Before you get sucked into celebrating today’s total solar eclipse, catch up on some of our top trending stories from last week. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

Hawaii’s First Marijuana Dispensary Has Already Run Out of Weed

Less than a week after opening, Hawaii’s first–and only–medical marijuana dispensary has already been forced to temporarily close due to not enough marijuana on hand. Maui Grown Therapies announced in a press release Sunday that it will close Monday and Tuesday as it awaits action from the Department of Health’s Labs Division to “help unclog a backlog of products.”

Bureau of Prisons to Provide Free Feminine Hygiene Products

The Bureau of Prisons released a memo last week declaring that feminine hygiene products would be provided to inmates for free. While this will only affect female inmates who are currently incarcerated in federal prisons, it’s a notable step forward for inmates who struggle to access basic hygienic products.

Trump’s Bid to Build Sydney’s First Casino Was Denied Over Mafia Links

In 1987, Donald Trump tried to open the first casino in Sydney but was rejected because of his ties to the mafia, according to a cabinet report that was obtained by The Australian. According to the secret report, which now has been declassified because 30 years have passed, the New South Wales police board warned the local government that it could be “dangerous” to allow Trump to open the casino. The public was not informed why at the time. The state government also dismissed two other bidders.

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.

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

Trump Disbands Business Councils as More CEOs Quit

After President Trump seemed to defend white nationalists regarding the violence in Charlottesville, even more former allies are turning their backs on him. Yesterday, he closed down two business advisory councils as many CEOs quit in response to the president’s comments. The Strategy & Policy Forum and the Manufacturing Council are now disbanded. “Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville,” said the CEO of Campbell Soup, Denise Morrison, as she resigned from the Manufacturing Council. Trump announced the disbandings on Twitter, even though the councils had reportedly decided to call it quits internally before that.

Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2017

Trump’s blaming of “both sides” also caused military officials and Republicans to issue their own statements condemning the alt-right violence and distancing themselves from the president. Even Fox News hosts criticized him in some broadcasts and revealed that they hadn’t found a single Republican to come on air in defense of Trump.

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: August 17, 2017 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:

Celebrities Protest at Trump Tower After Outrageous Press Conference

Last night, Michael Moore invited the audience that attended his Broadway play “The Terms of My Surrender,” featuring Mark Ruffalo, to join them at a protest outside the Trump Tower in New York. He then bussed 200 people in double-decker buses over to the tower and encouraged the rest of the audience to walk over. The protest was also a vigil in honor of counter-protester Heather Heyer. Ruffalo opened with a speech urging people to say her name. Actors Olivia Wilde and Tom Sturridge joined the protest right after they finished their Broadway show, “1984,” and led some chants.

.@MMFlint and @MarkRuffalo are leading a Trump Tower protest with #1984Play‘s Olivia Wilde and Tom Sturridge in tow https://t.co/PFfJ08I54a pic.twitter.com/rqf62i5qwS

— Ashley Lee (@cashleelee) August 16, 2017

The outrage aimed at President Donald Trump increased yesterday, after he defended his initial remarks regarding Charlottesville, when he said that “many sides” were responsible for the violence. Yesterday, he repeated that claim, and said the “alt-left” groups that attended the rally were “very, very violent” and that the blame is on “both sides.” People were shocked by the callous comments, and former KKK leader David Duke thanked the president on Twitter.

No words. https://t.co/pCSYUE5iZN

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) August 15, 2017

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: August 16, 2017 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:

DOJ Opens Civil Rights Investigation into Charlottesville Violence

This weekend, a white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent. The march began on Friday night, with protesters carrying torches, Nazi flags, and chanting a Nazi slogan. On Saturday, a lot of counter-protesters arrived at the scene. On Saturday afternoon, a car drove straight into the crowd of counter-protesters, killing one woman and injuring over 30 others. The driver was later identified as 20-year-old Ohio native James Alex Fields Jr. He has been charged with murder. Governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency Saturday evening.

Alleged driver of car that plowed into Charlottesville crowd was a Nazi sympathizer, former teacher says https://t.co/LWgW6UTy3e

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) August 13, 2017

President Donald Trump finally commented from his New Jersey golf club, saying that he condemns the display of violence “on many sides.” But this very brief and vague comment was heavily criticized for not condemning the brazen white supremacy on display.

The Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the violence and even Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a more emphatic statement than the president. “The violence and deaths in Charlottesville strike at the heart of American law and justice. When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated,” he said.

If ISIS rammed a car into a crowd this would be labeled quickly & logically. Charlottesville – call it what it is, domestic terrorism.

— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) August 13, 2017

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: August 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, white nationalists descended on Charlottesville, Virginia, where the University of Virginia is located. Many carried nazi or confederate flags, along with other symbols of white supremacy. Charlottesville has turned into somewhat of a powder keg after plans to remove a confederate statute from a nearby park sparked protests. Today, a car drove straight into a crowd of Black Lives Matter counter-protesters, killing at least one and injuring others. In response to the violence brought by the protesters, Governor Terry McAuliffe has declared a state of emergency in Virginia.

Scenes from the events last night and today have reverberated on social media, with many calling it out for what it is: blatant white supremacy and domestic terrorism.

Emblematic indeed#Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/qTvTB3BpSa

— Andy Campbell (@AndyBCampbell) August 12, 2017

My full statement on the horrifying white supremacist demonstrations and violence in Charlottesville: pic.twitter.com/IFXmqFLv4i

— Senator Tim Kaine (@timkaine) August 12, 2017

Regardless of who this evildoer is… this is terrorism. #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/8eOWpJKp5R

— Ammar Campa-Najjar (@ACampaNajjar) August 12, 2017

Mr. President – we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism. https://t.co/PaPNiPPAoW

— Cory Gardner (@SenCoryGardner) August 12, 2017

Of course, all eyes were on one particular individual’s reaction. President Donald Trump gave a short statement on Saturday afternoon, saying that “we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.” But as many pointed out, there aren’t that many sides to this debate: there are violent white supremacists and then there are peaceful counter-protesters.

No, Mr. President, not “many sides.” There is one side with nazi flags and nazi salutes. America is not on that side. https://t.co/sDpFC9buIz

— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) August 12, 2017

MANY SIDES?!? Ive typed and deleted at least 8 tweets. Words simply arent strong enough to accurately describe how I feel about Donald Trump

— Chris Evans (@ChrisEvans) August 12, 2017

The violence, chaos, and apparent loss of life in Charlottesville is not the fault of “many sides.” It is racists and white supremacists.

— Mark Herring (@MarkHerringVA) August 12, 2017

To be frank, no one expected Trump to have a particularly strong response. Trump had a track record of refusing to condemn white nationalists or violence at his campaign events. But, as the president of the United States, he needs to be doing better. As scenes continue to unfold in Charlottesville, the blatant white supremacy on display needs to be condemned in the harshest of possible terms.

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 State of Emergency Declared in Charlottesville appeared first on Law Street.

As part of the Treaty on Open Skies, an international program aimed at transparency between allies, a Russian plane scanned much of Washington D.C., including the White House, Capitol, and Pentagon, yesterday, alongside American representatives.

The Treaty on Open Skies is an agreement signed in 1992 between 34 nations that allows them to go on unarmed flights in secure air territory with a representative from the nation they are observing. Countries party to the agreement include Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and many other smaller nations, according to the U.S. State Department. While Russia and the United States have a quota of 42 for observation flights, the smallest nations are only allowed a few opportunities.

The Capitol Police kept tabs on the Russian plane and U.S. military airmen were onboard with the Russians to make sure everything was okay, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier on Wednesday morning the Capitol Police released an alert that an “authorized low-altitude aircraft” would be flying in restricted airspace between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. and would potentially fly directly above government buildings. The airspace around Washington D.C. and its suburbs is the most restricted region in the country, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The plan for the Russian plane was to take a tour of various Trump properties including his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to CNN. Trump is currently on vacation at the course for 17 days and had been there for 11 days before this trip began on Monday, according to TrumpGolfCount.com.

While the ride was certainly legal, some felt that Russia may be taking advantage of the treaty. Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been voicing concerns for over a year now. Last year Stewart met with the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee and said he would “love” to potentially deny future Russian expeditions in American airspace, according to the Washington Post.

“The things that you can see, the amount of data you can collect, the things you can do with post-processing, allows Russia, in my opinion, to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, bases, ports, all of our facilities,” Stewart said in March 2016. “So from my perspective, it gives them a significant advantage.”

Despite those concerns, the Trump Administration has continued to be reluctant to be stern with Russia in either rhetoric or actions.

Navy Captain Jeff Davis spoke on behalf of the program in response to Stewart’s comments. Despite the increased American anxiety regarding diplomatic ties with Russia, Davis sees no legitimate reason to renege on a 25-year-old treaty.

“We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don’t necessarily have that great of intelligence on us,” Davis said. “So, in the interest of transparency and miscalculation on their part, sometimes it’s worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you’re doing or what you’re not doing.”

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 Russian Plane Surveys Washington as Part of Open Skies Treaty appeared first on Law Street.

Trump’s tweets get him in trouble all the time. But his recent tweets about banning trans individuals from serving in the military have now led to a lawsuit in federal court. The National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates filed a lawsuit on behalf of five active trans service members in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on Wednesday.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s directive is unconstitutional, as it violates the due process clause and the equal protection clause. According to the lawsuit, the five servicemembers have all  “followed protocol in informing their chain of command that they are transgender. They did so in reliance on the United States’ express promises that it would permit them to continue to serve their country openly. These servicemembers, like many others, have built their lives around their military service.”

Trump’s tweets were muddled, and sudden. The three tweet chain didn’t provide any information for how exactly a ban would be implemented, or what it would mean for trans individuals already serving.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

The announcement blindsided the Pentagon and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since that tweet storm, none of those questions appear to have been answered. The Department of Defense says it is still waiting for formal guidance. But the fear and panic that trans military members felt was real, and the lawsuit argues that the tweet-based directive “already resulted in immediate, concrete injury to Plaintiffs by unsettling and destabilizing plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of continued service.”

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 Transgender Military Members Sue Trump Over Ban 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:

North Korea is Threatening a Strike on Guam After Trump’s Warning

North Korean officials say they are considering a missile strike against Guam, a U.S. territory, after President Trump issued a warning against the North that any threat to the U.S. would be met with “fire and fury.” After Trump’s harsh words, experts warned against taking part in rhetorical arguments with Kim Jong Un. North Korea has also claimed that the U.S. is planning a “preventive war” and if that becomes reality, Pyongyang will begin an “all-out war wiping out all the strongholds of enemies, including the U.S. mainland.”

About 163,000 people live on Guam, but it’s also the base of a submarine squadron, an airbase, and a Coast Guard group. U.S. officials have said they would prefer to use diplomatic means to solve any conflicts, but would not hesitate to use force if needed. However, Guam’s governor, Eddie Calvo, dismissed the threat and said the island is prepared for “any eventuality.”

North Korea says seriously considering plan to strike Guam: KCNA https://t.co/XLxpImmfG4 pic.twitter.com/qOiy7PJ0i0

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) August 9, 2017

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: August 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, the Senate confirmed Robert “Woody” Johnson IV, the 70-year-old owner of the New York Jets, as ambassador to the United Kingdom. Now, Johnson will move to London and serve a three-year term as the United States’ main representative in a country struggling to navigate the complex negotiations related to Brexit.

Johnson’s friendship with President Donald Trump goes back to their times as businessmen in New York City. Trump considers Johnson one of his oldest friends, according to the New York Times. Johnson is a registered Republican who helped fundraise in 2012 for Mitt Romney and again in 2016 for Trump, despite initially supporting Jeb Bush.

Many expect the Jets owner to be a mediator between Trump and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who Trump has repeatedly criticized, most notoriously after the June terrorist attack in London.

Trump had long wanted Johnson to serve as the ambassador to London, but he didn’t formally nominate him until June. Since then, the Senate has been holding hearings before his confirmation on Thursday. During one hearing last month, Florida Senator Marco Rubio brought some football into the conversation.

.@MiamiDolphins fan @marcorubio jokes to @nyjets owner Woody Johnson that Tom Brady should be made ambassador to Brazil #Patriots #WBZ pic.twitter.com/AMWQ2873hp

— Joe Giza (@JoeGiza) July 21, 2017

Before purchasing the football team in 2000 for $635 million, Johnson and his family were involved in a number of charities for lupus and juvenile diabetes, which his daughter Casey is affected by. While some NFL owners are self-made businessmen, Johnson is the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, a company worth $65 billion, according to Celebrity Net Worth. Johnson himself is valued at $4.2 billion, according to Bloomberg, while the Jets’ estimated value is around $2.7 billion, according to Forbes.

Woody’s brother, Christopher Johnson, will take over operations of the Jets for the next few seasons. The confirmation of the Jets owner is another example of Trump’s penchant for placing businessmen with no political experience in positions of political power. Now it’s time for Johnson to move across the Atlantic Ocean and begin his work with the English government.

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 New York Jets Owner Woody Johnson Confirmed as Ambassador to UK appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump endorsed a bill, introduced by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and David Perdue (R-GA) in February, which would halve the number of legal immigrants coming to the U.S.

The RAISE Act would cap the number of green cards the U.S. issues at 50,000 over the next 10 years. Currently, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services awards about one million green cards each year; about six million individuals and employers apply for a green card each year.

Green cards grant legal immigrants the right to permanently reside and work in the country, instead of having to apply and constantly renew work visas.

Inspired by the Canadian and Australian immigration policies, the proposed legislation would establish a competitive “merit-based system,” through which applicants would be awarded points based on a slew of factors. Some of the factors would include an applicant’s financial stability, ability to pay for healthcare, earning prospects, and, most controversially, English language skills.

The RAISE ACT “puts great downward pressure on people who work with their hands and work on their feet,” Cotton said. “Now, for some people, they may think that that’s a symbol of America’s virtue and generosity. I think it’s a symbol that we’re not committed to working-class Americans. And we need to change that.”

The bill also removes the diversity visa program and “chain migration,” the current practice of prioritizing family unity in the immigration process.

I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers & taxpayers. Watch: https://t.co/lv3ScSKnF6 #RAISEAct pic.twitter.com/zCFK5OfYnB

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2017

“American First” 

This announcement comes on the heels of the Senate’s failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Many equate this push for legal immigration reform to the administration trying to turn the page on healthcare and secure its first legislative win.

Trump campaigned on reforming immigration, legal and illegal, but several of his initiatives have either run into road-blocks or devolved into large-scale media disasters. Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border remains unbuilt, and the attempted Muslim ban was stopped in court a number of times earlier this year.

However, Trump’s “America first” message remains at the forefront of his policies and his endorsement of this bill further highlights this.

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare, and protects U.S. workers from being displaced,” Trump said. “And that’s a very big thing. They’re not going to come in and just immediately go and collect welfare. That doesn’t happen under the RAISE Act. They can’t do that.”

Uphill Battle in Congress 

The bill is very unlikely to pass Congress, as it would need unified Republican support as well as some Democratic votes. Some Republicans have already said they would not support the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released a statement on Wednesday, saying that he agrees with the ideas expressed in the bill, but he would not vote in favor of the legislation.

“South Carolina’s number one industry is agriculture and tourism is number two,” Graham said. “If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also cast doubt on his colleagues’ bill. “I think you have to consider that we do want high-tech people, but we also need low-skilled people who will do work that Americans won’t do,” he said. “I wouldn’t do it. Even in my misspent youth, I wouldn’t do it.”

Strong Reactions 

While many Trump advocates support the policy proposal, the bill is drawing significant criticism from economists, citizens, and immigrants.

“Dramatically reducing overall immigration levels won’t raise the standard of living for Americans,” said Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration, and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite, making it harder for businesses, communities, and our overall economy to grow, prosper, and create jobs for American workers.”

Some see the RAISE Act as focusing too much on making sure Americans in low-wage jobs don’t face competition from immigrants, instead of investing in those same Americans so that they may obtain higher paying jobs.

It's interesting that outside of immigration policy, nobody ever proposes giving strict priority to the interests of high school dropouts.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 3, 2017

Others object to the limits the bill would place on bringing in grandparents or extended family members to the U.S. Under the bill, people like First Lady Melania Trump, a non-native English speaker, would have a tough time getting permanent residency.

“What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” CNN’s Jim Acosta said during a White House press conference. “The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’ It doesn’t say anything about speaking English or being a computer programmer.”

In his response to Acosta’s question, Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy adviser, said: “The poem that you’re referring to was added later, [and] is not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Backs Bill to Slash Legal Immigration, Introduce “Merit-Based” System appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Homeland Security waived more than three dozen environmental laws and regulations Wednesday to speed up the first phase of construction of border wall projects near San Diego.

#NoWallsNoWaivers
#Resist#ResistTrump#RevitalizeNotMilitarize#OurLands pic.twitter.com/80JZkd5Maa

— cyndi tuell (@cctuell) August 1, 2017

The projects will be constructed along an approximately 15-mile segment of land that starts at the Pacific Ocean and extends eastward toward a point called Border Monument 251, according to a statement from the DHS. The waiver follows one of President Donald Trump’s January executive orders, which called for greater security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The DHS invoked a 1996 law to waive several environmental protections, including a law that would have required the department to assess the environmental impact the wall would have. In spite of the waivers, the department maintained in a statement that they are “committed to environmental stewardship with respect to these projects.”

The statement read:

DHS has been coordinating and consulting–and intends to continue doing so–with other federal and state resource agencies to ensure impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic artifacts are analyzed and minimized, to the extent possible.

However, environmental advocates and border wall opponents weren’t convinced. The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued the DHS in June to obtain documents on Trump’s border wall prototypes, published a statement condemning the waiver and the wall. Brian Segee, and attorney for the center, criticized Trump’s planned wall for being harmful to the environment and the people who live near the border.

“Trump wants to scare people into letting him ignore the law and endanger wildlife and people,” Segee said in the statement. “Trump’s wall is a divisive symbol of fear and hatred, and it does real harm to the landscape and communities.”

In another critique of the decision, American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers cautioned against impulsively expediting the border wall.

“Today’s announcement by DHS is a disturbing sign that President Trump will barrel ahead with building a border wall no matter the cost to taxpayers or effect on our environment,” he said. “Given the widespread skepticism towards the effectiveness of the border wall by leaders in both parties–including the new White House Chief of Staff–effective safeguards are more important than ever to prevent President Trump from spending tens of billions of dollars and radically transforming our Southwestern border based solely upon his whims and impulses.”

Environmentalists fear that Trump’s border wall would negatively impact the surrounding environment through actions such as impeding animal migration and increasing floods in the desert. Segee pointed out that the construction wouldn’t be limited to just the wall, but would include roads, lighting, and other infrastructure that would accompany it.

In a May study, the Center for Biological Diversity found that the wall and related infrastructure would potentially affect 93 threatened, endangered, and candidate species. But the full impact of such large-scale construction projects cannot be known unless an environmental impact assessment is performed, a procedural step that DHS does not appear to see as a necessity.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DHS Waives Environmental Rules To Build San Diego Border Wall 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:

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 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: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Back in December, Law Street Media explained who then-Secretary of Homeland Security nominee John Kelly was. Only a few months after the inauguration, Kelly has since shifted jobs and replaced Reince Priebus as the chief of staff under President Donald Trump.

Kelly wasted no time making moves on his first day in office, firing Anthony Scaramucci from his communications director post after only 10 days on the job. He was reportedly outraged by Scaramucci’s profanity-laced interview with the New Yorker and found it embarrassing for the president, according to the Washington Post.

The ousting signaled that Trump may be willing to give more power to Kelly than Priebus had during his entire six-month stint in the White House.

“General Kelly has the full authority to operate within the White House, and all staff will report to him,” said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Trump’s chief of staff change is yet another example of him doing the same thing he had previously criticized Obama for doing. While Obama had three chiefs of staff during his eight years, Trump is already on his second in just six months.

3 Chief of Staffs in less than 3 years of being President: Part of the reason why @BarackObama can’t manage to pass his agenda.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 10, 2012

Kelly is known in the political world for his no-nonsense approach to leadership. The former 45-year military veteran from Boston served in the previous administration as the head of the U.S. Southern Command, a unit that focuses on operations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

His new appointment comes as the White House shifts to push Trump’s stagnant agenda, specifically in regards to taxes. The president wants Kelly and other administration officials to help focus lawmakers and citizens on passing tax cuts, which was a key part of his domestic agenda while on the campaign.

According to reports from inside the White House, people are already responding well to Kelly in his new role.

“He’s an adult and a disciplinarian,” said Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign adviser, to the Washington Post. “He walks in with respect. I don’t think people will go to war with him.”

During his brief stint leading Homeland Security, Kelly pursued a couple of projects, including Trump’s much discussed border wall with Mexico. Kelly called the proposed wall “essential” and vowed that construction on it would begin “by the end of summer,” though that doesn’t seem to be happening. He also stressed concerns over potential terrorist attacks on transportation, and said that if people knew the truth they would “never leave the house.”

While his position atop the Department of Homeland Security was relatively calm, Kelly is now entering a new, chaotic environment inside the West Wing. With weekly firings, constant leaks to the press, and conflicting statements from officials, Kelly will have his hands full balancing Trump, his aides, and other leaders. As a seasoned veteran, Kelly has experience leading groups, but wrangling this group of Washington outsiders–many of whom have unstable temperaments–will be a whole new challenge.

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 John Kelly: From General to DHS to the White House appeared first on Law Street.

More women than men are paying increased attention to politics after Donald Trump’s election, according to new data about political attentiveness.

Nine months after an election largely defined by its historic gender gap, survey data from the Pew Research Center shows that 58 percent of women say they are “paying increased attention to politics since Trump’s election,” compared with only 46 percent of men.

Overall, 52 percent of the population said they are paying more attention, while 33 percent say they are paying about the same amount of attention, and 13 percent admitted to being less attentive.

“There are similarly wide gender gaps in heightened interest to politics among members of both parties,” according to the Pew. “Sixty-three percent of Democratic women say they are more attentive to politics, compared with 51 percent of Democratic men. Among Republicans, 54 percent of women and 43 percent of men say the same.”

Pew conducted the survey between June 27 and July 9, speaking with 2,505 adults in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

The Gender Gap

Women paying more attention to politics has translated into on-the-ground political activism, according to the data. Seventeen percent of women say they have attended a political rally, event, or protest; 12 percent of men say the same.

It’s likely that a large number of these women were among the estimated 5 million who came out for women’s marches that swept the nation after Inauguration Day.

Education level also appeared to make a difference–the subgroup of the population most likely to have attended a protest is women with post-graduate degrees, with 43 percent having participated.

Out of the total 15 percent of the population who have attended such events, the vast majority (67 percent) did so “in opposition to Trump or his policies,” compared  to the mere 11 percent of those who said they’ve attended a political event in support of the president.

Trump Talk Ending Friendships

The majority of Americans (59 percent) find talking politics with someone who has differing opinions than them on the president to be a “stressful and frustrating” experience. Only 35 percent of the population says it is “interesting and informative” to engage in such conversations.

Women tend to be more frustrated with these conversations–64 percent say they are stressful, compared to 54 percent of men sharing that view.

Going beyond just conversations, about one-in-five survey respondents said that knowing a friend voted for Trump would put a strain on their friendship. However, only 7 percent said that knowing a friend had voted for Hillary Clinton would negatively affect their friendship.

The numbers are even more stark when looking at a breakdown by political affiliation and ideology. Thirty-five percent of Democrats said a friend’s Trump vote would put a strain on the friendship, while only 13 percent of Republicans said the same about a friend #withher. For the Democrats who consider themselves to be liberal, rather than moderate or conservative, 47 percent said their friendships would be strained by a vote for Trump.

A Country Not So Divided

Looking past politics, most Democrats (59 percent) and Republicans (56 percent) said that members of the opposing party probably share their other values and goals.

The ideological group most likely to feel this way is moderate and liberal Republicans, 73 percent of whom said Democrats likely shared their non-political goals and values. These survey questions were only asked of partisan-identifying respondents, not those who said they leaned toward one party.

Click here for the full survey report and methodology explanation from Pew Research Center.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Are Paying More Attention to Politics in Post-Trump World 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.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made it clear on Thursday what would happen if President Donald Trump fires his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. “If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay,” he told CNN. Graham also said he is looking to introduce legislation next week that would block the firing of special counsels without a judicial review.

Rumors have been swirling around Capitol Hill this week that Trump is looking to dispose of Sessions and Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russia’s election interference, and any potential links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

“This effort to basically marginalize and humiliate the attorney general is not going over well in the Senate,” Graham told CNN. “If you believe Jeff Sessions should be fired, use the power you have and accept the consequences.”

