires, meaning they’ll likely just be let go. Tensions with Russia have been on a bit of a roller coaster of late–Trump’s staff has been accused of colluding with the Russian government to influence the election. But, Putin has said that he doesn’t see relations changing “anytime soon.”

Putin said Russia had run out of patience waiting for relations with the United States to improve https://t.co/pUzx6nZZYb

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 31, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: July 31, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Like most Americans, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie wanted to spend his July 4 weekend enjoying the nice weather and spending time with his family. After he shut down 11 miles of shoreline, many were frustrated that they wouldn’t be able to visit spots on the Jersey shoreline. But Christie decided that his job title gave him the privilege to hang out on the beach while barring taxpayers from doing the same.

Despite angrily closing the beaches, and other public services, over a budget disagreement with New Jersey Democrats, Christie spent July 2 calmly sunbathing with family when a photographer caught him.

Andy Mills, a photographer for The Star-Ledger, captured the pictures of Christie and his family members from a helicopter. After getting in a helicopter that morning to snap pictures of the long stretches of empty beach, Mills observed a large group set up on the beach in front of the governor’s beachside mansion, he said.

“As we came back up, I’m looking, I’m like, ‘That’s him,’ there’s no doubt in my mind that’s him,” Mills said. “When you make eye contact with someone, both you know and he knows what’s going on.”

At first, Christie chose to deny anything uncouth happened. “I didn’t get any sun,” he said.

Then, he chose to defend his actions. He responded that if people wanted to criticize his decision not to cancel his plans, they could run for governor and enjoy the same perks.

After Christie’s team was confronted with the evidence that contradicted Christie’s blatant lies, his office decided it was the right moment to make a dumb joke.

“He did not get any sun. He had a baseball hat on,” was the official statement from Christie’s spokesman, Brian Murray.

But people were unamused, especially since Christie’s antics began when he became governor in 2010. Residents who had to modify their July 4 plans were upset with their governor, and even Kim Guadagno, New Jersey’s lieutenant governor and the Republican nominee vying to replace Christie in November, lashed out.

It’s beyond words. If I were gov, sure wouldn’t be sitting on beach if taxpayers didn’t have access to state beaches https://t.co/VBtBpoUUkv

— Kim Guadagno (@KimGuadagnoNJ) July 3, 2017

One person who was bemused by the incident was author Brad Thor. When the 47-year-old author looked at Mills’ pictures he noticed something that very few others would have.

I think I’m the only one in America not mad at #ChrisChristie pic.twitter.com/PXPvjPUepn

— Brad Thor (@BradThor) July 3, 2017

Of course, this isn’t the first time Christie has been publicly shamed and mocked on the internet. There was “Bridgegate,” when the governor’s team intentionally created traffic problems on the George Washington Bridge to send a political message. And then there was the time he took a helicopter to his son’s baseball game.

And, most recently, there were the relentless memes after Christie stood behind President Donald Trump during the presidential election.

There’s just one question on Chris Christie’s mind. #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/sSDnCXgxBE

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 2, 2016

 

Chris Christie has Resting Hostage Face. pic.twitter.com/A6JxR99Fiw

— Caitlin S(cientist) (@Paleophile) March 2, 2016

Christie, who is finishing up his final term in office, already has a terrible approval rating, so this incident won’t ultimately have much of an impact. After reaching great highs during his reelection in 2012, only 15 percent of New Jerseyans currently view his performance positively, according to the Washington Post–and that was before his trip to the beach. Even his own party has turned on him, with fewer than half of Republicans viewing Christie positively.

Christie is already slated to go down as one of the least liked governors in American history, according to the Washington Post. So, his latest faux pas can’t lower his approval rating much more, and frankly it doesn’t matter since he’s out of office soon regardless. But for Christie, who was once a rising star for the GOP, and a potential presidential candidate, this is just another indication that his political career is going nowhere fast.

Josh Schmidt

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

The post With “Beachgate,” Chris Christie’s Approval Ratings Take a Plunge 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:

Thousands March in LA for President Trump’s Impeachment

Yesterday, thousands of protesters marched on the streets in downtown Los Angeles to demand President Donald Trump’s impeachment. “Down, down, down with Trump–up, up, up with the people,” they chanted. Similar protests are scheduled to take place in other cities in California and the United States. “Every day when I wake up, something is more terrible than it was yesterday,” one protester, John Meranda, said. Before the demonstration started, counter-protesters gathered outside the LAPD headquarters.

One anti-Trump demonstrator screaming at pro-Trump folks, including, “You’re a fraud! You’re a fraud! You’re a fraud!” pic.twitter.com/OpDwnd9xnp

— Laura J. Nelson (@laura_nelson) July 2, 2017

Democratic Representative Brad Sherman spoke from the stage at a rally close to LA’s City Hall, and urged other congressmen to begin an impeachment process. “We have to act now to protect our country from abuse of power and impulsive, ignorant incompetence,” he said. Even though many lawmakers have talked about impeachment, Sherman has actually taken action by drafting articles of impeachment in which he accuses Trump of trying to disrupt the investigation into Michael Flynn.

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: July 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The New Jersey legislature held its first hearing on Monday for a bill that would legalize recreational marijuana in the state. New Jersey would become the ninth state, along with D.C., to legalize recreational marijuana. It would be the first to do so through legislation; all other states so far have legalized marijuana through ballot measures.

Governor Chris Christie is opposed to marijuana legalization, and would likely veto the bill, which was introduced last month. But Senator Nicholas Scutari, the bill’s sponsor, has said it is intended to lay the groundwork for Christie’s successor, who he hopes will be Democrat Phil Murphy. Murphy has expressed support for marijuana legalization.

“My goal is to have the best bill possible for a Murphy administration within the first 100 days so we can get it signed, sealed and delivered,” Scutari, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said.

The Democratic-controlled legislature has not scheduled a vote on the bill yet. If Murphy, the Democratic front-runner, wins the gubernatorial race in November, there is a good chance this bill or some version of it will pass sometime next year. The bill would legalize possession of up to one ounce of cannabis for people 21 and older. A sales tax would be imposed on recreational marijuana sales, increasing over time.

Testimony on bill to legalize marijuana in New Jersey getting underway now #S3195 pic.twitter.com/ZiQjXrMAxM

— Katie Kyros (@KatieKyros) June 19, 2017

A number of doctors and lawmakers made their cases for–and some against–marijuana reform during the hours-long hearing. Some addressed the issue from a legal standpoint, while others came it from the angle of marijuana’s health effects.

“We’ve penalized our public, we’ve ruined countless lives and no one has died from it,” Scutari said. “Yet doctors prescribe opioids like they’re going out of style. Opioids you can get all day long.”

Two doctors present at the hearing held opposing views on marijuana’s health benefits. Dr. David Nathan, a psychiatrist, supports legalization, saying, “From the medical standpoint, marijuana should never have been illegal for consenting adults.”

But Dr. Sheri Rosen, an optometrist, disagreed, saying: “You’re sending the wrong message by legalizing. You’re saying that it’s OK, and there’s no harm. People are going to get mixed messages.”

Jon-Henry Barr, a municipal prosecutor in New Jersey who was present at the hearing, made the case that marijuana legalization will save money.

“We Republicans are against the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars on government programs that do not work and are not necessary,” he said. “The war on marijuana is a government program that does not work and is not necessary.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post New Jersey Begins Marijuana Legalization Effort appeared first on Law Street.

New Jersey State Senator Nicholas Scutari introduced legislation on Monday that would legalize recreational marijuana use in the Garden State. But in a news conference, Scutari said he does not expect his bill to pass under the current governor, Chris Christie, who is a fervent critic of recreational marijuana. Instead, his intention is to create the groundwork for the next governor to build on.

“It is time to end the detrimental effect these archaic laws are having on our residents and our state,” Scutari said. His proposal would legalize limited quantities of marijuana for recreational use. Medical marijuana, while strictly regulated, is already permitted in New Jersey. Per Scutari’s legislation, possession of up to once ounce of marijuana would be legal. Home cultivation would not be allowed. And a sales tax on marijuana would be imposed, increasing over time.

New Jersey is one of a number of states that have recently proposed a marijuana legalization bill. Last November, many states passed ballot measures that legalized pot use, both recreationally and medically. Currently, medical marijuana is legal in 29 states and D.C. Recreational marijuana is legal in eight states and D.C. But under Christie, full legalization in New Jersey has gone nowhere. In the early stages of his presidential campaign in 2015, he said marijuana is banned at the federal level and “should be enforced in all 50 states.”

With New Jersey’s gubernatorial election taking place in November, Scutari’s proposal, along with any other marijuana legalization effort, is unlikely to have any impact until next year. The Democratic front-runner in the race to replace Christie, Phil Murphy, has expressed support for reforming New Jersey’s marijuana laws. And Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, the Republican front-runner, has not explicitly stated her views concerning marijuana reform.

But for now, legalizing recreational marijuana in New Jersey is a far-fetched endeavor. Earlier this month, Christie said “crazy liberals” want to legalize marijuana. “They want that blood money? Let them do it,” the governor said. Perhaps foreshadowing the fortunes of Scutari’s bill, Christie added: “And they will. Let me tell you something — this will be like priority number one come January. I guarantee you, if we have a Democratic governor, it will be priority number one.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post New Jersey Senator Proposes Marijuana Legalization Measure 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:

Deja Vu: Clinton Is Cleared By The FBI – Again

It’s been a long saga–there have been more emails, FBI Director James Comey’s comments that those emails were being investigated, and Obama’s criticism of Comey’s comments. But on Sunday the FBI declared that it did NOT find anything incriminating whatsoever in the new emails that had surfaced. This could mean that Hillary can finally put that whole email thing behind her.

