A federal judge ruled on Wednesday in favor of one more search for Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.

D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta ordered the State Department to search its servers for emails related to the 2012 Benghazi attack. In particular, they are tasked with looking for anything Clinton sent to aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, or Jake Sullivan at their state.gov addresses.

“Secretary Clinton used a private email server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as secretary of state,” Judge Mehta noted in his ruling. “[State] has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov email server.”

The ruling comes after the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit calling for a renewed search. The group argued that the State Department had only searched outside sources, such as Clinton’s private server.

Lawyers for the department countered that an additional search is unlikely to turn up anything else. In addition, it would set a poor precedent for any future requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Judge Mehta responded that “this matter is a far cry from a typical FOIA case” and that the email scandal was “a specific fact pattern unlikely to arise in the future.”

He then ordered the department to give him a status report by September 22.

Previously, Clinton and her three aides surrendered more than 30,000 emails to the agency in 2014. The investigation found 348 emails relating to Benghazi sent to or from the then-Secretary of State.

Any emails she deleted off her private server, however, may not have a backup and are likely gone forever.

In contrast, as a government agency, the State Department would have server backups in place. Department officials, though, have admitted that there was no automated archiving system in place during Clinton’s tenure.

The State Department did not comment on the ruling. Tom Fitton, president of the Judicial Watch, said in a statement, “This major court ruling may finally result in more answers about the Benghazi scandal–and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it–as we approach the attack’s fifth anniversary.”

Clinton cites the “emailgate“controversy and then-FBI director James Comey’s subsequent investigation as major reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential election.

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 Judge Orders New Search for Clinton Emails 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.

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.

Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman from New York, pleaded guilty to transferring obscene materials to a minor in a federal court in Manhattan on Friday. The expected plea agreement capped an FBI investigation into Weiner’s relationship with a 15-year-old girl. Weiner, 52, could face a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The judge said he will be required to register as a sex offender. Weiner also agreed to not appeal any prison sentence between 21 and 27 months.

In court on Friday, Weiner issued the following statement:

Beginning with my service in Congress and continuing into the first half of last year, I have compulsively sought attention from women who contacted me on social media, and I engaged with many of them in both sexual and non-sexual conversation. These destructive impulses brought great devastation to family and friends, and destroyed my life’s dream of public service. And yet I remained in denial even as the world around me fell apart.

Last September, the girl anonymously shared her story with British tabloid The Daily Mail. She said Weiner had sent her sexually explicit text messages and photographs. She said Weiner was aware that she was a minor. That report came just months after Weiner was embroiled in another sexting scandal that led to a separation with his wife, Huma Abedin, a close aide to Hillary Clinton.

The FBI’s investigation into Weiner’s communications with the 15-year-old girl also affected the presidential campaign–Weiner’s electronic devices contained emails pertinent to the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s private email server. Recently fired FBI Director James Comey sent a controversial letter to Congress, in the days before the November 8 election, saying that the FBI, while investigating Weiner, found new emails that “appear to be pertinent to the [Clinton] investigation.”

The FBI determined the newly-discovered emails didn’t contain any new information, but Clinton recently blamed the eleventh-hour disclosure as central to her election defeat.

Weiner’s political career crumbled in 2011, when his first sexting scandal went public. He had been a Democratic representative from New York since 1999. Despite his tarnished reputation, he ran for mayor of New York City in 2013. His bid was derailed by yet another sexting scandal.

According to an Associated Press report, Weiner was crying in court as he apologized to the girl, saying, “I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse.”

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 Anthony Weiner Pleads Guilty in Sexting Case with 15-Year-Old Girl appeared first on Law Street.

During a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers he felt “mildly nauseous” that his actions may have affected the outcome on November 8. This was Comey’s first hearing since he told the House in March that the FBI has been investigating ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. It also gave a clearer view into Comey’s thoughts on the consequences of his actions leading up to Election Day.