On Monday, Trump fired off a tweet calling Sessions “beleaguered,” asking why he has not looked into “Crooked Hillarys [sic] crimes & Russia relations.” Trump is reportedly upset that Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, which left an opening filled by Mueller, a widely respected prosecutor who Trump is also unhappy with.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Sessions was one of Trump’s earliest advocates, and the first senator to embrace his candidacy. The attorney general has also faithfully pursued Trump’s campaign vision–perhaps more than any other cabinet appointee–adopting a hard-line immigration stance and a law and order philosophy on crime.

Republican senators rushed to Sessions’ defense following Trump’s Twitter barrage. They were joined by some Democrats, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who warned that firing Sessions could provoke a “constitutional crisis.” Others said it would further prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the investigations involving Russia and his campaign.

Sessions had been largely mum on the topic of his potential firing until Thursday afternoon. In an interview with Fox, he called Trump’s attacks “hurtful,” but said that Trump “is determined to move this country in the direction he believes it needs to go to make us great again.” He added that Trump “wants all of us to do our jobs and that’s what I intend to do.”

Graham’s legislation would essentially make it more difficult for Trump, and future presidents, to fire a special counsel, which includes Mueller. Dismissing a special counsel would require a judicial review to determine if reasons behind the firing “meet the statutory definitions,” Graham said.

The effort is likely to be a bi-partisan endeavor. Graham’s Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have said they are working on the bill. Blumenthal said it “might be a committee effort,” adding that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.”

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 Lindsey Graham: If Trump Fires Sessions, “There Will be Holy Hell to Pay” appeared first on Law Street.

Fifteen undocumented youth were arrested in Austin, Texas on Wednesday during a protest against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s threat to sue the federal government over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, according to a statement from the protest organizers.

The protest, organized by national immigrant rights advocacy group Cosecha, brought together about 40 protesters for the first DACA-led civil disobedience action under the Trump Administration. Four DACA recipients and eleven allies were arrested after they blocked traffic by sitting in an intersection in front of the State Capitol, according to Cosecha.

“I am getting arrested today to tell my parents, my community, and the rest of the 11 million [undocumented immigrants] that no matter what politicians say, you are worthy and we will not settle for the crumbs they offer us in exchange for being the economic and labor force that sustains this country day in and day out,” said Catalina Santiago, a DACA recipient who was arrested during the protest.

Another shot of the sit-in blocking traffic. People opposing Paxton’s move to end DACA pic.twitter.com/V3KfkKMxMS

— James Barragán (@James_Barragan) July 26, 2017

 

Here’s video of DACA protesters being loaded onto police vehicle pic.twitter.com/MZQ0vf2xqy

— James Barragán (@James_Barragan) July 26, 2017

DACA is an Obama-era program which allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. if they had entered the U.S. before they turned 16, in addition to certain other provisions. Paxton, alongside nine other Republican attorneys general, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in June. In the letter, the attorneys general threatened to sue the federal government if Trump does not rescind the DACA program by September.

During the protest, “DACAmented” youth–a combination of “DACA” and “documented”–and allies marched through the streets of Austin chanting and singing phrases like, “One struggle, one fight, immigrants of the world unite,” and “The power is in our hands. This is our state. Injustice is not welcome here.”

Upon arriving at the capitol building, protesters laid posters in the middle of the intersection which read “Permanent protection. Dignity and Respect,” but a state trooper removed the signs immediately. The protesters sat in the intersection as drivers blared their car horns, and law enforcement officials began arresting those protesters about 10 minutes later.

BREAKING: Support the #DACAmented youth who were arrested at a sit-in in Austin, TX this morning: https://t.co/bW7Oo3eKv3pic.twitter.com/sp8YP22Rbi

— Movimiento Cosecha (@CosechaMovement) July 26, 2017

“Best case scenario is that they don’t arrest us,” one protester in the intersection said in an interview with KVUE. “The worst case scenario is that we get deported and I’m willing to do that for all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Not just DREAMers, not just DACA recipients, all 11 million undocumented immigrants that deserve dignity, respect, and permanent protection.”

After the protesters in the intersection were arrested, the remaining protesters continued their demonstration on the lawn next to the capitol building with chants of “Undocumented, unafraid.” Cosecha live streamed the protest on their Facebook page.

Paxton’s opposition to DACA is the latest in a series of state and national actions aimed at ramping up restrictions against undocumented immigrants. Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB4 into law on May 7, punishing local governments, officials, and police who do not comply with federal immigration laws. Opponents say the SB4 law, which essentially bans sanctuary cities, threatens the safety of undocumented immigrants and communities as a whole by placing distrust in law enforcement and government officials.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 25 which enlisted local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officials to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, undocumented immigrant arrests increased by 38 percent compared to the same period in 2016, according to data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Wednesday’s protest is only the most recent demonstration in support of immigrant rights. A group of 15 girls donning quinceañera gowns took to the steps of the Texas capitol building on July 19, where they danced to “Immigrants (We Get The Job Done)” and spoke out against SB4.

“We will resist through celebrating our families and our culture.”

Latinas are protesting an anti-sanctuary city law, quinceañera-style. pic.twitter.com/PQgfMNF1et

— Splinter (@splinter_news) July 20, 2017

 

#SB4Basta Quinceañera protest. They begin by dancing to traditional music, finish w/@Lin_Manuel‘s Immigrants We Get the Job Done! pic.twitter.com/JJLdY2YY2t

— Alyssa Harad (@alyssaharad) July 19, 2017

The Trump Administration has taken a tough stance against immigration over the past six months. While delivering a speech to the National District Attorneys Association on July 17, Sessions said that “our goal is not to reduce illegal immigration but to end illegal immigration.” But as undocumented immigrants and allies push back against policies that would negatively affect their communities, the fight for immigrant rights wages on.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 15 Protesters Arrested at Texas Capitol in Demonstration Defending DACA appeared first on Law Street.

For the past six months, Democrats have been glued together in a unified front against President Donald Trump, but haven’t articulated many plans of their own. On Monday, for the first time since Trump took the White House, Democrats presented their vision for the 2018 midterms and beyond. Democratic leaders unveiled the plan in Berryville, Virginia, in a predominantly Republican district currently represented by Republican Representative Barbara Comstock.

Titled “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future,” the Democratic message is a grab-bag of populist ideas nicked from both the Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) schools of thought, as well as long-running Democratic policies. It lays out a plan to boost jobs and lower the costs of living, including prescription drug prices. The plan also includes a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Here is what else you need to know:

Better Jobs

On jobs in particular, the new agenda borrows heavily from the Trump campaign playbook of attacking “special interests” and “elites.” But Democratic leaders also sought to draw a line between their working-class promises and the promises Republicans and the Trump Administration have failed to deliver on. “Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans’ health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) said in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Monday. “Our agenda is focused on efforts to create jobs and raise incomes for American workers, to lower the cost of living for American families, and to build an economy that gives every American the tools to succeed in the 21st century,” Pelosi continued.

The minority leader, who some progressives view as embodying the elite image the party needs to rid itself of, promised “good-paying, full-time jobs” for 10 million more Americans over the next five years. Tax credits for employers to train employees, she said, would help achieve that lofty goal. Pelosi also said Democrats envision a “massive new national commitment to expanding apprenticeships and paid on-the-job training that advances their skills and careers.”

“Rigged Economy”

“A Better Deal” was not drafted by Sanders. But in their public statements about the plan, Democratic leaders have peppered their vernacular with Sanders-style rhetoric, calling the economy “rigged” and railing against “vulture capitalists.”

The second page in the new Democratic playbook concerns reforming America’s antitrust laws to increase competition and innovation, and stifle consolidation and mergers in a number of fields, from airlines to communications companies. Pelosi said the party would focus on “breaking the grip of the special interests and confronting the rising everyday costs that families have endured for too long.”

“Over the past thirty years, growing corporate influence and consolidation has led to reductions in competition, choice for consumers, and bargaining power for workers,” the Democratic plan states. “The extensive concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations hurts wages, undermines job growth, and threatens to squeeze out small businesses, suppliers, and new, innovative competitors.”

To fix these issues, Democrats promise to “prevent big mergers that would harm consumers, workers, and competition.” The party also proposed a tougher post-merger review process.

“Reorienting Government”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) echoed Pelosi in an op-ed published Monday in the New York Times, but framed the agenda in simple, rhetorical strokes. He wrote: “American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests.”

But Schumer also did what Democrats have largely failed to do since election night: admit that voters were unclear on where the party stood. “Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for,” Schumer wrote.

But a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests voters are still unsure of what Democrats believe in. A slim majority of those polled–52 percent–said the party only espouses an anti-Trump message, while 37 percent said the Democratic Party “currently stands for something.” With less than a year and a half until the 2018 mid-term elections, Democrats are trying to change that perception: “Our better deal is not about expanding the government, or moving our party in one direction or another along the political spectrum,” Schumer said. “It’s about reorienting government to work on behalf of people and families.”

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 Democrats’ “A Better Deal”: Classic Liberal Priorities and a Dash of Populism appeared first on Law Street.

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

The Senate is Voting on…Something?

Today, the Senate will vote on something to do with health care, but it’s not clear exactly what. The Senate has been working to pass, or at least debate, some sort of bill to repeal and replace Obamacare for weeks, but the most recent efforts were derailed when senators couldn’t agree on the “replace” portion. After that, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell started pushing for a “repeal now, replace later” approach.

One of the challenges for Senate Republican leadership is that no more than two Republican senators can defect. Senator Susan Collins of Maine has made it clear that she intends to vote “no.” While Senator John McCain, who was diagnosed with brain cancer last week, is reportedly returning to Capitol Hill to cast his vote, other defections could stop McConnell’s plan to move any sort of action forward. All eyes are now on two senators who seem likely to join Collins in dissension–Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Regardless of what happens today, the secretive nature of the procedures have frustrated many:

Health care vote today.

– No final text
– No final Byrd guidance
– No final CBO score
– No public hearingshttps://t.co/SCxwL0g5Ev

— Dylan Scott (@dylanlscott) July 25, 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 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, during the White House press briefing, one reporter secretly challenged the standing “no streaming audio or video” rule. Ksenija Pavlovic, founder of the independent news blog Pavlovic Today, used the Periscope app to share the audio of the briefing. She then tweeted a link to the feed:

Join "Audio-only" live streaming of the White House #PressBriefing with Sarah H. Sanders https://t.co/kWRyf4wbAq

— K. Pavlovic (@ksenijapavlovic) July 19, 2017

The feed cut after about 17 minutes, but Pavlovic then tweeted a second link to a 31-minute-long stream. So far, response to the streams has been largely supportive, with social media lauding Pavlovic and lambasting the White House’s restrictive policy.

Thank you for your courage. The White House does not belong to Trump, or any president. It is the people's house. Sanders, et al work for us

— S (@Yes_Its_Me_S) July 19, 2017

https://twitter.com/Elissa_Malcohn/status/887798153361203206

There hasn’t been an on-camera White House press briefing since June 29. Prior to that, Press Secretary Sean Spicer began spending less time in front of reporters, with Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders giving the briefings from June 26 to July 18. President Trump has only had one solo press conference in the six months since he took office. He has been in 10 joint press conference with foreign leaders, but those events typically allow only two questions per leader. In addition, according to CNN, the president has not had a sit-down on-camera interview with any news station other than Fox News or the Christian Broadcasting Network in over two months. Clearly, press communication is not this administration’s priority.

Spicer, however, insists that there is a reason for it. “There are days that I’ll decide that the president’s voice should be the one that speaks and iterate his priorities,” he said during the June 19 “gaggle” (which is this administration’s term for the informal, off-camera briefings). In other words, the president’s voice ought to be the one to which people pay the most attention. It sounds reasonable enough, but given the president’s infrequent interviews combined with the decreasing number of public events in his schedule, the reality becomes that people only get news from the White House in 140-character increments.

More cynical observers suspect another reason for the radio silence: the ongoing war between the Trump Administration and the media. Since taking office, President Trump has tweeted about “fake news” 84 times as of July 20. Most of those correspond with news stories criticizing him or referencing some sort of scandal in his administration. The most recent was in response to media coverage on his conversation with Vladimir Putin during a dinner at the G-20 summit:

The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 19, 2017

The President isn’t alone in his attacks. During the press briefing on June 27, two days before the last televised press briefing, Sanders went on a rant slamming “fake news,” CNN in particular. She was then challenged by Brian Karem of the Montgomery County Sentinel:

Any one of us, right, are replaceable. And any one of us, if we don’t get it right, the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. You have been elected to serve for four years, at least; there’s no option other than that. We’re here to ask you questions. You’re here to provide the answers. And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say, ‘See, once again, the president is right, and everybody else out here is fake media.’ And everybody in this room is only trying to do their job.

Even when Spicer and Sanders do answer questions, they are extremely limited. The question-and-answer portions of the briefing now average out to around 15 minutes, as opposed to the hour or more they were allotted at the beginning of his term. They have also taken to dodging questions relating to topics that aren’t necessarily beneficial to the administration. For example, when asked if President Trump taped his conversations with former FBI director James Comey, Sanders said that she had no idea. When asked if the president had confidence in his attorney general, Spicer said that he hadn’t had a conversation with him about that. They deferred any questions about the investigation into Russian interference to the president’s lawyer. At one point, after repeating the same answer (talk to the lawyer) five times, Sanders compared the reporters to children. All in all, the atmosphere in the press briefing room has gotten more hostile as of late, which may explain the lack of public access.

There is some good news, though. You may not be able to watch the briefings on TV, but you can still read the transcripts here.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post White House Press Briefings Still Off the Air appeared first on Law Street.

As Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro puts together plans to rework the country’s constitution, widespread protests have popped up across the South American nation. Most notably, a 24-hour general protest is planned for Thursday to show Maduro the national mood as it reaches a crucial crossroads. 

Maduro has never been particularly popular, but protest tactics have ramped up recently due to his plans to rewrite the 1999 constitution, removing some democratic principles. The first step is a July 30 vote for a “constituent assembly” that would modify the constitution, according to the Washington Post.

The overhaul would give Maduro new powers and potentially extend his term. Maduro’s term is set to end in 2019, but the assembly could vote to remove limits completely. After almost three years of conflict, many view this as Maduro’s final step in achieving a dictatorship.

According to an earlier survey, 85 percent of Venezuelans oppose changing the constitution, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier this week Maduro’s opposition organized a referendum as a sign of protest to show the government how they felt. The results were overwhelming: of the 7.6 million surveyed, 98 percent rejected the government’s plans and urged officials to uphold their democratic principles.

“People will be disappointed if they expect the government to react directly to the results [of the referendum] or change anything,” said Luis Vicente León, a political analyst and the director of the Datanalisis polling agency, told the Washington Post. “More than 7 million people participated actively in an act of civil disobedience and ignored the government’s allegations that it was an illegal one.” Officials from Maduro’s party–the Socialist Party–immediately dismissed those results as inflated due to some citizens allegedly voting twice, but never offered evidence to support that allegation. 

Anti-Maduro protesters have stuck by their values despite the consistent threat of violence against them. Just recently a gunmen fired outside a police station, killing one citizen while injuring four others, according to the Washington Post.  At least 92 people have been killed in three months of clashes between protesters, opposition, and police forces.

The distaste for Maduro’s regime began around 2014 when oil prices began to drop and the Venezuelan economy began to falter, according to the CIA Factbook. The economic crisis left millions of citizens impoverished and hungry. Many began to seek asylum; many of those who couldn’t leave became fierce opponents of Maduro.

Even President Donald Trump spoke out against Maduro. In the past Trump has praised dictatorial, powerful leaders like Vladamir Putin and Rodrigo Duterte, but he came down hard against Maduro. Trump warned of economic sanctions if Maduro’s aims are realized and added that the Venezuelan leader is “bad leader who dreams of being a dictator,” according to Al-Jazeera. 

Still, Maduro vows that he will not change his course of action. He implored his opponents to “sit down to start a new round of dialogue” with his representatives, according to Al-Jazeera.

The 24-hour strike was organized by the Democratic Unity coalition and leaders say that they hope to bring the country’s operations to a standstill by urging businesses, restaurants, and workers nationwide to cease working. Those leading the opposition view the strike as a last-ditch effort to save their country from a looming dictatorship. They believe if they don’t succeed that Venezuela will have its democratic principles discarded and replaced by a dictatorial leader. 

Maduro was handpicked to run the nation by Hugo Chávez in 2013 and then elected later that year in a vote that drew praise from “Chavistas” and sorrow from opposition. So, there is some dispute over whether or not his election was legitimate. 

The coming weeks will decide the course of action that Venezuela’s future takes and will also dictate possible international reactions or interference. So far the issues in Venezuela have been overshadowed by larger world events, but if Maduro succeeds with his power grab, it may be time for international attention.

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 Massive Protests Planned Against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning government watchdog group, announced that as a result of its recent lawsuit, the government will have to turn over logs and records of individuals who visited Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s Florida residence.

CREW filed the lawsuit alongside the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act. The group has been working to reveal visitor logs for the White House, Mar-a-Lago, and Trump Tower in New York City.

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security says it has no records of people visiting Trump Tower. The lawsuit regarding the White House records is ongoing.

“The public deserves to know who is coming to meet with the president and his staff,” CREW executive director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “We are glad as a result of this case, this information will become public for meetings at his personal residences–but it needs to be public for meetings at the White House as well.”

District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla wrote in her ruling: “The Secret Service will complete its search for and processing of responsive ‘records of presidential visitors at Mar-a-Lago,’ and produce any non-exempt responsive records, by September 8, 2017.” CREW says it plans to share the information publicly once it’s released.

Amidst promises to “drain the swamp” and allegations of collusion with foreign officials, Trump’s poorly-disclosed private dealings have been at the heart of public debate in recent months.

The public has essentially been prevented from knowing which lobbyists, political donors, and others the president is meeting with behind closed doors, making it difficult to fully comprehend Trump’s allegiances and stances on issues.

The Mar-a-Lago visitor logs may prove to be revelatory because of the unique role the estate has played since Trump took office. In a sense, Mar-a-Lago, which the president affectionately refers to as the “Southern White House,” best represents Trump: a mix of his gold-plated private life, his business ties, and now, his executive power.

The venue has controversially served as the backdrop for high-profile diplomatic visits with foreign leaders as well as numerous costly golf weekends for the president.

This lawsuit is not CREW’s first attempt to compel transparency from the White House. The group also sued the Obama Administration, which agreed to release White House visitor logs as part of a settlement. That effort began during the Bush Administration before it was settled with President Obama. Since 2009, about 6 million visitor records were made public.

In April, the Trump Administration announced it would end this practice, citing “grave national security risks.” Currently, the website where the logs were previously published is blank and reads: “Thank you for your interest in this subject. Stay tuned as we continue to update whitehouse.gov.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders Trump to Release Mar-a-Lago Visitor Logs 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:

Steve King Wants to Fund Border Wall With Food Stamps and Planned Parenthood Funding

The debate over how to fund a border wall between Mexico and the U.S. is far from over. The Office of Management and Budget has requested $1.6 billion in taxpayer money to pay for construction of the wall. But this morning, Representative Steve King from Iowa said he wants to spend even more money than that. In an interview on CNN, he said he would “throw another $5 billion on the pile and I would find half a billion of that from right out of Planned Parenthood’s budget. And the rest of it could come out of food stamps and the entitlements that are being spread out for people who haven’t worked in three generations.”

Has republican congressman @SteveKingIA – a friend of far-right populists Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders – reached peak evil here? https://t.co/UuWWCdLr3C

— Evan O’Connell (@evanoconnell) July 12, 2017

Almost two-thirds of all Americans who receive food stamps are children, disabled, or elderly. An average food stamp household has an annual income of less than $10,000. “I’m sure that all of them didn’t need it,” King said.

In a document from May, the Trump Administration stated it wanted to cut the food stamp program by $193 billion. The irony is that out of the 10 areas with the highest concentration of food stamps, seven voted for Trump. This morning, King also implied that an increasing number of Americans are obese, so they don’t need food stamps.

Um. I think I just got to my desk in time to hear Rep. Steve King say on CNN getting rid of food stamps would solve obesity problem.

— Dorey Scheimer (@DoreyScheimer) July 12, 2017

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 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Land Deal

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

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

Jane Sanders Resigns

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

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

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

Politically Motivated?

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

After the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organized a rally over the weekend to protest the removal of a confederate monument in Charlottesville, Virginia, thousands of counter protesters gathered to voice their disgust.

The Charlottesville City Council recently voted to remove a monument of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, but the KKK claims it is part of a sweeping effort to erase white history. The protest was held a block away from Emancipation Park, formerly Lee Park, which was recently renamed. But the statue of Lee riding a horse has yet to be removed.

LIVE from #CharlottesvilleKKK rally—#KKK still protesting. HUNDREDS of Counter protestors –very loud @ACLU #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/QuShCGeehW

— Bo Erickson (@BoKnowsNews) July 8, 2017

City Councilwoman Kristin Szakos wrote in an editorial that the council’s decision was made to join a “growing group of cities around the nation that have decided that they no longer want to give pride of place to tributes to the Confederate Lost Cause erected in the early part of the 20th century.”

A court order has delayed the removal of the statue until a hearing next month that may just be a precursor to an elongated legal battle, according to NPR.

Not only is the town home to the University of Virginia, but it was also the home of American founding father Thomas Jefferson, and is near his Monticello estate.

Sunday’s protests featured about 30 Klansmen, many of whom arrived armed with handguns, and approximately 1,000 counter protesters, according to the Washington Post. The KKK was escorted by police clad in riot gear as they entered and exited.

The fact that the police force, comprised of local, county, state, and university police, protected the Klansmen, left a bad taste in plenty of people’s mouths after seeing police disproportionately use violence to subdue African-American protests.

The KKK is a hate group. Police are keeping them safe. When Black folks protest for our right to life, police harass and harm us. https://t.co/eVv9Vf4e7m

— Negrita (@HustleAndFro_) July 8, 2017

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer previously urged the town’s residents not to “take the bait — to deny the KKK the confrontation and celebrity they desire,” but thousands still felt compelled to voice their disgust with the group’s resurgence.

While the Klansmen attempted to speak publicly to the crowd at multiple points, they were inaudible and drowned out by the noise made by the counter-protesters. Jalane Schmidt, a professor at the university and a vocal supporter of the removal for Lee’s statue, was among the group gathered at the park. She told the Washington Post:

It is important for me to be here because the Klan was ignored in the 1920s, and they metastasized. They need to know that their ideology is not acceptable…I teach about slavery and African American history, and it’s important to face the Klan and to face the demons of our collective history and our original sin of slavery. We do it on behalf of our ancestors who were terrorized by them.

By the end of the day 22 people had been arrested while three others were hospitalized. Two of the medical issues were due to the heat while the other was alcohol-related, according to the Washington Post.

The Klansmen were members of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, based in Pelham, North Carolina, about 140 miles across the Virginia border. The group was compelled to fight, in their view, the eradication of white history. While most protesting the statue’s removal were part of the KKK, others, like Brandi Fisher, drove hours from neighboring states to join and voice their concerns.

“I don’t agree with everything the Klan believes, but I do believe our history should not be taken away,” said the West Virginia native. “Are we going to remove the Washington and Jefferson memorials because they were slave owners?”

The KKK also staged a protest last month alongside white nationalist leader Richard Spencer in which the group ominously marched with torches to protest the council’s decision. That earlier protest also drew condemnation from citizens and even Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello.

Get your white supremacist hate out of my hometown. https://t.co/KfkxHImvze

— Tom Perriello (@tomperriello) May 13, 2017

Once the protests ended on Sunday afternoon, police escorted the Klansmen out and asked the counter protesters to disperse. After the police decided the remaining crowd was “an unlawful assembly,” the police force donned masks and released gas canisters to disperse the crowd, according to the Washington Post.

Last month the Anti-Defamation League released a comprehensive report on the current presence of the KKK in the United States. According to the research, there are about 3,000 people who strongly identify with Klan ideology and there are 42 active groups across 33 states. The report also states that many of the chapters have joined forces with each other or with neo-Nazi groups in order to show strength and unity. As a result, groups have beliefs ranging from “traditional” white supremacist beliefs to Christian Identity, “a longstanding racist and anti-Semitic religious sect,” according to the ADL Report.

Several white nationalist groups have obtained permits for yet another rally on August 12, so there will likely be more conflicts like these in the future. With racial tensions heightened since the 2016 election, these feuds over confederate monuments are just one example of the conflicts that continue to arise between white nationalists and more progressive communities.