All I want to hear from FBI Director James Comey is a freaking apology to Hillary Clinton and to the people of this country #clintonemails

— Nasty Gnu (@GopSux2) November 6, 2016

But it’s too early to say whether or how it could affect the election outcome. Trump, who loved the FBI last week, may not be as affectionate toward the federal bureau now…because it didn’t come up with the answer he wanted.

“Hillary Clinton is guilty. She knows it, the FBI knows it, the people know it,” he said at a rally in Michigan.

via GIPHY

Democrat Dianne Feinstein criticized the FBI, saying, “Today’s letter makes Director Comey’s actions nine days ago even more troubling. There’s no doubt that it created a false impression about the nature of the agency’s inquiry.”

Rant Crush

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

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

Two former aides to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have been found guilty on all nine counts in the so-called Bridgegate trial. The officials knowingly closed the access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in September of 2013, creating an enormous traffic jam for four days–doing so only to punish a mayor who wouldn’t endorse Governor Christie in his bid for reelection. The recent verdict may also create some issues for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has made Christie an important member of his campaign team.

The aides are Bridget Kelly, former deputy chief of staff for Christie, and Bill Baroni, the former Deputy Executive Director at the Port Authority. The charges against them include conspiracy, fraud, and misapplication of public resources. Sentencing is scheduled for February 21, and according to NBC News, both face up to 86 years in prison if convicted. Although the actual sentences will likely be much shorter.

When Mark Sokolich, the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, did not endorse Christie in 2013, his town was punished with gridlock. Two out of three lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge were closed, jamming up traffic on the world’s busiest bridge. As a result of the closures, a commute that normally took 30 minutes ended up lasting four hours.

This caused extreme delays for emergency calls–one 91-year-old woman reportedly died because an ambulance didn’t make it to her in time. Children were stuck on the buses and couldn’t get to school. David Wildstein, a Christie appointee at the Port Authority who resigned due to his involvement in the scheme, said that Mayor Sokolich asked Baroni for help because kids couldn’t get to school. After learning that, Wildstein texted an unidentified person saying they were “children of Buono voters,” referring to Christie’s opponent in the election. Amidst the traffic, a toddler was lost and countless people were late for work and appointments.

Remember when Chris Christie led the “lock her up” chants at the GOP convention? #Bridgegate https://t.co/4wAHJVc8sF pic.twitter.com/xUDSEOup4z

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) November 4, 2016

While Chris Christie continues to argue that he had no knowledge of the scheme, both prosecution and defense attorneys presented evidence that he knew about it beforehand. Kelly and Baroni testified that they discussed the lane closings with Christie as they were happening and Wildstein said that he told the governor about it when he saw him at a 9/11 memorial service. Even Donald Trump, who appointed Chris Christie to serve as the chair of his Transition Team, has said Christie “totally knew about” the plans to close the lanes.

During the Bridgegate trial, Kelly’s defense painted her as a helpless scapegoat who just did as she was told. But the jury apparently didn’t buy it. Kelly was the one who infamously emailed Wildstein, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee” before the lanes were closed. And after hearing about school children who were stuck on buses, she texted Wildstein, “Is it wrong that I am smiling?” In exchanges revealed during the trial, Baroni and Wildstein also referred to Mayor Sokoloch as “Serbia,” although he is actually of Croatian descent.

While Chris Christie was never charged for any potential involvement, the episode will have very negative consequences for his political career. His approval rate in New Jersey currently stands at 21 percent, a record low.

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 Bridgegate Trial: Two Former Christie Allies Found Guilty on All Counts appeared first on Law Street.

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

1. Nasty Woman

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

— People Magazine (@people) October 24, 2016

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

Alexis Evans

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

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

Last month, a former firefighter and activist lodged a complaint against New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for his inaction in the Bridgegate scandal. On Thursday, a Bergen County judge signed a criminal summons against Christie, a Republican, finding probable cause to justify further investigation into Christie’s role in the lane closures of the George Washington Bridge in 2013. “I’m satisfied that there’s probable cause to believe that an event of official misconduct was caused by Gov. Christie,” Judge Roy McGeady said. “I’m going to issue the summons.”

The case will now move to the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, where a Christie-appointed prosecutor will determine whether there is enough evidence to indict the governor, and send the case to a grand jury.

Bill Brennan filed the complaint against Christie last month, when former Port Authority official David Wildstein testified that Christie was told about the Bridgegate plot two days before it played out. Wildstein, who pleaded guilty for his own role in the scheme, said Christie laughed about the plan when he was informed of it while at a 9/11 memorial service.

Brennan argued that Christie’s inaction in the incident–which was potentially political retribution for the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, who refused to back Christie’s reelection bid in 2013–cost New Jersey taxpayers millions of dollars, and qualifies as second-degree official misconduct, punishable by five to 10 years in prison.

Christie spokesman Brian Murray called it a “dishonorable complaint filed by a known serial complainant and political activist with a history of abusing the judicial system,” in a statement to NBC News. Brennan unsuccessfully sued the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office in 2014, when he argued the names of bidders for baseball memorabilia seized during a drug arrest should be made public.

Currently, a former Christie aide and a former Port Authority deputy are on the third week of trial at a federal court in Newark. Previous investigations into the scandal have failed to produce any explicitly damaging evidence of Christie’s involvement. But in August, text messages sent by two former aides to Christie hinted that he may have been cognizant of Bridgegate. While watching Christie tell reporters he had no knowledge of the lane closings, one aide sent a text to the other, saying “he just flat out lied.”

In his statement, Murray maintains Christie “had no knowledge of the lane realignments either before they happened or while they were happening,” and vowed to appeal the ruling. Christie is set to appear in court on October 24.

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 Not Over Yet: Prosecutor to Probe Christie Over Bridgegate Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

As Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) told reporters in December 2013 that he and his senior aides had no knowledge of the scandal known as Bridgegate, one of his aides sent a text message to a colleague: “Are you listening?” Christina Renna, Christie’s director of intergovernmental affairs, asked Peter Sheridan, a staffer for Christie’s re-election campaign at the time. “He just flat out lied,” continued Renna.

The messages were part of a document from a court filing in United States District Court in Newark on Wednesday. The filing comes on behalf of Bill Baroni, a top Christie appointee for the Port Authority, and Bidget Anne Kelly, former deputy chief of staff to Christie. A trial is set for next month, when both Baroni and Kelly will testify, along with Renna, the aide who sent the text messages.

What is Bridgegate? In the fall of 2013, two lanes on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge–a major thoroughfare connecting New York City with New Jersey and the most trafficked bridge in the world–mysteriously closed down. Commuters were furious–and flummoxed–at the blocked lanes. At the time, the Port Authority said the lanes were closed for a traffic study. But skeptics, including Democrats and the media, saw a deeper ruse at hand.

.@ChrisChristie denies the claim that he ‘flat out lied’ about Bridgegate https://t.co/dBd9DffDG5 https://t.co/3JJtP2UYXP

— POLITICO (@politico) August 10, 2016

Around the time of the lane closings, the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, refused to endorse Christie in his re-election bid. Communications between Christie’s staff and the Port Authority revealed the “traffic study” to be a smokescreen in order to punish Fort Lee, the town directly connected to the New Jersey side of the bridge. There has been no evidence to directly link Christie or any of his senior staff.

“I absolutely dispute it,” Christie told reporters on Wednesday after they asked him about the allegation made in the text exchange between his two aides. “It’s ridiculous. It’s nothing new. There’s nothing new to talk about.”

But if Renna’s text messages are to be believed, there could be more to Christie’s–or his aides’–involvement in Bridgegate than meets the eye.

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 Could a Text Message Implicate Chris Christie in Bridgegate? appeared first on Law Street.

Everybody’s got their ‘guy.’ He’s the first person to take your side when the going gets tough, and your intermediary with all the people you just don’t have time for. For Donald Trump, Ben Carson is that guy, and somehow, he’s the guy Trump trusts with his secrets. The trouble is, Carson might not be exercising the caution a campaign surrogate usually needs to.

Ben Carson was riding in a car with his wife Candy on his way to an interview, when the reporter who was along for the ride told him about a poll stacking up the favorability rankings of potential vice presidential picks. The reporter told Carson the names on the list, in order of favorability. After Ben Carson, who was seen as the most favorable vice presidential pick, the list included John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie.

After stating that he was not interested in being a part of Donald Trump’s administration, Carson did what no nominee’s spokesperson should do: he told the press about the short list. When asked about those five names, Carson said “Those are all people on our list.”

The media will endlessly speculate about potential vice presidential nominees, but until the announcement is made, campaigns are usually tight-lipped about who their candidate is actually considering. Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential choices are under tight wraps, with pundits’ speculations spanning from Elizabeth Warren to John Kasich. Closely guarding the decision-making process keeps the campaign’s final selection exciting, and insures against a bombshell found during the vetting process.

Of course, Carson tried to walk back his statement, calling the Washington Post to explain. “When it comes to who could be the vice president and you name a list of people, I’m going to say yes to everybody, everybody could potentially be considered, doesn’t mean they are on the shortlist.” So when Ben Carson says “Those are all people on our list” that doesn’t mean they are actually on the list.”

