It’s an unwritten but profusely underlined rule in Washington that you don’t make fun of the president’s children, but after Donald Trump’s inauguration this weekend, some users on Twitter didn’t seem to get the memo.

In the midst of the inauguration festivities this past weekend, a number of Twitter users made Barron Trump, the president’s youngest son, the butt of a whole host of jokes.

Is it just me or does Barron Trump look like King Joffrey? pic.twitter.com/lJKVyfqgDw

— Game of Thrones Meme (@Thrones_Memes) January 21, 2017

Until @katiemaryrich either profusely apologizes to #BarronTrump or is fired, I will join the many who #BoycottSNL. Loyal viewer since 1975. pic.twitter.com/haQ6PRcHWn

— (((ProperGander))) (@BamaStephen) January 21, 2017

In response to these jokes, a lot of people called foul, reiterating a point that many have preached for decades: the first children are off limits. Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton took to social media on Sunday to express her feelings about the Barron situation:

Barron Trump deserves the chance every child does-to be a kid. Standing up for every kid also means opposing @POTUS policies that hurt kids.

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) January 22, 2017

Clinton’s support for Barron comes two weeks after former first daughters Jenna Bush-Hager and Barbara Bush penned a letter in TIME in support of Malia and Sasha Obama, praising them for their grace while their parents served as president and first lady and wishing them well on the lives they will embark on after their parents’ time in the White House.

On Monday, NBC suspended “Saturday Night Live” writer Katie Rich for her tweet about Barron Trump, which she has since apologized for. While some have seen NBC’s action as justified, others have come to the defense of Rich, highlighting that crude comments from President Trump and other politicians have not been met with the same kind of swift reprimand.

That Katie Rich joke was just “writers room talk.”

— Moshe Kasher (@moshekasher) January 24, 2017

Katie Rich should have never tweeted that joke. She should have said it on an Access Hollywood bus. Then no one would care.

— Dan Wilbur (@DanWilbur) January 23, 2017

It’s interesting that a writer on SNL is held to a higher standard of language than the man we elected @POTUS @katiemaryrich #stupid

— Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) January 24, 2017

Katie Rich suspended from job for joke. Bill Kintner still at work. Once again proving NBC has stricter policies than our Govt. https://t.co/GsUBIB6wfJ

— Paul Scheer (@paulscheer) January 24, 2017

For their part, the White House issued a statement on Tuesday that called for privacy for Barron. “It is a longstanding tradition that the children of Presidents are afforded the opportunity to grow up outside of the political spotlight,” the statement reads. “The White House fully expects this tradition to continue. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton Comes to the Defense of Barron Trump appeared first on Law Street.

After the election results became clear, many were shocked by the outcome, and for some, that shock continues today. But ever since a hiking mom and her young daughter ran into Hillary Clinton in the woods of Chappaqua, New York just after the election, Hillary-fans have flocked to the upstate New York town, hoping to catch a glimpse of or maybe even a selfie with her. And some have been really lucky!

When you go pick up your pie and the entire Clinton family is shopping 2#shopsmallbusiness #looksgreat#happythanksgiving @HillaryClinton pic.twitter.com/L9zQWLJlB2

— Linda (@lindapmgbosco) November 23, 2016

Others were determined to make a day of it no matter how long it would take.

I’m in Chappaqua!! I’ll be crouched in the goddamn woods all day, waiting for Hillary Clinton to appear & take a viral photo with me

— Zach Schonfeld (@zzzzaaaacccchhh) November 24, 2016

The chance meetings were soon called Clinton sightings, drawing parallels to some kind of game or the search for a rare animal. There’s even a Twitter account dedicated to the phenomenon that appeared recently with the handle @HRCintheWild.

Another Clinton sighting. This time at the market in Chappaqua. pic.twitter.com/xvAtGWGgCR

— Yashar (@yashar) November 24, 2016

The woman in the sun glasses received more votes for president than any white male that has ever run for the office in our history. pic.twitter.com/lPpWWvb2LO

— HRC In The Wild (@HRCintheWild) November 29, 2016

Some saw the recent round of selfies as a reminder that she should really be planning her presidency right now.

WHEN HILLARY CLINTON IS HIKING AND GROCERY SHOPPING WHEN SHE SHOULD BE PICKING A PRESIDENTIAL CABINET

— Ryan Nicole (@kangasroo) November 28, 2016

Like his wife, Bill Clinton was also happy to take some photos with fans.

Bill Clinton poses for pictures with fans in Chappaqua https://t.co/IfD3wdJ3tK pic.twitter.com/e2nwfsJEjS

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) November 15, 2016

On Thanksgiving, Hillary posted her own picture showing signs that fans had made to support her. A very heartwarming Thanksgiving message indeed.

I was greeted by this heartwarming display on the corner of my street today. Thank you to all of you who did this. Happy Thanksgiving. -H pic.twitter.com/b69mW3Oqbf

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 24, 2016

Last week, Jill Stein petitioned Wisconsin to recount the ballots cast in the state under the suspicion of election tampering, though no significant evidence of tampering has been uncovered. The Clinton campaign said it joined the recount effort but noted that there was little hope that a recount will change anything. Stein promised to also file for recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, which were pivotal states that Donald Trump won by relatively narrow margins. While the recounts will almost certainly not matter, Hillary fans will likely keep their fingers crossed and keep hiking.

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 Hiking for Hillary? People Try Looking for Her in the Woods appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning, writers’ rooms were probably frantically trying to re-write many of their planned monologues and sketches in line with election night’s unexpected results. Many of them probably struggled with what tone to approach the news with, as the man who had been their main source of comedic material for the past 18 months is not a joke anymore–he’s now our president-elect. While these hosts were more somber than usual, they still brought the laughs, and demonstrated that not all hope was lost.

If the election results have you stressed, hopefully these late night hosts can offer you the comedic comfort food your soul needs.

“Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver

John Oliver’s last show of the year issued some pretty serious messages and dire warnings in between its laughs. John Oliver urged viewers to “actively stand up for one another” by supporting organizations such as The Trevor Project, Planned Parenthood, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and a myriad of others. He also advised that we constantly remind ourselves that “this is not normal” with regard to a Trump presidency. Oh, and he also “blew up” 2016 at the end, because this year has been all-around awful.

“The Daily Show” with Trevor Noah

This election cycle was seriously missing the voice of Jon Stewart, but Trevor Noah delivered on Wednesday with material that could make a viewer want to laugh and cry at the same time. Particularly moving was a bit by Hasan Minhaj, in which he almost broke down in tears while telling the story of his mother, who is currently abroad and can’t return to the U.S. until February, but wasn’t entirely sure whether she’d be let back in under Trump’s confusing and ever-changing “Muslim ban.” He needs her…and she also owes him $300.

Another moving moment from this week’s show was when correspondent Michelle Wolf also simultaneously laughed and cried as she discussed the absurdity of Trump’s win and its depressing implications for American women.