But although Comey implied that his actions could be regretful–including publicly announcing that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was ongoing on October 28–he said concealing that information would have been “catastrophic.” Democrats–including Clinton–have derided Comey for going public with information regarding the Clinton investigation but failing to reveal the Trump investigation until months after the election.

The hearing opened with remarks from the committee’s top members from each party, Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Grassley pressed for specifics on why Comey and the FBI pursued the investigation into Trump’s role in the Kremlin’s election meddling. “We need to know if there was anything improper between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” he said, or if Trump critics are merely “chasing a conspiracy theory.”

Feinstein focused on the FBI’s potential effect on the election. “I join those who believe that the actions taken by the FBI did in fact have an impact on the election,” she said. Clinton, in an extensive and unguarded interview on Tuesday, pegged her loss on Comey, WikiLeaks, and Russia. She did, however, take “absolute personal responsibility,” for losing to Trump. “I was the candidate. I was the person who was on the ballot,” she said.

Comey also made it clear in the hearing that Russia, which U.S. intelligence agencies concluded hacked Democratic operatives’ emails to aid Trump’s campaign, remains a threat. Russia is the primary threat to democracy, he said, and bluntly concurred when asked if Moscow’s cyber efforts are ongoing. “Yes,” he responded. Seemingly responding to Clinton’s remarks on Tuesday, Trump sent a series of tweets that critiqued Comey and Clinton, and referred to himself in the third person, all at the same time:

FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds! The phony…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

…Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election. Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 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 James Comey Feels “Mildly Nauseous” that the FBI Might Have Affected the Election appeared first on Law Street.

Announced in January and passed by the state legislature on Friday, New York’s Excelsior Scholarship is the nation’s first plan to cover the costs of a four-year public college or university. The program will be rolled out over three years, with the household income threshold for qualifying families gradually increasing each year, starting for the 2017-2018 year. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a long-time advocate for tuition-free colleges in his state, is expected to sign the bill on Wednesday at LaGuardia Community College in Queens.

Though other states–like Tennessee and Oregon–have programs that cover the costs of two-year colleges, the Excelsior Scholarship is the first in the nation to cover the cost of a four-year program, starting with families making $100,000 annually. One controversial aspect of the program is its requirement that recipients live and work in New York after graduation, for as many years as the grant covered. Otherwise, the grant would retroactively become a loan that had to be paid off.

On Monday, Cuomo defended the requirement. “The rationale is clear,” he said. “Why should New Yorkers pay for your college education, and then you take off and you move to California? The concept of investing in you and your education is that you’re going to stay here and be an asset to the state.” The vast majority of students at New York’s public colleges and universities stay in state after graduating, he said, adding,  “if you don’t stay here, then go to California and let them pay for your college education.”

Aimed largely at middle-class students, some are concerned that low-income students would not qualify for the scholarship’s requirements. For one, qualifying students must be enrolled full-time. Many low-income students in New York–60 percent by some measures–enroll part-time because they have to work to supplement their parents’ incomes.

“If you’re really concerned about students who are not attending [college] because of the reality or the perception of unaffordability [sic],” D. Bruce Johnstone, a former State University of New York (SUNY) chancellor, told the New York Times, “this is not the way to help them.” He added: “This is going to cost money, and it will make some parents happy, but I don’t see it moving the accessibility needle.”

But the program is expected to benefit a large chunk of New York’s middle-income student population. SUNY estimates that one-fifth of undergraduates, or 80,000 students, would qualify for the Excelsior Scholarship. The City University of New York, or CUNY, estimates a much smaller group–3,000 to 5,000–of undergraduates would meet the program’s requirements.