The candidates mentioned in the poll do present a VP Vexing Problem–the candidates are either unknown to the public, or they are highly unfavorable, with ratings like Palin’s and Cruz’s around 50 percent unfavorable. Clinton’s camp has a different problem–their choices aren’t too strongly unfavorable, but most of them are unknown to the general public. Likely choices such as Tim Kaine, Sherrod Brown, and Julian Castro are unknown by 30 to 40 percent of voters. The good news for Clinton is that no one–not Huma, not Bill, not anyone–is dishing out her tightly-held list of candidates.

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 Ben Carson May Or May Not Have Leaked Trump’s VP List appeared first on Law Street.

In case you missed it, a lot happened last week. Super Tuesday voting dominated most political conversations, but it was Chris Christie’s hostage-like facial expressions during Trump’s speech that became the talk of the night. All eyes were also on the Supreme Court, as pro-choice supporters rallied to #StoptheSham in lieu of Texas’ new controversial abortion laws. For more on Law Street’s best of the week keep reading below.

1. Is Chris Christie Okay?

Presidential hopeful Donald Trump addressed a crowd in Florida after garnering some lofty Super Tuesday wins. Former presidential hopeful and current governor of New Jersey Chris Christie introduced Trump, but it wasn’t the introduction that made observers concerned for Christie’s safety. Read the full story here.

2. #StoptheSham: Scenes from the Pro-Choice Rally at SCOTUS

Today, hundreds of pro-choice supporters rallied in front of the Supreme Court. Oral arguments will be heard today in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that will cause the justices to weigh in on the constitutionality of Texas’s new controversial abortion laws. Given the high stakes nature of the case–it could set national precedent for abortion laws either way it goes–protestors set out for the Supreme Court this morning, and I headed over to check it out and grab some photos of the attendees. Read the full story here.

3. After Last Weekend, All Eyes are on Super Tuesday

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

Alexis Evans

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

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

I was so distracted during Trump’s speech that I almost missed it entirely. No, it wasn’t from looking at videos on my computer or even using my phone…it was because I was fixated on Chris Christie, nestled in the back left-hand corner of the TV screen, who looked far from okay.

Presidential hopeful Donald Trump addressed a crowd in Florida after garnering some lofty Super Tuesday wins. Former presidential hopeful and current governor of New Jersey Chris Christie introduced Trump, but it wasn’t the introduction that made observers concerned for Christie’s safety.

It was in the time after he spoke, while Trump gave his spiel, when it happened. Christie stood behind Trump, expressionless, gazing off into the distance as if to ponder why he had made the decision to speak at the rally.

.@ChrisChristie just gave what looked like a coerced confession.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) March 2, 2016

Chris Christie trying to figure out how the hell this happened to him https://t.co/5buKrSM9pG

— Nick Robinson (@Babylonian) March 2, 2016

He looked like he was forced to be there, and his strange mannerisms quickly manifested themselves into a meme all over Twitter–trending with #FreeChrisChristie.

Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri put it best:

“Chris Christie spent the entire speech screaming wordlessly. I have never seen someone scream so loudly without using his mouth before. It would have been remarkable if it had not been so terrifying.”

— Matt Viser (@mviser) March 2, 2016

So lifeless, yet so full of regret.

Many have likened his appearance and strange facial expressions to that of a hostage video.

My gooodness Chris Christie looks like he’s appearing in a hostage video. #SuperTuesday

— Mark D. Levine (@MarkLevineNYC) March 2, 2016

Gonna need Chris Christie to hold up a copy of today’s newspaper to prove this is not a prerecorded hologram hostage video

— Tim Mak (@timkmak) March 2, 2016

Christie endorsed “Mr. Trump” this past Friday, a move that shocked many after he had been so critical of the front-runner’s tactics and rhetoric.

As a man who had once said Trump was running not for commander-in-chief but instead for “entertainer-in-chief,” his comments Tuesday night were, to put it mildly, a complete 180.

There’s just one question on Chris Christie’s mind. #SuperTuesdaypic.twitter.com/sSDnCXgxBE

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 2, 2016

Maybe it’s because the New Hampshire Union Leader recently apologized for endorsing Christie, or because six New Jersey newspapers just asked for his resignation. Maybe we’ll never know. Regardless of what was really going through his head during the speech, we are worried about you Chris Christie.

SEE IT: The many faces of @GovChristiehttps://t.co/GzmrwggTfzpic.twitter.com/T4Vod1wjwk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) March 2, 2016

Julia Bryant

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

The post Is Chris Christie Okay? appeared first on Law Street.

Adele is one of the best selling artists of all time, and one of today’s most-loved pop culture figures. So, it’s understandable that Republican candidates dueling it out in Iowa would want to link themselves to the “Hello” and “Someone Like You” singer. However, Adele doesn’t appear to be too happy with her music being used by Republican candidates.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump recently used the Adele song “Rolling in the Deep” at a campaign stop in Waterloo, Iowa. It’s a song that lends itself well to the fiery rhetoric used by the Trump campaign, with lines such as:

There’s a fire starting in my heart
Reaching a fever pitch
And it’s bringing me out the dark

Trump has also used the song “Skyfall,” at rallies–recognizable to many voters as the song Adele created for James Bond movie of the same name. He does appear to be a fan of the British singer/songwriter–Tina Fey has a very entertaining story about attempting to avoid talking to Trump at a recent Adele concert in New York.

But, Adele has officially stated that she doesn’t endorse Trump’s use of the song; her spokesperson told Billboard, “Adele has not given permission for her music to be used for any political campaigning.”

Then, there’s Mike Huckabee, who made an utterly cringe-worthy version of Adele’s “Hello.”

There are a lot of things that can be said about the video (including the fact that this awful version of the song has been stuck in my head since it was released last week). While Adele hasn’t made any specific statements about Huckabee’s use, the comment that she hasn’t agreed to let her music be used by any campaign probably applies to his video as well, although the fact that it could be considered a parody bring it into a slightly gray area.

Finally, Chris Christie also made an Adele homage to attack Marco Rubio, including a video set to the tune of “Hello,” as well as sending out this tweet:

Hello @marcorubio, it’s me. #tbtpic.twitter.com/RAo3HAkgb2

— Chris Christie (@ChrisChristie) January 7, 2016

The use of music in campaigns has always been controversial, but it’s still unclear whether or not Adele’s team will take any official action against the use of her songs or lyrics. So, for now, expect to see more pop culture-use by the contenders vying for victory in Iowa.

Read More: Campaign Music and Fair Use: What are the Rules?

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 Adele Apparently Not Happy with Candidates Using her Music appeared first on Law Street.

One effect of increasingly normalized relations between the United States and Cuba will be an ability to travel between the two nations. But not everyone is okay with this move. In fact, New Jersey Governor and Republican primary candidate Chris Christie is fighting back–he has urged the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to reject proposed United flights between Newark Liberty International Airport and Havana.

Surprisingly, Christie’s argument for why we shouldn’t allow flights between Newark and Havana has relatively little to do with Cuba itself. Instead, he’s demanding that Cuba return fugitive Joanne Chesimard, a.k.a. Assata Shakur to U.S. custody. Shakur was a member of the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army. In 1973 she and two others were involved in a shootout with the police on the New Jersey Turnpike that left Trooper Werner Foerster dead and another officer wounded. While she was subsequently sentenced to life in prison, she escaped prison and ended up in Cuba. She has taken state-sanctioned political refuge there since 1984, and is still wanted in the United States.

But, in Cuba, she has taken on a strange almost-folk hero status. Now 67, she’s viewed as a victim of American oppression and many believe she was wrongly prosecuted.

In his letter to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Chairman John Degnan, Christie urged him to reject the proposed flights unless Shakur is extradited to the United States. In the letter, he stated:

I understand that the Port Authority is considering a request to open regular flights between Cuba and Newark Liberty International Airport. It is unacceptable to me as governor to have any flights between New Jersey and Cuba until, and unless, convicted cop-killer and escaped fugitive Joanne Chesimard [Assata Shakur] is returned to New Jersey to face justice.

This isn’t the first time that Christie has brought up Shakur when disagreeing with a move toward more open relations with Cuba. Last December, Christie wrote a letter to President Obama that also echoed this sentiment. He wrote:

Cuba’s provision of safe harbor to Chesimard by providing political asylum to a convicted cop killer . . . is an affront to every resident of our state, our country, and in particular, the men and women of the New Jersey State Police.

RT If you agree that President Obama should demand the return of Chesimard from Cuba to the US to finish her sentence pic.twitter.com/tztku57vf1

— Governor Christie (@GovChristie) December 21, 2014

On the other hand, the Obama administration has been very clear that while the U.S. will continue to push for the return of American fugitives, it won’t hamper the broadening of relations between the U.S. and Cuba.

Whether or not Degnan will heed Christie’s advice remains to be seen. But, based on Christie’s urging, Degan has said that the Port Authority board is going to dig into the request from United and conduct an immediate review. So, don’t hop on United and book your flight to Havana yet–a decades-old fugitive hunt may hamper the introduction of these new flights.

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 Chris Christie Urges Port Authority Not to Approve Havana-Newark Flights appeared first on Law Street.

The second Republican primary debate of the year was aired last night by CNN and took place at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. It was a three hour debate that left me with more questions than answers–for example, did they really all go that entire stretch without having to use the bathroom? But, tradition dictates that we boil down those three hours into some gifable snapshots, so without further ado, check out the top ten moments from the second Republican debate.

10. Mike Huckabee Appealed to Millennials with a Reference from the ’80s

Mike Huckabee referred to the Republican field as the “A Team” and decided that Donald Trump was Mr. T, saying:

I think we are in fact The A-Team. We have some remarkable people. We even have our own Mr. T, who doesn’t mind saying about others, ‘you’re cool.’