In the 2016 election, 42% of women voted for Donald Trump. @MichelleIsAWolf responds: https://t.co/lU43mqpyPz pic.twitter.com/BJZCxetT5s

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) November 10, 2016

“Late Night” with Seth Meyers

Seth Meyers just might be the man to blame for a Trump presidency: in 2011, he delivered scathing jabs at Trump for his “birther” comments about President Obama. He also laughed off Trump’s interest in a campaign for the presidency at the time, while cameras showed Trump was in the audience silently seething and accepting the challenge.

Despite that, Meyers received praise for his election coverage, with his “Closer Look” segments. His post election remarks were somber, hopeful, and humorous at the same time, and had Meyers himself on the verge of tears.

“Full Frontal with Samantha Bee”

The central message of Bee’s show? We need to get to work. Bee was definitely angry with the results, blaming the large white voter base that voted for Trump. Bee also shushed white people who didn’t vote for him, and said “if Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we.”

But Bee wasn’t just angry, she was also hopeful for the “nasty women” of the future that need to step up so that we can have more and more women representing us in office.

“The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert

Another character who was sorely missed this election cycle was Stephen Colbert’s “Colbert Report” persona. But even though we didn’t get to hear from his alter ego, the man himself was there to support us through the tough Election Night and into the next day.

Stephen Colbert’s live election night coverage on Showtime ended before Trump’s victory was announced, but at that point it was already clear that a Clinton win was unlikely, so the night ended on a somber and uncertain note. But the next morning, after it was official, Colbert captured the nausea-ridden hangover that overcame much of the country the day after the election. Colbert was blunt about his feelings (“This suuuucks”), but if you’re feeling down, I guarantee that watching Colbert put on cat ears and pretend to be a “sexy kitty” will definitely improve your day.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Here’s How Late Night Hosts Reacted to the Election Results appeared first on Law Street.

So there we have it: what seemed inconceivable is now a reality. Donald J. Trump, former “Apprentice” host, a businessman with a slew of failed ventures to his name, and a man with literally no public service experience, has defeated Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a woman who spent her entire life working toward this moment and who was poised to become our first female president.

Mr. Trump has been surprisingly indestructible during this election cycle. Despite his astounding hypocrisy, consistent lies, and vile and hateful rhetoric toward nearly every group imaginable, he made it. Even after starting his campaign off by calling Mexicans rapists, insulting a Gold Star family, being caught on tape talking about groping a woman, and literally any other time where it seemed like he was self-sabotaging his campaign, he made it.  We have our next Commander-in-Chief.

Look, Trump voters, I get it. A lot of you are part of a disenfranchised and largely-ignored group of Americans, and “Make America Great Again” sounds like a really simple solution to a lot of the major problems you’re dealing with. And yes, the government feels like it consistently is dealing with partisan gridlock, which makes it difficult to actually get things done. People want a change from all of that, and it’s understandable; these are issues we must acknowledge and take action on as a country.

But I’m sorry to tell you: Trump doesn’t care about you. If you voted for him because you think he’s the one who’s going to solve these problems, you’ve made a terrible, terrible mistake.

Here’s what Trump cares about: power, fame, money, and himself.

Here’s what Trump doesn’t care about: climate change, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, income inequality, refugees, diplomacy, education reform, veterans, Black Lives Matter, and criminal justice reform.

Trump has yet to explain his policies on the most pressing issues facing this country today. His views on fighting terrorism? He says he’s going to get rid of ISIS, but he doesn’t want to tell us how because he doesn’t want to tip them off. His immigration plan mainly consists of two words: “the wall.” (By the way, Mexico hasn’t agreed to this wall, and there’s not really a way to make them do it, so that will probably add to our debt).  His proposed Muslim ban is probably unconstitutional.

But hey, he will bring our jobs back, right? Well, a lot of his economic proposals don’t really add up, and his economic plan is likely to add trillions to the debt.

Fine, he can appoint advisors and Cabinet members who have more experience with these issues. But do you really want a leader who doesn’t understand what he’s talking about, and who advocates for policies that are straight-out unconstitutional, unfeasible, and downright criminal? Even if he’s unable to act on certain things he’s said over this campaign, he is now the world’s representative for America.

He doesn’t understand your problems; he’s never lived them. Throughout his campaign, he’s shown us his narcissism and his love for attention. Even with his alleged billions of dollars, he’s not even charitable with his money. Oh, and don’t forget that we still haven’t seen his tax returns, despite the IRS giving him the okay to release them even under audit.

I haven’t written this to shame Trump supporters, but for people to fully understand the choice they made when they stepped into that voting booth. If Trump doesn’t fulfill his promises, don’t say you weren’t warned. After Brexit, a lot of “leave” voters had regrets over their decision. I don’t know if that will happen in the U.S., but I wouldn’t be surprised if some voters have buyer’s remorse not long after he takes power.

Congratulations, Trump voters. You celebrate along with ISIS, the KKK, and many other hate groups that are thrilled that about this election result. For the sake of our country, I genuinely do wish that he does “make America great,” but I don’t have much hope that he will.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Dear Fellow Americans: Trump Doesn’t Care About Us appeared first on Law Street.

All across the country, students on college campuses protested the election results, which declared Donald Trump the next President of the United States.

Young voters (18-29 years old) voted 55 percent to 37 percent in favor of Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton. But for voters 65 and over, Trump held the majority of the votes.

With numbers like those it is easy to see how many college students could be unhappy with the way the election went. Students around the country, including many on the West Coast (likely due to the time difference), poured into the streets crying, shouting, and marching against the president-elect.

Some students headed to the bars, while others headed to the streets.

Students could be heard screaming “F— Donald Trump,” as mobs marched arm in arm through campuses, trying to make some sort of sense out of what had happened. Here are a few examples of protests from college campuses around the country:

University of California, Santa Barbara:

UCSB and SBCC students marching to Storke Tower in a peaceful protest in regards to the election results. 11-9-2016/2:04 AM. #NotMyPresident pic.twitter.com/G3sF40bnQh

— Saitama (@heisenchapo) November 9, 2016

University of California, Berkeley:

“The people, United, will never be divided.” UC Berkeley anti-Trump protest at Telegraph and William Street, Oakland. #berkvote pic.twitter.com/4nKvcsLJHG

— Maya Eliahou (@MayaEliahou) November 9, 2016

University of California, Los Angeles:

Sorry that these are getting repetitive. This is a huge, growing group of students. #UCLA pic.twitter.com/dxfOp8QerY

— Tanner Walters (@tannerbwalters) November 9, 2016

These are all different UC’s reacting to the Presidential Election.The revolution has started. #ucsc #ucla #usb #ucd pic.twitter.com/Au4SPFN2DJ

— Wuendy (@whendcalm7) November 9, 2016

Berkeley High School, Berkeley, California:

BERKELEY HIGH SCHOOL WALKOUT #NotMyPresident #TrumpPresident pic.twitter.com/6HAv7jVAH4

— B (@BerenabasG) November 9, 2016

University of Pittsburgh:

UPitt riots part 2 pic.twitter.com/55s46LWf0K

— reilly (@reidaddy) November 9, 2016

Students at UPitt could be heard chanting, “No KKK no fascist USA! No Trump!” and “Whose streets?” “OUR streets!” Along with “Not my president!”