Cuomo is sticking by his signature achievement. In a recent Medium post titled “A National First,” Cuomo made clear the scholarship’s intended beneficiaries. The scholarship, he wrote, “will make college accessible to thousands of working and middle class students, and shows the difference that government can make.” The governor’s plan is also earning plaudits from a well-known former New York Senator:

Let’s celebrate New York State getting something important done that we wanted to do nationally. A great step for progressives. https://t.co/CmUZ8njtWF

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 8, 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 What You Need to Know About New York’s Tuition-Free College Plan 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:

100+ Arrested and Three Killed in Chechen Crackdown on Gay Men

Over the past week, more than a hundred gay men went missing in Chechnya, the semi-autonomous Russian republic located in the southernmost part of Eastern Europe. The republic is predominantly Muslim and extremely conservative. On Saturday, a Russian opposition newspaper reported that the men had been arrested by Chechen police and confirmed that at least three had been killed.

After 100+ gays seized in Chechnya, human rights official says homosexuality=”evil every Chechen will fight against” https://t.co/dT6zu1NeGv

— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) April 1, 2017

Allegedly, the crackdown started after a gay rights group in Moscow applied to hold Pride parades in areas close to Chechnya. But the leader of the republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, said through a spokesman that the reports are false and impossible. In fact, he seemingly flat-out denied that gay people exist in the area. “You cannot arrest or repress people who just don’t exist in the republic,” spokesman Alvi Karimov said. He added, “If such people existed in Chechnya, law enforcement would not have to worry about them, as their own relatives would have sent them to where they could never return.” These horrendous comments caused international outrage and gay men have started fleeing the republic.

LGBT activist handcuffs himself to Petersburg’s Akhmat Kadyrov bridge to protest news that 100+ gays detained in Chechnya, at least 3 dead https://t.co/V49WGZos45

— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) April 2, 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: April 3, 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:

Tough Week Ahead For Donald Trump?

It’s going to be an important and busy week for President Donald Trump. This morning at 10 a.m., the hearing on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election began. FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee and acknowledged that there is an ongoing investigation into the matter. The FBI leader also disclosed that there’s an investigation into any collusion between Trump aides and Russians officials. Comey also said he has “no evidence” of Trump’s claims that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. This morning, seemingly to divert attention, Trump went on a tweet storm and claimed that the Russia story is fake news.

The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

Trump also claimed that there has been contact between Russia and the Clinton campaign, a claim for which there is seemingly no evidence.

What about all of the contact with the Clinton campaign and the Russians? Also, is it true that the DNC would not let the FBI in to look?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

Today is also the first day of confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s SCOTUS nominee. And on Thursday, the House will vote on the new health care plan. NBC reports that at least 17 Republican House members do not approve of the plan, so it could be a close and interesting vote.

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: March 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Today is International Women’s Day as well as the “Day Without a Woman” strike, and in honor of that, we’re making today’s RantCrush all about women. 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:

A Day Without A Woman

Since today is International Women’s Day, many women are planning a strike. There will be demonstrations and rallies across the country, and the organizers behind the Women’s March are calling on women everywhere to take the day off from work, avoid shopping for a day, and wear red. This is to recognize “the enormous value that women of all backgrounds add to our socio-economic system–while receiving lower wages and experiencing greater inequities, vulnerability to discrimination, sexual harassment, and job insecurity,” a statement on the group’s website says.

A Day Without a Woman is tmrw! To join:

1) Take the day off
2) Avoid shopping – unless at women & minority-owned businesses
3) Wear RED pic.twitter.com/nqzLd7RwJ2

— AJ+ (@ajplus) March 7, 2017

Several schools are closed for the day since many teachers are planning to stay at home and women make up 76 percent of America’s public school teachers. The average American woman currently makes 79 cents for every dollar a man makes, but minority women make even less. Women make up 47 percent of the U.S. workforce, which means if every woman stayed home from work today, it would cost the country almost $21 billion, according to the Center for American Progress. That’s something to think about!

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: March 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:

Politics at the Oscars: No Surprise There

Last night was the Academy Awards and “La La Land” got a lot of the statuettes. But it didn’t get the most prestigious award–Best Picture–even though it was incorrectly announced as the winner at first. After an embarrassing mix-up, “Moonlight” took home the coveted prize.