Pop culture references are a great way to appeal to the masses–and if he had picked something less than 30 years old (we’re not counting the horrible 2010 remake) it might have been successful.

9. Marco Rubio Made a Fun Reference

One of Marco Rubio’s early introductions to the national stage was when he gave the Republican response to the State of the Union back in 2013. During the speech he took a fantastically awkward sip of water:

But last night, Rubio paid homage to that really awkward moment by bringing his own water to the debate. It was a sweet and dad-joke like, but I’m not sure how much of a splash it made.

We’re entering the next phase of the #GOPdebate. Anyone need refreshments? http://t.co/tdQhhyEBDb pic.twitter.com/ki3fr601BE

— Guardian US (@GuardianUS) September 17, 2015

8. Donald Trump Proves his Mature Rhetorical Mastery

Trump, on immigration: “First of all, I want to build a wall-a wall that works. We have a lot bad dudes, from outside, in this country.” So eloquently put, Trump, although I do have to admit “bad dudes” is a bit more PC than calling swarths of the population “rapists.”

7. Carly Fiorina Makes Things Up

Carly Fiorina went on a weird, grisly rant about Planned Parenthood that would have been strategically powerful if it was in any way true. She stated–presumably in reference to the much-edited Planned Parenthood hit videos created by the Center for Medical Progress:

I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

The videos were disturbing to be sure, even though they were patently fiction. But at no point did those videos even come to close to portraying a fully formed fetus kicking its legs–Fiorina at this point was over-exaggerating exaggerations in an incredibly upsetting way. It’s one thing to be anti-choice, it’s another thing altogether to use lies and fear-mongering to prove your point.

6. Everyone Got Handsy with Donald Trump

Donald Trump was flanked on stage by Ben Carson and Jeb Bush, and at various points he exchanged really awkward high fives/handshakes with each of them. First was Ben Carson, who was very reluctant to get involved in the entire situation: But Jeb Bush got a little too enthusiastic, and actually appeared to make Trump flinch: 

Here you go Twitter pic.twitter.com/9wfzAQGftg — Brandon Wall (@Walldo) September 17, 2015

5. Winner of the Happy Hour Debate (Literally): Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham had my favorite quote of the earlier happy hour debate, which featured the candidates who aren’t polling well enough to make it to the main stage. Graham, who has his priorities in order, stated: “That’s the first thing I’m going to do as president. We’re going to drink more.”

He was referring to Ronald Reagan’s tradition of drinks with Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, but it still makes for an awesome one-liner, and I wholeheartedly approve.

4. Chris Christie Gets Fed Up

Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina got into a spat back-and-forth about their business records, and Christie got really damn tired of listening to it. He eventually said:

 The fact is that we don’t want to hear about your careers. Back and forth and volleying back and forth about who did well and who did poorly. You’re both successful people. Congratulations. You know who is not successful? The middle class in this country who’s getting plowed over by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Let’s start talking about those issues tonight and stop this childish back and forth between the two of you.

While I’m normally not a Christie fan, and I don’t agree with the claims in his comment, here’s some well-deserved applause for shutting up that annoying Trump and Fiorina spat:

3. Jeb Bush Tries to Prove He’s a Cool Kid

Jeb Bush attempted to get some street cred in the lamest way possible–by admitting he had smoked  marijuana 40 years ago and his mom doesn’t approve:

So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did.

 

2. Fiorina Takes Down Trump

You can watch this one yourself:

.@CarlyFiorina responds to @realDonaldTrump‘s comment about her face #CNNDebate http://t.co/jcEf6bW9ja #GOPDebate http://t.co/m0eDU5NvhT

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 17, 2015

Ok, now we actually do have a bad ass over here.

1. Some Really Lame Answers to the “Which Women You’d Put on the $10 Bill Question”

As a fun, easy question toward the end, the moderators asked each of the debaters “Which woman would you put on the $10 bill?” Some answers were fine–Susan B. Anthony,  Rosa Parks, Clara Barton, and Abigail Adams are all admirable American women. But some of them were flat-out ridiculous. For example, three of the candidates–Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson–all cited female family members. Huckabee chose his wife, Donald Trump chose his daughter, and Ben Carson named his mother. While those are nice answers and may have been good responses to “who inspires you,” they’re also total cop-outs and a bit insulting. Women have done so many great things for this country and none are included on our paper currency–yet three of the eleven candidates couldn’t even name one.

Then, Jeb Bush gave arguably the weirdest answer all night–put Margaret Thatcher on the $10 bill. Alright Jeb Bush, please do remember that if you want a fighting chance, some American women will have to vote for you. Although at this point, I haven’t the foggiest why we would.

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 10 Moments from the Second Republican Debate appeared first on Law Street.

This election season has been one of the most controversial and surprising in recent history, as many unqualified candidates with slim chances have entered the race. There’s billionaires, CEOs, brain surgeons, and former governors all battling for the nominations.  With 20 or so candidates currently in the race for the White House, there have been some bizarre and hilarious comments. From campaign ads to presidential announcements, these are the ten weirdest quotes from the presidential hopefuls so far.

10. In Bobby Jindal’s campaign ad, he tells his children that they are the first to know that he will be running for president and they are not allowed to tell their friends. He offers them a reward if they can refrain from telling their friends, saying: “Maybe if you behave you might get a chance to go back to Iowa.”

Obviously Iowa is more of a party place than I knew. IOWA! IOWA!

9. In an exclusive interview with CNN in Iowa, Hilary Clinton was asked about her response to people who don’t believe she is a trustworthy candidate. The Hillz responded: “People should and do trust me.”

But what she forgot is that people shouldn’t and don’t trust her.

 8. In his presidential announcement, Lincoln Chafee stated he was a farrier after college–which is a craftsman that puts shoes on horses. He then followed that statement by saying: “After college I worked on the horse race track for 7 years.”

Last time I checked, horse knowledge wasn’t a requirement to be president.

7. In a similar vein, during his presidential announcement, Rick Perry shared his childhood stories about his life growing up in rural Texas and his attendance at Texas A&M. He then talked about his studies in college, stating, “I got my degree in Animal Science from Texas A&M.”

America: Rick Perry is highly qualified and begging for your votes.

6.  Mr. Trump, one of the most surprising candidates of this year, finally entered the race on June 16 after weeks of speculation. While his campaign speech was poorly written, and he was likely unprepared, he stunned the American people with his absurd comments about Mexican immigrants. Following those comments, he stated that he was using his own money to run and he did not need lobbyist or PAC money saying, “I’m really rich.”

If only this were a legitimate requirement for being president, the Donald might have a chance.

5. In a campaign ad, Rick Perry stated a number of reasons why he is the best choice for president. His campaign ad strives to display Rick’s life as a public servant, showing pictures from when he served in the military and from when he was governor of Texas. He closed his campaign ad by saying, “we must do right and risk the consequences.”

Not even your custom rap-country theme song can get you out of this one, Rick.

4. In his presidential announcement, Lincoln Chafee said he had a bold, worldly idea, stating: “Let’s join the rest of the world and go metric.”

Lincoln, you have officially blown my mind…and not in a good way.

3. Once again, Mr. Perry has earned a spot on this list. His campaign ad focuses on all the positive things he has done for the people of Texas and America. However, in 2014 Rick Perry was indicted for abusing his power as governor as well as coercion of a public servant. Despite the indictment, he claims he is innocent and stated in a campaign ad, “We need a president who has done the right things.”

Does being indicted for abusing your power as governor count as “doing the right thing?”

2. One of the most recent candidates to enter the race was Chris Christie, who launched his bid for the White House two weeks ago. Christie centered his presidential announcement around his blunt and truthful personality. He stated that the current politicians in Washington are lying and stealing from the American people and this must be stopped. He stated:

“The horse is out of the barn and we gotta get it back in.”

But the real question, Mr. Christie, is who let the dogs out?

1.  Mr. Trump, of course, takes the number one spot. After his presidential announcement, he did his first interview with Bill O’Reilly. In the interview, Mr. O’Reilly asked Mr. Trump a series of questions known as the “lightning round” on the show. This round consisted of answering questions about how Mr. Trump would handle different situations as president. When asked how he would handle ISIL, he stated he would “hit them so hard your head would spin.” He then followed up that statement by saying, “There’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am.”

Except for maybe the approximate three million people that actually serve in the military, Mr. Trump.

There you have it–those are the weirdest quotes in the presidential race so far. But with so many faces in the crowd, there are sure to be more.

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 Say What? Top Ten Weirdest Quotes from the Presidential Hopefuls So Far appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) just announced that they’re not playing nice with climate change-deniers anymore. FEMA has officially proclaimed that unless states create plans that consider how to combat climate change, they may not be eligible for disaster preparedness funds from the agency.

The new FEMA guidelines acknowledge the problems that have come or may develop from climate changes, including things like more intense storms, heat waves, drought, and flooding. Given that all of those are situations in which states often turn to FEMA for funding and assistance, the agency is asking that when making their disaster preparedness plans, states “assess vulnerability, identify a strategy to guide decisions and investments, and implement actions that will reduce risk, including impacts from a changing climate.”

It’s important to note that this change won’t affect how much aid FEMA will give to states affected by natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, and hurricanes. That’s called disaster relief, and it’s not part of this change. Rather, if states don’t provide adequate hazard-mitigation plans that acknowledge climate change and its effects, it will withhold the funds for that disaster preparedness. These funds are used for things like training and purchasing equipment. Overall, FEMA gives out grants of this sort that total about $1 billion each year.