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 Protesters Clash with KKK in Charlottesville Over Robert E. Lee Monument 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:

Donald Trump Jr. Met With Russian Lawyer Who Offered Damaging Info on Clinton

Over the weekend, news broke that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, who promised him damaging information about Hillary Clinton during last year’s campaign. Donald Trump’s then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort also attended the meeting, as did Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The meeting reportedly took place at Trump Tower on June 2016, only two weeks after Trump became the Republican nominee. Despite a long period of accusations and speculation of collusion with Russia, this is the first confirmed private meeting between people in Trump’s inner circle and someone connected to the Russian government.

So. We’ve learned unequivocally that Trump Jr. acted on behalf of the campaign and that they were willing to get materials from Russia.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) July 10, 2017

It is unclear what exactly went down at the meeting. But when Trump Jr. was first asked about it, he said they mainly discussed adoptions of Russian children. When asked again, after the New York Times had published a second story, he changed his account and claimed that he met the lawyer after an acquaintance requested it, and that she claimed to have information that people with links to Russia were funding Clinton’s campaign. The information was “vague, ambiguous and made no sense,” Trump Jr. said. This morning, Moscow denied knowing anything about the meeting.

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 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump tweeted that apparently “everyone” is talking about John Podesta and why he “refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and CIA” at the G-20 summit in Hamburg. His comment seemed peculiar, given that the world’s leaders probably had more pressing issues to discuss, like climate change and international terrorism.

It’s not clear whether any G-20 leaders actually did talk about John Podesta. But later in the day, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman hit back on Twitter and called the president a “whack job.”

1/ On a x-country road trip with my wife;

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

3/ Get a grip man, the Russians committed a crime when they stole my emails to help get you elected President.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

Podesta wrote that the Russians hacked his email to get Trump elected. It seemed like Trump conflated that hack with the DNC one, although they were two separate incidents. Podesta also pointed out to Trump that he didn’t even work for the DNC.

5/ BTW, I had nothing to do with the DNC.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

7/7 Dude, get your head in the game. You’re representing the US at the G20.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

Other lawmakers commented on the president’s tweet as well. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, wrote, “Yes, I’m sure that’s the big talk at G-20. Not climate change or trade, but why didn’t John Podesta give a server that wasn’t his to the CIA.”

Others said it was a diversionary tactic, so people wouldn’t talk about his meeting with Putin. And some just thought it was a “very 2017” moment.

2017 got Podesta saying dude on the internet https://t.co/LPYpk3OuIQ

— Rebecca Nesi (@rebecca_nesi) July 7, 2017

A lot of people on social media questioned why Trump brought up the 2016 election at all when he is at the G-20, as well as the fact that he tweeted those comments shortly before his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Exactly what Trump and Putin talked about during that meeting we don’t know, but according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Trump did bring up the hacking of the 2016 U.S. election more than once. The meeting was supposed to take 30 minutes but reportedly lasted for over two hours.

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 John Podesta Replies to Trump’s Tweets: “Get a Grip Man” appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on Friday, their first face-to-face meeting since Trump’s election. They reportedly spoke for over two hours, in what was meant to be a 30- to 40-minute meeting.

I look forward to all meetings today with world leaders, including my meeting with Vladimir Putin. Much to discuss.#G20Summit #USA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 7, 2017

It is unclear precisely what Trump and Putin discussed. But from the Syrian civil war and Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election, to Putin’s opposition to NATO and Trump’s recent endorsement of the alliance, they certainly had no shortage of potential issues to review.

“Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it’s going very well,” Trump told reporters in Hamburg. “We’ve had some very, very good talks. We’re going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue. We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everybody concerned. And it’s an honor to be with you.”

Over the past few weeks, White House officials and Putin himself have hinted at what the American and Russian leaders might cover in their first meeting. Last week, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, announced the meeting, and said it would have “no specific agenda.” He added that “it’s really going to be whatever the president wants to talk about,” and that Trump would seek avenues of cooperation with Moscow.

PUTIN:”I’m delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President. And I hope, as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result.” pic.twitter.com/ayKu0O0BZv

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) July 7, 2017

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are deepening, and the relationship has hardly seen the re-start that Trump alluded to during his campaign. For one, the Trump Administration has continued, and has intensified in some instances, the campaign against Islamic State in Syria. Russia is the primary backer of the Syrian government, which has decimated the country and has murdered its own people. The U.S.-backed alliance of rebels firmly opposes the Syrian army.

Immediately after the meeting concluded, the Associated Press reported that Washington and Moscow struck a cease-fire agreement in southwest Syria. Citing three White House officials, the AP said the agreement includes Jordan and Israel, and will go into effect Sunday.

In a discussion with Russian media outlets last month, Putin outlined the issues he hoped to address with Trump. The U.S. and Russia should cooperate to advance “non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “This is an area of crucial importance and concerns not just the North Korean issue but other regions too.”

Putin added that “settling the crisis in southeast Ukraine,” where Russia has fomented a pro-Russian separatist movement, is paramount. The U.S. provides nominal support to Ukrainian troops battling the pro-Russian forces in the ongoing conflict.

And then there is the issue of Russia’s role in hacking the Democratic National Committee emails in the run-up to last November’s election. U.S. intelligence agencies have unanimously concluded that the hack was orchestrated by the Kremlin with the goal of aiding the Trump campaign. Trump has previously denied Russia’s involvement. And on Thursday, he said, “I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people in other countries,” adding: “It could have been a lot of people interfered.”

The AP reported that Trump and Putin did indeed discuss the election hack during Friday’s meeting:

BREAKING: Russian foreign minister says Trump accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia didn’t meddle in the U.S. election.

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 7, 2017

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump and Putin Meet in Germany, Strike Partial Cease-Fire in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

Protests began Tuesday evening in Hamburg, Germany, ahead of the G-20 summit where leaders from 19 countries and the EU will gather on Friday and Saturday to discuss global issues, including trade and climate change.

Thousands of G-20 protesters gathered in Hamburg to protest capitalism, environmental inaction, and the G-20 summit itself. The protesters believe the summit is undemocratic because a select group of world leaders is making decisions that will impact the entire world. German police fired water cannons to disperse a group of about 500 protesters on Tuesday, according to the UK news outlet The Daily Express.

On Wednesday, 1,000 performance artists clad in clay-covered clothes crept and crawled through the streets of Hamburg. The performance by artist collective “1000 Gestalten” (1,000 figures) was meant to represent individuals’ advancement of themselves rather than society as a whole, and to get people engaged in the political process, according to the group’s website.

The demonstrators, coated head-to-toe in gray clay, inched their way down the street with dull expressions on their faces. Eventually, they stripped off their gray clothing to reveal colorful clothes–and for some, naked bodies–underneath as a symbol for joyous liberation.

Germany: Actors smeared in clay protest #G20 summit https://t.co/UgnAmmrVmT pic.twitter.com/IbmCdu8PjL

— RT (@RT_com) July 6, 2017

Peaceful protests continued on Wednesday and Thursday, including a march resembling a block party with music and dancing.

In Germany, they protest the #G20 with dragons on top of cars, beer, and serious, serious techno. pic.twitter.com/egGxSKMqVy

— James H-H (@jamesonthewaves) July 5, 2017

Stores boarded up their windows in preparation for property destruction and looting.

Hamburg: stores closed/boarded up in anticipation of (anti-NATO/IMF) #G20 protesters,”Hamburg macht dicht” #G20HAMpic.twitter.com/jrWIdn3OJc

— Kristina Dei (@2kdei) July 6, 2017

One group of protesters dressed as the heads of state present at the summit to protest the leaders. Another group carried a sign reading “Welcome to Hell,” a phrase which became the moniker of Thursday’s march.

G20 Welcome to Hell – My pictures of yesterday are online. Escalated After Police attack https://t.co/pclzlbMUTn #g20 #nog20 #w2h #nog20en pic.twitter.com/FEiePPHhWA

— Fabian Schumann (@schumann_fabian) July 7, 2017

According to the Guardian, the “Welcome to Hell” march was supposed to travel from Hamburg’s harbor toward the convention center where the summit is being held, however police stopped the protesters from proceeding shortly after the march began.

Hamburg police deployed water cannons and tear gas against protesters Thursday evening around 7 p.m. Some protesters began tossing bottles and other objects back at police, according to The Daily Express.

Demonstrators clashed with police in Hamburg during an anti-G20 protest, with tear gas and water cannon being used #G20 pic.twitter.com/eYyTIWksqk

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 6, 2017

Protests at the G-20 summit are nothing new. During the 2010 G-20 summit in Toronto, peaceful protests were interrupted by a group of anarchists who destroyed police cars, store windows, and other property. Police used batons, tear gas, pepper spray and plastic bullets against protesters, and detained more than 1,000 people.

While the G-20 has seen protests before, the events leading up to this year’s summit were especially tense given protesters’ opposition to President Donald Trump. Trump visited Poland’s President Andrzej Duda in Warsaw, Poland, on Thursday and gave a speech questioning “whether the West has the will to survive.”

Trump then flew to Germany later that day for the G-20 summit, arriving amidst the protests in Hamburg, where he met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The president declined to say what he and Merkel discussed behind closed doors. However, Merkel told the German parliament on June 29 that “we cannot expect easy talks in Hamburg” on climate issues.

On Friday, the first day of the summit, demonstrators resumed peaceful protests with sit-ins and marches.

RAW: Police cleared a sit-in protest ahead of the opening of #G20 summit (Video: Sebastian Kroeck) pic.twitter.com/96Ai6X1WE7

— dwnews (@dwnews) July 7, 2017

“You are 20, we are plenty,” reads a banner shown at a #G20 protest rally in #Hamburg. #G20HAM17pic.twitter.com/7yEKqGfRiE

— Arafatul Islam (@arafatul) July 7, 2017

With the start of the G-20 summit, Trump will continue to meet with fellow heads of state, including his first face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet for the first time at the G20 summit in Hamburg pic.twitter.com/LQmSKkWQks

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 7, 2017

If one thing is clear, it’s that demonstrators from Germany and around the world are dissatisfied with the G-20 summit and the direction in which the world’s top leaders are moving.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters and Police Clashed Ahead of G-20 Summit in Germany appeared first on Law Street.

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

Trump Claims “Everyone” is Talking About John Podesta

Today is the first day of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. And this morning President Donald Trump tweeted: “Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA. Disgraceful!” But it seems highly unlikely that world leaders gathered in Hamburg would all be talking about John Podesta, and Trump got his facts wrong. Podesta was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman; he didn’t have the authority to hand DNC files over to law enforcement. Podesta actually fully cooperated with the investigation into the Russian hacking, and the DNC did give information to the FBI that pointed to Russian interference in the election. Also, the FBI was in charge of the investigation, not the CIA. Overall, this wasn’t a particularly factual tweet from Trump.

1) This wasn’t Podesta’s decision 2) It was the FBI, not FBI and CIA 3) There is a 0% chance foreign leaders brought this up at the G20 https://t.co/zlwrnD8WOT

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) July 7, 2017

Also on the docket for the G-20: Trump will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin face to face for the first time. Expectations are high, and many hope Trump will bring up the Russian hacking into the U.S. election. The two leaders met briefly this morning for a handshake, and the proper meeting will take place later today.

First handshake between Trump and Putin is posted by Angela Merkel on Facebook https://t.co/woi4FuDoHz pic.twitter.com/oS7Pxqm9er

— Gizmodo (@Gizmodo) July 7, 2017

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 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A pair of Senate immigration bills could imprison undocumented immigrants convicted of felony reentry and cause sanctuary cities and states to stop receiving certain federal grants.

Kate’s Law would increase penalties against immigrants who have been convicted of felony reentry–or reentering the country after being deported. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit cities and states that don’t cooperate with immigration authorities from receiving grants from the Justice Department and Homeland Security.

Both bills, which were sponsored by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), were passed by the House of Representatives along mostly party lines on June 29. They now move on to the Senate, where Republicans face a steeper challenge from Democrats in passing either bill. Senate Republicans would need to vote unanimously and persuade at least eight Democrats and Independents to vote in favor of the bills in order to clinch a filibuster-proof majority. A 2016 version of Kate’s Law and the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, a 2016 bill similar to the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, both previously failed to pass the Senate.

Kate’s Law is named after Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was charged with Steinle’s murder. Before his arrest, Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times. Lopez-Sanchez’s original December 2016 trial date was postponed. He is scheduled to appear in court on July 14, when another trial date could be set.

White House Support

The White House released a statement from President Donald Trump on June 29 regarding the two immigration bills.

“The implementation of these policies will make our communities safer,” Trump said in the statement. “Opposing these bills, and allowing dangerous criminals back into our communities, our schools, and the neighborhoods where our children play, puts all of us at risk.”

Trump also urged the Senate to pass the bills in a video address over the weekend, saying, “If the government had simply enforced our immigration laws, these Americans would still be alive today.”

Weekly Address #KatesLaw#NoSanctuaryForCriminalsAct
Statement: https://t.co/I8cqKGDK2B pic.twitter.com/00mao6Vk7R

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Growing Opposition

Immigrant rights advocates are opposed to the bills, and over 400 organizations have signed a letter urging the Senate to vote against both pieces of legislation.

Jose Magaña-Salgado, Managing Policy Attorney at the Immigration Legal Resource Center, said in a statement that the bills would not only tear apart families and undermine the rights of immigrants in the U.S., but they would also put an even heavier burden on the federal prison system.

“Legislation that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns represents an abdication of the Congress’ responsibility to enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy,” Magaña-Salgado said.

Instead, he proposes that Congress enact legislation that provides ” a roadmap to citizenship for the nation’s eleven million aspiring Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation programs that undermine fundamental human rights.”

GOP lawmakers believe both bills will crack down on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, but the bills’ impact on immigrant communities is not quite so cut-and-dry. Under Kate’s Law, undocumented immigrants previously convicted of a crime who attempt to re-enter the United States after being deported could face fines and between 10 to 25 years in prison depending on the severity of their original conviction.

However, the bill also includes sentencing guidelines for undocumented immigrants who have not been previously convicted of a crime. Undocumented immigrants who reenter the U.S. after being removed could face up to two years in prison; those who reenter after being repeatedly removed three or more times could face up to 10 years in prison. Additionally, the bill limits “collateral attack on underlying removal order.” In other words, undocumented immigrants would not be allowed to challenge the validity of any prior order under which they were removed from the country.

Trump’s Immigration Agenda

During his first week in office, Trump issued an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement, signaling a stricter stance than his predecessor on illegal immigration. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 41,318 immigrants, a 37.6 percent increase from the same period last year, according to a statement from ICE.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is part of a months-long endeavor by the Trump administration to restrict federal funding to sanctuary cities and states. Trump issued an executive order to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that refused to comply with federal immigration enforcement authorities, but that order has been tied up in a legal challenge over its constitutionality since April.

The ACLU issued a warning that both immigration bills were intended to “empower Trump’s depotation force and anti-immigrant agenda,” and urged the Senate in a statement to “reject these bills, to defend the Constitution, and protect the rights of all people, no matter their background.”

“These bills are riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants,” Lorella Praeli, the group’s director of immigration policy and campaigns, said in the statement.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump-Backed Immigration Bills Face Uphill Battle in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

North Korea is Firing Missiles Again

Yesterday, North Korea fired an intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially reach the U.S. The U.S. then carried out a joint military exercise with South Korea to show off its power and send a warning message to North Korea. But the North just replied by saying that it would not stop developing its nuclear abilities as long as America’s “hostile policy” and “nuclear threat” persist. The missile traveled 578 miles, according to the South Korean military. It stayed in the air for about 37 minutes. That means that it could potentially reach Alaska.

The North’s plan is to mount a nuclear warhead on the missile. The timing of the launch was also significant. “The American bastards must be quite unhappy after closely watching our strategic decision,” a North Korean state media agency quoted its leader Kim Jong Un as saying. “I guess they are not too happy with the gift package we sent them for the occasion of their Independence Day. We should often send them gift packages so they won’t be too bored.”

North Korea’s state media claims the country now has the power to strike the United States with a nuclear warhead https://t.co/UQ9uGZ2Ebc pic.twitter.com/m9c4phzFm7

— CNN (@CNN) July 5, 2017

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 5, 2017 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.

Revised Travel Ban Takes Effect Tonight

This evening, the new version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban will go partially into effect. On Monday, the Supreme Court said “okay” to parts of the revised travel ban, but will hear the case in the fall. SCOTUS aims to probe how much control a president can actually have over border and immigration issues.

The court said this implementation of the ban would not affect those who can prove a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” Last night, the State Department issued guidelines for how to decide such cases. It says that individuals such as step-siblings, half-siblings, parents, in-laws, and sons- and daughters-in-law are considered close family. However, grandparents, nieces, nephews, or brothers- and sisters-in-law are not.

Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen are the countries that will be affected. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU immigrants’ rights project, said the ruling worries him, as it could create arbitrary definitions of what close family relations are.

Under revised #TravelBan taking effect tonight at 8p ET “close family” excludes grandparents, aunts & uncles, & fiancées, among others pic.twitter.com/TQY3pVFcdd

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) June 29, 2017

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: June 29, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

After over a year of President Donald Trump accusing the mainstream media of disseminating “fake news,” Trump has been caught with a fake Time magazine cover hanging in many of his properties. After learning of the situation, a Time spokeswoman said that the magazine had asked the Trump Organization to remove the fictional covers but it had not yet received a response.

This counterfeit cover was hung in at least eight of Trump’s 17 golf courses, including Mar-A-Lago, which Trump has visited regularly since taking office. Additionally, the cover was hanging at Trump golf resorts in Ireland and Scotland until they were removed in the past few months, according to the Washington Post.

The fake cover, which is supposedly from March 1, 2009, praises Trump as a “television smash” and that he is “hitting on all fronts…even T.V!” But Time magazine argues that this is not a real cover. Instead, the real edition, which was released on March 2, 2009, features actress Kate Winslet on the cover with the headline “Best Actress.”

There were a handful of issues with the presentation that tipped off observers to the fact that the cover was, in fact, fake news. First, the border was too skinny and was missing a white divider. Next, secondary headlines were stacked on the right side as opposed to the top where Time traditionally places them. Some of the stories did indeed appear in that week’s edition, but others weren’t published until the following month, according to Newsweek.

Another crucial mistake was the use of two exclamation points, which Time almost never uses on the cover.

The kicker is that the bar code is fake and pulled directly from this tutorial on how to make a fake Time cover. The instructions were laid out by a Peruvian graphic designer.

This situation prompted Virginia congressman Gerry Connolly to mock Trump on Twitter.

Wow, my first cover of Time. Asked my staff to frame this and hang it in all four of my offices. @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Hx57ZJExR8 pic.twitter.com/y1HciTB5G1

— Gerry Connolly (@GerryConnolly) June 27, 2017

While it is still unknown who exactly put together the fake cover, or whether Trump himself knew about it, it’s clear that Trump views Time covers as a sign of success. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump bragged about being on the cover “six for politics and…two for real estate.” According to Time magazine history, Trump has indeed appeared on the cover plenty of times in the past year, albeit not always positively. But he only appeared once for his real estate ventures and that was in January 1989.

Even when giving a speech at the CIA headquarters in January, Trump boasted that he owned the “all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” In actuality Trump has appeared on the cover 11 times up to this point while Richard Nixon, the 37th president, appeared on 55 covers before his death in 1994.

Despite having appeared on the cover of the prestigious magazine plenty of times, Trump has clearly been hyperbolic when describing his number of appearances. It is unclear whether Trump knew of the fake covers or why it was created when there were legitimate alternatives, according to the Washington Post.

While there are websites that aid the public in creating fake magazine covers, it seems unethical for the President of the United States to be promoting himself with falsified news covers. And this entire debacle seems even more troublesome in the context of Trump’s repeated attacks on the news media. 

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 Time Magazine Asks Trump Organization to Remove “Fake News” Cover appeared first on Law Street.

Cyber Attack on Multiple Countries…Again

Another massive cyber attack has made it to multiple countries. The attack is believed to have originated in Ukraine. The ransomware has affected an estimated 64 countries so far, and is mainly targeting businesses. Infected computers show a message saying that all files have been encrypted. And just like the earlier ransomware attack in May, these hackers demand ransom payments in the form of Bitcoin to unlock the owner’s data. According to cybersecurity experts, this type of ransomware has never been seen before.

However, experts reportedly found a “vaccine” against the ransomware early this morning, that could cure individual infected computers. But they still have not found a kill switch, which would stop the computers from spreading the virus to others. Now, everyone is wondering who is behind the latest hack, and why. Some say it could have political motivations or that the hackers just want to cause widespread disruption. But because Ukraine was hit the hardest and its main antagonist is Russia, many people suspect the Kremlin is behind it.

The fast-spreading Petrwrap/Petya ransomware sample we have was compiled on June 18, 2017 according to its PE timestamp. pic.twitter.com/CHUYvsiQ08

— Costin Raiu (@craiu) June 27, 2017

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: June 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, three of the Central Park Five finally got to attend a high school graduation and receive honorary diplomas. The three men missed their original graduation, as they were in prison for the 1989 rape of a woman jogging in New York’s Central Park–a crime they did not commit.

Yusef Salaam, Kevin Richardson, and Raymond Santana Jr. joined 60 teenagers graduating from Bronx Preparatory High School on Monday, surrounded by family members. Marielle Colucci, a teacher at Bronx Prep, had used a 2012 documentary about their wrongful conviction when teaching students about the justice system. Earlier this year, Colucci’s students asked if they could meet the men, and Richardson came to speak to the class.

Later, the school invited the men to the graduation ceremony. Even though they had received diplomas while in prison, they never attended a ceremony. Colucci said that it’s important to inform students about what happened to these men, as all of her students are members of minority groups and could face the same discrimination.

Now in their 40s, three of the Central Park Five graduate from high school, receive honorary degrees. https://t.co/NAHFYTxfjl pic.twitter.com/EXU1H8AQfX

— Okayplayer (@okayplayer) June 27, 2017

In April 1989, a young woman was brutally beaten and raped in Central Park while on a run. Trisha Meili, the victim, barely survived. Police claimed that it was the deed of a group of schoolboys, and that at least four had taken part in the attack. Ultimately, the number of convicted assailants rose to five: Salaam, Richardson, Santana Jr., Kharey Wise, and Antron McCray. All are black or Hispanic. They became known as the “Central Park Five.”

The five were not allowed to see their parents before being questioned, and were interrogated for hours; none of their DNA matched what was found on the victim’s body, yet they all were found guilty. Eleven years later, Wise, who was 16 at the time of the rape, ran into a man in prison who confessed that he was the one who committed the crime. After confessing, police found that his DNA matched the DNA that was found on Meili.

But back in 1989, many thought the five men were guilty, and even Donald Trump played a part in vilifying them. Trump, who at the time was a real estate developer in New York, took out a full-page ad in the Daily News.

“How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits? Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!” it said, complete with Trump’s now-famous capitalization.

As Trump complains about a “witch hunt,” remember his calls to execute the Central Park Five and refusal to accept that DNA exonerated them.

— Deborah Roseman (@roseperson) June 16, 2017

He also wrote that the death penalty should be brought back. The boys were between ages 14 and 16 at the time. As recently as last year, Trump still maintained that they were guilty. In an interview before the election, Richardson drew parallels to Trump’s campaign claim that Hispanic illegal immigrants are drug traffickers and rapists.

“Just like those ads, that speech was a call for extreme action based on a whole set of completely false claims. It seems that this man is for some strange reason obsessed with sex and rape and black and Latino men,” Richardson said.

One of the five, who changed his name, pointed out how Trump has a tendency to disregard facts and science and instead go with his own opinions. “Donald Trump told the world that my life had no value, no quality,” he said. “And he’s still saying pretty much the same thing today.”

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 Three of the Central Park Five Men Receive Belated Honorary Diplomas appeared first on Law Street.

For a president who has defined himself by his harsh immigration stance, President Donald Trump’s recent announcement seemed to go against this position. Dreamers, for now, will not have their protections eliminated, Trump said. In a June 15 statement, the Department of Homeland Security said: “The June 15, 2012 memorandum that created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will remain in effect.”

This seemed like good news for Dreamers. But White House officials said that the long-term plan for DACA and Dreamers has not been officially set, leaving hundreds of thousands of immigrants in limbo. Trump’s statement followed an interview with the Associated Press in April, when Trump said that Dreamers could “rest easy.” The Trump Administration is “not after the dreamers, we are after the criminals,” he said.

Becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen is a long process. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services lists the 10 steps that one must take to become a naturalized citizen. Though it’s broken down into 10 steps, these steps can, and do, take years. USCIS also created a “worksheet” that people can follow to see if they qualify to become U.S. citizens. For those without help–legal or otherwise–the process can seem daunting.

DACA created a channel for certain immigrants, specifically children brought to the U.S. by their parents to gain the legal documentation to remain in the country. Calling this channel into question causes anxiety for many immigrants who previously thought they were safe. 

What is a Dreamer?

“Dreamer” is the term often given to those covered by DACA. This gets confusing because there is a separate act, the “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2011,” commonly referred to as the DREAM Act. The distinction is that the DREAM Act was never passed. A report released by University of California, Los Angeles summarizes the program as such:

First introduced in 2001 by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), the DREAM Act is a bipartisan bill that would provide undocumented youths who came to the United States before the age of sixteen a path toward legalization on the condition that they attend college or serve in the U.S. military for a minimum of two years while maintaining good moral character

Former President Barack Obama ultimately created an executive order that came to be known as DACA (see below for more details on the specifics). DACA, while it did not provide a path to citizenship, worked to ensure that immigrants who came to the United States as minors and who were now pursuing work or education, could not be deported. The fact that DACA is an executive order and not an act  opens it up to vulnerability at the hands of Obama’s successors, including Trump, who could roll it back.

The protections of DACA provide peace of mind for the Dreamers it covers. For young immigrants who are trying to earn a college degree, the program provides assurances that they can continue their studies without the risk of deportation. But under Trump, Dreamers cannot rest easy quite yet. On June 16, a day after announcing the program will stay for the time being, White House officials said that the long-term fate of the program has not yet been decided.

What exactly is DACA?

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, is an immigration policy enacted in 2012 under the Obama Administration. Rather than working toward a path to legalization, DACA allows immigrants who entered the country illegally as minors to apply every two years for a work permit. The purpose of this policy was to take the pressure off non-threatening illegal immigrants. If an immigrant came to the U.S. as a minor and was working or attending school and not getting in trouble with the law, he or she would not be deported. DACA currently covers around 750,000 immigrants.  

Obama’s Legacy

Obama left a mixed legacy in terms of immigration. While Obama never incited chants to “Build a wall,” he still cannot be considered a savior for immigrants. According to the Department of Homeland Security, he deported more illegal immigrants than any of his predecessors. Compared to George W. Bush, Obama’s deportation numbers are far higher. Obama deported roughly three million compared to Bush’s two million. Obama, too, was stricter about fining companies that employed illegal immigrants.

But right now the most important remaining aspects of Obama’s immigration legacy stem from DACA. Immigrants protected under this policy do not represent the majority. In fact, of the almost 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, DACA covers about 750,000. So while the Trump Administration’s current promise to retain DACA is a step forward for those who support immigration, the status of a majority of illegal immigrants remains in jeopardy.

“You Need to be Worried”

White House officials have been careful to not mince words. Thomas Homan, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had direct advice for illegal immigrants. At a recent House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, he said, “If you are in this country illegally, and you committed a crime by entering this country, you should be uncomfortable, you should look over your shoulder, and you need to be worried.”

The Trump Administration’s statement released on June 15 also said DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) would be rolled back. DAPA, a policy to protect the illegal immigrant parents of American citizens or people who have legal documentation to be in the country, was never actually put in place. After making it all the way to the Supreme Court, a deadlocked 4-4 court could not rule on the proposed plan. But it has now been effectively voided by Trump.

More Uncertainty for Immigrants

Trump ran a campaign that was hardly subtle about his feelings about immigrants. Trump began his campaign making unsavory comments about Mexican immigrants. “Build a wall,” an allusion to increased security on the Mexican border, was one of the bastions of the president’s election rallies. But many immigrants, not just from Mexico, have felt the hostility of the current administration.

And once he got into office, Trump wasted no time in trying to stymie immigration. After exactly one week in office, the president signed an executive order suspending citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from coming to the United States for 90 days. The following day, federal Judge Ann M. Donnelly blocked part of the executive order on the grounds that it “violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

On February 2, the administration eased the executive order to exclude those with green cards. A month later, on March 6, the president released another revised travel suspension, this time excluding Iraq. This revised ban was blocked by district court Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii. Additional parts of the revised ban have been blocked by federal judges as well. The actions taken by the Trump Administration have been for the safety of the American people, the president says. But more than protect Americans, the attempted bans have cast the Trump Administration as one that is unfriendly to immigrants.

While Trump has yet to sign an executive order that suspends immigration from Mexico or other Latin American countries, he has not been extending an open welcome to any of those citizens either. Trump has repeatedly emphasized the need to build a wall on the Mexican-American border– a wall that Mexico will pay for, he has said. Before Trump was inaugurated, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto made clear that Mexico would not be paying for the wall. For now, the fate of the wall (and who will pay for it if it ever gets built) remains uncertain.

What also remains uncertain is the fate of certain immigrants with DACA status. Juan Manuel Montes, 23, had been in the United States since he was nine. Montes had protection under DACA that allowed him to live in the United States legally, as long as he kept renewing his two-year work permit. Montes says that back in February he forgot his wallet (with his ID and DACA papers in it) in a friend’s car. While waiting for a ride home, border patrol agents stopped him.

Without papers, Montes had no way to prove he had legal justification to not be deported. He was swiftly sent to Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security denies deporting Montes at all. Rather, they said they found him crossing the U.S. border, an action Montes claims he took after being deported. While the details are unclear, the overall message is not. Immigrants protected by DACA are safe from deportation now, but their status could change.

Conclusion

The future remains murky for immigrants. Those coming from the Middle East could be subject to yet another revised travel ban. Those already in the country, living under protections that formerly guaranteed their safety may eventually not have those same privileges. The volatility that the Trump Administration has been demonstrating likely won’t put anyone at ease. With the president saying or tweeting something one day and then his officials clarifying his statements days or hours later, it makes it hard to know what is happening. Uncertainty is the biggest concern right now.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Future for Dreamers: A Road of Uncertainty Under President Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, June 26, marks the 20th anniversary of the publication of “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,” which began the worldwide phenomenon that captured the attention of millions across the globe. In the 20 years since the first book was published, the Potter series is still culturally relevant, and has become especially notable in the past year since President Donald Trump rose to power.

J.K. Rowling, who authored the books, has taken a strong stance against Trump and what he represents; she can often be found on Twitter mocking the American president. Whether it’s about Trump’s responses to terrorist attacks or his ridiculous actions, Rowling is quick to criticize Trump, often delighting her youthful fan base. Here are just two examples of the millionaire’s social media commentary:

It’s called ‘leadership’, Donald. The terrorists were dead 8 minutes after police got the call. If we need an alarmist blowhard, we’ll call. https://t.co/NUiy9j4fBt

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 4, 2017

 

I wonder whether Trump talks to Trumpself in the third Trumperson when Trump’s alone. https://t.co/8CEzVTJjBq

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) May 3, 2017

Rowling’s presence on Twitter isn’t the only way Harry Potter fans are staying connected to the series as they resist the Trump Administration. Many fans have compared Trump to Voldemort, the antagonist of the series who comes to power and attempts to create a society of “pure blood wizards.” This Twitter user broke down her feelings on the similarities between the two:

I realized how similar Lord Voldemort and Donald Trump are so I wrote this… pic.twitter.com/UG33ZTUfYf

— Ashley C. (@ItsAshley_C) June 25, 2017

Others have turned to Hermione Granger, the main female protagonist, as a symbol of female power within the resistance. The reason Granger is so appealing to young girls, the Huffington Post argues, is that “here was a smart, hyper-competent, over-achieving woman facing down a cartoonishly unqualified man who spewed hatred at women, Muslims, immigrants, refugees, and disabled people.”

a nation of hermiones #WomensMarch pic.twitter.com/hvfDu3oL9m

— Paige (@paigeleighannne) January 22, 2017

Given that Emma Watson, who portrayed Granger in the movies, is a feminist symbol herself, the comparison becomes even more applicable. Watson, who graduated from Brown University in 2014, is an outspoken feminist and a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador.

While the comparisons offer children the opportunity to tangibly relate the real world to something they understand and love, some people are frustrated with the constant comparisons. One writer from The Federalist even argued that the comparisons “contribute to making our politics glib, emotion-driven, over-simplified, and posturing. At the same time, it takes beloved childhood stories and politicizes them in a way that narrows and diminishes their meaning.”

Others are simply tired of the constant references:

READ ANOTHER BOOK pic.twitter.com/SHcVKcTslG

— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) January 31, 2017

The final book of the series was published back in 2007, but the series remains culturally relevant as a symbol of youth fighting for justice. Some people may be annoyed by the constant references to the series, but Rowling’s writing has clearly inspired a generation of readers to protest for what they believe in just as Harry, Hermione, and Ron Weasley did throughout the seven book series.

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 20 Years Later, Harry Potter is Still Culturally Relevant appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear President Donald Trump’s travel ban case. The hearing will be in October, and until then, the court said parts of the ban will be allowed to go into effect. Trump issued a revised executive order in March, blocking travel from six countries. Two federal courts have since ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and a breach of executive power. The Supreme Court agreed to examine both courts’ decisions.

For the time being, the ban will be reinstated “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the justices said. A bona fide relationship includes “a close familial relationship” for individuals. For entities, “the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the order].”

“The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity,” the court added.

Trump’s second attempt at stemming travel from a handful of Muslim-majority countries reined in a few of the tenets of his first order, which was originally issued in January. For one, the revised order dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries–Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

The order stipulates that residents of the six countries are barred from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days, until stricter vetting procedures are in place. The refugee program will be halted for 120 days, and the number of admitted refugees will drop to 50,000 from about 110,000.

This is Trump’s first travel ban-related victory since he issued the updated order in March. Both orders faced a torrent of opposition–thousands of people hit the streets and packed airports across the country in protest. Trump’s directive fared no better in the courts.

Last month, a federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, issued an injunction on parts of the travel ban, arguing that it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” and violated the First Amendment.

A few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the ban violated the president’s authority as granted by Congress. The court said Trump “did not meet the essential precondition in exercising his delegated authority,” which requires “a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”

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 Supreme Court Reinstates Parts of Trump’s Travel Ban, Will Hear Case in Fall appeared first on Law Street.

The United States has become the sixth region to ban fresh beef imports from Brazil, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The U.S. joins China, Mexico, Chile, Japan, the European Union, and Hong Kong in banning the beef.

The USDA made the decision on beef imports after inspections showed health concerns, unsanitary conditions, and animal health issues. The bans will remain in place until Brazil “takes corrective action,” the statement said.

Brazil is the fifth largest exporter of fresh beef to the United States and has already shipped over 50 million pounds of beef this year. After the other regions banned Brazilian beef in March, American officials say they have been inspecting the meat more closely. This has resulted in a refusal of 11 percent of the beef, much higher than the normal 1 percent refusal rate, according to CNN Money. As a result, 1.9 million pounds of beef have been sent back to Brazil.

“Although international trade is an important part of what we do at USDA, and Brazil has long been one of our partners, my first priority is to protect American consumers,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.

Brazilian Agriculture Minister Blairo Maggi plans to visit Washington soon in an attempt to overturn the decision, Reuters reported.

Aside from health and safety concerns, other countries expressed concern over potential corruption. A few months ago Brazilian authorities said some meat companies were bribing government officials to turn a blind eye to safety concerns, according to the USA Today.

While Brazil still has other countries with which it can trade, the loss of the American market could be damaging to the Brazilian economy–the United States is the ninth biggest market for Brazilian beef export.  Since the restrictions began in March, Brazil has responded by closing three processing plants and suspending licenses for 21 meat packing plants, according to CNN Money.

It may take some time to resolve the situation, and it may result in economic issues, but the USDA has decided to take a stand after observing issues with the beef. In the mean time, the U.S. will have to rely on other global beef exporters including Japan, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia.

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 United States Bans Fresh Beef Imports from Brazil appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential election was noteworthy not just because of its outcome, but also for the extent to which both parties used technical data collection behind-the-scenes to secure victories in swing states. Just last week, a cyber risk analyst stumbled onto a trove of that gathered data, collected on 198 million Americans, on an unprotected server.

The analyst, Chris Vickery, an employee of the cyber security startup UpGuard, came across the 1.1 terabytes of data on an Amazon cloud server, which wasn’t password protected and was accessible to anyone with the URL address. According to UpGuard, it took Vickery several days to download the extensive dataset, which may have been left open and exposed for 10 to 14 days.

UpGuard is calling this leak the “largest known data exposure of its kind,” and confirmed that the discovered content includes names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and indications of individuals’ ethnicities and religions. Voters’ political views on hot-button campaign issues such as fossil fuels and taxes were also minutely recorded, likely for future micro-targeted campaigns.

Currently downloading what is, basically, the home address of every Trump supporter.

Understand the cloud before you upload to it. pic.twitter.com/nRPb98jwoP

— Chris Vickery (@VickerySec) June 13, 2017

The information was collected by GOP data firm Deep Root Analytics, one of three data firms hired by the RNC to help Donald Trump win the presidential election.

The firm acknowledged that the data was theirs on Friday and released a statement apologizing for the breach.

Deep Root Analytics CEO Brent McGoldrick said the company takes “full responsibility” for the leak. He added that the mistake was likely due to “a recent change in asset access settings since June 1.”

Although much of the data collected by Deep Root Analytics is available online through more innocuous sources, many have been quick to analyze the leak’s potential cyber security ramifications.

“That such an enormous national database could be created and hosted online, missing even the simplest of protections against the data being publicly accessible, is troubling,” UpGuard said on their website.

This leak also comes at a time when the U.S. elections and elections in other western nations have been the targets of increasingly aggressive cyber attacks.

“This is deeply troubling,” Privacy International’s policy officer Frederike Kaltheuner told BBC News. “This is not just sensitive, it’s intimate information, predictions about people’s behavior, opinions, and beliefs that people have never decided to disclose to anyone.”

While this leak could have been much more damaging and revealed more secretive information, experts say this should be a cautionary warning. If companies don’t make cyber security a priority, individuals may have to worry a lot more the next time a leak occurs.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accidental Data Leak Exposes 198 Million Americans’ Personal Information appeared first on Law Street.

After over a year in the spotlight as an important member of Donald Trump’s family, son-in-law Jared Kushner has finally made his first public remarks since becoming an adviser to his father-in-law. So, after plenty of speculation, the world now knows what his voice sounds like.

Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband, has gained unprecedented access to the White House for an in-law. Since President Donald Trump took office, Kushner has been given access to the National Security Council and confidential information. He has also been tasked with brokering a peace deal in the Middle East and acting as a diplomat in talks with Mexico, according to the Washington Post.

Yet America was still left wondering what Kushner sounded like. Even “SNL” made fun of Kushner’s silence in this clip from April.

Comedian John Oliver joined the fun on one of his shows: “For someone with the amount of power that he has, have you ever heard him speak? Seriously, what does his voice sound like? You don’t know, do you?”

On Monday, Kushner made his first recent public speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Behind a podium, Kushner spoke about the Trump Administration’s commitment to technological modernization. Two months ago Kushner was tapped to head the Office of American Innovation, which attempts to use the private sector to modernize government, according to the Washington Post.

As Kushner spoke on technological modernization, some people on Twitter joked that Kushner’s voice itself should be a bit more futuristic.

Kind of disappointed. Jared Kushner’s making his first public remarks and he hasn’t been hiding a cool Darth Vader voice. At all.

— Karen DaltonBeninato (@kbeninato) June 19, 2017

Others on Twitter compared his voice to actor Michael Cera, who is often mocked for his young, high-pitched voice.

In the tragicomedy film version of the Trump era, Jared Kushner will be played by Michael Cera.

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) June 19, 2017

Many had fun at his expense, but others took note that the disparaging comments about Kushner’s voice may come from him not fitting a “masculine” ideal. There was plenty of fodder to criticize as people mocked Kushner’s “feminine” voice on Twitter.

There is so much that’s fair to critique Kushner on that’s fair. But, making fun of his voice hurts so many men and boys for no reason.

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) June 19, 2017

But does how Kushner’s voice sound actually matter? In the first few months of his presidency, Trump has incorporated his family into more power positions than prior administrations, so Kushner’s actions matter more than his voice. What really matters is how Kushner can use his powerful platform to influence his wife and father-in-law when it comes to technological advancement or whatever other important issue he’s tasked with.

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 The World Finally Gets to Hear Jared Kushner’s Voice appeared first on Law Street.

Six members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS have resigned in frustration with the Trump’s Administration’s apparent lack of interest in “the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic.”

Since its creation in 1995, the council has sought to craft national policy on the disease, prevent its spread, and promote effective treatment as a cure is developed, according to U.S. News and World Report.

The members of the council who quit began becoming concerned during the 2016 presidential campaign when the Trump team showed little interest in meeting with advocates for those struggling to survive the disease. At that point, while the council noted the Trump camp’s disinterest, they clung to the hope that he could be engaged on the issue once in office, according to U.S. News and World Report.

Things escalated when the White House site “Office of National AIDS Policy” was removed during Trump’s inauguration, said Scott Schoettes, a member of the council since 2014.

The final misstep was when the new American Healthcare Act was passed by the Republican-majority House of Representatives, despite pleas from marginalized communities that it would have disastrous impacts, especially for those with HIV/AIDS.

New HIV infections in America declined 18 percent between 2008 and 2014, according to estimates from the Center for Disease Control. The council worked with the previous administration to create the new healthcare system that provided easier access to diagnosis and treatment. Those who quit the council felt that the new GOP bill would take that away.

Schoettes, and his peers, wanted to provide input for the council, but said that they could no longer stand idly by as the Trump Administration ignored their recommendations. Schoettes wrote in a guest column for Newsweek announcing the resignations:

The Trump Administration has no strategy to address the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic, seeks zero input from experts to formulate HIV policy, and — most concerning — pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease.

Trump has still not appointed anyone to head the White House Office of National AIDS Policy after 150 days, while former President Barack Obama appointed a leader after only 36 days. Schoettes penned the column, but it was cosigned by his partners in resignation Lucy Bradley-Springer, Gina Brown, Ulysses W. Burley III, Grissel Granados, and Michelle Ogle.

While the council can have up to 25 members, it currently has only 15. The council last met in March, at which point the members wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price expressing concern about the repeal of the American Healthcare Act and the impact it would have on access to HIV/AIDS treatment. Price responded with an uninspiring, “perfunctory” response, according to Schoettes, which further frustrated the council.

Still, Schoettes says he and his colleagues have a desire to help the community they have worked with for many years. They don’t foresee Trump mustering any more interest than he has shown, but they hope other politicians find it necessary to work on a serious public health issue. The column finished:

We hope the members of Congress who have the power to affect healthcare reform will engage with us and other advocates in a way that the Trump Administration apparently will not.

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 Six Members of the HIV/AIDS Council Resign in Frustration appeared first on Law Street.

At Nationals Park on Thursday night, during the annual Congressional Baseball Game, Republicans and Democrats sat in opposite sections. But all rooted for one team: Team Scalise. For a few hours, just a day after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) was shot while practicing at a baseball diamond in the Virginia suburbs, the game was a rare moment of unity.

Before the first pitch, both teams trotted out to second base and huddled around each other for a moment of prayer. And after the game, which the Democrats won 11-2, the Democratic manager, Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA), gave the trophy to the Republicans to put in Scalise’s office.

“Not here this evening, but in our thoughts and prayers–Steve Scalise,” boomed the loudspeaker at the end of announcing the GOP’s lineup. Both sides of the stadium responded with a raucous standing ovation. There were other unifying symbols: some members from both parties wore Louisiana State University hats and shirts, in a nod to Scalise’s alma mater. Signs in both the Republican and Democratic sections read: “Scalise Strong” and “Team Scalise.”

President Donald Trump delivered a video message to the 60 or so congressmen on the field: “By playing tonight, you are showing the world that we will not be intimidated by threats, acts of violence, or assaults on our democracy,” Trump said. “The game will go on.”

The view from the Republican side. Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street.

But not all of the record-setting 25,000 attendees felt that this fleeting moment of unity signaled a shift toward bipartisanship.

“The country is not going to get past partisanship,” John Blasko, wearing a Washington Nationals jersey and carrying a blue, Democratic foam finger, told Law Street. “It’s not going to happen.” Blasko, who works in real estate and sells merchandise at Grateful Dead shows (he’s been to 410, by his count) said partisanship in the U.S. “couldn’t be worse.”

Blasko is not hopeful Wednesday’s shooting will lead to any significant change in the political climate, saying it “means nothing.” But still, despite his fatalistic outlook, Blasko’s parting words were befitting of a Grateful Dead die-hard: “everybody love everybody,” he advised.

That sentiment seemed distant on Wednesday morning, when John Hodgkinson, a vocal Trump critic, stormed the GOP’s practice in Alexandria, Virginia, with a rifle. He sprayed the field with bullets, hitting four, including Scalise and Capitol Police officer David Bailey, who threw the first pitch at Thursday’s game. As of Thursday evening, Scalise remained in critical condition, and “will be in the hospital for some time,” the hospital that is treating him said in a statement.

The stands on Thursday were full of hope for the future, in spite of Wednesday’s attack.

Julian, a sophomore at Yale majoring in political science, said the political climate “could be better.” Still, he told Law Street while munching on nachos early on in the game, “I don’t think we’re on a downward slope, I think we’re going to be fine.” He said the unity on display Thursday night is “one of those markers to the public that yes congressmen can be bipartisan, yes they can cooperate, yes they are friends in the office. They’re not just bitter enemies.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post The Congressional Baseball Game: Seven Innings of Unity appeared first on Law Street.

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

Trump to Announce Changes to Cuba Policy

Today, President Donald Trump is in Miami to unveil some policy changes regarding Cuba. He is expected to roll back the changes President Barack Obama initiated when he opened up diplomatic relations with the country in 2014. That softening came after decades of ice-cold relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Trump’s new endeavors will mean a crackdown on commercial relations and tourism.

Perhaps most importantly, the changes will also affect normal people who benefit from increased tourism. Human rights groups have even called for the White House to keep the current policies because fewer travelers to the island nation will only hurt the local population. “It’s true the repressive system in Cuba has not changed, but the fact that two years of a different policy didn’t change things isn’t a reason to go back to one that was a clear failure for decades,” said Daniel Wilkinson, managing director of Human Rights Watch’s America division.

Headed to Miami to announce new U.S. policy on Cuba. We are going to empower the Cuban people and hold the regime accountable!

— President Trump (@POTUS) June 16, 2017

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: June 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

While it’s been more than 20 years since a major Washington, D.C. sports team has been invited to the White House, two faces of Washington sports are getting political this summer.

Last week Washington Redskins quarterback Kirk Cousins played a round of golf with President Donald Trump at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Meanwhile, Washington Capitals star Alex Ovechkin attended an annual event for President Vladimir Putin where the Russian leader answered questions from a studio audience and civilians across the nation.

Neither has made any specific political statements, but the actions of both stars raised eyebrows in the nation’s capital. Some fans expressed frustration on social media, but others accepted that each athlete has their own personal lives and they can do what they choose.

The District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia–which comprise the main fan base for both teams–all voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Cousins said that Eric Shuster, the director of strategic partnerships at CSN Mid-Atlantic, helped put the duo together. The opportunity was too much to pass on. Cousins said the round was a great experience, adding:

I didn’t ever think that would happen. Had a good enough time that if there’s any former presidents in the D.C. area that want to give me a call, I’d love to meet them at one of the courses around here. I know lots of them are members at these courses and I’m not, so I’d love to get on and get to meet them. Republican, Democrat, left, right, I’d love an invite.

Meanwhile, Alex Ovechkin explained his rationale to Sovetsky Sport, a Russian outlet. Ovechkin said he was making a plea to Putin to help save the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) from its massive financial troubles.

Alex Ovechkin goes to Vladimir Putin town hall meeting to lobby for struggling Dynamo… https://t.co/6iA87Fdy62 pic.twitter.com/1SmEDqe9tw

— Zesty NHL News (@nhl_zesty) June 16, 2017

The KHL, Europe’s premier hockey league, is in serious debt, with teams owing their players more than $17 million, according to the Associate Press. Some players haven’t received a salary payment in over six months.

Ovechkin’s former team, Dynamo Moscow, is in about $35 million in debt and in danger of shutting down. The future Hall of Famer wants to do all he can to avoid that situation.

“It’s a great pity that such things are happening in our sport,” Ovechkin said. “I hope the teams experiencing difficulties will overcome them.”

So both Washington sports stars had their own rationale for spending time with these world leaders. Ovechkin had a goal in mind while Cousins simply jumped at the opportunity to meet the most polarizing figure in American politics.