University of Oregon:

Students from the University of Oregon marched through Eugene to protest America’s new president #LifeAsAJStudent pic.twitter.com/kQU97Sdv2i

— phillip (@philllup) November 9, 2016

Students in Washington D.C. went to The White House to protest.

People in Obama and Clinton shirts link arms outside the White House. #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/fBx6b7eYKB

— The GW Hatchet (@gwhatchet) November 9, 2016

Anti-Trump protestors outside the White House. #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/vTokvFL6Qt

— The Hoya (@thehoya) November 9, 2016

At different universities, it has been reported that professors have cancelled exams and assignments Wednesday, after students expressed their grief over the outcome of the 2016 election.

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 College Campuses React to the 2016 Election with Protests and Anger appeared first on Law Street.

Are you a voter in a solidly red or blue state, and frustrated that your preferred candidate has no chance of winning in that state? Alternatively, are you a voter in a swing state who would like to vote third-party, but are afraid that your vote will help another candidate get elected?

Enter “vote trading,” a practice which allows voters in swing states who are not a strong proponent of either candidate to vote third-party without feeling like their vote is wasted.

It goes like this: say a voter in Virginia, a swing state, does not want to vote for Clinton, and instead prefers a third party candidate such as Jill Stein. However, they do not want to make it easier for Trump to win by taking away a potential vote from Clinton. That individual can reach out to a Clinton supporter in a heavily blue state, such as California, and make an agreement to “swap” so that the Californian votes for Stein and the Virginian votes for Clinton without worrying about contributing to a Trump win in the state.

According to Vox, this practice first came about in the 2000 election, when voter trading websites popped up to help Nader supporters in swing states make sure that their third-party vote didn’t help Bush get elected. This time around, the #NeverTrump app is an attractive option for voters who refuse to vote for Clinton but also fear a Trump victory. The app claims that it “matches Hillary voters in blue states with third-party voters in swing states to help them trade votes.” It also allows users to chat with their matches before agreeing to trade, helping to increase trust (although there’s no way to completely ensure that both parties will follow through on their agreement).

It’s not too surprising that this practice is making a comeback during this election cycle, in which both candidates have favorability ratings of under 50 percent. It is clear that there are a large swath of voters that do not feel that they can vote for either candidate in good conscience, but still want to avoid a worst-case scenario of a Trump presidency.

And yes, vote trading is legal: as this New York Times op-ed explains, a ruling after the 2000 election declared this practice permissible as “constitutionally protected speech and conduct.”

For voters that are particularly uninspired by this year’s major party candidates, vote trading might actually be an option to consider.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post What Is “Vote Trading?” appeared first on Law Street.

Friday marked the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment’s enactment, the provision that blocks federal money from being used for abortions for women who are covered by Medicaid. The provision, named after Republican Henry Hyde, makes it financially impossible for many low-income women to have an abortion. This leaves them with the options of having an illegal, dangerous procedure, using money that was meant for something else such as rent or food, or carrying on with an unwanted pregnancy.

According to pro-life activists, the policy has saved the lives of “millions of Americans.” The director of National Right to Life, Douglas Johnson, has said it “has proven itself to be the greatest domestic abortion reduction law ever enacted by Congress.”

On Friday social media was filled with conservative opinions saying the Hyde Amendment saved American lives.

Because of the #HydeAmendment, over 2 million people did not lose their lives to abortion. #HelloHyde #HydeSavesLives

— Liberty Pike (@Liberty_Pike) September 30, 2016

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence wants to make the Hyde Amendment a permanent law.

40 years ago, the #HydeAmendment was enacted—a milestone in the fight for life. We need a leader who will protect the rights of the unborn.

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) September 30, 2016

But recently more support for abandoning the policy has developed. Hillary Clinton–who also received Planned Parenthood’s first-ever presidential primary endorsement–has spoken out against the provision and made repealing it part of her campaign, saying that abortion is a fundamental human right.

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment. @HillaryClinton agrees – it’s time to #BeBoldEndHyde: https://t.co/R9Jh68Xdz5 pic.twitter.com/GMtrBeBMEy

— Madam President (@Madam_President) September 30, 2016

Planned Parenthood released a statement Friday calling for an end to the provision.

Every woman—no matter how much money she makes or who provides her insurance—should be able to access the full-range of reproductive health care, including abortion. Every woman should be able to make her own decisions about pregnancy based on her own unique circumstances, and have the resources she needs to exercise that decision with autonomy and dignity.

And many opinions were voiced on Twitter.

Thank you @RepDianaDeGette for sponsoring the EACH Woman Act to repeal the Hyde Amendment. #copolitics #BeBoldEndHyde pic.twitter.com/HF5Dt4J6KN

— Gena Ozols (@genaozols) September 30, 2016

Learning how Hyde amendment hurts low-income communities #WeWontWait2016 @fullfrontalfem @KierraDC @jgonzalez_rojas pic.twitter.com/LPp3MjCDTP

— Luna Ranjit (@LunaRanjit) September 20, 2016

The women affected by the Hyde Amendment are also the ones who are most likely to experience an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Ending it would mean increased equality and access to reproductive care for all women.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post The Hyde Amendment Turns 40–Is it Time to Let it Go? appeared first on Law Street.

November 8 looms over America, and as the days tick away and the leaves turn brown, the nation’s focus is squarely on two people: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates had their time in the spotlight during Monday’s first of four debates (one will be between the two VP picks) leading up to November. At times on Monday, the two butted heads on issues from tax returns to Obama’s birthplace to the Iraq War. Here are the top five most contentious exchanges from Monday night:

Tax Returns and Deleted Emails

About 30 minutes in, Holt asked Trump about his tax returns. For a few bumbling, nearly nonsensical minutes, Trump pointed to an IRS audit as to why he has withheld his returns. He also said: “When Secretary Clinton releases her 33,000 deleted emails, I’ll release my tax returns.”

Clinton and Holt both prodded Trump–Holt said the IRS audit does not prevent Trump from releasing his tax returns–who continued to “bait and switch,” in the words of Clinton. The audience cheered at his admonishing of her private email server. For the next few minutes, Trump’s tax returns and Clinton’s deleted emails left the two red-faced and hoarse.

NAFTA: “The Worst Trade Deal Ever Negotiated”

At the beginning of the evening’s discussion, trade, a rising, contentious issue, cropped up. Trump thrashed NAFTA, the Atlantic trade pact supported by former President Bill Clinton, as “the worst trade deal ever negotiated.”