This creates a big political problem for some of America’s most visible and prominent Republican governors, many of whom have long either advocated that climate change is not a product of human activity, or that it’s simply not happening. Deniers who are now on the chopping block include Governors Rick Scott (Florida), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Chris Christie (New Jersey), Greg Abbott (Texas), and Pat McCrory (North Carolina).

Jindal and Christie have, at the very least, been floated in talks about possible 2016 Republican contenders. Ironically, Louisiana gets the most disaster preparedness money and New Jersey comes in at number three, so Jindal and Christie, as well as the other Republican governors who deny climate change, are faced with an interesting catch-22. They can either sign off on plans that comply with FEMA regulations and lose some political clout among the conservatives they may have to woo in a presidential primary, or refuse to acknowledge climate change and lose funding that their states probably need.

This policy shift comes amid many debates happening around the country over how states should individually handle climate change. There are allegations that in Florida, for example, there’s an “unofficial policy” to not use the words climate change, even when discussing the phenomenon and its effects.

No matter what, this is certainly a bold move on FEMA’s part, and shows that politics can’t always take the front seat when it comes to safety. FEMA is making a move that it thinks will help mitigate the results of climate change–if it ruffles a few political feathers in the meantime, so be it.

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 FEMA to States: Recognize Climate Change or Lose Funding appeared first on Law Street.

Online journalism has opened the door for non-traditional journalists to enter the industry. However, as more and more people trickle into the field, the ethical concerns inherent in journalism evolve as well. Digital media ethics of all kinds exist, they serve to streamline the practices of all sorts of online journalism: blogging, writing, photojournalism, and even social media journalism. Many discussions circle around how online journalists, and those with an audience equal to or even surpassing print journalists, should research, publish, and interact with the text. Read on to learn about how the internet is changing the field of journalism, the basics of journalistic ethics, and what new questions are arising for online journalists.

Changes in the Water

Journalism is transforming at an alarming rate–paper sales of newspapers and magazines are down, and online consumption is at an all-time high. No matter the topic–daily news, celebrity gossip, sports analysis, or even legal news–it’s online. Part of this is because of the turnaround time. No longer is there a need for multiple newspapers depending on the outcome of an event. Instead, a journalist can write, edit, post, and interact on a topic in just a few seconds on social media platforms within minutes on a blog or website.

Change can be difficult to circumvent, especially for those who are used to doing things “the old fashioned way.” Shrinking physical sales equate to shrinking profits from sales, advertising, and usage. Still, online journalism leads to experimentation, integration, and collaboration. Most of the principles taught in college classrooms up until only a few years ago centered on the mass production of newsprint, dating back to the late nineteenth century instead of the current age. Schools are picking up on the advent of digital journalism, teaching ethics, and discussing best practices. Without clear cut guidelines, however, it can be difficult to get everyone to agree on just what the online journalistic ethics actually are and how to implement them. But the question isn’t just how to come up with ethics and how to implement them, but rather: how do we create online journalistic ethics that will work for everyone creating content?

What exactly is online journalism?

Before setting any ethics, there are a few questions to answer. There is a distinct lack of clarity over what it means to be a journalist, mostly among those who actually write, but not as much among those who consume. But still, the questions remain: what is journalism and what is online journalism? Like print journalism, the online variation requires  having the skills to investigate, research, work with technology, and write clearly. Ethics wise, all of these skills are used to verify truth and promote accuracy.

Types of Online Journalism

There are countless different types of online journalism. While this list isn’t exhaustive, some examples include: websites affiliated with major media companies, the websites that mesh articles and blogs, and those websites that are comprised of all blogs.

Traditional News Sites

The Washington Post has been a major American paper for more than a century. It has a completely separate print newspaper from its website and stories that originally premiered on the website rarely, if ever, end up going to the printer; however, stories that run in the newspaper do appear on the website. Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, require readers to subscribe to the service in order to read stories and access some content online. Today this type of journalism has a smaller staff of writers that may also dip into the print writing. As such, many of their ethical issues mirror those of print writers.

Hybrid News Sites

For websites that mix blogs and news articles like the Huffington Post, you will see a combination of ethics coming into play–including those surrounding images and the concerns of a 24-hour news cycle. These websites may pool from a greater number of writers  with a varying amount of skills and knowledge. In addition, they may aggregate content in addition to or instead of creating original content more than traditional news sites.

Comment News Sites

Comment-based news sites, most commonly blogs, are another way to share news. Most often, editorial content that was produced by a variety of journalists is dissected and discussed by the blogger and then through audience participation. This content is often the shortest form of news, ranging up from the 140-character limits of Twitter into full blog postings. Whether or not this is truly journalism is up for debate–but there are definitely bloggers who follow journalistic principles, and those who focus entirely on opinion.

Journalism Code of Ethics

Print journalism has had a code of ethics for decades. As per the Society of Professional Journalists, there are four categories to the code:

Seek Truth and Report it

Whenever possible, journalists need to be able to ensure that what they are reporting is true and reported fairly and accurately, without bias. This includes providing appropriate context, following up on a story if facts evolve, reporting sources fairly,  and avoiding stereotypes and assumptions.

Minimize Harm

Journalists are present to report, but must remain observers. That means that they need to be respectful of the subjects and take precautions such as the ability to “balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know.”

Act Independently

This principle is simple–a journalist shouldn’t report on a topic if he or she has a vested interest in it, such as a personal relationship with a subject.

Be Accountable and Transparent

Whenever possible, journalists should allow the public to understand the reasoning behind the information included, and the validity of that information. In addition, journalists have a responsibility to correct any errors they may have made.

While online journalists are still held to these standards, there are additional ethical concerns that online journalists have to take into account; however, many of these ethical concerns fit into the categories of the code.

New Concerns in Online Journalism

Anonymity

Online journalism gives people the chance to be anonymous, and not in a “Dear Abby” sort of way. Anonymity is a prominent facet of the internet. Today, someone can just create a name and start posting content–few would even know if that person isn’t who he or she says wrote the article. Some portals require identification, but it can be as easy as taking someone else’s photo, duping the program with a fake email, and turning off location services.

Anonymity takes away the risk of journalism and allows people to be honest and free with their thoughts; however, some worry it also creates an environment filled with irresponsibility and hurt. Even if online platforms take the extra steps to remove the anonymity of it all, comments and shares aren’t protected from “trolls” or those with ill will.

In addition, it makes many question the validity of online reporting from anonymous platforms. After all, it’s inherently not transparent. Whether or not anonymous journalists can truly be considered “journalists” is a hot topic for debate.

24-Hour News Cycle

The 24-hour news cycle that is possible because of online journalism is also one of the biggest things to cause concern in the online news market. Journalism ethics do require reporters to be accountable and seek to report truthfully, but that becomes more difficult when everything is moving so quickly. Reports, images, and opinions circulate the world faster than ever through Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, blogs, cell phones, and hashtag activism. This speed does not always promote quality, clarity, or accuracy. Instead, it is sometimes a gut reaction to the events at hand, leading to misunderstanding, and at times, fear. Major news sources like CNN often pick up rumors that are later found to be untrue, especially in situations where there is little other information. These reports can cause a “trickle down” effect where incorrect information gets reported once and then repeated, as recently seen in the Ferguson case.

Impartiality: Editors Wanted

When people write about things that they are very passionate about, which is often the case for online journalists, there is a tendency to not remain as impartial as one would wish. Online media sometimes encourages people to tell their opinion and back it up without ever posting the “flip side” of the argument. Many bloggers, in particular, take pride in this, seeing themselves as activists for particular causes or movements, rejecting neutrality; however, that doesn’t neatly fit into the ethical guidelines that require journalists to stay unbiased and truthful.

Of course there has always been an opinion sector in journalism. In fact, some even claim that we are seeing a return to the partisan journalism that colored the profession throughout the early 1900s. Some argue that the responsibility may just fall to the reader on this one: it’s important to search out people on both side of the argument.

Social Media + Reporting = Journalism?

News organizations often send their reporters “into the field” to use social media to pass on information to the general public, creating a brand and influencing traditional reports. Typically they use Twitter, but have been known to use Instagram and even Snapchat as well; however, the new world of online personas creates an ethical gray area.

Take, for example, a reporter who writes political think pieces. In her published articles, she remains impartial on the topic of Hillary Clinton’s presidential run; however, on her Twitter account, she follows @ReadyForHillary and constantly tweets about her desire for Clinton to run. Could these comments give a critic something to chew on regarding authenticity in reporting? In the past, the ability to figure out a writer’s political leanings was much harder because there was less information out there for public consumption.

The ethical challenge for news organizations that use online and offline reporting is to develop social media guidelines that allow reporters or staff members to explore the online media world while also having an online presence. That sometimes means requiring that journalists take on multiple personas, a private one and a public one, in the aims of keeping their public name neutral.

Image Ethics

Photojournalism has only boomed in popularity relatively recently since the start of the internet. Photos and videos now make it easier than ever to capture historical events; however, those same programs that allow us to snap photos and share them in just a few minutes also allow for those photos to be altered and manipulated in a relatively short amount of time. If there was no one else at the event, manipulating an image could manipulate a whole event. Take for instance the latest video of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie falling off of a chair. Said to be punishment for him supporting an opposing football team, the Philadelphia radio station added music and doctored the video, making Christie seem like a clown.