Neither meeting means much in the grand scheme of global politics, but it does add intrigue and anguish to the beginning of summer for many Washington sports fans.

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 Washington Sports Stars Spend Time with Trump and Putin appeared first on Law Street.

Today, United States law enforcement officials charged the security detail for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after they escalated a protest outside the Turkish Embassy, leading to violence.

The skirmish broke out this May after Erdogan and his security detail met with President Donald Trump at the White House on May 16. Court documents reveal the demonstration was peaceful until a group of “radicalized protesters began taunting the peaceful protesters,” according to the Washington Post.

When Erdogan’s group arrived at the property, Turkish security provoked the demonstrators and a violent outburst broke out that entangled demonstrators from both sides, Turkish security, and American law enforcement. Eleven people were injured and nine were hospitalized, as Erdogan watched from his Mercedes-Benz.

Police in Washington D.C. have been investigating the incident alongside the State Department and Secret Service.

These charges levied against Turkish security officials are the first steps since the attack a month ago. Since the incident, American authorities have been frustrated privately and publicly regarding what they perceived as a foreign government’s attack on American free speech, according to the New York Times. 

The State Department responded by saying “violence is never an appropriate response to free speech” and that officials are “communicating our concern with the Turkish government in the strongest possible terms.”

Just last week the House of Representatives passed a bill condemning the violence and asking for punishment.

While America views free speech and protest as an integral part of its democracy, the same cannot be said for Turkey. After a failed military coup last year, Erdogan’s government has pursued enemies and detractors of his regime. Nearly 200,000 people have been arrested, dismissed, or suspended from their jobs, according to the Washington Post. While the United States ranks 43rd in the World Press Freedom rankings, Turkey is ranked 155th.

One issue is that Erdogan and his team returned to Turkey just hours after the skirmish and it is unlikely that the country would extradite its people to face charges. If they ever return to the United States, however, they risk being arrested, according to the New York Times.

With that in mind, the State Department added that it would consider additional action “as appropriate under relevant laws and regulations.”

Another issue the outburst created was how it would impact diplomatic relations between the nations. It has already halted the progress of a $1.2 million arms sale to Turkey, according to the New York Times.

The incident has certainly raised tensions with Turkey, and American officials may continue to be disappointed with their attacks on protesters. Now it remains to be seen how Turkey, and Erdogan, will respond to the charges from law enforcement.

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 Turkish Security Detail Charged after May Melee appeared first on Law Street.

Late Wednesday, a variety of news outlets published reports that Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election, requested interviews with a trio of current and former intelligence officials.

The news was first reported by the Washington Post, and later by the New York Times. It came from anonymous sources and fueled speculation that Mueller is widening his investigation to determine whether President Donald Trump, in firing Comey last month, obstructed justice. On Thursday morning, Trump tweeted that the obstruction of justice probe is a “phony story” created by “conflicted” people:

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Mueller to lead the investigation last month, soon after Trump fired Comey, who at the time was heading the FBI’s inquiry into Russia and its potential links to the Trump campaign. Testifying in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee–which is conducting its own investigation into Russia’s interference–last week, Comey said a number of private meetings with the president led him to document the encounters.

“I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document,” Comey said.

In his retelling of the events, Comey recalled Trump said he “hoped” that he would shutter the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. This, some observers have said, might amount to a case against Trump for obstructing justice. The Post’s report does indicate Mueller is indeed investigating the matter in terms of potential obstruction, but it does not mean that Trump is guilty of any misdeeds.

“This unfounded accusation against the president changes nothing,” the RNC said in a statement in response to the Post’s story, despite the fact that Mueller has yet to level any accusations against the president. “There’s still no evidence of obstruction, and current and former leaders in the intelligence community have repeatedly said there’s been no effort to impede the investigation in any way.”

According to the anonymous source, Mueller will interview three current and former high-ranking intelligence officials: Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former deputy director of the NSA Richard Ledgett.

Rogers has publicly acknowledged that he had never felt pressured to end the FBI’s probe into Flynn. During a hearing last week, he said:

“I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate,” Rogers said. “And to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.”

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 Mueller’s Apparent Obstruction of Justice Investigation: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump Under Investigation for Obstruction of Justice

Special counsel Robert Mueller is now reportedly investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s investigation into Russia. Comey said in his Senate testimony last week that he told Trump three times earlier this year that he was not personally under investigation for the alleged Russia collusion. But Trump still fired Comey, and later said that he had “that Russia thing” on his mind when doing so.

Mueller will reportedly also look at other issues in the investigation, such as possible financial crimes. Some officials from the NSA will be interviewed as early as this week.

Reposting: Don’t rule out the possibility of Trump trying to remove Mueller. This is now more relevant: https://t.co/dBEXKZWDV4 https://t.co/tIim9xqQys

— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) June 14, 2017

Spokespeople for Mueller declined to comment after the news broke, but Trump’s team was quick to denounce it, calling the FBI’s “leaking” of information about the president “outrageous, inexcusable and illegal.” However, it’s not clear why they thought the information came from the FBI, given that no source has been released. This morning at 4 a.m., Trump commented on Twitter and called it a “phony story.”

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

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: June 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Former NBA star Dennis Rodman’s lifetime of strange behavior continues with yet another trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea this week–his fifth trip to the isolated nation.

Rodman has built a close relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in recent years, becoming a pseudo-ambassador for the United States. America has no ambassador or diplomatic relations with North Korea; instead, it relies on the Swedish embassy as a mediator, according to its website.

“My mission is to break the ice between hostile countries,” Rodman told Sports Illustrated in 2013. “Why it’s been left to me to smooth things over, I don’t know. Dennis Rodman, of all people. Keeping us safe is really not my job; it’s the black guy’s [Obama’s] job. But I’ll tell you this: If I don’t finish in the top three for the next Nobel Peace Prize, something’s seriously wrong.”

Rodman’s current trip is being sponsored by Potcoin.com, a cryptocurrency business that does banking for legal marijuana companies. While there is little known about cultural life in North Korea, some defectors have said that marijuana is obtainable and common in North Korea.

I’m back! Thanks to my sponsor https://t.co/zBtIFz1QBr. #NorthKorea #PeaceAndLove https://t.co/G7t6PX3WV9

— Dennis Rodman (@dennisrodman) June 13, 2017

Another one of Rodman’s previous trips was sponsored by Paddy Power, an Irish gambling company.

The fact that Rodman, an eccentric NBA star who has headbutted a referee, kicked a cameraman, once married former “Baywatch” star Carmen Electra for less than six months, and then donned a wedding dress and wig to marry himself, is the main liaison between the two nations is pretty strange. But his rapport with the supreme leader is even more bizarre.

Dennis Rodman gives copy of ‘The Art of the Deal’ to North Korean official https://t.co/QKyhrMvigp via @RyanGaydos pic.twitter.com/FQYXQyGnm6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 15, 2017

In the past Rodman has discussed politics with North Korean leaders, in addition to having fun as a private citizen. Prior to his fifth trip, he told to reporters he is “trying to open a door” for better relations between the two nations, according to Chicago Tribune.

In 2014, Kenneth Bae, a South Korean-born American citizen, publicly thanked Rodman following his release from the country after being imprisoned and sentenced the prior year to serve 15 years of hard labor in the country. Bae called Rodman the “catalyst” for his release.

Coincidentally, University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier was released back to the United States within hours of Rodman’s arrival in North Korea Tuesday. It remains murky as to whether or not Rodman had something to do with Warmbier’s return, but Michael Anton, a US national security spokesman, told CNN he didn’t believe Rodman played a role.

Rodman endorsed President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign after twice participating as a contestant in Trump’s reality show “Celebrity Apprentice.” Since his inauguration, Trump has repeatedly criticized and threatened both Kim and North Korea.

North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been “playing” the United States for years. China has done little to help!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2017

Despite Trump’s public criticisms, Rodman still believes the president would approve of him befriending Kim. When asked by reporters in Beijing if Trump was aware of the trip, Rodman replied, “Well, I’m pretty sure he’s pretty much happy with the fact that I’m over here trying to accomplish something that we both need.”

Multiple sources involved in unofficial talks with North Korea, according to the Washington Post, claim the Trump Administration is using Rodman as a back channel to North Korea, rather than the usual lineup of experts and policy makers. But it remains to be seen whether or not basketball can actually bridge the seemingly impassable divide between the two countries.

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 Dennis Rodman Heads to Favorite Vacation Spot, Again: North Korea appeared first on Law Street.

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

Trump’s Travel Ban Loses…Again

A second federal appeals court has shut down President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco rejected the ban that would limit travel from some Muslim countries yesterday, saying that the president exceeded his authority by making decisions about national security regarding immigration without sufficient justification.

Last month, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond reached the same decision but with different reasoning. That court said the ban is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. Team Trump has asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, and seems determined to keep fighting to ban some citizens from visiting the U.S.

Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it again – Ruled against the TRAVEL BAN at such a dangerous time in the history of our country. S.C.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2017

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: June 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The attorneys general for Maryland and Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump, alleging that he violated the Constitution’s anti-corruption clauses by accepting payments from foreign governments since taking office.

This is the first time a state has filed a lawsuit against a president for violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause. While Trump has said that he would transfer his business assets to a blind trust, the lawsuit is centered on the claim that Trump has continued to retain ownership of his vast business portfolio while getting updates from his two sons.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, will require the court to answer whether Trump has violated either the domestic or foreign emoluments clauses.

Both clauses ban any “person holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from receiving any payment from foreign countries or from any of the 50 states without approval from Congress. The founding fathers set up the clauses to limit the influence a foreign country or an individual state could wield over the president.

In a copy of the lawsuit provided to the Washington Post, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh claim that Trump’s global business has him “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors.”

The suit also alleges that businesses in both Maryland and D.C. have been harmed by Trump’s tendency to utilize his own convention centers and properties, such as the Trump International Hotel in D.C. The suit says that hotel payments, tax breaks, and permits all count as domestic emoluments received by Trump, according to CNN Money.

If the lawsuit progresses, the two officials say their first step will be to demand Trump’s personal tax returns in order to gauge the severity of his behavior.

This is the latest in a series of lawsuits attempting to test Trump’s conflicts of interest. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a D.C.-based group, and Cork Wine Bar had previously filed lawsuits against the president.

The Trump Organization, though, argues that everything is perfectly legal. In a response to CREW, the Justice Department argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Trump may legally accept “market-rate payments” for Trump’s real estate, hotel, and golf companies. They even cited George Washington selling farm produce as a previous example in their 70-page response.

Disappointed with the lack of inquiry from Congress, Racine and Frosh felt compelled to file their own lawsuit.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

The attorneys general feel confident that they have the standing to sue because Maryland and D.C. entered a contract, the Constitution, that Trump has violated by accepting gifts.

So while Trump faced plenty of lawsuits before his presidency and a handful since, this lawsuit represents a big moment in the early months of his administration. Trump’s foreign business dealings and potential conflicts of interest have been controversial since the campaign, but now D.C. and Maryland are demanding transparency within the Trump Administration to ease citizens’ concerns.

“This case represents another storm, not just a dusting of snow, but a blizzard of trouble for Trump,” Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board chairman, said. “Who better than governmental actors to say our deal was, our fundamental democratic bargain was, we would get a president who would follow the Constitution.”

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 Maryland and D.C. Sue Trump, Alleging He Violated Constitution’s Anti-Corruption Clauses 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:

Maryland and D.C. Sue the President

The Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia have said they will file a lawsuit against President Donald Trump today, citing violations of the Constitution. They will focus on Trump’s continued involvement with his family business. The plaintiffs are also asking for those tax returns he never released. The lawsuit calls the alleged constitutional violations “unprecedented.”

AG Karl A. Racine of D.C. and AG Brian E. Frosh of Maryland said that they felt obligated to sue, as the Republican-led Congress doesn’t seem to take Trump’s conflicts of interest seriously. “We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

Maryland and DC’s attorneys general just sued Trumphttps://t.co/qcuXoVLGiI pic.twitter.com/fid3cnxz40

— jordan (@JordanUhl) June 12, 2017

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: June 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s Twitter account has controversially given his almost 32 million followers direct, unfiltered access to his thoughts and stances on issues. Now that users are getting blocked from the account for offending the president, a group of lawyers say his actions infringe on their freedom of speech.

On Tuesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University wrote a letter asking Trump to remove the blocks, adding that they constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

This request brings up some novel legal questions: Is access to a president’s tweets and the information they contain comparable to a public town hall, despite the fact that they are being posted on a private account? If so, can the president violate the Constitution if he prevents a user’s access? The lawyers’ letter states:

When the government makes a space available to the public at large for the purpose of expressive activity, it creates a public forum form which it may not constitutionally exclude individuals on the basis of viewpoint. This is true even if the space in question is ‘metaphysical’ rather than physical; even if the space is privately rather than publicly owned; and ‘even when the limited public forum is one of [the government’s] own creation.’

On the same day the letter was written, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a briefing that Trump’s tweets ought to be taken seriously, thereby strengthening the lawyers’ argument. He “is the president of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the president of the United States.”

Users have been blocked for tweets as simple as covfefe-related jokes, and policy criticism. Holly Figueroa O’Reilly was blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account after she made a joke about how the pope frowned at the president during his trip to the Vatican. She agrees that her blocking may constitute an offense to her First Amendment rights.

“This is an elected official trying to silence an entire sector of the dissenting populace,” O’Reilly said in opinion article. “This is what dictators and fascists do. This isn’t what we do here in America.

@realdonaldtrump isn't a regular citizen. He's @potus His tweets are public record. Unblock us this is unconstitutional #BlockedByTrump pic.twitter.com/a9Kw4KNTlv

— Andy Signore (@andysignore) June 7, 2017

Some, however, do not think cases like these would hold up in court. Ken White, a First Amendment litigator and blogger, told Vox that a blocked user is only being prevented from being able to “read what the president has chosen to vent on this particular site,” and not to speak about matters.

Other issues include the fact that the president has two accounts, including his @POTUS handle, and the fact that ultimately they are both hosted through a private company’s servers further muddle the legal picture.

While the debate over Trump’s Twitter blocks continues, some of his former followers have started a #BlockedByTrump hashtag, choosing to view the president’s move as a badge of honor.

Tonight I am honored to join an elite club … #BlockedByTrump. Apparently, I hurt the feelings of the "leader of the free world". SAD! pic.twitter.com/yQGyt2yBJE

— Rob Szczerba (@RJSzczerba) June 2, 2017

Is #BlockedByTrump just a hashtag or the Holy Grail of Twitter?

— Christoph Rehage (@crehage) May 30, 2017

If Trump doesn’t reverse the blocks or answer the letter, the Knight Institute says his administration should prepare for “legal action to protect the First Amendment rights of blocked individuals.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Trump Blocks Twitter Followers, Does he Violate the Constitution? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Mexico agreed to a new trade deal this week regarding the sugar trade, but some viewed it as a precursor to negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

American sugar refineries previously complained about Mexico introducing cheap sugar into the U.S. economy, while simultaneously refusing to export raw sugar to their American counterparts, according to The New York Times. This has resulted in the movement of sugar-based jobs from America to Mexico over the years.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had previously threatened an 80 percent tariff if the two sides did not reach a deal by early this month, according to Politico.

The talks between the two neighboring countries began in March, about two months after President Donald Trump took office on a platform of protecting American workers and companies. Ross led the negotiations with Ildefonso Guajardo, Mexico’s economy minister, The New York Times reported. At a news conference in Washington D.C., Ross said:

We have gotten the Mexican side to agree to nearly every request made by the U.S. sugar industry to address flaws in the current system and ensure fair treatment of American sugar growers and refiners.

Some politicians, businessmen, and analysts have viewed these negotiations as a possible preview to upcoming discussions on the existing NAFTA deal. Those negotiations are expected to begin in August, according to Reuters.

Just the fact that the Trump Administration dove into negotiations with a country they have often insulted was an encouraging sign, according to CNN Money.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the deal “sets an important tone of good faith leading up to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

Under the terms of this new agreement, Mexico would greatly reduce the amount of refined sugar it exports to America while increasing its raw sugar exports. But many are unhappy with Trump’s first major economic agreement.

One American sugar producer, Ohio-based Spangler Candy, has voiced its displeasure at the deal. Spangler Candy, which has moved plants into Mexico for access to cheaper sugar, believes that the administration has failed on one of its main campaign promises.

“To be honest, I’m just very disappointed that the Trump administration didn’t do more to level the playing field, which is something they promised over and over again to do for the American worker,” Spangler Chief Executive Officer Kirk Vasha said in a phone interview with Reuters.

U.S. Coalition for Sugar Reform, a trade group representing U.S. sugar buyers, disavowed the deal because of the burden raising tariffs will put on consumers. The coalition estimates that the cost to consumers in higher prices will be around $1 billion, according to Reuters. The Sweetener Users Association also projected the costs at around $1 billion.

Hershey and Mondelez International, which owns the Kraft brand, both referred Reuters to those price estimates as their response to the deal. Ross has said he hopes that their concerns can be calmed in the drafting process of the deal.

So while the deal may not be ideal in the view of some companies or consumers, the deliberations bode well for future compromise between the two nations. After feuding between Mexican leaders and Trump, or his surrogates, throughout his campaign, the negotiations offered a glimpse of the upcoming collaboration regarding NAFTA.

Trump has repeatedly promised to bring jobs back to America, which he attempted to accomplish in this sugar deal. Soon enough he’ll have the chance to work on NAFTA, another major point of his throughout the campaign.

I will renegotiate NAFTA. If I can’t make a great deal, we’re going to tear it up. We’re going to get this economy running again. #Debate

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016

Even those from the Mexican side feel the sugar deal bodes well. Carlos Vejar, a former senior Mexican trade official who served as general counsel for the trade for Mexico’s Economy Ministry, believes that sugar is “obviously an issue that is so controversial it is a good example that agreements can be reached.”

Trump’s main campaign promise was to fix America’s place in the global economy and to bring jobs back. Many are disappointed in his first attempt, so perhaps he can do better when it comes to renegotiating NAFTA.

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 U.S. Sugar Deal with Mexico Previews NAFTA Discussions 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:

Theresa May Loses Majority in Huge Upset

Prime Minister Theresa May originally called for the snap election in the U.K. to strengthen the position of her Conservative Party, but after yesterday’s votes were counted it was clear that she came out the loser. Her party still holds a plurality, but no one party will hold a majority. This is called a hung parliament, meaning that May will need to form a coalition with other parties. And her party will have a hard time passing legislation, as the main opposition party, Labour, won so many seats. Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn said May should resign and that he wants to form a minority government. But May doesn’t seem likely to resign–in a speech, she announced she will form a government with a small Northern Irish Party called DUP. Now a lot of people are expressing worries about what will happen with the impending Brexit talks.

PM Theresa May says Conservatives will ensure much-needed “stability” for Britain as the party reels from a string of losses pic.twitter.com/LBIx3HK1EI

— AFP news agency (@AFP) June 9, 2017

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: June 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

What were you doing at this time last year?

On June 8, 2016, exactly a year ago, The New York Times ran a front page story commemorating former secretary of state Hillary Clinton reaching the threshold of delegates and superdelegates needed to secure the Democratic Party nomination. This made Clinton the first woman to lead the presidential ticket for a major political party.

The front page #OTD in 2016. Hillary Clinton claims the Democratic nomination. #nytimes pic.twitter.com/IDHWQzIrK7

— New York Times OTD (@OnThisDayNYT) June 8, 2017

At this point, plenty of people had high hopes of seeing America’s first female president. Many experts doubted that Clinton, an experienced politician, would lose to real estate mogul Donald Trump, who was nearing his own nomination.

As we all know now, much has changed in the year since that front page ran. National mood has ebbed and flowed, and the feeling that it’s been a long year is pervasive across America on social media and in casual conversation. The country has undergone a serious transformation in the past year in part because of the election and in part because of current events which have stricken fear in many.

As a baseline, Trump secured the Republican nomination and fought hard against Clinton in the campaign before pulling off the upset and winning the 2016 election. But throughout the campaign there were numerous important events that continuously shocked the nation, often to no avail. There was the tape of him with Billy Bush boasting about groping women without consent. There was Trump’s defense of his gross behavior surrounding Miss Universe models, specifically 1996 winner Alicia Machado. And there was his endorsement from KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.

And since Trump’s inauguration in January, the political climate in America has been drastically altered. Trump has regularly embroiled himself in controversy, whether it was his executive orders restricting travel from mainly Muslim countries or his choice to fire FBI director James Comey. And don’t forget when Trump fired Attorney General Sally Yates after she didn’t defend his travel ban. Not to mention all of the times he’s taken to Twitter to spout baseless accusations against former President Barack Obama, the media, and other global leaders.

Most notably, since The New York Times ran that front page story the political, racial, and cultural divide has widened across America. From any vantage point, American society is different than it was when Clinton secured the nomination last June.

Polarization on the political spectrum has become more evident. It has become increasingly clear that Republicans and Democrats alike mostly discuss politics with those who agree with them, the Pew Research Center concluded.

That polarization has, at least in part, led to violence across America. Violence has broken out at numerous protests since Trump’s inauguration, including the Portland protests just this past weekend. Nationwide, racially motivated hate crimes have become a more pressing issue. After researching nine major metropolitan areas including New York City and Chicago, the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University found that hate crimes rose more than 20 percent in those areas. Hate crimes in New York City increased 24 percent from 2015 while Washington, D.C. had the largest increase at 62 percent. These hate crimes vary from racial threats to religious attacks against Jews or Muslims.

Additionally, people have become more skeptical of polling and poll analysis after pollsters’ failure to correctly predict the election. 538, an analysis site led by Nate Silver, is one of the organizations greatly criticized in the past year.

The truth is that it’s been a long year, particularly in the political realm. Many of the events that happened over this year have contributed to a feeling of despair, whether the events are related to terrorism, crime, or international affairs.

Part of this seismic shift has been the impactful global events that portray the changes over the past year. These events have shaped the past year and contributed to exhaustion of the American public. Here are some of the most notable:

• June 12: A lone gunman opened fire at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing 49 in one of the worst mass shootings in US history.
• July 6: African-American men Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were killed by police officers in New Orleans and St. Paul, respectively. Both deaths were caught on camera.
• July 15: An attempted military coup in Turkey failed and nearly 6,000 were arrested
• October 18: The White House said it was “confident” that Russia was behind the recent DNC email hacking in an attempt to influence the American election.
• November 4: The Paris Agreement on climate change went into effect. Trump recently announced he would be pulling the United States out of the agreement, provoking plenty of backlash.
• December 2: Trump spoke on the phone with Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen. This broke from traditional American “One China” policy that was put into place by President Richard Nixon in 1972.
• December 19: Andrey Karlov, Russian ambassador to Turkey, was assassinated as the lone gunman screamed “don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria!”
• January 21: Over 2 million people worldwide participated in a “Women’s March,” protesting newly inaugurated President Trump.

While Trump’s rise to prominence has had ripple effects, it’s no doubt that so have these events and Trump’s response to them. With a rise in hate crimes, polarization, and controversy, the past year has been one of the most unique and unpredictable in recent history. Whether the current state of affairs continues or not is unknown. After a hectic and stressful year, many are hoping things slow down, but there’s no way to predict what Trump, or anyone else, will do next.

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 It Has Been a Long Year Since Hillary Clinton Was Nominated appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, 10 new states joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, affirming their dedication to “aggressive action on climate change” in light of President Donald Trump’s pull-out from the Paris Accord.

The Alliance now has 13 state members, including the three founding members. Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York, Jay Inslee of Washington State, and Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California formed the group to reduce emissions and continue pushing for climate change policy, according to a release on Inslee’s website.

“Those of us who understand science and feel the urgency of protecting our children’s air and water are as united as ever in confronting one of the greatest challenges of our lifetime,” Inslee said in the release. “Our collective efforts to act on climate will ensure we maintain the United State’s commitment to curb carbon pollution while advancing a clean energy economy that will bring good-paying jobs to America’s workers.”

The coalition announced Monday that Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia have all joined.

In a release, Cuomo called the decision to leave the Paris Accord “irresponsible,” and said that the group is committed to meeting the agreement’s goals to reduce carbon emissions 26-28 percent from 2005 levels and meet or exceed the targets of President Barack Obama’s landmark climate policy, the Clean Power Plan.

“We welcome these 10 new members and look forward to collaborating and maintaining the momentum in the global effort to protect our planet, while jumpstarting the clean energy economy,” Cuomo said.