This is not a new stance, but the first direct discussion between Trump, who has spent the past months bashing trade deals as they currently stand, and Clinton, whose husband supported NAFTA and who herself has previously expressed support for trade deals such as TPP, on the trade issue. Things got heated fast: Trump trashed NAFTA as a job killer. Clinton defended it. Trump said she once called the TPP the “gold standard” of trade deals, which she did. Clinton said she said that before the deal took its final form.

Obama’s Birthplace

It’s an issue that hogged the headlines and the airwaves for the past few weeks: the “birther” claim. Trump finally admitted, to the nation, that Obama was in fact born in America. His admission followed years of rumor-mongering that Obama was born elsewhere. Many viewed it as a racist tactic meant to boost his political profile.

An hour or so into Monday’s debate, Holt brought up the issue. Trump deflected, birthing the birther issue to Clinton, whose campaign, he said, dispatched a reporter to Kenya to dig up details on Obama’s true birthplace in 2008. Clinton didn’t quite respond to that claim, instead drudging up the 1973 lawsuit against Trump and his racist rental policies. Trump of course defended them and said the lawsuit ended without an admission of guilt.

Iraq Vote

During an interview with Howard Stern in 2002, Trump, in response to a question about whether he supported the impending Iraq invasion, said: “Yeah, I guess so.” That, his critics say, amounts to explicit support of the invasion, even though his political career was 13 years from beginning at that time. Either way, his stance on the Iraq vote, and Clinton’s vote in support of it when she was Senator of New York, has been a contentious issue all year.

On Monday, Holt asked Trump about his Stern interview.

“That is mainstream media nonsense put out by her because the best person in her campaign is the mainstream media,” Trump said. He mentioned arguments he had at the time with Sean Hannity, who he said supported the Iraq War, while Trump did not. “The record shows otherwise,” Holt replied. Clinton stood by, smiling and nodding.

“Trumped Up, Trickle Down”

After Trump described pieces of his economic vision, which include tax cuts from 35 to 15 percent for “big businesses and middle businesses and small businesses,” Clinton called his plans “trumped up, trickle down.” It’s an extreme revival of Ronald Reagan’s trickle down economic policy, Clinton said, using an oft-used pun with his surname to color that point.

When Clinton mentioned her “broad based,” approach to economic growth, Trump responded: “All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Our country is suffering.”

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 Road to November: Top 5 Testiest Moments at the First Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and current Democratic Presidential frontrunner, took a day off from the campaign trail to testify in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. She testified for a grueling 11 hours about the security present at the embassy in Benghazi, Libya, the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and the controversy over the email accounts she used while at the State Department. As an inquiry that has been mired with controversy, both sides had something to prove with the hearing. Clinton had to prove that she could be a strong and ethical world leader; House Republicans had to prove that this wasn’t just a partisan witch hunt. While the 11-hour hearing was certainly grueling, for the most part Clinton came out on top–possibly in ways that will boost her seemingly tired campaign.

Clinton did exactly what she needed to do at the hearing yesterday–she appeared calm, collected, and a strong leader during the 11 hours of probing questions. Her testimony was littered with strong sound bytes. For example, Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) questioned her on why the Obama administration had originally attributed the attack on the embassy in Benghazi to an anti-Muslim video. Clinton explained that after the attack, what exactly had happened was unclear, and she did her best to update the American people as more information was obtained. After a back and forth, Clinton eventually responded: “I’m sorry that it doesn’t fit your narrative, congressman. I can only tell you what the facts were.” It’s a quotable moment that will make her sound strong and ethical when push comes to shove in this campaign.

The press has, by and large, declared her the clear winner. This even includes certain facets of conservative media. The Atlantic collected a number of conservative writers, pundits, and thinkers complimenting Clinton on her performance–although to be fair, some of those mentions condemn House Republicans more than they applaud Clinton.

Clinton is also reaping financial benefits from the hearing. After the much-lauded marathon performance yesterday, her donations have been increasing. Jennifer Palmieri, her director of Communications, stated that from 9 PM to 10 PM last night, Clinton’s campaign had the best hour of online donations yet. She stated that those donations appear attributable to the Benghazi hearing, stating: “My point isn’t ‘wow, we brought in a lot of money.’ The point is that it moved people.”

Clinton’s campaign has had a shockingly slow start in many ways, but she’s had a damn good couple weeks. She gave a strong performance in the first Democratic debate. Then, this week Vice President Joe Biden, who many thought was going to jump into the race, elected not to. Given that he probably would have siphoned off her supporters, this was good news for Clinton. She wrapped this week up with a strong performance in the Benghazi hearing. Clinton certainly isn’t guaranteed the nomination yet, as there’s still a lot of buzz about Senator Bernie Sanders. But if Clinton keeps moving the way she is now, Sanders may not be able to catch up.

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 The Benghazi Hearing: Just the Latest Win for Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

Traditionally, other than poorly-veiled shots at press events, political opponents had to wait until debates in order to discuss the important issues directly. But that seems to be changing–social media tools make it way easier for candidates to directly interact with each other. Case in point, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and Republican contender Jeb Bush directly engaged in an argument via Twitter this Monday about Clinton’s plan to make education more affordable.

Here are the tweets from Bush and Clinton, in sequential order:

Hillary started with a pretty basic tweet promoting her plan to take on student debt.

Cost won't be a barrier to an education. Debt won't hold you back. Read Hillary's plan: http://t.co/A4pWb3fOf4 pic.twitter.com/KVyr8SlSVn

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 10, 2015

Then, Bush fired back, attacking Obama’s approach to college debt and suggesting that Hillary will be the same.

@HillaryClinton pic.twitter.com/m6LAHYCLok

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) August 10, 2015

Then, Clinton got personal and brought up Bush’s less-than-stellar record on education affordability when he was the governor of Florida.

.@JebBush Fixed it for you. pic.twitter.com/d4q9EWpXCA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 10, 2015

Finally, Bush fired back with a “redesign” of Clinton’s much-mocked arrow logo, but moved the conversation from student debt to taxes.

.@HillaryClinton fixed your logo for you. pic.twitter.com/141nXHQe4Z

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) August 11, 2015

The back-and-forth got pretty nasty relatively quickly. While there’s no guarantee that it was Clinton or Bush behind these tweets, and not members of their respective staffs, the fact that both official accounts were willing to play ball is pretty indicative of the important role that social media will have in this race. Currently, Clinton has roughly four million Twitter followers, Bush’s campaign clocks in at just over 250,000. Both are almost certainly looking to grow those followings, particularly as surprise GOP frontrunner Donald Trump approaches the four million followers mark himself.

So, why are our politicians suddenly getting into Twitter spats a la Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift or Drake and Meek Mill? It’s pretty simple–it’s tantamount to free advertising. Although it’s estimated that one billion dollars will be spent on online campaigning in 2016, attracting followers and conversation via silly photoshop jabs is pretty cheap. Given how expensive it is to run a campaign, attracting free press–after all, we’re all writing about the Bush/Clinton Twitter spat now–is a smart idea.