Can news sources trust the images that come from regular citizens? In the past it wasn’t as confusing, as pictures were more difficult to manipulate unless you had intense training. Now, most people know how to use at least some of the tools on Photoshop. According to the Center for Journalism Ethics: “Photojournalists often talk about how it is permitted to change the ‘technical’ aspects of a picture such as altering slightly the tone or color of a photo. But they draw the line at any further changes. Changing the meaning or content of the image so as to mislead viewers is considered unethical.”

Conclusion

In the end, we are left with a lot of questions and very few answers. The problem is that we are currently in the midst of a huge change in journalism. Ten years ago no one would have predicted the rise of websites like Instagram and Twitter because we just didn’t have that technology yet.

Until we have the answers for those questions, and the thousands more that stem from them, the answers of ethics for online journalism is left up to the individual–company, blog, person, or website. Soon enough, we will start to see a convergence on topics like anonymity and image use–it’s already happening. Colleges are slowly rolling out courses only on online journalism. The best we can do, for now, is work with integrity and professionalism and try to hold our news sources to those same standards.

While the principles of journalistic ethics still do hold true, new questions are popping up every day. Journalists do still have an obligation to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. The internet may make it more difficult to parse out how those ethics apply in every situation, but they remain the standards of professional journalism.

Resources

Primary

SPJ: Code of Ethics

Additional

MIT: Ethics in Photojournalism: Past, Present, Future

Boise Weekly: Ferguson Case Reveals Media Flaws

Atlantic: How is Social Media Changing Journalism

Huffington Post: Impartial Journalism’s Enduring Value

Huffington Post: Journalism in a New Era

State of Media: Newspapers by the Numbers

Center for Journalism Ethics: Online Journalism Ethics – Photojournalism

Center for Journalism Ethics: Online Journalism Ethics

Poynter: Online Journalism Ethics

SABEW: Online Journalism Poses Challenges, But Doesn’t Require New Ethical Guidelines 

Guardian: Authenticity Has Replaced Authority

Indiana University: Journalism Ethics Cases Online

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to the Center for Journalism Ethics. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What New Ethical Concerns Affect Online Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.

It was probably only a matter of time, but vaccination has officially become a political issue. The particular hot topic at the moment is the vaccination of measles. Despite the fact that the virus had been declared “eliminated” from the United States in 2000, there have been approximately 100 cases recently stemming from outbreaks at Disney theme parks–particularly Disneyland in California. Public health officials are encouraging parents to make sure that their children get vaccinated. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not becoming a political conversation–while some politicians like President Barack Obama have encouraged parents to get their children vaccinated, others, like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have continued to emphasize that it’s an individual choice to be made by parents.

There are plenty of reasons why children don’t get vaccinated–for an in-depth look, check out our issues brief on the topic–but at the most simplistic level, they can get sorted into two camps. The first group are children whose parents choose not to vaccinate them, whether it be because of religious beliefs, concerns about the side effects of vaccines, or whatever other personal reason. The other group is children who physically can’t be vaccinated, usually because they have some sort of allergy to the vaccines, or some illness or condition that would it make it unsafe to be vaccinated. This also includes children who are too young to receive the vaccine–although that’s obviously only a temporary situation. Basically since the measles vaccine became mainstream, those who actually can’t be vaccinated are protected, because those around them can’t get or spread the disease. Unfortunately, as fewer people are vaccinated, that becomes less true, and the spread of measles becomes a legitimate concern.

That being said, it’s not illegal to not vaccinate your child in most places–some states, such as California, are pretty generous when it comes to granting exceptions. Particularly under fire right now are the loopholes that California allows when it comes to its exemption laws, which do require that parents wishing to forego the vaccines undergo “counseling” and get signatures from healthcare professionals. According to Mercury News, those parameters aren’t actually that strict, because:

Counseling can be given by naturopaths, who practice alternative medicine and typically oppose vaccination.

In addition:

People who oppose vaccination because of religious beliefs can skip counseling, a policy change that Gov. Jerry Brown instituted when he signed the updated law.

This has led to a concerning number people in California being unvaccinated–in 2014, 2.5 percent of kindergartners had vaccine exemptions. That doesn’t sound like that many out of context, but that’s pretty much one unvaccinated kid for every other classroom. Children and teens who are unvaccinated are being sent home from school, and there’s a real worry that measles could continue to spread among the unvaccinated population, much of which is clustered into specific schools and neighborhoods.

The CDC put out a statement a few days ago urging any Americans who aren’t vaccinated to do so as soon as possible. President Barack Obama echoed the CDC’s comments on the Today show. However, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie came under fire for a statement he made in response that said that the government should “balance” government and parent interests when it comes to vaccines, saying:

Mary Pat and I have had our children vaccinated and we think that it’s an important part of being sure we protect their health and the public health. I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.

Christie has since clarified that statement, releasing a statement as follows:

The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated. At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate.

Obviously this is a clear example of a big difference between Democrats and Republicans–a federal approach vs. a more state-based one is certainly open for debate. That being said, it’s important that our elected officials stay strong and and stand together in encouraging all Americans who are able to get vaccinated or vaccinate their children to do so. There’s a time for politics, but now, with this topic, isn’t it.

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 Christie, Obama Weigh in on Measles Vaccine appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

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 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Fifty years ago, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by President Johnson. Since then, the shape of the civil rights movement has transformed dramatically. Racial discrimination in voting, education, and employment began being combated by the activists of the 1950s and early 60s. Despite making progress since then, blacks and other minorities still face disparities, and they’re being addressed differently today. To further the cause, we need to know how the movement has changed.

What is the Civil Rights Conversation Today?

The transformation of civil rights and racial politics reveals what some scholars call the post-civil rights era. One such scholar, Howard Winant of University of California Santa Barbara, discussed what racism means in a modern context. In his piece “What is Racism?” he suggests that conservatives control the modern civil rights discussion. He says that the conservative revolution of the Reagan era created a wave of racial demands that used “individualism, competition, and laissez-faire” as its focal points. Although it was written in 1998, the principles he laid out are applicable today. Who are the conservatives engaging in discussions about civil rights now?

One politician stands out as taking the helm on civil rights issues from a political position: Rand Paul. Senator Paul of Kentucky, a libertarian Republican, has gained national attention. Although he may have started on the coattails of his father, former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, Senator Paul has made some interesting moves in his own right. From cosponsoring a criminal justice reform bill with Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), to introducing legislation to curb civil asset forfeiture, Paul is making noise in Washington.

Other conservatives are talking about civil rights outside of the capital, too. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed a bill that expanded the state’s drug court system; the policy is designed to help non-violent drug offenders access rehabilitation rather than serve time in prison. Libertarian groups like the CATO institute are also leading the way on discussing discrimination with scathing research on topics like police aggression.

Is there a problem with conservatism in the civil rights discussion? According to Winant, “racism is rendered invisible and marginalized” because of the right-wing’s domination of the discussion. He suggests that the conservative uprooting of the civil rights discourse resulted in a conversation “which deliberately restricted its attention to injury done to the individual as opposed to the group, and to advocacy of a ‘color-blind’ racial policy.”

But Senator Paul is acknowledging the racial components. In a Politico article he notes, “I believe in these issues. But I’m a politician, and we want more votes.” He’s actually advertising himself as the most prominent congressperson advocating civil rights for minorities, while admitting his political ambition. By recognizing the detrimental effects that excessive police force and the war on drugs have on racial minorities especially, is Paul changing the civil rights discourse while maintaining its conservatism?

How American civil rights issues are progressed is called into question by Paul. He may be referencing the disadvantages minorities continue to face as a result of these problems, but is his approach in line with true civil rights activism? Winant would call for a great emphasis on group collaboration and celebration. Meanwhile, the conservative and libertarian influence on civil rights issues would ensure that the political discussion remain an individualistic one. This dichotomy is important to keep in mind when discussing civil rights issues today.

The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is remarkably impactful on civil rights. “Tough on crime” anti-drug policies, which have proliferated since the Nixon administration, swell America’s prisons and disproportionately affect the black community. Two drugs in particular largely define the epidemic: marijuana and crack-cocaine.

While marijuana laws across the country are loosening, black people are still 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for possession than white people. Employment opportunities are lost, and families are broken. Similarly, law enforcement’s aggressive response to crack, and the drug itself, ruined entire inner-city communities. Crack’s culturally-white counterpart, cocaine, was never targeted with nearly the same hostility. As the War on Drugs directly toppled black communities and severed their families, it caused a number of other issues in the realm of civil rights.

Excessive Policing

A primary issue is constitutionally-questionable policing. In an effort to confiscate assets involved in illicit drug transactions, law enforcement officers across the United States have been endowed with the authority to take money and property through a process called civil asset forfeiture. Roughly 80 percent of citizens in these cases are never charged with a crime, but police may seize their assets and use them to fund their department. Escalating since the 1990s, the militarization of police also results in excessive aggression against innocent people. With law enforcement offices across the country having easy access to federal military equipment, police take on unnecessary gear and, during a drug search or warrant serving, break into homes without knocking, traumatize people, and often kill innocents

The black community suffers disproportionately from both of these issues. A New Yorker article on civil asset forfeiture notes the disparities faced by blacks and minorities in these cases. For example, in Shelby County, Texas “the targets were disproportionately black or Latino.” The American Civil Liberties Union published an extensive report on police militarization and found that “the use of paramilitary weapons and tactics primarily impacted people of color.” Although blacks comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population, 39 percent of SWAT deployments impacted blacks, according to the ACLU. Only 20 percent impacted whites.