New York is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington’s irresponsible actions. #ActOnClimate

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 1, 2017

Pulling Out of Paris

The U.S. Climate Alliance was formed just days after Trump announced his decision to exit the agreement, making the U.S. one of three countries worldwide that did not sign on to the Accord. The other two are Syria and Nicaragua.

The president said the 195-nation climate agreement, which was negotiated under Obama and ratified into international law last November, would hurt the U.S. economy and American sovereignty, despite opposition from members of Congress and key players in his own administration.

Since pulling out of Paris, Trump has been criticized by American politicians, world leaders, scientists, celebrities, business leaders, educators, and the public. Two high-profile members of Trump’s advisory councils, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Disney CEO Bob Iger, have both stepped down from their roles on the councils following the withdrawal.

Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 1, 2017

“Forging Ahead”

In addition to the 13-state climate alliance, other localized groups have formed to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to protecting the planet.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is bringing together hundreds of businesses, university leaders, mayors, and governors in an unnamed alliance, which had more than 1,200 signatures when the pledge closed on Monday.

Bloomberg’s charitable organization, Bloomberg Philanthropies, also pledged $15 million to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which he said the group stands to lose from Washington as a result of Trump’s exit from the Paris Agreement.

“Americans are not walking away from the Paris Climate Agreement,” Bloomberg said in a statement. “Just the opposite–we are forging ahead.”

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ten More States Join U.S. Climate Alliance in Wake of Paris Withdrawal appeared first on Law Street.

A day before former FBI Director James Comey is set to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Donald Trump, who fired Comey in May, nominated his successor. The nominee is Christopher Wray, a former Justice Department official with years of experience in the private sector. Trump made the announcement on Twitter early Wednesday morning:

I will be nominating Christopher A. Wray, a man of impeccable credentials, to be the new Director of the FBI. Details to follow.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2017

Wray served with the DOJ in various capacities. From 1997 to 2001 he was a U.S. attorney in Georgia. In 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Wray as the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Crimes Division, where he led a number of investigations.

Donald Trump chooses Christopher Wray to head the FBI https://t.co/Kp6ladW3qg

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 7, 2017

Wray “was also integral to the DOJ’s response to the 9/11 attacks and played a key role in the oversight of legal and operational actions in the continuing war on terrorism,” according to his bio on the King & Spaulding website, where he has been a partner since 2005. Specializing in white-collar crime, he has represented a wide array of clients, including: “The Governor of New Jersey in connection with investigations relating to the George Washington Bridge toll lane closings.”

Translation: Wray was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s attorney in the infamous “Bridgegate” trial, in which Christie was accused of orchestrating–or willfully ignoring–a plot to close traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge in the fall of 2013. The lane closures were allegedly a response to the actions of the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, who refused to back Christie’s re-election bid.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former colleague of Wray’s at the Justice Department, called him “smart, serious, and professional” in a blog post. He said Wray has “deep experience with federal criminal law and the FBI,” and is “a good choice, a much better choice than any of the politicians I previously saw floated, and a much better choice than I expected Trump to make.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement a few hours after Trump’s announcement, calling Wray an “extraordinary person, possessing all the gifts necessary to be a great Director of the FBI.” Sessions added: “The President asked us to look for an FBI Director who has integrity, who understands and is committed to the rule of law, and who is dedicated to protecting the American people from crime, gangs, and terrorists. We have found our man in Chris Wray.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump’s FBI Director Nominee is Christopher Wray: What You Need to Know 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:

Did Trump Funnel Money Intended for Kids with Cancer into his Own Business?

President Donald Trump allegedly funneled money from his son Eric’s children cancer charity into his own business. Eric Trump has held a golf tournament to raise money for his charity for the past 10 years. As the event takes place at his dad’s golf course, he said the charity could use the course for free, allowing all the donated money to go straight to the children’s fund. However, according to Forbes, the costs quickly soared over the years, making it clear that the golf course was not free.

It just cannot get worse than this: pocketing money from a kids’ cancer charity. https://t.co/8qXpxxdpgQ

— Tina Jordan (@EWTinaJordan) June 6, 2017

“The Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament,” Forbes states. Roughly $100,000 of the donations were funneled into revenue for the Trump Organization, and more than $500,000 were donated to other charities, often benefiting Trump family members. This does not look good for the Trump family, and obviously, a lot of people are outraged.

“Morality is just gone,” says Eric Trump, who Forbes earlier today reported used a charity to (literally) steal money from kids with cancer. pic.twitter.com/4XyZZOdZcw

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) June 7, 2017

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: June 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As former FBI Director James Comey prepares to speak on Thursday before a Senate committee on recent events surrounding Russia, President Donald Trump, and the 2016 election, many are preparing their watch parties.

First off, not only will C-SPAN and PBS be broadcasting the feed but ABC, NBC, and CBS all plan to replace their normally scheduled daytime programing with a live feed of his testimony, according to CNN.

And some bars in the nation’s capital are changing things up to show the testimony on their flat-screen televisions.

Shaw’s Tavern plans to open at 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning in preparation for Comey’s 10 a.m. testimony, according to The Washington Post. The bar is calling its viewing party a “Comey Hearing Covfefe,” nicknamed after Trump’s mysterious tweet last week.

They will be offering $5 vodka drinks along with $10 “FBI” sandwiches, according to CNN.

A bar fittingly named The Partisan will also be opening at 10 a.m. to offer food and beverages.

Other bars are running with the “covfefe” theme. Duffy’s Irish Pub, normally a Washington Nationals bar, will tune into the testimony instead of baseball. The pub is offering a “Covfefe Cocktail,” an orange drink with unknown ingredients.

Duffy’s getting in on the Comey watch party action pic.twitter.com/HvDT35YMHR

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) June 6, 2017

“…It is like drinking Kool Aid but only a small group of people know what’s in it,” the advertisement says.

“Covfefe” is quite clearly another joke on the administration. In the aftermath of Trump’s strange tweet, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer explained that “the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant,” according to CNN.

Comey’s testimony on Thursday has the potential to be an interesting morning in Washington so television networks and bars are looking to capitalize. Cheers to what may be a momentous day in American history.

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 Television Stations (and Bars) Prep for the Comey Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

Kellyanne Conway’s husband, George Conway, sent out a critical tweet of President Donald Trump after the president reiterated his commitment to his “original travel ban.”

These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won’t help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad. https://t.co/zVhcyfm8Hr

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

Trump’s original tweet compelled Conway to tweet for the first time since retweeting a video about suspending New York Giants star wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. on December 20, 2015.

Conway believes that while Trump’s tweets on the ban may appeal to his voter base, it isn’t the right decision in terms of garnering the right number of votes to win a case in the Supreme Court.

Conway’s outburst comes within the same week that he chose not to pursue the position of leading the Civil Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, according to Politico.

“I have reluctantly concluded, however, that, for me and my family, this is not the right time for me to leave the private sector and take on a new role in the federal government,” he said in a statement.

While many people interpreted Conway’s tweet as a swipe at Trump, he attempted to clarify his comment in a string of four tweets. Conway explained that he still supports the Trump Administration, but that most lawyers would agree with him that Trump’s tweets on legal matters “undermine the Admin agenda and POTUS.”

1) Just to be clear, and in response to inquiries, I still VERY, VERY STRONGLY support POTUS, his Admin, policies, the executive order …

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

Earlier in the day, Kellyanne, a counselor to the president, had made an appearance on NBC’s “Today” criticizing “this obsession with covering everything he says on Twitter and very little what he does as president,” according to US News and World Report.

Apparently her husband disagrees and finds Trump’s tweets important. The president’s tweets created a reaction even without George Conway’s critique.

While Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, had previously claimed that Trump’s executive order was “…not a Muslim ban. It’s not a travel ban,” according to The Hill, the president has reverted to using the word “ban.”

People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

Trump proceeded to call it a travel ban in four other tweets since June 3.

With his executive order set to be heard in the Supreme Court, many lawyers agree with Conway and feel that the president has greatly damaged his court case. Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston told the New York Times:

These difficulties are amplified exponentially when the client is the president of the United States, and he continuously sabotages his lawyers, who are struggling to defend his policies in an already hostile arena. I do not envy the solicitor general’s office.

George Conway has been a partner at the corporate law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz since January 1994 and won a case at the Supreme Court with Morrison v. National Australia Bank, according to CNN.

Conway was also considered for solicitor general in January 2017 after Trump had won the election. Despite his marriage to Kellyanne, his potential position in the government would not have been nepotism because neither one would have held direct authority over the other, according to The New York Times.

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 Kellyanne Conway’s Husband Critiques Trump’s Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

To boost recruitment, the Secret Service is altering its drug policy: now, applicants who have used marijuana at some point in their past can still be considered for a position. An initiative by newly appointed director Randolph Alles, who President Donald Trump appointed to the post at the end of April, the policy change is designed to infuse the agency with a couple thousand more officers. The policy went into effect last month.

“We need more people,” Alles said in a press conference last Thursday. “The mission has changed.” Pointing to threats like international terrorism, groups like al Qaeda and Islamic State, and homegrown actors, he added: “It’s more dynamic and way more dangerous than it has been in years past.”

According to its drug policy statement, the Secret Service “does not condone any prior unlawful drug activity by applicants, but it is recognized that some otherwise qualified applicants may have used or otherwise interacted with illegal drugs at some point in their past.” When examining an applicant’s eligibility, “any prior illegal drug activity along with various considerations associated with that activity will be weighed in that adjudication process.” the statement says.

The agency’s prior policy disqualified candidates who had used marijuana more than a certain number of times at some point in their pasts. The new policy, designed to be a “whole-person concept,” Alles said, will instead look at the time between an applicant’s last use of marijuana, and his or her application date.

For instance, if an applicant was 24-years-old or younger when he or she last used or purchased marijuana, they must wait at least a year before applying to the agency. That standard rises as the age of last use or purchase rises.

Alles, who previously led air and marine missions with Customs and and Border Protections, also underlined a non-terrorism related reality that is requiring the agency to bolster its ranks: the round-the-clock protection of Trump and his family, as well as his collection of properties, including Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach and Trump Tower in Manhattan.

“I think between that and the fact that he has a larger family, that’s just more stress on the organization,” he said.

Alec Siegel

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

The post New Secret Service Director Loosens Agency’s Drug Policy appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump announced Thursday his intention to pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal, an international environmental agreement dedicated to curbing the rise in global temperatures, adopting greener energy sources, and cutting down on carbon emissions. This decision drew criticism from foreign leaders, business executives, and even the mayor of Pittsburgh.

The announcement, given in the Rose Garden of the White House, was filled with the usual “America First” rhetoric that focused on a fear of being laughed at.

“We want fair treatment,” Trump said. “We don’t want other countries and other leaders to laugh at us anymore.”

To his credit, Trump defended his decision with evidence from the scientific community in between the comments focused on American exceptionalism. He mentioned that even if the agreement was followed all the way through by every country that signed it, the planet would see its global temperature drop two-tenths of one degree Celsius by 2100. A “tiny, tiny amount,” he said.

The good news is that the claim stems from a 2016 study by MIT titled “How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?” and is technically true. The not-so-good news is that Trump left out a key finding in that study. Researchers say that if nothing were to be done, global temperatures could rise over 5 degrees Celsius which one scientist said would be “catastrophic.”

Whether or not the president is aware of this fact is unclear. However, Trump’s track record on issues related to the scientific community does not provide much optimism for his understanding. His views on climate change, for example, leave a lot to be desired. On Nov. 6, 2012, he infamously tweeted:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

Trump later downplayed the tweet as a “joke” in 2016 when Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attacked his views on climate change in a Democratic Primary debate. But that was not the only time he has tweeted about global warming. Vox compiled all 115 of Trump’s tweets that mention his climate change skepticism including the following:

Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014

Despite the president’s old tweets, NASA’s climate change website states that at least 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends are a result of human activity.

It’s not just climate change that the president has some questionable views on. Earlier this spring, the Washington Post reported Trump’s beliefs on how the human body works. According to the New Yorker piece the article references, Trump stopped engaging in athletic activities after college because he “believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”

This is not true. The American Council on Exercise states that exercise improves the delivery of oxygen and nutrients to muscle tissue, allowing muscles to produce more energy for the body. The Department of Health and Human Services recommends at least 150 minutes of intense aerobic exercise per week. And the Mayo Clinic says that exercise improves muscle and heart health which gives people more endurance, and more energy.

But the most fascinating scientific belief that our commander-in-chief holds is his support for the use of asbestos. Trump believes that the movement to phase out asbestos in the nineties was a conspiracy set up by the mob. In his 1997 book, “The Art of the Comeback,” he says the following:

I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented. Millions of truckloads of this incredible fire-proofing material were taken to special ‘dump sites’ and asbestos was replaced by materials that were supposedly safe but couldn’t hold a candle to asbestos in limiting the ravages of fire.

Later in the book he calls an anti-asbestos law “stupid” and claimed that it is “also 100 percent safe, once applied.”

This belief continued well into the 21st century. In 2005, he credited the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 to its lack of asbestos and doubled down on this in 2012.

.@dubephnx If we didn’t remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn’t (cont) http://t.co/d10u18dh

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012

 Prior to its collapse, the World Trade Center had upwards of 400 tons of asbestos used in its insulation, fireproofing materials, steel, and drywall. Nearly 410,000 people were exposed to the deadly carcinogen that kills 10,000 Americans a year, according to the World Trade Center Health Registry.

The connection between asbestos and mesothelioma, a cancer developed through asbestos exposure, has been known since the early 20th century but only recently been acted upon due to a decades long cover-up.

The irony in all this comes from a standout quote from Trump’s speech last week: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” he said. Between 1999-2013, Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh resides, had 1,616 people die from asbestos-related deaths, the highest in the state, and the asbestos-related death rate was nearly 80 percent higher than the national average.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump’s Interesting Relationship with Science appeared first on Law Street.

If you don’t know what “covfefe” is, you’re truly missing out. ICYMI, learn more about President Trump’s viral spelling snafu and other trending stories on Law Street below!

What is a Marijuana Lawyer?

When people ask me what I do for a living, I usually give the simple response: “I’m a lawyer.” Which usually ends the conversation. But sometimes people will ask, “what kind of law?” My response: “marijuana.” This is when people suddenly perk up, “so what do you actually do?” No, it doesn’t mean that I smoke a joint while drafting documents. And while that sounds like fun, THC and asset purchase agreements don’t play well together. The answer varies for each marijuana lawyer as there are several different types. But all marijuana lawyers share one thing in common–we represent marijuana businesses for a living.

The Best Twitter Responses to “Covfefe”

Just after midnight, President Donald Trump took to his favorite social media platform–Twitter–and sent out a puzzling tweet. It’s pretty clear that Trump meant “coverage” as opposed to “covfefe” which…isn’t a word, despite his team’s bizarre claims that he was referring to some sort of inside joke. But it doesn’t really matter why Trump tweeted out the non-word, because the rest of Twitter had a ton of fun with it. Check out the best of the new, beloved #covfefe meme.

Woman Sues Jelly Belly After Finding Out Jelly Beans Contain Sugar

On today’s list of super strange legal battles, a California woman named Jessica Gomez has filed a class action lawsuit against popular jelly bean manufacturer Jelly Belly. She purchased one of their products, Jelly Belly’s Sport Beans, which the company advertises as an “exercise supplement.” The company marketed the beans as containing “carbohydrates, electrolytes, and vitamins.” One of the listed ingredients was “evaporated cane juice,” which is just another term for sugar. But Gomez claims that the fact that the beans contain sugar was not made clear, and has filed a class action suit alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and product liability.

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.

President Donald Trump has clearly made it a priority to reverse as many Obama-era achievements or initiatives as possible. From pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords to immediately responding to Syria’s chemical weapons attack with force (something President Barack Obama’s critics say he wrongly failed to do), Trump’s emerging doctrine is, effectively: do what Obama did not. Could Trump’s quest to stand in stark contrast to his predecessor eventually undo Obama’s 2014 rapprochement with Cuba?

ABC News recently reported that Trump is indeed gearing up to reorient U.S. policy toward Cuba, making it harder for U.S. companies to engage with the Cuban government and restricting the growing flow of American tourists to the island.

“As the President has said, the current Cuba policy is a bad deal. It does not do enough to support human rights in Cuba,” White House spokesman Michael Short told the Associated Press, which also reported on Trump’s forthcoming policy reversal. “We anticipate an announcement in the coming weeks.”

After five decades of diplomatic inertia, Obama established formal ties with Havana in 2014. Critics say the increased investment will only prop up the Castro regime, which regularly commits human rights abuses. Since the opening of relations, American businesses and tourists have flooded the country with investment and cash. American companies–mostly in the tourism, travel, and communications industries–have struck 26 deals with the Cuban government from 2015 to 2017. And last year, 300,000 tourists flocked to the island.

Sources familiar with the Trump Administration’s thinking on the Cuba issue said the new policy will be phased in over the coming weeks. The administration has been facing intense lobbying by prominent Cuban-American lawmakers and business leaders, as many carry first-hand or second-generation memories of the Castro regime’s atrocities and were aghast at Obama’s actions in 2014.

Two of the loudest voices on Capitol Hill urging Trump to ditch America’s engagement with Cuba are Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), both Cuban-Americans. Rubio recently emailed a number of news outlets the following statement: “I am confident the president will keep his commitment on Cuba policy by making changes that are targeted and strategic and which advance the Cuban people’s aspirations for economic and political liberty.”

Meanwhile, on Cuban Independence Day last month, Trump issued a statement that “cruel despotism cannot extinguish the flame of freedom in the hearts of Cubans, and that unjust persecution cannot tamper Cubans’ dreams for their children to live free from oppression.” Trump added: “The Cuban people deserve a government that peacefully upholds democratic values, economic liberties, religious freedoms, and human rights, and my Administration is committed to achieving that vision.”

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 Trump Reverse Obama’s Diplomatic Opening with Cuba? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to another round of our RantCrush news quiz! Each Friday we put out this post quizzing our lovely readers on the big stories of the week. Every story can be found in our RantCrush Daily Newsletter. If you’re not getting our newsletter click here to sign up, and enjoy the quiz below!

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 How Newsy Are You?: June 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. just became the third country, joining Syria and Nicaragua, that cannot be counted as part of the Paris Climate Accords. The 195-nation agreement set goals for reducing greenhouse gas pollution for developed and developing nations alike. President Donald Trump, in a speech at the White House Rose Garden, made the announcement, saying:

In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.

Trump said he will try to negotiate a deal that is “fair,” adding: “If we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine.” According to the Associated Press, however, a number of European nations will not be open to the U.S. renegotiating the deal:

BREAKING: France, Germany, Italy issue joint statement saying Paris climate accord can’t be renegotiated.

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 1, 2017

The White House deliberations leading up to Thursday’s announcement were reportedly split between two factions: those who wanted to remain part of the deal and those who wanted to withdraw from it. Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson apparently pushed hard for the president to remain, while EPA Chief Scott Pruitt and Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon lobbied him to exit the pact.

Stating his rationale for removing the U.S., the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter behind China, from the accord, Trump said it hurt the U.S. economy and transferred coal jobs overseas. Vice President Mike Pence, introducing Trump at Thursday’s announcement, echoed that reasoning: “Our president is choosing to put American jobs and American consumers first,” he said. “Our president is choosing to put American energy and American industry first. And by his action today, President Trump is choosing to put the forgotten men and women first.”

But many of the leaders in the industries Trump said are harmed by the deal–like ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP–supported the climate agreement, and lobbied Trump to stay in. Environmental groups, Democrats, and dozens of congressional Republicans backed the deal as well. In the end, however, Bannon, Pruitt, and others, won the president over. Soon after Trump’s announcement, Jim Immelt, the CEO of General Electric tweeted:

Disappointed with today’s decision on the Paris Agreement. Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government.

— Jeff Immelt (@JeffImmelt) June 1, 2017

The Paris deal, a non-binding agreement signed in December 2015, was an international framework to set the world on the path toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The goal was to keep the average global temperature from rising more than two degrees celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. The private sector, as well as some states and cities, have already taken steps to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy. Despite Trump’s decision, the U.S. will technically remain part of the pact until November 4, 2020, a day after the next presidential election.

Former President Barack Obama, who was a central architect in the Paris agreement, issued a statement after Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the accord. He said:

The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.

Alec Siegel

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

The post The Three Countries Not Invested in Paris Climate Deal: Syria, Nicaragua…and the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

FBI’s Russia Probe Makes it Across the Pond

The investigations into the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia continue, and now there’s a new name popping up as a reported “person of interest.” Nigel Farage, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) that drove the “Leave” movement pre-Brexit, is apparently of interest to the FBI. Specifically, the FBI appears to be probing Farage’s ties to Julian Assange, the controversial founder of WikiLeaks, as well as some other individuals connected to Trump, including Roger Stone. This doesn’t mean that Farage is believed to have done anything wrong, rather that the FBI thinks that he may have information that is relevant to its probe into Trump and Russia.

Farage denies the claims that he’s a person of interest in the investigation. A spokesman told the Guardian, which first published the claims, that the questions were “verging on the hysterical.”

“If you triangulate Russia, WikiLeaks, Assange and Trump associates the person who comes up with the most hits is Nigel Farage.” https://t.co/oar5if5d1u

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 1, 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: June 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Just after midnight, President Donald Trump took to his favorite social media platform–Twitter–and sent out a puzzling tweet.

Damn, they deleted the tweet! Good that I have a screenshot. #covfefe pic.twitter.com/pjIhkXqw7I

— Katya Bohdan (@katyabohdan) May 31, 2017

It’s pretty clear that Trump meant “coverage” as opposed to “covfefe” which…isn’t a word, despite his team’s bizarre claims that he was referring to some sort of inside joke. But it doesn’t really matter why Trump tweeted out the non-word, because the rest of Twitter had a ton of fun with it. Check out the best of the new, beloved #covfefe meme below:

covfefe
covfef
covfe
covf
cov
co
c
co
com
comi
comin
coming
coming o
coming ou
coming out of my cage and i’ve been doing just fine

— mar (@happiestweekes) May 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 The Best Twitter Responses to “Covfefe” appeared first on Law Street.

Kathy Griffin apologized for going “way too far,” after a photo surfaced online of the comedian posing with a bloodied decapitated head, modeled to look like President Donald Trump. In a 30-second video posted to Twitter late Tuesday, Griffin said that she “sincerely” apologizes.

“I’m a comic,” she said. “I cross the line. I move the line, then I cross it. I went way too far. The image is too disturbing. I understand how it offends people. It wasn’t funny. I get it…I am going to ask the photographer to take the image. I went too far. I made a mistake and I was wrong.”

I am sorry. I went too far. I was wrong. pic.twitter.com/LBKvqf9xFB

— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) May 30, 2017

The images leaked to TMZ were shot by controversial photographer Tyler Shields. Griffin was reportedly inspired by a 2011 episode of “Game of Thrones,” which featured a severed head modeled after former President George W. Bush.

Griffin initially defended the photo, likening it to Trump’s controversial comments about Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle.

“1/ I caption this “there was blood coming out of his eyes, blood coming out of his…wherever” Also @tylershields great Photog/film maker,” she wrote. “2/ OBVIOUSLY, I do not condone ANY violence by my fans or others to anyone, ever! I’m merely mocking the Mocker in Chief.”

According to TMZ, Griffin even “joked that she and Tyler would need to move to Mexico once the pics got released, for fear they’d be thrown in prison,” during the photo shoot.

Trump responded to the image Wednesday morning on Twitter, saying Griffin “should be ashamed of herself,” and that Barron was “having a hard time with this.”

Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself. My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

The first lady also had some choice words for the comedian.

“As a mother, a wife, and a human being, that photo is very disturbing,” Melania Trump said in a statement. “When you consider some of the atrocities happening in the world today, a photo opportunity like this is simply wrong and makes you wonder about the mental health of the person who did it.”

The image managed to unite much of the country, receiving bipartisan outrage on social media.

This is vile and wrong. It is never funny to joke about killing a president. https://t.co/zIiuKoMyFw

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) May 30, 2017

Disgusting but not surprising. This is the left today. They consider this acceptable. Imagine a conservative did this to Obama as POTUS? https://t.co/QdghcbIjS7

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 30, 2017

This Kathy Griffin thing is so upsetting and disgusting. Jesus–what is wrong with people today? Have we lost all our humanity?

— Soledad O’Brien (@soledadobrien) May 30, 2017

All of it frankly makes me sick. And seeing these actions only through a lens of partisanship or self is bizarre to me.

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) May 31, 2017

Our politics have become too base, too low, & too vulgar, but Kathy Griffin’s post descends into an even more repugnant & vile territory.