Bush and Clintons’ Twitter back-and-forth also falls directly in line with the kind of animosity that these two candidates have developed. For example, when both candidates appeared at the Urban League Conference on July 31, Clinton spoke first and took the opportunity to slam Bush’s “Right to Rise” campaign slogan, stating:

I don’t think you can credibly say that everyone has a right to rise and then say you’re for phasing out Medicare, or repealing Obamacare. People can’t rise if they can’t afford health care. They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on. They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education. And you can’t seriously talk about the right to rise and support laws that deny the right to vote.

Bush’s camp responded to Clinton’s comments by accusing her of playing politics–a time-old jab that roughly translates to “the other candidate said something mean.” 

Bush hasn’t missed his opportunity to push back, however. Last night, Bush purported that current problems in Iraq stem from the actions of the Obama administration–which Clinton served under as Secretary of State. Bush said Obama and Clinton were too eager to pull troops out of Iraq and stated:

So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers. Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous.

Given Clinton’s dominance in the Democratic polls, and Bush’s strong second place standing on the Republican side, it makes sense they’re starting to snipe at each other. Doing so over social media might add a new facet to those interactions, but as this promises to be an incredibly long campaign, we can expect to see shade thrown from all sorts of directions–in person and over social media alike.

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 Same Fight, Better Photoshop: Bush and Clinton Take to Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton currently leads the Democratic polls for the presidential nomination. Although still early, Clinton appears confident and poised, and there is no denying that she is one of the strongest Democratic candidates. However recently there has been a lot of coverage focused on her remarks. For example last Tuesday, the Democratic candidate made a very controversial remark in an all-black church in Florissant, MO. Her comments are currently receiving significant backlash and add to the repertoire of outlandish and uneducated claims she has made in recent years. So, does Hillary Clinton need to watch what she says?

Let’s start with the incident in the Florissant church, where Clinton stated, ““All Lives Matter.” While the statement was made in the context of an anecdote Clinton was sharing about her mother, some observers seemed to disregard that notion and interpreted the comment as racist. The phrase “All Lives Matter” has been controversially used in contrast to the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” which gained particular popularity after the  shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, just a few miles south of where the service was taking place. As a result, many were outraged that Clinton would use such a loaded phrase.

Hillary Clinton, in a Black church, just said “All lives matter.” Fam…

— Pousbaé (@yoauntielikeit) June 23, 2015

Hillary Clinton really and truly said “All lives Matter” OMG SHE HAS TO BE ONE OF THE DUMBEST POLITICIANS THIS NATION HAS EVER PRODUCED — Nostradeptus (@adept2u) June 23, 2015

All lives matter? Hillary…sit down now. You’re embarrassing us. #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/IawPcGo7gO

— Citizen B (@Citizen__B) June 23, 2015

Hillary Clinton has attempted to be a much more empathetic and relatable candidate than during the 2008 primaries, and has sought to address racial issues in a more direct manner. But the middle of a presidential campaign is not a smart time for Clinton to try and compare her white mother and a black community that has recently faced an unspeakable tragedy.

The tweets and statements she made Friday morning when same-sex marriage was legalized also provide an example of Clinton’s hypocrisy. Have her supporters forgotten her original stance on the issue? In 2004 Hillary Clinton stated the following: “I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” In 1996, she stood next to Bill Clinton as he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which essentially made same-sex marriage at the federal level illegal. It doesn’t really matter whether or not she’s in favor of same-sex marriage, but rather her consistent habit of talking her way out of an issue and the hypocrisy she illustrates.

Not only are some of her recent comments questionable, but actions taken by her in the past also pose a threat to her run for the presidency, as the same recurring theme of hypocrisy ensues. Hillary Clinton’s claims about her “humble financial roots,” illustrate another attempt to relate to the average American, however her comments and actions create an absolute double standard. Clinton has repeatedly stressed that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke,” when they left the White House. But in 2000, months before leaving the presidential palace, the Clintons bought a seven bedroom home in Washington D.C.’s Embassy Row neighborhood for 2.85 million dollars. They paid $855,000 in cash and were approved for the remainder in a loan–that’s a far cry from “dead broke.”

Today, the Clintons’ combined net worth has risen to a staggering $55 million and their Clinton Global Initiative Foundation is valued at a humble $98.2 billion. Clinton’s campaign insiders have been quoted saying that Hillary will raise an “insane amount of money,” and furthermore will “dwarf anything seen in the history of presidential politics;” clearly something that the average American wouldn’t be able to do.

Although Clinton is making attempts to renew her image and make herself more approachable and relatable, Tuesday’s comment only added fuel to the fire and further pushed the notion of her being a humble candidate further from many voters’ minds. It is likely that her comment was not intentionally racist by nature, however it may have cost her a large group of voters. Moreover, Friday’s statements clearly indicate that her actions and words are not consistent, and it’s only a matter of time before people start to notice the recurring theme of hypocrisy associated with her political campaign.

Symon Rowlands

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

The post Hillary Clinton: A History of Hypocrisy? appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton might have some explaining to do before she can claim the top spot in the Democratic primary. Any pro-Hillary voters who prioritize moral plans for American foreign policy should probably look into the candidate’s past in Haiti. The Pulitzer Center hosted journalist Jonathan M. Katz on Monday night for a discussion about the Clintons’ influence and rather infamous legacy in Haiti and I was fortunate enough to be able to attend. It’s surprising how little the failures and destruction of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s presence in Haiti have been brought up so far. Hopefully by 2016 this topic will be making headlines.

First, some background on the topic: on January 12, 2010, the deadliest natural disaster ever recorded in the hemisphere, a magnitude-7.0 earthquake, devastated Haiti’s southern peninsula and killed 100,000 to 316,000 people. Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the Haitian reconstruction effort and vowed to help the country “build back better,” so that if another disaster struck, Haiti would be able to respond more quickly and with more efficiency. Hillary described their efforts as a “road test” that would reveal “new approaches to development that could be applied more broadly around the world.”

The Clinton Foundation alone has directed $36 million to Haiti since 2010. Another $55 million has been spent through the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, and an additional $500 million has been made in commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative’s Haiti Action Network. But what does Haiti have to show for all of these investments? Not much, according to Katz. “Haiti and its people are not in a better position now from when the earthquake struck,” he said. The hundreds of millions of dollars and the years of reconstruction efforts have yielded negligible results. For a project so expansive, Hillary has kept relatively quiet about Haiti thus far in her campaign. Her spokesman declined to comment on how Haiti has shaped her foreign policy, saying Hillary would address that “when the time comes to do so.”

Hillary’s big plan for how she would “rebuild” Haiti in the wake of desolation was characteristically American: through business. With big corporate plans on the horizon, Bill and Hillary became exceedingly familiar faces in Haiti leading up to the 2011 presidential elections. It’s not surprising that the candidate who vowed to make Haiti “open for business” was ultimately the victor. Former Haitian pop star Michel Martelly eventually won the race, after Hillary salvaged his candidacy when he was eliminated as the number 3 candidate by convincing the parties to accept him back into the race. Katz said that this vote was fraudulent. Martelly, a businessman and strong proponent of foreign investment in Haiti, was “attractive” to the State Department, Katz noted. He very much had a “Clinton view of Haiti and a Clinton view of the world.”