The War on Drugs led to excessive law enforcement practices that are are unsavory in their own right. But issues such as these consistently impact blacks at disparate rates. While a variety of problems now face minorities such as food insecurity and strict voter identification laws, the criminal justice system holds a great deal of political attention.

In some ways, the discussions we have these days about civil rights look very different than those that were prevalent during the hey-dey of the civil rights movement. The movement certainly has changed, and new players are entering the debates. What’s important to keep in mind is that the leaders of the current civil rights discussion shouldn’t only ask what can be done for each and every minority. They should also question how today’s civil rights conversation affects the community as a whole.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Civil Rights Discussion: New Issues and New Debaters appeared first on Law Street.

Tucson. Aurora. Newtown. What did these shootings have in common? The weapon and the ammunition. Or the types at least. Semi-automatic firearms allow the shooter to fire as fast as his finger can pull the trigger. Pair one of those with oversized ammunition magazines and he is capable of causing unthinkable damage in a matter of minutes. Rachel Maddow highlighted the correlation between the capacity of the ammunition magazine with the duration of the shooting spree and how many people are shot. But New Jersey Governor Chris Christie doesn’t seem to understand this correlation in the gun debate — that’s why he vetoed a bill that would limit the size of magazines.

For that, I am furious. Personally, I choose not to remember the names of the monsters who committed these acts because they should not be granted notoriety for their crimes — that would only make their twisted dreams come to fruition. We must pay attention to and deal with the issue at hand: mental illness and access to weaponry. I am no cheerleader for the NRA but I do believe in the right to bear arms. For self protection and even *shudder* hunting, we cannot deny our fellow countrymen (the sane ones) these rights.

Can we compromise?

Both sides are extreme, but I think we could come to an agreeable compromise. But not Gov. Christie, he’s definitely not on board with that. In his eyes we either abolish the Second Amendment entirely, or we continue allowing 15-round magazines to be produced and accessible to the armed public. Last week Christie vetoed a bill that would limit the size of gun magazines to ten rounds. This bill was petitioned by two families who lost children at the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Christie avoided them, even when they personally delivered the petition to the governor’s office. He denied them, point blank, period. And this was his weak defense:

So are we saying then that the ten children on the clip that they advocate for, that their lives are less valuable? If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero. Because every life is valuable. And so why ten? Why not six, why not two, why not zero? Why not just ban guns completely?

This is a joke…right? I mean, if we can’t save five people in the next shooting, we should just let all 15 victims get shot because everyone’s life is equally valuable. Yeah, that totally makes sense. What’s the big deal about five bullets?

Size matters

The heroine of the Tucson story is a woman who bravely tackled the shooter in the moments when he ceased fire. He was equipped with a magazine that held more than double the standard amount of rounds (15). When the shooter paused to refill his Glock with another 33-round magazine, Patricia Maisch, then 61, wrestled the ammo from him while a few men threw the shooter to the ground. The number of victims from that shooting could have been fewer if he had had to reload sooner.

The same goes for the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting. That shooter had a drum magazine capable of carrying 100 rounds attached to his AR-15 rifle. Could you imagine how the number of victims from that massacre could have been reduced if he were forced to reload about six times? Christie obviously cannot because that would be favoritism, or something.

Most importantly, I’d like to point out the difference this would have made at the Newtown shooting. The shooter in this case was armed with three different weapons and unfathomable amounts of ammunition, which he carried on his body. This guy came from a family with a long history of love for guns. He grew up with that whole culture and was granted access to guns, despite his Aspergers. The Daily Beast described the frightening amount of weaponry the shooter was armed with that day:

At the school, he emptied three magazines completely, leaving his 26 victims with as many as 11 gunshot wounds. Either because his weapon jammed or because he was overexcited, he ejected three more magazines when they still had 10, 11, and 13 rounds, respectively.

All told, he expended 154 rounds, killing 20 small children and 6 adults. The Bushmaster had one round in the chamber and 14 rounds in the magazine when he took his own life with one of two handguns he carried. A shotgun with two magazines containing 70 rounds was found in the black Honda he parked in the fire lane at the school entrance.

All that gore occurred in about five minutes. He could not have caused that many deaths in so little time with smaller magazines. How can Christie try to defend his veto with such illogical banter, to the parents of the victims of this shooting? Christie says it’s just a fundamental disagreement, though how his argument could be valid in any reality I do not understand. If the decision were up to you and you could choose between the hypothetical death of 15 children or 10 children, what would you do?

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) 

Featured image courtesy of [Eugene Smith via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thanks to Governor Christie the Gun Debate Just Reached a New Low appeared first on Law Street.

Every two minutes, another American is sexually assaulted. Forty-four percent of those victims are under the age of 18, and 15 percent are under the age of 12. These percentages are quite frightening when applied to the United States’ population of almost 320 million.

That’s why something called Jessica’s Law was passed in 46 states. That’s why Gov. Chris Christie publicly signed the law in New Jersey, which lengthens the sentences for sex offenders who assaulted children, with Jessica’s father present. But who is Jessica? And why are four states lagging behind?

Jessica’s Law

The Jessica Lunsford Act is named after a 9-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped and buried alive by a twice-convicted sex offender, John Evander Couey, in February 2005 in Homosassa, Florida. A neighbor of the Lunsfords, Couey was known for his long history of drug violations. Police found Jessica three weeks after her abduction, buried in the backyard of Couey’s half-sister’s trailer. Jessica was wrapped in two garbage bags, clutching her favorite stuffed animal; she had just managed to poke two fingers through the bags. Her brutal death led her father, Mark Lunsford, to begin his crusade for further legislation for child protection against convicted sex offenders.

Jessica’s Law focuses on increasing the monitoring of sex offenders and lengthening their sentences. The original bill was passed in May 2005, in Tallahassee, Florida. Nine years later, New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, signed the The Jessica Lunsford Act. He held a ceremonial signing June 2 to raise awareness for the cause after officially signing the bill May 15.

Similar to the Florida bill, the New Jersey law increased the minimum sentencing for aggravated sexual assault against children under the age of 13. Previously, the minimum was 10 to 20 years in prison; now those convicted must serve at least 25 years without parole. The New Jersey law allows a plea deal to lower the minimum sentence to 15 years under certain circumstances outlined by the state Office of the Attorney General.

But some states still lag behind.

Each state’s version of the law varies its specific regulations for sentencing and monitoring. But four states have yet to sign even a partial version of The Jessica Lunsford Act. Mark Lunsford said Colorado will enact its own version of the law later this week, according to the Asbury Park Press. This is not enough.

Lunsford has waged war in the name of his daughter, but he cannot rest, we as a nation cannot rest, until all 50 states sign the bill. He remains a fierce advocate for full passage throughout the nation, as do I.

I deem sexual assault an unforgivable crime; the emotional damage such a crime causes could be enough to destroy its victim’s life. Rape victims are prone to suffer depression and trauma, and are more likely to attempt suicide. For that, perpetrators of sexual assault on children deserve to serve the time for their crimes and to be monitored upon release.

Perhaps the budget is an issue preventing those last four states from hopping on board, but the future generations of our nation should be granted peace of mind. My father and his siblings roamed the streets of the Bronx, NY, without fear in the 1950s; nowadays helicopter moms fear turning their backs on their children for just a moment in public.

Justice for tomorrow’s Jessicas

The nationwide recognition of this bill would signify further protection for our nation’s children by declaring sexual assault on a child a first degree crime. The necessity to ensure children’s security from sexual predators can be seen from the startling sexual assault statistics in this land of the free.

So, I stand with Mr. Lunsford. We must make it known from the Pacific to the Atlantic, that sexual assault is unacceptable. The installation of this bill in all fifty states means a higher possibility of lowering the percentage of children who are sexually assaulted.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [theodoritis via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jessica’s Law Should be Law of the Land appeared first on Law Street.

Chris Christie, the popular governor of New Jersey, has been one of the stars of the Republican Party for a few years now. Admittedly, he does have a lot going for him. New Jersey is usually a relatively liberal state — President Obama won it in 2012 with 58 percent of the vote — but Christie sailed to an easy reelection this fall. He recently became head of the Republican Governor’s Association. He has a strong background as a US Attorney. In 2012, he delivered the RNC Convention keynote address. And until this week, I would have bet on him to win the Republican nomination for President in 2016.

Also good at coat catching.

Then this week, this whole debacle over the George Washington Bride broke. Apparently we’re calling it “bridgegate” because over the past 40 years pundits have utterly given up on trying to be creative while naming political scandals.

For anyone who hasn’t been watching the news in the last 48 hours, here’s a quick summary of what’s happening in the Garden State. On September 6, 2013, the George Washington Bridge, which connects New Jersey and New York, had some lane closures. For anyone lucky enough to have never driven over the GWB, it is ginormous. It has two levels and is one of the busiest bridges in the world. I hope that you never get stuck on the GWB, because I have, and believe me, it sucks.

The GWB is a big deal. And when it experiences double-lane closures for no apparent reason, bad things happen. Like children not being able to get to school. People not being able to get to work. And a 91-year-old woman dying because she was stuck in an ambulance. This was all a massive problem for Fort Lee, the town in New Jersey where the bridge starts.

It has now come out that Christie’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, sent an email to the Port Authority suggesting it was “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.” The man to whom she wrote, David Wildstein, said in a separate email that it was going to be a “tough November for this little Serbian,” presumably referring to Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich (who is actually Croatian.) The Port Authority closed the bridge lanes on Wildstein’s orders, although claimed it was a traffic study. Kelly has since been fired.