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) May 30, 2017

Following the backlash, Griffin, who has been the longtime co-host of CNN’s annual New Years Eve coverage, was fired from the network Wednesday.

CNN has terminated our agreement with Kathy Griffin to appear on our New Year’s Eve program.

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) May 31, 2017

Anderson Cooper, Griffin’s friend and NYE co-host for the past decade, condemned the photo on Wednesday.

For the record, I am appalled by the photo shoot Kathy Griffin took part in. It is clearly disgusting and completely inappropriate.

— Anderson Cooper (@andersoncooper) May 31, 2017

There’s no word yet as to whether or not this will affect her other partnerships, or upcoming comedy tour.

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 Kathy Griffin Apologizes for Bloody Anti-Trump Photo Shoot 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:

Will Trump Pull Out of the Paris Climate Deal?

This morning, news broke that President Donald Trump is expected to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. During his recent European trip, he had said he would announce his decision over the next few days. If confirmed, the decision to leave could have a disastrous impact on the environment and public health, but also on America’s status as a world leader. China is far ahead of the U.S. when it comes to developing renewable energy sources, so there are concerns that the relationship between Europe and China could deepen, at least when it comes to environmental collaboration.

Pulling out of #ParisAgreement is a massive moral, economic & leadership failure for Trump admin. Loss of business, jobs, & intl standing.

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) May 31, 2017

Trump has reportedly been torn between those who want him to stay in the deal, like his daughter Ivanka and tech billionaire Elon Musk, and those who want to leave, like EPA head Scott Pruitt and Steve Bannon. European leaders seemed frustrated after meeting with Trump. His stubbornness when it comes to climate change discussions is especially noteworthy–Germany’s Angela Merkel called their talks “very difficult, and not to say very unsatisfactory.”

In 100 years, Trump withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement will be considered the seismic event. This election will be a footnote.

— Ellie Mae O’Hagan (@MissEllieMae) May 31, 2017

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: May 31, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks, hundreds of thousands of students nationwide walked across football fields, basketball courts, and stages to receive their diplomas. They sat patiently, sporting caps and gowns in their school colors, while professors, politicians, CEOs, and celebrities imparted wisdom, jokes, and life lessons upon them. Here are the commencement speeches from politicians that will be flooding your newsfeeds for the next month.

Donald Trump: Liberty University

In his first commencement speech as president, Donald Trump encouraged graduates to take the “road less traveled” and follow their convictions.

“You must be willing to face criticism from those who lack the same courage to do what is right,” Trump said. “I know that each of you will be a warrior for the truth, will be a warrior for our country and for your family. I know that each of you will do what is right, not what is the easy way, and that you will be true to yourself and your country and your beliefs.”

He took the opportunity to subtly criticize his opponents in “broken” Washington, saying that the system is overrun with “a small group of failed voices who think they know everything and understand everyone.”

Like in many of his public speeches since the beginning of his presidency, Trump also mentioned crowd sizes and voter turnout.

“This is a beautiful stadium and it is packed. I’m so happy about that,” he said. “And I want to thank you because, boy, did you come out and vote, those of you that are old enough, in other words, your parents. Boy, oh, boy, you voted, you voted.”

Trump’s speech focused primarily on the importance of embracing the label “outsider” and standing up for one’s beliefs, even when critics get in the way or say something is unattainable. This theme rings especially true coming from Trump, whose election success can be partially credited to his status as a political outsider.

“Nothing is easier or more pathetic than being a critic, because they’re people that can’t get the job done,” he said. “But the future belongs to the dreamers, not to the critics. The future belongs to the people who follow their heart no matter what the critics say, because they truly believe in their vision.”

The president also spoke at the Coast Guard Academy. Read his full remarks from Liberty here.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Commencement: What Politicians Want the Class of 2017 to Know 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:

Angela Merkel Implies that Europe Can No Longer Rely on the U.S.

After his recent trip, some European leaders seem a little sick of President Donald Trump. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently hinted, without specifically mentioning Trump’s name, that European countries can no longer consider the U.S. a reliable ally. During a rally held inside a Bavarian beer tent on Sunday, she said, “The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.” She added that Europe “really must take our fate into our own hands.”

Frmr CIA Dir McLaughlin: Trump creating rift w/ Germany and Europe “is one of the most damaging things I have seen in…years and years.”

— Steve Peoples (@sppeoples) May 30, 2017

During his visit to Europe, Trump said he might pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement–the most unified effort to combat climate change to date. Trump has also expressed support for Brexit and encouraged other countries in the European Union to explore leaving the coalition. As a result, many Europeans see Trump as a potential threat to regional stability. But now it seems like his recent comments and behavior in Europe could actually unite Europe–even Merkel’s rivals in the upcoming national elections have supported her response. This morning, Trump hit back against Germany with a tweet (of course).

We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2017

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: May 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Angered by leaks of sensitive information to the American media, British officials have stopped sharing information related to the Manchester Arena bombing with the United States.

President Donald Trump released a statement Thursday pledging to investigate leaks coming from U.S. government agencies, which he called “deeply troubling,” according to the Associated Press.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has said she will confront Trump about the leaks during meetings at NATO headquarters in Brussels this week.

“TRUST IS BREACHED”

On Tuesday, U.S. television networks NBC and CBS published the name of suspected bomber 22-year-old Salman Abedi, citing U.S. officials. The next day, The New York Times published photos of crime scene evidence.

Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Ian Hopkins said the photos caused “much distress for families that are already suffering terribly with their loss.”

A spokesman for Britain’s National Counter Terrorism Policing unit released a statement condemning the leaks.

“When the trust is breached it undermines these relationships, and undermines our investigations and the confidence of victims, witnesses, and their family,” the statement said. “This damage is even greater when it involves unauthorized disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter-terrorism investigation.”

A British official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly, told the AP that Manchester police will cease sharing information with the U.S. until they are guaranteed that no more information will be leaked.

British Home Secretary Amber Rudd called the leaks “irritating” in an interview with BBC Radio.

“The British police have been very clear that they want to control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity, the element of surprise,” she said. “It is irritating if it gets released from other sources, and I have been very clear with our friends that should not happen again.”

THE MEDIA RESPONDS

The New York Times released a statement defending its decision to publish the photos, saying that it falls in line with their standards of reporting on terrorist acts.

“Our mission is to cover news and inform our readers,” the statement reads. “We have strict guidelines on how and in what ways we cover sensitive stories. Our coverage of Monday’s horrific attack has been both comprehensive and responsible.”

A FRIENDSHIP AT RISK?

The cessation of information-sharing about this attack is significant, but likely won’t be a permanent wedge between the U.S. and the U.K.

The Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement, which originated in the 1940s, binds the U.S. and the U.K. with other English-speaking democracies–namely, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The intel-sharing alliance has survived leaks for decades, and experts have said it remains strong even post-Edward Snowden.

So far, the Manchester Arena bombing is the only topic where information is being withheld from U.S. officials. All other intelligence sharing will continue, according to the BBC. Furthermore, the decision to stop sharing information came directly from the Greater Manchester Police, not from Downing Street. The BBC reported that the department is “furious,” but hopes to return to the normal two-way sharing procedures soon.

Eyes are now on Trump–whose administration has been under fire for a stream of leaks to the media and to foreign officials–to, as Trump says, “get to the bottom” of the situation. If his proposed investigation and prosecution of leakers goes well and plugs the holes, the relationship between the U.S. and one of its closest allies likely won’t face irreparable damage.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Pledges to Investigate Leaks After UK Withholds Intel 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:

Republican House Candidate Body-Slams Reporter

A Republican candidate running for Congress in a Montana special election has been charged with misdemeanor assault for body-slamming a reporter from the Guardian. He also broke the reporter’s glasses and shouted, “Get the hell out of here.” Greg Gianforte, a millionaire who was endorsed by President Donald Trump, seems to have lost his temper when political reporter Ben Jacobs asked him about the Republican health care plan. There is an audio recording of the incident, but no video. However, three Fox News journalists also witnessed the assault. “Faith, Keith, and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling something to the effect of ‘I’m sick and tired of this!’” said reporter Alicia Acuna, adding that Jacobs had not shown any form of aggression.

Montana GOP candidate Greg Gianforte allegedly “body slammed” a reporter, according to audio and witness accounts https://t.co/Y3hQofhQ8C pic.twitter.com/l0ZfXAfw3p

— CNN (@CNN) May 25, 2017

Gianforte’s campaign spokesman blamed Jacobs and said that he was the aggressive one, contrary to the Fox News account. In a statement, the campaign claimed that Jacobs grabbed Gianforte’s wrist and spun away, “pushing them both to the ground.” “It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ,” the statement read. But this account was contradicted by eyewitnesses and the audio recording, in which Gianforte is heard asking whether Jacobs is with the Guardian, and saying, “The last guy did the same damn thing.” Voting for the special election is today, and we’ll have to see if this incident has any impact on Gianforte’s chances.

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: May 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Flags at Downing Street are flying at half mast today, as U.K. political leaders respond to the terror attack that left 22 dead and at least 59 injured after a concert in Manchester Monday night.

Union flags lowered to half mast in Downing Street following Manchester Arena attackhttps://t.co/Ty9bRdV4G4

(via @ChrisMasonBBC) pic.twitter.com/S3JieUS6rp

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) May 23, 2017

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack at the Manchester Arena, where a single actor deployed an improvised explosive device just as a concert by pop singer Ariana Grande was ending. Greater Manchester Police arrested a 23-year-old man Tuesday in connection with the attack.

This attack is the largest terror incident in the U.K. since 7/7, a series of organized attacks on the London transport system in July 2005 where 52 people died and more than 700 were injured. It is the largest incident in North West England.

An Upcoming Election

In response to the attack, Prime Minister Theresa May has suspended all campaign activities for the upcoming June 8 general election.

In a statement at Downing Street, May called the attacker “warped and twisted” and resolved to “thwart” future attacks.

“All acts of terrorism are cowardly attacks on innocent people but this attack stands out for its appalling, sickening cowardice, deliberately targeting innocent, defenseless children and young people who should have been enjoying one of the most memorable nights of their lives,” May said.

Campaigning was also suspended this past Sunday, as a show of respect and memorialization for Jo Cox, the Member of Parliament who was shot and killed last June just before the Brexit referendum.

This attack comes at a time of heightened political tension surrounding immigration and security, especially in the U.K. Two months ago, four people were killed in an attack outside Parliament, one year after the Brussels airport suicide bombing.

The U.K. is approaching the one-year anniversary of its citizens voting to leave the European Union, the outcome of which many believe was connected to fear of attacks like this one. The “Leave” campaign was criticized for a tweet that directly connected the Orlando nightclub shooting to Brexit, telling voters that a similar attack could befall them if they voted to remain in the EU. The tweet was taken down, but security and terror threats have remained strongholds in Brexit negotiations and U.K. politics in general.

Now, weeks before the general election, the assault at Manchester could cement Conservative power in Parliament.

Polls from the weekend showed the center-right Conservative Party’s lead over leftist Labour slipping. Conservative Party leader May called the election to build support for her approach to Brexit negotiations and increase her party’s 17-seat working majority in Parliament.

May’s party has been stronger on Brexit and immigration. The recent polls may have indicated that a landslide victory for the Conservatives was out of the question, but the next few weeks will reveal whether the tragedy at Manchester Arena and fear of a similar attack will lead to increased support for May.

The attack also had an immediate effect on the value of the pound, which fell as low $1.2954 Tuesday morning.

Political Leaders Respond

The heads of the U.K.’s political parties have spoken out on the attack and suspended their campaign activities.

Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader, spoke with May and agreed to suspend national campaigning.

Corbyn stated his support for the victims and their families and called the attack a “terrible incident.”

“I am horrified by the horrendous events in Manchester last night,” Corbyn said. “My thoughts are with families and friends of those who have died and  been injured. Today the whole country will grieve for the people who have lost their lives.”

Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, canceled a speaking engagement in Gibraltar, expressing sympathy to the victims and families. Farron was scheduled to meet with voters on his trip.

“This is a shocking and horrific attack targeting children and young people who were simply enjoying a concert,” Farron said. “I would like to pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of the emergency services.”

Paul Nuttall, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) and Member of European Parliament for North West England, canceled UKIP’s campaign activities. The BBC also canceled a scheduled interview with Nuttall.

“Just woken to the terrible news in the heart of my constituency, Manchester,” Nuttall said. “My prayers and thoughts are with those affected. Stay strong.”

“Evil Losers”

World leaders across the globe have expressed condolences to the victims and their families and condemned the attack, including U.S. President Donald Trump.

From Bethlehem, where he met with Palestinian leadership, Trump called the assailant and those involved in the attack “evil losers.” Early Tuesday morning he tweeted a message of solidarity with the British people.

We stand in absolute solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom. pic.twitter.com/X6fUUxxYXE

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 23, 2017

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.K., World Leaders Respond to Manchester Attack 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:

Explosion Kills at Least 22 at Manchester Ariana Grande Concert

Last night, an explosion killed at least 22 people and injured 59 others during an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. Officials are treating it as a suicide attack, but many details are still unclear. The attacker appears to have been one man acting alone, who detonated a homemade explosive device. He died in the explosion.

Young concertgoers left the site screaming and video footage shows chaos and panic. Grande is popular among young listeners and police confirmed several children were among the dead. This is the worst terror attack in Britain since the London subway bombings in 2005 and brought to mind the concert hall terrorist attack in Paris in 2015.

19 dead, 50 injured in #ManchesterArena explosion. Being treated as a terror incident. https://t.co/RaoedzKYpV pic.twitter.com/LJmydjJTnr

— BBC North West (@BBCNWT) May 23, 2017

According to the CEO of the Pennsylvania-based company that manages the Manchester Arena, you have to pass a strict security check to enter the concert area. But it seemed like the explosion went off in the foyer of the arena, at the very end of the concert when people had already started leaving. Witnesses said the whole building shook with the blast.

broken.
from the bottom of my heart, i am so so sorry. i don’t have words.

— Ariana Grande (@ArianaGrande) May 23, 2017

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: May 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Trump Speaks in Saudi Arabia to Kick Off First Foreign Trip

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump set out for his first trip abroad as president. The trip schedule is ambitious, given recent reports that he didn’t particularly want to go. He is also the first president to start his first foreign trip in the Middle East. Yesterday, he gave a speech in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He stuck to the teleprompter and many people remarked that he had a significantly more moderate and tempered tone than during the campaign and the first few months of his presidency. He focused on solidarity, and said, “This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it.”

#RiyadhSummit #POTUSAbroad pic.twitter.com/WdDEOiV6oS

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 21, 2017

Trump also said he was not there to lecture but to offer partnership. Although some people were relieved that he sounded so moderate, others didn’t quite buy it and said it was all for show.

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: May 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday everyone, and welcome to a new feature on Law Street! Every day we bring you the top five controversial stories in law and policy, with our RantCrush Daily newsletter. But in today’s age of fake news and alternative facts we feel like news literacy is more important than ever. So check out our RantCrush quiz to see how much attention you paid to the news this week, and sign up for RantCrush to make sure that you get the breaking stories in your inbox every single day.

Check out the quiz below!

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 Can You Keep Up With This Week’s News?: May 19, 2017 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:

Around the World with Donald Trump

Today, President Donald Trump sets off for a foreign trip. Given recent hits to the credibility of his leadership–most notably his firing of James Comey and allegations that he leaked sensitive information to Russian diplomats–this trip is considered “do or die” by many.

Getting ready for my big foreign trip. Will be strongly protecting American interests – that’s what I like to do!

— President Trump (@POTUS) May 19, 2017

Trump will visit Saudi Arabia and Israel as well as attend global summits in Italy and Belgium. The whole world is watching to see if he manages to slip up or offend any other world leaders on his tour. But according to some reports, Trump doesn’t actually want to go on the trip. Information has also been leaked indicating that preparing Trump for high-pressure situations is harder than it should be. According to the New York Times: “In an attempt to capture his interest, aides threaded Mr. Trump’s own name through the paragraphs of one of the two-page memos they wrote for him.” All eyes will be on Trump during his trip–we’ll have to see how this goes.

via GIPHY

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: May 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Trump’s new education budget draft appears to have an upsetting provision for many holders of student loans who work for the government and non-profit sector–it gets rid of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The program is supposed to forgive balances of student loans for those who work in certain positions, like teachers, government lawyers, law enforcement officers, and social workers, as long as they make on-time payments for 10 years and fit certain other guidelines.

The logic behind the program is that those who qualify for it give up more lucrative future careers to work in civil service, and should be given some sort of benefit for making that choice. For example, a public defender earns an average of about $60,000 a year. First year associate jobs at Big Law firms, in contrast, are paid an annual salary of up to $180,000 at this point. Under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program that public defender, as long as she pays her loans on time and in full, could qualify for loan forgiveness in 10 years.

The program is relatively new. The first “wave” of people who would qualify for loan forgiveness will hit their 10-year mark in October. At this point it’s unclear if the Trump Administration could affect the program for those who are already enrolled or if it would only shut down the program moving forward. Currently, there over half a million borrowers signed up.

Overall the Department of Education budget would be slashed by $10.6 billion, according to the Washington Post, which obtained a copy. Those cuts are seemingly welcomed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who has consistently said that the federal government needs to step back from its involvement in education.

In addition to the cessation of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, the proposed budget also slashes or completely eliminates funding for college work-study programs, mental health services in schools, after-school programs, arts education programs, programs for gifted students, international language programs, organizations that provide childcare to parents in school, career and technical education, and Special Olympics education programs, among many others.

Of course, the Trump Administration isn’t cutting everything. In fact, Devos’ pet causes of school vouchers and charter schools will receive more funding.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Will the Trump Administration End Public Service Loan Forgiveness? appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News Founder Roger Ailes Has Died

Roger Ailes, one of the founders of Fox News, passed away this morning at 77. His cause of death has yet to be released. Fox announced the news and aired a statement from his wife Elizabeth, which read, “I am profoundly sad and heartbroken to report that my husband, Roger Ailes, passed away this morning. Roger was a loving husband to me, to his son Zachary, and a loyal friend to many.”

Ailes was a prominent figure in American media as well as a powerful force in conservative politics, and many expressed their condolences. But many also referenced the sexual harassment controversy that led to his removal from the network he created last summer.

Former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson sued him for sexual harassment and at least six other women came forward with similar claims. After Ailes’ ouster, news broke about similar allegations against Bill O’Reilly, who lost his job in April. A lot of people were really not that sorry to hear the news of Ailes’ passing.

Roger Ailes behaved egregiously toward women in his organization and changed our culture for the worse, making people dumber and angrier.

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) May 18, 2017

To all of the women that Roger Ailes hurt, today is going to hurt. We will never forget you and your untold stories.

— Xeni Jardin (@xeni) May 18, 2017

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: May 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Washington was hit with yet another bombshell on Tuesday: according to a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote in February, President Donald Trump might be guilty of obstructing justice. In the memo, the contents of which were divulged to The New York Times, Comey detailed a closed-door conversation he had with the president a day after he fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Trump allegedly asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn and his contacts with Russia. “I hope you can let this go,” Trump told Comey, according to the memo. The FBI investigation into Flynn is ongoing. Shortly after the news broke, Capital Hill was abuzz with accusations that Trump, in nudging Comey to end a federal investigation, crossed the line. Dozens of Democrats, and some Republicans, suggested Trump’s actions, as described in Comey’s memo, constituted obstruction of justice.

In a Twitter post Tuesday night, after the Times’ report about the Comey memo was published, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) wrote: “Just leaving Senate floor. Lots of chatter from Ds and Rs about the exact definition of ‘obstruction of justice’.” Around the same time, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), tweeted: “Asking FBI to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.”

Two prominent Republican congressmen, Justin Amash of Michigan and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, also expressed concern that Trump obstructed justice. The White House, in a statement on Tuesday, denied Comey and Trump ever had the conversation as described in Comey’s memo. “The president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the White House said.

According to legal analysts, the key to determining whether Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, and if he could eventually be charged, is determining his intent when he fired Comey.

“There’s definitely a case to be made for obstruction,” former federal prosecutor Barak Cohen told the Washington Post. “But on the other hand you have to realize that–as with any other sort of criminal law–intent is key, and intent here can be difficult to prove.” That is, in asking Comey to end the FBI’s investigation into Flynn, and subsequently firing the director a few months later, did Trump intentionally obstruct an ongoing investigation?

Federal law broadly defines what exactly obstruction of justice means. According to Title 18, the criminal code that deals with federal crimes, it is a crime if a defendant “obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding.” But again, proving intent to obstruct would be tricky. Besides, any case against Trump would have to be carried out by his own Justice Department, meaning that consequences seem unlikely.

Alec Siegel

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

The post What Exactly is “Obstruction of Justice”? appeared first on Law Street.

Trump Appears to Have a Fake News Problem

It appears that President Donald Trump doesn’t check the news himself but largely relies on what his staff members give him. The problem has become significant enough for White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to issue a warning during a senior staff meeting, telling people to stop putting things on Trump’s desk. Several times, his staff has reportedly left news stories on his desk that are completely false, such as a 1970’s “article” about a coming ice age, and one from fake news website GotNews.com that claimed deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh was the one leaking information from the White House.

Climate change is an existential threat and Trump’s 2nd most senior Nat Sec aide slips him fake news covers to minimize it. Let that sink in

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) May 15, 2017

According to administration officials, this practice can have tremendous consequences due to the president’s temper and mood. The wrong story can alter his agenda or lead to a tantrum. However, it seems like staff members think it’s worth the risk, as they know they can easily sway Trump’s opinion.

Priebus warns WH staff to stop slipping Trump Internet hoaxes, because he believes they’re real. https://t.co/lh4XfVBE69

— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) May 15, 2017

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: May 15, 2017 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:

Students Boo Betsy DeVos’ Commencement Speech

Yesterday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was met by booing and chanting students when she gave a commencement speech at Bethune-Cookman University in Florida. At times the jeering was so loud it drowned out her words, and several students stood up and turned their backs on her. The speech was supposed to last for more than an hour, but she wrapped it up after 20 minutes. The school’s president, Edison Jackson, warned the students that unless they stopped their behavior, their degrees would be mailed to them, and at least one student was escorted out.

Many in Bethune Cookman University graduating class turning their #BackstoBetsy Davos during commencement speech @NBCBLK pic.twitter.com/tUQTvW7ZxH

— Mariana_Atencio (@marianaatencio) May 10, 2017

Students criticized their school for giving them such short notice on who their commencement speaker was going to be, and on Tuesday, a group of students delivered a petition with what they claimed were 60,000 signatures to stop DeVos from speaking. But university officials said only 6,000 signatures were properly filled out. Now a lot of people are upset with the school for inviting DeVos in the first place, and also for giving her an honorary doctorate.

@FecklessBube @mollyhc @BuzzFeedNews The insult to those students has been foisted upon them by their tone deaf leadership. DeVos should never have been invited.

— Mike Prater (@emsprater1) May 10, 2017

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: May 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Astounding Democrats and Republicans alike, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday evening. The abrupt firing ignited widespread calls for a special, independent inquiry into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. 

Comey was leading a probe into Trump’s and his campaign associates’ ties to Russian actors during the 2016 campaign; Russian hackers delivered Democratic operatives’ emails to WikiLeaks, which in turn made the emails public through an online database. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI, concluded that the cyber-meddling was intended to assist Trump.

Comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. When things calm down, they will be thanking me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

Lawmakers expressed worry immediately after the Comey firing that the FBI’s inquiry into the Trump-Russia ties could be compromised. “If there was ever a time when circumstances warranted a special prosecutor, it is right now,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Wednesday morning. And Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said in a statement posted to his Twitter account that the timing of this firing is “very troubling,” and that it represents “the loss of an honorable public servant” and “a loss for the nation.”

According to people familiar with the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to Comey’s ouster, Trump was upset with Comey on two accounts: the ongoing Russia investigation, and his public rebuttal of  Trump’s claims that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. The White House is also saying that Comey’s dismissal was a result of his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” read Trump’s letter to Comey.

The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

On Wednesday, before Trump was set to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he told reporters he fired Comey “because he was not doing a good job.” Trump dispatched his aides, including counselor Kellyanne Conway and Vice President Mike Pence, to defend the decision. People familiar with Trump’s deliberations said he was surprised at the torrent of negative reactions–from Democrats, Republicans, and the press–that have followed Comey’s dismissal.

Meanwhile, current and former FBI officials, including Comey himself, were reportedly flabbergasted at the news of Comey’s ouster. “We just have no idea why this happened. No idea,” one recently retired top FBI official told Politico. “No one knew this was coming. Everyone is just shocked that this happened.”