That’s how Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory geared toward making clothes for export to the U.S., was born in 2012. Bill lobbied the U.S. Congress to eliminate tariffs on textiles sewn in Haiti, and the couple pledged that through Caracol Park, Haitian-based producers would have comparative advantages that would balance the country’s low productivity, provide the U.S. with cheap textiles, and put money in Haitians’ pockets. The State Department promised that the park would create 60,000 jobs within five years of its opening, and Bill declared that 100,000 jobs would be created “in short order.” But Caracol currently employs just 5,479 people full time. “The entire concept of building the Haitian economy through these low-wage jobs is kind of faulty,” Katz stated on Monday. Furthermore, working conditions in the park are decent, but far from what should be considered acceptable.

Not only did Caracol miss the mark on job creation, but it also took jobs away from indigenous farmers. Caracol was built on fertile farmland, which Haiti doesn’t have much of to begin with. According to Katz, Haitian farmers feel that they have been taken advantage of, their land taken away from them, and that they have not been compensated fairly. Hundreds of families have been forced off the land to make room for Caracol. The Clintons led the aggressive push to make garment factories to better Haiti’s economy, but what it really created was wealth for foreign companies. This trend was echoed when the Clintons helped launch a Marriott hotel in the capital, which has really only benefited wealthy foreigners and the Haitian elite.

Mark D’Sa, Senior Advisor for Industrial Development in Haiti at the U.S. Department of State, said that many of the Clintons’ promises remain unfulfilled and many more projects are “half-baked.” Haiti remains the most economically depressed country on the continent. If Hillary wins in 2016, U.S. policy geared toward Haiti will undoubtedly expand, meaning even more money will be funneled to the Caribbean nation to fund the Clintons’ projects, for better or for worse. According to Katz, the truth is that we don’t actually know how much money has been thrown into the Caribbean country to “rebuild” it, and that with economic growth stalling and the country’s politics heading for a shutdown, internal strife seems imminent.

The introduction of accountability for the foreign aid industry is the most important change that can be made, according to Katz. Humanitarian aid does nothing positive or productive if there are not institutions in place, managed by individuals who actually live in these countries, to oversee that aid is serving rather than hurting the people it is supposed to “help.” Hillary Clinton’s efforts in Haiti have fueled political corruption, destroyed arable farmland, and have forced hundreds of families to leave their homes and their jobs to make room for a factory that has not given even a fraction of the amount to Haiti as it has taken. If the introduction of accountability is the way to go, then we first need to start talking. So Hillary, what do you have to say about Haiti?

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why U.S. Foreign Policy Isn’t Ready for Hillary appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarina Neote

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

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

It’s official–Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. For weeks, any other legitimate potential Democratic challengers have been backing away very quickly from a nomination consideration. Honestly, with the way this race is probably going to go we might as well just have the convention right now, because Hills is definitely sitting pretty.

So now we turn our eyes to the much more interesting and significantly less important race on the Democratic side–who will be Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee?

Given that everyone is still freaking out over her announcement, it’s probably best to let the dust settle before coming up with any concrete answer. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun speculating in the meantime.

Speculation about who Clinton may pick includes a lot of mid-to-high-level players in the Democratic Party. Both sitting Virginia senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, might be legitimate choices, as they are from a crucial swing state. Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, and long considered a potential contender to fight Clinton for the nomination, could also make a strong partner.

Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, could also be a tempting second in command. While Texas isn’t purple yet, it may be relatively soon, and capitalizing on that in advance could be a smart overall strategy for the Democratic Party. Castro is Hispanic, a voting bloc that has become a priority to win for both the Democrat and Republican tickets. Furthermore, Castro is 40 years old–30 years Clinton’s junior. In addition to balancing out her perspective, Castro will look young and virile standing next to Clinton, and assuage those who have concerns about her health.

There are also questions over whether Clinton would only limit the search to men. There are a lot of female rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren, the popular senator from Massachusetts. She has said she’s not planning on running, despite the fact that she’d presumably have quite a bit of grassroots support if she chose to. More liberal than Clinton in many ways, including on financial issues and ties to Wall Street, she could energize young liberals who are still hurting from the 2008 recession.

Also from the ranks of Democratic women there’s been talk of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N). That one seems like a long shot though, despite the fact that Gillibrand took over Clinton’s seat when she vacated it to become Secretary of State. She’s gone after some big, important issues in her time in the Senate, such as sexual assault in the military; however, in addition to the fact that Clinton and Gillibrand are seen as somewhat similar, there are concerns over whether a ticket with two people from the same state could even work. The 12th Amendment effectively prohibits that both the President and Vice President be from the same state, but exactly what that means is somewhat difficult to parse out. Clinton and Gillibrand both served as Senators from New York, but does that make them “from” the same state? That would be an issue that would have to be decided, but the idea that she chooses Gillibrand is unlikely to begin with. It could however, impact any other possible VPs from New York, including Governor Andrew Cuomo.

There are plenty of other names for consideration on this list. There’s also Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was an attorney with a strong record on crime and safety before being elected to the Senate. Senator Cory Booker is another rising star, particularly after his much-respected time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has been brought up, and even though he says he’s not interested, that was over a year ago, and he may change his mind.

No matter who Clinton picks, she’s got a solid list from which to choose. As the Republican Party contenders spend the next few months tearing each other down, she’s got time to groom a running mate and solidify her base.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Hillary’s In, But Who Will She Run With? appeared first on Law Street.

Right now there’s a controversy over emails in the U.S. government. It all started with the news that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email address to conduct her job in the State Department. However, the controversy has continued with politicians and prominent figures from both sides of the aisle coming out in support or condemnation, and raising what could have been an interesting conversation about the use of email in our government.

In terms of Clinton’s emails, it’s unclear whether or not what she did was technically illegal. However, it’s definitely frowned upon, especially in light of the scrutiny that Clinton herself levied against the private email accounts used in the Bush Administration. That being said, Clinton has now turned over many pages of her correspondence, roughly 55,000 pages worth. Some of the criticism toward Clinton has to do with concerns that the American people still don’t have full information over the terrorist attack against the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya in 2012. However, Representative Aaron Schiff (D-CA) has said that the committee looking into the Benghazi incident got everything they asked for from Clinton, and that there was nothing that they found probative.

Colin Powell, another former Secretary of State, has also come to Clinton’s defense, explaining with regard to his emails:

I don’t have any to turn over, I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files. And, in fact, a lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and the state.gov domain. But I don’t know if the servers at the State Department captured those or not. They were all unclassified and most of them, I think, are pretty benign. So I’m not terribly concerned even if they were able to recover them.