The political shitshow that is now unraveling four months later is confusing, weird, embarrassing, and fascinating. Here are the top seven reasons you should all be paying close attention to this story.

7. We Still Have No Idea What Exactly Happened

There’s nothing more delightful than a game of political whodunit. Or in this case, I guess it would  be “whydunit.” At this point, it’s pretty clear that Bridget Kelly recommended the closure of the GWB lanes, and that her friends at the Port Authority helped her out. In fact, David Wildstein was a high school classmate of Christie’s, and has long been a political player in New Jersey. But why? Currently there are two possible theories. One is that Christie’s staff was seeking retribution against Mark Sokolich, the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee who did not endorse Christie in the gubernatorial race this year. Another is that they were seeking revenge on the New Jersey Senate Democratic leader, State Senator Loretta Weinberg, after a contentious judicial nomination back-and-forth between the two political leaders.

Shocked kitty doesn’t like dirty political tricks.

These are just two theories that have come out over the last few days. More might arise, or one or the other might be proven to be true. But speculation is fun, and the media has run with it since this story broke. On September 12, Sokolich wrote to the Port Authority claiming the bridge closure was “punitive.” It’s looking like he might be right.

6. There’s a Rabbit Hole Here 

This isn’t going to be a little thing. Wildstein took the stand yesterday during an investigation into the whole mess by the New Jersey Assembly Transportation Committee…and pleaded the Fifth on EVERYTHING. The attorneys questioning him say they’ve never heard someone plead the Fifth as many times as he did. Now pleading the Fifth makes sense if you could incriminate yourself, but some of the questions he chose not to answer couldn’t have possibly been incriminating. WIldstein is hiding something, and he might be just the tip of the iceberg.

And I have a feeling it’s a pretty spacious rabbit hole. Double Down, a book on the Romney campaign by Mark Halperin and John Heilermann, took a look at the campaign’s quest for a VP. Apparently Christie was crossed off the list because, according to Ted Newton, one of Romney’s advisors, “When you look below the surface, it’s not pretty.”

5. Christie’s Catch-22

Did Chris Christie know about the bridge plan? Well, no one’s really sure. Some political insiders think he did, and is now just claiming ignorance to protect himself. Others think that someone else may have been calling the shots. Kelly was very loyal to both Christie himself, and Christie’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien. An anonymous source claims that Stepien’s job was to keep the governor’s fingerprints off things and Kelly’s was to put plans in action.

Christie is left with two options here, both bad. He is either a liar who knew about bridgegate, or a weak leader who couldn’t control his own people. As someone who wants to be President of the United States, neither of those is a particularly attractive quality.

4. If He Knew, This Says a Lot About Christie

If Christie knew, or was behind the scheme to shut down the bridge, that says a lot about who he is as a politician and as a person. It says he plays dirty. And to me, it says that he’s been in an ivory tower far too long.

A man who shuts down the GWB, or at least lets his staffers shut down the GWB, for pretty personal reasons isn’t thinking about why people take that bridge. They take it to get to work and to school. And why do people go to school and work? Because they have to. Because they support their families; because they have things they need to do. If Christie had the hubris to say his political grudges were more important than every single person who had to cross the bridge that day, he’s forgotten what it’s like to be a regular person. He doesn’t know what it’s like for people who need to get to work because they need the money. He’s forgotten that the world (or at least New Jersey) doesn’t revolve around whether or not he’s friends with the political leaders in another town. If Christie knew, shame on him.

3. If He Didn’t Know, It Says Even More

If Christie really didn’t know what was going on, then he has a staff problem and a leadership problem. A strong leader — a possible presidential nominee — needs to appear strong. He needs to be the power on the throne and he can’t have accusations of staffers running the show. In a lot of ways, if he actually didn’t know about this, it will hurt him more in the 2016 game than if he did and is now lying. A disgustingly dirty player may be preferable to a weak one.

2. Christie Could Come Out on Top 

All is not lost for Christie. He’s already received some applause for his actions in the last few days. He immediately fired Kelly, who he claimed “betrayed” him, no questions asked. He gave an exhausting press conference in which he dutifully answered every question. He proved that he wasn’t immediately sunk over these accusations, and if he handles this right, he could come out as a strong leader.

Or, he could come out a corrupt bully. He could end up completely off the list for potential 2016 nominees. Scandals are tough, but they’re not impossible. Clinton barely escaped the Monica Lewinsky scandal with his presidency, but he’s now an elder stateman of the Democratic Party. How Christie handles this could make or break his political career.

No pressure.

1. This Feels Unreal

Like any good young political junkie, I love overly dramatic political shows. The West Wing, Scandal, and House of Cards are my bread and butter. And while writing about bridgegate, I feel like I’ve been transported into one of them. A bridge closed for political retribution? That’s not normal politics. That’s dirty…that’s conniving…that’s some Frank Underwood-level manipulation.

If not fictional, this at least feels like a political move that would have happened years ago, before Watergate made us suspicious and before the Internet allowed us to track every suspicion. The problem is that Christie’s staffers apparently were either too cocky to think they’d get caught, or forgot that if you send an email, it is forever. Pro-tip to anyone planning to pull a major political move in the future: use snail mail. Or owls. Or code. Or smoke signals. Just don’t use electronic communication. You will get caught.

This promises to be one interesting ride. Keep your eyes on this story. I promise you won’t regret it.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Donkey Hotey via Flickr]

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 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

Well, Election Day has come and gone, and things are looking (un)surprisingly bright for the tri-state area.

Folks, I live in Hoboken, New Jersey, and I commute into New York City almost every day. That means I was pretty invested in both the New Jersey gubernatorial race and the New York mayoral race. So now that the results are in, let’s chat about them, mmkay?

Republican Chris Christie won reelection in New Jersey last night, with Democrat Bill de Blasio winning the mayoral seat in New York. No one was even a little bit surprised—to the point where Politico reported Christie’s victory hours before polls even closed.

Now, we all know I’m no fan of the Republicans. Christie’s conservatism irks me, and I’ve called him a douche many, many times over the course of his first term. Especially when it comes to his education policy, which actually drives me insane.

But seriously. Dude’s always railing against teachers, cutting public school budgets, and pushing charter schools. These are policies that kill fair labor laws, devalue an incredibly important job (educating the next generation, NO BIG DEAL), and exacerbate socio-economic inequality. Don’t believe me? Los Angeles has more charter schools than any other district in the country—let them tell you how much they suck.

So, obviously, I’m not Christie’s biggest fan. But, he’s the frontrunner for the GOP’s 2016 Presidential bid, and I’m weirdly happy about that. Why? A surprising side effect of my Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder is a much more positive vision of Gov. Christie.

While I was totally freaking out about the apocalyptic flooding outside my apartment, Christie was consistently calm and attentive. He made regular TV appearances, updating residents on the situation while we waited for the storm to make landfall. After disaster struck, he came and visited Hoboken—as well as many other affected New Jersey towns—to assess the damage and address his constituents.

Many have claimed that Christie used the storm as a publicity stunt, pumping up his approval ratings without giving enough material aid to affected residents. That may be true. But, he also proved himself to be a calm and effective leader who could successfully navigate an emergency situation. He made a lot of people, myself included, feel safe under terrible circumstances.

And that’s a really big deal. Since Sandy, he’s arguably toned down his conservatism—choosing not to fight against the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage, for example—establishing himself as a centrist politician who’s more concerned about being realistic and representative than pushing his own agenda.

Now, I’m not a huge fan of Republicans—but that’s one I can potentially get behind.

Across the Hudson, New York has taken a very different turn. Bill de Blasio will be the first Democratic City mayor in over 20 years—and he’s not just any Democrat. He ran on a seriously liberal platform, and trotted out his biracial family as proof that he could follow through on his promises.

When his afro-bearing son, Dante, told cameras that his dad opposed stop-and-frisk, New Yorkers believed him. Why? Because de Blasio’s strong ties to people of color—his entire immediate family—must mean that he’s personally invested in ending a policy that targets and harasses them. This isn’t hypothetical for him—it’s sitting in his living room.

De Blasio’s platform also included a plan to raise taxes in an effort to decrease the city’s wealth gap, which has grown to epic proportions. YAY!  Will he be able to deliver on that noble goal? Only time will tell, but the awesome factor of the First Lady is indicative of good things.

Bill’s wife, Chirlane McCray, is a black feminist, a writer, a marketing maven, and used to identify as a lesbian. Since marrying Bill, she’s gotten queerer, explaining (why does this still need to be explained?!) that sexuality is fluid. She’s also a former member of the Combahee River Collective—one of the most important black, lesbian, feminist organizations of the 1970s and 80s.

Seriously, people. I read about the Combahee River Collective when I was a Gender & Sexuality Studies major at NYU. Hardly anyone outside the department had ever heard of it, mainly because feminist history is terribly whitewashed. Gloria Steinem gets the glory over Audre Lorde every time.

So, the fact that a former member is set to move into Gracie Mansion (unless the family opts to stay in Brooklyn, which would be super rad) is a huge deal. Like, absolutely huge.

With McCray by his side, Bill de Blasio’s mayoral victory is more than just a change of pace for New York City. It could be revolutionary.

So Tuesday’s election went pretty well, I’d say. Gov. Christie’s a pretty acceptable conservative, and Mayor de Blasio’s a super exciting liberal.

The tri-state area is going places, people.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Bill de Blasio via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Decision 2013: I’ll See Your Christie, and Raise You de Blasio appeared first on Law Street.