There were conflicting reports over who exactly took the lead in the decision to fire Comey. Some said Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein led the charge. Rosenstein wrote a letter released Tuesday that pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation as the grounds for his dismissal, saying “I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken.” Other White House officials told reporters that this was a unilateral decision by Trump, who directed the Justice Department to fish out a reason to fire the director.

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 Why Did Trump Fire FBI Director James Comey? appeared first on Law Street.

For months, journalists and law school professors speculated about where Tiffany Trump, President Donald Trump’s daughter from his second marriage, would end up for law school. Though she toured Harvard, Columbia, and New York University, no one was certain where she had applied or been accepted.

But on Monday, officials at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. confirmed that Trump had “taken all the steps to enroll” in their law school.

Trump is somewhat following in the footsteps of her older half siblings. Eric Trump, Donald Trump’s second son from his first marriage, graduated from Georgetown with a finance and management degree. The president’s oldest daughter Ivanka, also from his first marriage, attended Georgetown for two years before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School. Like her half sister, father, and half brother, Donald Trump Jr., Tiffany Trump attended the University of Pennsylvania as an undergraduate.

In a Washington Post article published this March, writer Roxanne Roberts questioned whether or not Trump’s family name would boost her chances of getting into an elite school. U.S. News and World Report ranked Georgetown Law as one of the country’s top 20 law schools–it is tied for 15th place with the University of California-Los Angeles. With an acceptance rate of 26.4 percent, it is also highly competitive.

But Trump is forging her own path in a few ways. While her siblings and father all studied business, she opted to major in sociology. She is also the first of the president’s children to pursue law school.

The choice in law school also means that Trump, who had mostly kept a low profile throughout her father’s campaign, will now be in close proximity to the White House.

How will Trump’s classmates and professors treat her when she gets there? Her father’s policies have made him unpopular with a number of Georgetown students. In March, the university joined more than 30 other schools opposing the president’s immigration ban in a Virginia circuit court. Last month, Georgetown hosted a panel featuring presidential adviser Sebastian Gorka, who left early when student protesters in attendance started asking questions about Donald Trump’s spread of fake news and attitude toward the Muslim community.

Not to mention the fact that officials at a handful of law schools around the country, including Georgetown, are seeing increased interest in the profession from students in response to Donald Trump and the numerous lawsuits that have been filed against his administration. When it comes to Trump’s immigration ban or his overseas business ties, lawyers have been a key part of resisting his policies and trying to hold him accountable.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tiffany Trump Chooses Georgetown Law appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, Emmanuel Macron won the French presidential election, defeating far-right populist and nationalist candidate Marine LePen. Once he is inaugurated on May 14, the centrist politician will have to address his constituents’ worries about unemployment and terrorism in a divided country.

But across the Atlantic Ocean, the most pressing concern for many Twitter users was whether or not Macron (who will become France’s youngest president at age 39) is more attractive than Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Congratulations @EmmanuelMacron! Let’s meet soon, and keep working to grow & strengthen the deep ties between Canada and France.

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) May 7, 2017

There are few things the Internet loves more than two good-looking, young-ish, and charismatic world leaders befriending each other–just look at the infatuation with Trudeau and former President Barack Obama. So when Trudeau congratulated Macron on his victory, the idea of two good-looking, young-ish, and charismatic world leaders, who also speak French befriending each other sent some people over the edge.

How is the internet going to cope when Macron & Trudeau eventually meet and discuss politics in French?

— cordney (@courtwhip) May 7, 2017

me when justin trudeau and emmanuel macron meet & speak french together pic.twitter.com/rM5WgPtNIh

— Dr. Mantis Toboggan (@beaarthur85) May 8, 2017

Let the Macron-Trudeau fan fiction begin! pic.twitter.com/NDvXsClpgb

— Jaime Woo (@jaimewoo) May 7, 2017

However, not everyone was enamored.

Trudeau has a 48% approval rating, and Macron’s agenda is unpopular and opposed by most French. But they’re good looking!

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) May 9, 2017

Some are hoping the two leaders can get together to accomplish more than just a photo op or bromance.

Emmanuel Macron x Justin Trudeau goodness (credit to my former schoolmate Sulaiman Daud) pic.twitter.com/WAnICRz2ZU

— Adibah (@mmonchatsplash) May 8, 2017

BEST TRUDEAU-MACRON FANFIC:

Trudeau: Hey, man lets do some policy and not blow the world up or be insane

Macron: Oui oui

— St. Lucia (@luciaannv) May 9, 2017

Though President Donald Trump also took to Twitter to congratulate Macron, chances of a friendship between U.S. and France may not be as high. Trump had previously called Le Pen the “strongest” candidate in the election, praising her positions on terrorism and borders.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Fantasizes About Eventual Meetup Between Macron and Trudeau appeared first on Law Street.

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

Trump to Comey: “You’re Fired”

Last night, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the investigation into his campaign’s connections to Russia. Comey’s firing was almost unprecedented–usually, FBI directors serve for 10 years, regardless of political affiliation. The only previous firing of an FBI director was in 1993, when President Bill Clinton fired William S. Sessions. Comey found out that he lost his job when it was broadcast on the news while he was meeting with FBI employees in Los Angeles.

A lot of people think this is very suspicious, especially since Trump cited Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails as a reason to let him go. Trump himself praised the FBI’s investigation into Clinton during the campaign and said that she should be imprisoned. The move had many people drawing parallels to events during the Watergate scandal, when President Richard Nixon fired the special prosecutor who was investigating him. Now everyone is assuming Trump wants to hide something about the Russia collusion affair, and both Democrats and Republicans are calling for an independent investigation.

An incredibly ominous sign, no matter your view of Comey. He investigated + was removed by Sessions, who is implicated in interference case. https://t.co/zNgMqkCnus

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) May 9, 2017

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: May 10, 2017 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:

Ted Cruz Learns Not to Mess With Sally Yates

Yesterday, former Acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. The hearing was supposed to focus on ties between Trump associates and Russia. But Senator Ted Cruz wanted to hear more about Yates’ decision to stand against President Trump’s travel ban, which led to her dismissal. Cruz is also a lawyer and he tried to challenge Yates by citing the law that allows the president to block immigrants from coming to the U.S. if that is in the best interest of the country.

Ted Cruz tried to pick on Sally Yates. Big mistake. pic.twitter.com/ZmDP8wbQuI

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) May 9, 2017

But Yates pointed out that it’s illegal to deny someone entry based on their race, nationality, or place of birth. She pointed out that her main concern was whether the president’s order was constitutional, and said she was not convinced that the ban was lawful. The heated exchange had many people on social media applauding Yates for her cool demeanor and smart response.

This is so delicious it’s better than the chocolate cake at Mar-A-Lago. Sally Yates is having Ted Cruz for lunch.

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) May 8, 2017

In my darkest hours I will think of Sally Yates destroying Ted Cruz on national television, and it will sustain me.

— Molly Knight (@molly_knight) May 8, 2017

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: May 9, 2017 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:

Macron Crushes Le Pen in the French Presidential Election

Emmanuel Macron, a former investment banker who is for all intents and purposes a political newcomer in France, decisively defeated Marine Le Pen this weekend. Macron, whose ideology is best described as center-left won approximately 66 percent of the vote. Le Pen, who boasts a far-right ideology, garnered only 34 percent. There are some hurdles ahead–Macron’s new party, “En Marche!” is very young, and currently holds no seats in Parliament. Those elections will be held next month.

But Macron’s victory is seen as relatively good news for the EU. Le Pen had campaigned in part on a “Frexit”–France’s proposed version of “Brexit.” Macron, on the other hand, championed globalization, France’s position in the EU, and tolerance.

Macron vows to heal France’s divisions after victory over Le Pen https://t.co/dZeN02Uooh pic.twitter.com/gAz2pkV4dh

— Bloomberg (@business) May 8, 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: May 8, 2017 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:

Will the New Health Care Bill Pass?

Republicans are set to vote on the revised version of their health care bill today, but it is still unclear if it will pass this time. The last version of the bill failed “bigly,” but this time House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy says the GOP has enough “yes” votes to pass the bill. Recent changes to the bill would allow states to get waivers to redefine essential health benefits required in insurance plans, like mental health care or maternity care. Waivers would also allow insurance companies to charge more for people with pre-existing conditions, potentially pricing them out of the insurance market.

As late as Monday, some Republicans were still undecided, especially because of the pre-existing conditions part. But then yesterday, the GOP decided to add $8 billion to the bill to help cover people with pre-existing conditions, and some Republicans that had been undecided threw their support behind the bill. While $8 billion may be enough for the bill to pass in the House, it won’t be enough to cover Americans with pre-existing conditions.

The American people should understand that what Republicans are trying to do to health care today is a disgrace. https://t.co/rhAzY3udVL

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 4, 2017

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: May 4, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

For a quarter century, the U.S. has exhaustively tried to broker the deal of all deals: an independent Palestinian state. And it has been seeking lasting peace in a region that has been rife with violence for a century. On Wednesday, during a meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, President Donald Trump expressed confidence that he would achieve what none of his predecessors have been able to.

“We will get this done,” Trump said. Striking a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians has been one of Trump’s more consistent priorities. He has appointed a former Trump Organization lawyer, Jason Greenblatt, as the liaison for negotiations. Greenblatt, an Orthodox Jew, has garnered wide praise for his willingness to listen to all of the involved parties–Israelis, Palestinians, and leaders from nearby Arab states like Jordan and Egypt.

Trump insisted he is “committed” to brokering an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that “allows both people to live, worship and thrive and prosper in peace.” During a February meeting at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump did not explicitly support a two-state solution–sovereign states for both Israel and Palestinians–instead saying he favors “the one that both parties like.”

Abbas, speaking in Arabic, said a Palestinian state is the only solution to the decades-old conflict, calling on the pre-1967 borders–the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem–as the template for a future state. Ceding East Jerusalem, home to Judaism’s holiest sites, to the Palestinians as their future capital has long been a contentious point for the Israelis. The last stab at peace, mediated by former Secretary of State John Kerry, folded in 2014 after the two sides could not agree to the specifics of a peace deal.

According to Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, in a private sit-down with Abbas after their public remarks, Trump told the Palestinian leader that a key to lasting peace is for the PA to stop sponsoring terrorism. According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the PA, which receives foreign aid, including from the U.S., pays $315 million each year to the families of “martyrs,” or men who commit suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

For Abbas, the “occupation of our people and of our land” must end before a peaceful solution can be reached. “After 50 years,” he said, referring to Israel’s capture of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War, “we are the only remaining people in the world that still live under occupation.” Abbas, like Trump, expressed confidence the quest for peace is not finished. Switching to English, he turned to Trump and said: “now, Mr. President, with you, we have hope.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Deal: “We Will Get This Done” appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since his campaign days, President Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall that will cover the border between the United States and Mexico, as a means of cracking down on illegal immigration. But those promises seem less certain each day, with Congressional Republicans hesitant to allocate billions of dollars to fund the wall and Mexico’s president denying Trump’s claims that his country would fund the project.

Now, the state of California is also pushing back against the wall by weighing the possibility of a blacklist against any contractors that Trump would hire to work on the structure.

California state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles County, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would block companies that participate in construction of the wall from being hired by the state of California in the future. The state currently shares a substantial border with Mexico. Lara compared businesses that would potentially assemble the wall to those that would help build internment camps or segregated schools.

However, construction businesses don’t want to politicize the issue. Felipe Fuentes, a lobbyist for the state’s contractors, warned that the measure could set a precedent of “hand-picking projects that are not politically favorable to the California Legislature”–and could affect construction of everything from Planned Parenthood facilities to prisons.

Financial resistance to the wall could be the latest growing trend among mainly-Democratic states and cities looking to hit back at Trump on the local level. Soon after he resumed office, a number of mayors and governors across the country vowed that their cities would be “sanctuary cities,” in which undocumented immigrants would be protected from deportation.

Now, in addition to California, legislators in at least four other states have proposed indirect ways of opposing the wall. A public advocate in New York City introduced a bill that would blacklist contractors hired by Trump, and would require the city’s largest public pension fund to divest from participating companies. A Rhode Island representative has called for his state to withdraw its investments in businesses working with Trump. A proposed bill in New Mexico would prevent the state from selling 22 miles of land that it owns to the federal government for the purposes of building the wall. Meanwhile, legislatures in Arizona and Illinois are considering similar blacklist and divestment measures.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will California Say “You’re Fired” to Companies That Build Trump’s Wall? appeared first on Law Street.

Federal workers can breathe a sigh of relief (at least for one week): the Senate and the House both passed a short-term spending bill on Friday to fund the government at its current levels until next Friday. This averted a government shutdown that would have occurred if a deal had not been reached by midnight.

Some of the most contentious issues preventing a longer-term spending bill from being passed were funding for the border wall and an Affordable Care Act subsidy for low-income individuals, among others.

Even the one-week funding bill had a bumpy road to its passage, as many Democrats threatened to oppose its approval as long as Republicans planned to vote on repealing and replacing the ACA this week (within the President’s first 100 days). In the end, the health care vote was not scheduled for Friday.

President Donald Trump did not seem too concerned with the possibility of a shutdown, telling Reuters on Thursday, “we’ll see what happens. If there’s a shutdown, there’s a shutdown.” He also harshly criticized the Democratic Party in a series of Tweets on Thursday, accusing them of putting roadblocks in place and being responsible for a potential shutdown.

The Democrats want to shut government if we don’t bail out Puerto Rico and give billions to their insurance companies for OCare failure. NO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

As families prepare for summer vacations in our National Parks – Democrats threaten to close them and shut down the government. Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

The one-week spending bill buys Congress more time to smooth out conflicts and draft up a longer-term spending bill for the rest of the year.

The environment for government workers has been tenser than usual, to say the least. In addition to the possibility of a shutdown, federal workers have recently had to endure the possibility of job cuts, as Trump’s budget proposals have called to reduce the federal workforce by as many as 200,000 jobs. Also on Friday, officials announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proposed to cut 2,300 jobs in the State Department.

Meanwhile, a large number of federal appointments still have yet to be selected by Trump. Politico reported that 470 out of 556 positions requiring Senate confirmation do not have nominees yet. It remains to be seen if the remaining issues in the long-term spending bill will be ironed out before this temporary measure expires on May 5.

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 Crisis Averted: Congress Approves Funding to Avoid Government Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

When the city of New Orleans finally began the process of taking down its pro-Confederate monuments this week, it faced some opposition. One of the more high-profile critics of the decision was Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart.

Stewart attracted attention on the internet a few days ago for his tweet-storm defending preservation of the monuments. But there was one controversial tweet in particular that stood out.

Nothing is worse than a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments don't matter.

— Corey Stewart (@CoreyStewartVA) April 25, 2017

Twitter users quickly reminded Stewart that he is not from the South (he is a Minnesota native), and that a lot of things are actually worse than “a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments don’t matter.”

You are from Minnesota. https://t.co/45pEgVGmC2

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) April 25, 2017

@CoreyStewartVA Like, literally, nothing? Nothing is worse?

— John Legend (@johnlegend) April 25, 2017

you know what was worse? Slavery https://t.co/1ACEuYjUh9

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) April 25, 2017

1. Slavery
2. Lynchings
3. Black women raped + their rapists set free
4. Jim Crow
5. Workplace discrimination
6. Housing discrimination https://t.co/aTgOxwXEqd

— Yashar (@yashar) April 25, 2017

Stewart, who is currently a chairman for the Board of Supervisors in Prince Williams County, Virginia, announced his bid for governor of the state in April 2016 (the primary elections will take place this June). Since then, he has become a vocal advocate for honoring Confederate landmarks, and has integrated the issue heavily into his campaign. In February, he organized protests in Charlottesville, Virginia against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. Earlier this month, he attended a Civil War-themed “Old South Ball.”

For many, Confederate symbols (like the flag) will always represent white supremacy because of their ties to the southern states that seceded from the U.S. and defended slavery during the Civil War. Stewart, on the other hand, has said that his position on the issue is not about the Confederate flag, but about “rampant, uncontrolled political correctness that is shaming Virginians who are simply trying to honor their ancestors, their ancestry, their heritage.”

If that anti-political correctness sentiment sounds familiar to you, it’s probably because you’ve heard similar things from President Donald Trump while he was on the campaign trail. Stewart supported Trump during the presidential election and served as the chair of Trump’s campaign in Virginia, until he was fired for orchestrating an unauthorized protest against anti-Trump Republicans outside the Republican National Convention headquarters.

Now, his commitment to protecting Confederate heritage, and combating what he calls “historical vandalism,” could hurt him in his run. Stewart recently lost the support of Prince William County’s sheriff, who switched his endorsement to back Stewart’s Republican opponent Ed Gillespie. Sheriff Glendell Hill told the Washington Post that Stewart’s views on “all that Confederate stuff” were too divisive. Four GOP supervisors who serve on the county board with Stewart also chose to endorse Gillespie.

Like Trump, Stewart is known for being outspoken on the internet. In March, he answered questions on a Reddit thread known as an “Ask Me Anything,” or AMA. At one point in the AMA, Stewart referred to Gillespie as a “cuckservative,” a term coined by the alt-right movement to disparage Republicans who are too moderate. In the same question-and-answer session on the site, he called for deportation of “criminal illegal aliens,” called globalists “BAD people” (even though he has worked as an international trade attorney).

Stewart has also tried to cover up negative information about himself–like low ratings about his claims on the fact-checker Politifact, and his loss in the 2016 race for lieutenant governor–by editing his own Wikipedia page.

From the establishment of sanctuary cities to the legalization of marijuana, a lot of resistance to the Trump Administration and its policies happens on local and state levels. Virginia’s current governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, has opposed the president’s immigration order while Democratic candidates for governor like Tom Perriello and Ralph Northam have both criticized and vowed to push back against the federal government. But a win for Stewart could change that.

However, a recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Gillespie–who voted for Trump, but whose support of the president has been lukewarm in comparison to Stewart’s–leading with 28 percent, while Stewart is currently falling behind at 12 percent. According to the same poll, in the general election both Perriello and Northham would hold double-digit leads over Gillespie.

Not to mention, Trump’s politics haven’t been very popular in Virginia–he pulled his campaign out of the state weeks before the election, a move that was criticized by Stewart.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Corey Stewart, the Pro-Confederate Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate? appeared first on Law Street.

Despite protests in the street and pleas from Capital Hill, President Donald Trump has yet to reveal the amount he has–or has not–paid in taxes. But he plans to overhaul the U.S. tax code, and on Wednesday, he announced a one-page tax plan to accomplish that. Here is what you need to know.

What’s New?

In short: a range of tax cuts and some efforts to simplify the filing process. Trump’s tax plan, which will likely receive heavy edits as it makes its way through Congress, would reduce the number of individual tax brackets from seven to three–10 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent. The proposal does not yet specify the income thresholds for each bracket. Currently, people in the top income bracket are taxed at a rate of almost 40 percent and those in the lowest bracket pay 10 percent, which would remain the same under Trump’s plan. While Americans overall would likely receive some sort of a tax break, the wealthiest Americans would benefit the most.

In addition, Trump’s plan would lower the corporate tax rate–and make it apply to small mom-and-pops and giant multinationals alike–from 35 percent to 15 percent. That would put the U.S., which currently has the highest corporate rate of any industrialized nations, in line with Germany and Canada, and slightly below Britain.

Another major change included in the plan: killing the “death tax,” aka the inheritance or estate tax. As of 2014, the U.S. inheritance tax–up to 40 percent for some estates–was the fourth highest in the world. Trump’s plan would scrap that tax–which supporters say is a key tool for redistributing income, and critics say unfairly steal from the rich–entirely.

What About the Debt?

Under Trump’s proposed tax overhaul, the national debt would skyrocket. At a press conference unveiling the plan, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the plan “will pay for itself with growth.” Since the revenue from taxes would drop, the government would need to find other ways to obtain money to pay for its various obligations. But a variety of nonpartisan budget think tanks and analysts projected that previous versions of Trump’s plan would cause the federal deficit to balloon.  

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget–a think tank that focuses on fiscal responsibility–predicts that the plan would add $3 to $7 trillion to the deficit over a decade. That would contradict Trump’s vociferous critiques of the rising debt under the past few administrations. History does not bode well for self-paying tax cuts–the idea that tax cuts would spur enough economic growth to balance out revenue lost due to lower rates. President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981, for instance, contributed to the deficits that would follow.

What Do the Experts Think?

Bernard Baumohl, the chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group: “The effort to introduce more fiscal stimulus into the economy is genuinely underway […] But the bare bones plan we saw unveiled [on Wednesday] is already conceptually flawed and unlikely to go far in Congress. The final product will bear no resemblance to the principal points highlighted in today’s meager release. Certainly, the first step in this process was unimpressive.”

JPMorgan Chase Analyst Jesse Edgerton: “Although the plan’s lack of detail makes estimating its revenue effects uncertain, we suspect the plan would be scored as dramatically increasing deficits, making likelihood of its passage through Congress slim […] the recent announcement is likely best viewed as an opening offer in a negotiation with many rounds to go.”

Economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, head of the Congressional Budget Office under former President George W. Bush: “Passing genuine tax reform would include structural changes. As long as those are not included, it is not reform. This bill as presented would add to the deficit. Growth alone cannot account for the loss of revenue from tax cuts. This means it cannot pass the reconciliation process and will not be able to become law.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post What You Need to Know About Trump’s Tax Plan appeared first on Law Street.

Despite spending his campaign extolling the devilish scourge of globalism, international blocs, pacts, agreements, clubs, and any other united, transnational body, President Donald Trump’s actions in office thus far have done little to renege on any U.S. commitments with the wider world. Sure, Trump has hung up the phone on Australia’s prime minister; he has issued threats to North Korea, Iran, China, and a number of other bad actors or fragile allies. Trump promised a number of things during the campaign when it comes to existing international agreements–rip, tear, shred, renegotiate, etc. But he has yet to act on any of those impulses.

Here is a look at two international accords and one trade deal Trump has, at one point or another, promised to withdraw from or drastically alter. Instead, Trump has largely maintained the status quo as we approach the end of his fist 100 days in office.

Paris Climate Agreement

Trump once pegged climate change as a hoax invented by the Chinese. At a campaign stop last May, he pledged to “cancel” the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which the U.S. signed with nearly 200 other countries to combat climate change. Trump has since softened his questioning of climate change’s legitimacy and has largely ceased threatening to pull out of the agreement. And although EPA Chief Scott Pruitt favors withdrawing from the pact–Trump signed an executive order in March directing Pruitt to begin that process–he is reportedly questioning whether or not the political blowback of such a move would be worth it.

According to a recent New York Times report, Trump–a morally bankrupt man of few fixed beliefs in the eyes of critics, an open-mind in the eyes of his supporters–is split between two influencing camps within his administration. There is the Steve Bannon, anti-globalist school, and then there are those like Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner who support the climate pact. Trump is expected to make a final decision on the U.S. role in the Paris agreement by the end of May.

Iran Deal

During his campaign, Trump called the nuclear deal with Iran “the worst deal ever negotiated.” Engineered by the Obama Administration in 2015, the deal exchanged sanctions relief for a freeze on Iran’s nuclear program. Critics said the deal merely delayed the inevitable; once Iran’s economy was back on track, and once the 10-year deal expired, it would build up its nuclear arsenal. Supporters asked: “would you rather Iran start firing off nuclear bombs now?”

Trump, a fervent and vocal critic of the deal–which, along with the United States, was negotiated by China, Russia, France, Germany, and the U.K.–reprimanded Iran for a missile test in January. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently ordered a review to consider imposing additional sanctions on Iran–a move that could breach the nuclear agreement–just as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the deal “still stands,” confirming Iran was complying with it.

NAFTA

The Iran deal may be the “worst deal ever negotiated,” but in Trump’s eyes, NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, is the “worst trade deal in history.” The 1994 trade deal between the United States, Canada, and Mexico has been the perfect straw man for the legion of Trump voters who had been disaffected and disproportionately affected by global trade (and of course by automation, but you can’t exactly renegotiate a deal with machines).

Last week, Trump hinted that “some very big changes” were coming to the trade agreement. But on Monday, during a speech in Mexico, Chamber of Commerce executive Thomas Donohue soothed concerns that the administration would drastically alter the deal, or scrap it altogether. “I want to assure you that despite what you may see in the news, or hear in the news, there is a constructive process underway behind the scenes,” he said.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Despite Rhetoric, Trump Hasn’t Abandoned Any International Agreements in His First 100 Days appeared first on Law Street.