It’s not just her predecessors who are weighing in on this debate. While some Democrats have shown strong support, others have urged her to give an explanation for why her personal account was used during that period. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), for example, declared that Clinton needs to explain exactly what happened with the email mix up, and emphasized that continued silence would just hurt her moving forward.

On the other hand, some Republicans have taken advantage of the confusion and controversy to slam the likely 2016 presidential candidate. That’s to be expected, of course, but some have also taken the opportunity to prove how different they are than Clinton–and presumably by extension, all Democrats. The most obvious example is Senator Lindsey Graham, who on “Meet the Press” this week told everyone “I don’t email. No, you can have every email I’ve ever sent. I’ve never sent one.”

In some ways I suppose that’s not that surprising. As Philip Bump of the Washington Post pointed out, 15 percent of American adults don’t use the Internet. That being said, Graham is also on the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, so his admission that he doesn’t use email could definitely be considered troublesome.

Graham wasn’t the only Republican figure who proclaimed that he shies away from e-mail. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) of 2008 election fame explained that he doesn’t use e-mail because:

I’m afraid that if I was emailing, given my solid, always calm temperament that I might email something that I might regret. You could send out an email that you would regret later on and would be maybe taken out of context And frankly, I don’t have any trouble communicating with my constituents without it.

This entire debate truly strikes me as odd, because what could have actually been a productive discussion about the ethics of communicating with private or business email addresses has sparked a lot of other, significantly less productive talking points. Besides feeding into the incredibly inane Benghazi speculation that seems like it will go on forever, our politicians are now bragging about their detachment from technology. Are we suddenly going to have all the potential 2016 candidates proclaiming whether or not they use e-mail? It’s a pretty ubiquitous tool that most of us use in daily life–I don’t think it’s really a political position.

I’ve long thought that the 2016 elections were going to be particularly nasty–even nastier than 2008 and 2012 in many ways. I think we’re starting to see the beginning of what will be a lot of highly publicized debates over, quite frankly, nothing of consequence.

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 Clinton Email Controversy: Here Comes the Partisan Bickering 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.

Although the United States was founded to escape a monarch and royal family, it is irrefutable that certain families have dominated the American political spectrum. Surnames have transformed into a sort of brand for these families through money, publicity, talent, or a combination of them all. As of October 2013, 37 members of Congress had a relative who had previously served in Congress. Some of the most discussed names of potential candidates for the 2016 presidential election are those shared with former presidents. The scope of power and attention each of these families has acquired through the years is a testament to America’s fascination with celebrity figures.

The Kennedy Family

Perhaps one of the most iconic families in American politics, the Kennedys have shaped the country over several generations. The first, Patrick Joseph “P.J.” Kennedy, was a savvy businessman born to Irish Catholic immigrants. As a young man, he worked on the Boston docks to support his three sisters and widowed mother. P.J. built a name and fortune for himself, eventually entering the political realm. He served five consecutive one-year terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, followed by three two-year terms in the state senate. His political aspirations went beyond his own career, influencing and pushing for his children to reach the highest office in the country.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (“Jack”, “JFK”)

P.J.’s eldest son, Joseph Patrick “Joe” Kennedy, Jr., was expected to become president, but those plans were derailed when Joe Jr. was killed in action during WWII. His father’s aspirations then fell upon a younger son, John F. Kennedy.

After serving in the U.S. Navy, JFK was elected to the House of Representatives from Massachusetts’ eleventh district for six years, followed by a stint as a Senator fro the same state until he was elected president. To this day, he is the only Roman Catholic president and the only one to have won a Pulitzer Prize. He was also the youngest elected to office, inaugurated at just 43 years old.

JFK’s presidency was dominated by the Cold War. He is known for the failed military invasion in Bay of Pigs, which damaged his administration’s image; however, the Cuban Missile Crisis restored faith in his presidency. JFK also started the Peace Corps, and supported racial integration and the civil rights movement.

Only two years and ten months passed between his inauguration and assassination, yet to this day he remains one of the most celebrated and idolized figures in American history.

Robert Francis Kennedy (“Bobby,” “RFK”)

Jack’s younger brother Robert served as his campaign manager and White House advisor during the presidency. Bobby’s authority over cabinet departments led the press to call him, “Bobby – Washington’s No. two man.” JFK appointed him as Attorney General, causing controversy as critics claimed he was unqualified and inexperienced.

His position as AG allowed him to advocate for the  Civil Rights Movement. The sense of urgency for racial equality that RFK projected greatly influenced the President.

After JFK’s assassination, Robert became senator of New York and then began campaigning for presidency. He was shot and killed the night he won the California primary while leaving the ballroom where he had addressed his supporters.

Edward Moore “Ted” Kennedy

Edward was the youngest Kennedy and far outlived his brothers. He was the third-longest serving senator in America, having represented the state of Massachusetts for nearly 47 years. During his time in the Senate, he was chairman and member of many different committees.

The presidency was not a realistic goal for Ted after the Chappaquiddick incident, in which a young woman was killed. Despite this tragedy, he attempted to run in the 1980; however, he lost the Democratic primary to President Jimmy Carter.

The Next Generations

The privileges and opportunities afforded to members of the Kennedy family are vast.  While many descendants of the Kennedys have served at various levels government, these are some of the more notable examples:

Caroline Bouvier Kennedy

Caroline is the only surviving child of JFK and Jackie since her brother, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., was killed in a plane crash in 1999. There were talks of “John John” following in his father’s political footsteps before his untimely death. President Obama appointed Caroline as United States Ambassador to Japan in 2013.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

Eldest child of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland from 1995 to 2003.

Joseph P. Kennedy II

The former U.S. Representative for Massachusetts’ eighth district, RFK’s eldest son served in office from 1987 until 1999.

Joseph P. Kennedy III

Son of Joseph P. Kennedy II and grandson of RFK, he was elected to Massachusetts’ fourth congressional district in 2012.

Patrick J. Kennedy II

The only child of Ted Kennedy to enter politics, he served as U.S. Representative for Rhode Island’s first Congressional district for 16 years. When Patrick decided not to run for reelection, which was prior to Joseph P. Kennedy III’s service, it was the first time Washington was without a Kennedy in office in 60 years.

John Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg

Although still an undergrad at Yale University, JFK’s only grandson has already discussed pursuing a future career in politics. “Jack” has already interned on Capitol Hill for John Kerry and writes political commentary for Yale publications and CNN.

The Bush family in the Red Room of the White House

The Bush Family

While the Kennedys are royalty among liberals, the Bush family is champion of the right. Two Governors, two U.S. Senators, one Supreme Court Justice, one Vice President, and two Presidents make up their lineage. Various business achievements have created a net worth of $60 million. Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, said that the Bushes have “got to be considered the most successful political dynasty in American history.”

David Davis

Davis started the political dynasty serving as Abraham Lincoln’s campaign manager. Once Lincoln was elected, David received a recess appointment to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. He was an associate justice from 1862 to 1877. He is first cousin three times removed to George H. W. Bush’s generation.

Prescott Bush

Prescott Bush was the father of George H. W. Bush and grandfather of George W. and Jeb Bush. Prescott became a profitable businessman before becoming a U.S. Senator from Connecticut from 1952 to 1963.

George H.W. Bush

Commonly referred to as Bush Sr. since his son’s administration, the elder Bush enlisted in the U.S. Navy before attending Yale. Bush Sr. moved his family to Texas and became a prominent member of the oil industry. He had become a millionaire before the age of 40.

Prior to his presidency, Bush Sr. held various positions including: Member of the House of Representatives, Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the Liaison Office to the People’s Republic of China, Director of Central Intelligence, and Vice President to Ronald Reagan.

Following his inauguration in 1989, his administration was instrumental to changes both domestically and abroad. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Berlin Wall happened in the earlier stages of his presidency. The United States was involved in the Gulf War during this time as well. At home, Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which led to a 40 percent increase in legal immigration to the United States. Bush St. lost his campaign for a second term to Bill Clinton.

George W. Bush

Following in his father’s footsteps, George W. Bush entered both the oil industry and political arena. George W. worked on his father’s presidential campaign, and then joined others in purchasing the Texas Rangers. He made history as Governor of Texas by becoming the first Governor to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2011 transformed George W. into a wartime president. They propelled the United States into the War on Terror and the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Approval ratings for George W. landed on both ends of the spectrum. During the 2008 financial crisis they were one of the lowest on record, while following the events of 9/11 they were the highest in history. To this day, George W. Bush’s legacy is split between those who praise him and those who view him as catastrophic for the country.

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush

George W. Bush’s younger brother Jeb served as Governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. Jeb was the first and only Republican to serve two full four-year terms as Governor of Florida. Republicans are hopeful for a Bush 2016 campaign in the next presidential cycle, and Jeb has acknowledged that he is thinking about running. There are many factors that will decide the younger Bush’s next steps, such as immediate family wishes and if he predicts he could run a successful campaign.

The Clinton Family

While not technically a dynasty yet, the Clinton family continues to be influential in the world of politics, philanthropy, and advocacy.

William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton

Unlike President Kennedy and Bush, Bill Clinton was not born into a family of wealth. He grew up in a modest home in Arkansas before earning scholarships to Georgetown and Yale Universities.

Clinton entered public service through election as Arkansas Attorney General prior to his election as Governor of Arkansas. He was inaugurated as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993. Clinton quickly gained popularity with the public by signing into law the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. A major disappointment of his presidency, the inability to create a national health care system spearheaded by the First Lady, plagued his administration. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton in 1998 following the Monica Lewinsky scandal on alleged acts of obstruction of justice and perjury. The Senate voted to acquit Clinton on both charges. Despite the impeachment, Clinton left office with an approval rating of 66 percent.

Since leaving office, President Clinton has been active in philanthropic endeavors. The William J. Clinton Foundation (renamed in 2013 as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation) was founded in 2001 to, “Bring people together to take on the biggest challenges of the 21st century.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary’s time as First Lady was influential and has had lasting impacts. She played a central role in shaping the course of her husband’s administration. Hillary used her position to help pass legislation such as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Foster Care Independence Act, and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Her time spent as a United States Senator from New York was also filled with progress. She served on five Senate committees with nine subcommittee assignments. President Obama nominated Hillary to the position of Secretary of State in 2009, and she served in this capacity until 2013.

Hillary ran for president in 2008, but ended her campaign to endorse future President Obama. Many Democrats hope she will run again in 2016, and there is already a campaign-in-waiting in place if she formally decides to run.

Chelsea Clinton

As the only child of Bill and Hillary, Chelsea has been in the public eye her entire life. She has worked for NBC as a special correspondent, and works closely with the Clinton Foundation as Vice Chairwoman.

Negative Aspects of Family Dynasties

The 2012 presidential election was the first since 1976 in which a member of the Bush or Clinton families was not a presidential or a vice presidential candidate; however, a recent poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News finds that 69 percent of Americans would prefer that neither a Bush nor a Clinton dominate the 2016 presidential race. This implies that Americans dislike family dynasties, yet they continue to elect them. Why is that? It’s easier to vote for a familiar name, regardless of the actions of its predecessor. By nature budding politicians who are raised in the spotlight have an easier time building a political career, as the public and potential donors will take their campaign more seriously and feel an instant connection.

Kennedy

Following the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as Ambassador to Japan, speculations rose regarding if she deserved the position or if sharing the high-profile Kennedy name prompted the assignment. It would benefit the Obama Administration to have a member of one of the most beloved Democrat families representing him and the country. Japan is an advanced nation, so her position would not be as challenging compared to being placed in a country ensnared in domestic or international conflicts.

Bush

While in many instances being related to former politicians is a blessing, for potential presidential nominee Jeb Bush having the family name could be detrimental to a potential presidential campaign. His older brother’s tainted legacy will prove to a be challenge if the younger Bush does decide to make a stab at running for the presidency.

Clinton

With revelations about what goes on behind the scenes of the Clinton Foundation, speculations surround the Clintons and their willingness to sell their image and reputation to further their own agendas. One of which could be a potential Hillary campaign, as the former Secretary of State has made the foundation her base while she contemplates a presidential run. With the addition of Hillary and Chelsea taking on major roles, it has truly become a family affair.

The New York Times wrote a takedown of the Clinton Foundation, stating:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

 Resources

Primary

Hart Research Associate/Public Opinion Strategies: Survey

Additional

The New York Times: Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions

Time: Liz Cheney And The Family Business: A Chart of All Congressional Dynasties

JFK Library: Joseph P. Kennedy

JFK Library: Life of John F. Kennedy

James W. Hilty: Robert Kennedy: Brother Protector

CNN: RFK Assassination Witness Tells CNN: There was a Second Shooter

JFK Library: Edward M. Kennedy

History Channel: Incident on Chappaquiddick Island

Time: Remembering JFK Jr., 15 Years Later

NBC News: The Kennedys: Portrait of an American Dynasty

Celebrity Net Worth: Bush Family Net Worth

Washington Times: Rise of ‘Dynasty’ Quick, Far-reaching

Michael Fix: The Paper Curtain: Employer Sanctions’ Implementation, Impact and Reform

Washington Post: As Jeb Bush Eyes 2016, Key Question is how a Presidential Campaign Would Affect his Family

The New York Times: Impeachment: The Overview — Clinton Impeached; He Faces a Senate Trial, 2D in History; Vows to do job Till Term’s ‘Last Hour’

Politico: Foundation Renamed for all Three Clintons

Christian Science Monitor: Chelsea Clinton Gets PhD From Oxford: For What?

Huffington Post: Political Family Feuds: The Good, the Bad, and the Really Ugly

Washington Post: 3 Reasons why we Have a Love/Hate Relationship With Political Dynasties

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Political Family Dynasties in the United States appeared first on Law Street.