This off-camera shot of the cast/crew of Moonlight winning Best Picture pic.twitter.com/uWfxehXRsJ

— Spencer Althouse (@SpencerAlthouse) February 27, 2017

The whole evening was a success for more diverse movies, following last year’s criticism of #OscarsSoWhite. “Moonlight,” which depicts the coming of age story of a young black gay man, was an important victory as debates centering on race, immigration, and LGBT rights are in full swing. “Moonlight” actor Mahershala Ali also became the first Muslim actor ever to win an Oscar. While there’s still a lot more work to be done to increase representation and diversity in Hollywood, the success of “Moonlight” was heartening.

But the politics didn’t stop there. The night saw plenty of jabs at the new president from host Jimmy Kimmel. “I mean, remember last year, when it seemed like the Oscars were racist?” he said.

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: February 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Tom Perez, the former Secretary of Labor, was elected the Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman today, beating Representative Keith Ellison in a second round of run off voting. In that second round, Perez garnered 235 votes to Ellison’s 200 to win.

Perez is the first Hispanic chair of the DNC, and was a speculated pick for Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee. In addition to Perez and Ellison, contenders included Jehmu Greene (a Democratic strategist from Texas), Jamie Harrison (chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party), Sally Boynton Brown (president of the Association of State Democratic Party Executive Directors and Idaho Democratic Party Executive Director), Peter Peckarsky (a Wisconsin lawyer), and Samuel Ronan (a 2016 candidate for the Ohio State House of Representatives). Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, dropped out before the voting began.

After Perez won, he appointed Ellison as his deputy during his acceptance speech, saying: “I would like to begin by making a motion, it is a motion that I have discussed with a good friend, and his name is Keith Ellison.” While the role is largely symbolic, it represented a nod to the close race between the two leaders.

Some saw the competition between Perez and Ellison as symbolic of the party’s internal struggle after losing the 2016 general election. The contentious primary battle between Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders left a sour taste in many Democrats’ mouths. In this DNC race, Perez represented the establishment. In contrast, Ellison represented the more left-wing side inspired by Sanders.

But, it’s important to note that Perez and Ellison were largely complimentary of each other in most public appearances, and stayed away from anything petty. And they made sure to note that they were friends–including when they got together for dinner 10 days before the vote.

We’re friends. It’s ok. https://t.co/xdllbgFN9S

— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) February 16, 2017

Perez now has a hefty task before him–especially given the criticism and resignation of former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz during the 2016 primaries. As protests and activism against President Donald Trump’s rule continue to grow, Perez will be in charge of, at least in part, leading the Democratic Party forward.

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 Tom Perez Elected DNC Chair Over Keith Ellison 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’s Chaotic Press Conference

Yesterday, President Donald Trump held a spontaneous press conference and announced that his new pick for the Secretary of Labor is Alexander Acosta, who will be “a tremendous secretary of labor,” according to Trump. But the rest of the presser was a classic Trump-show. He denounced the media and called it “so dishonest.” He said he “inherited a mess” from President Barack Obama and that all the jobs are “pouring out of” the U.S. He said he also wanted to “update the American people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my inauguration.” Trump claimed that reports of chaos in the White House are totally wrong and that the “administration is running like a fine-tuned machine.”

Trump’s press conference achieved virtually nothing, except scaring the bejesus out of the world. https://t.co/zdEEH9RGuh

— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) February 17, 2017

Trump avoided answering questions about whether his campaign had been in touch with Russia, but criticized Hillary Clinton and Obama. And when reporter April Ryan asked whether he would meet with the Congressional Black Caucus, he interrupted her and said, “Do you want to set up the meeting? Are they friends of yours?”

I am a journalist not a convener! But thank you for answering my questions. https://t.co/fe9cGXG46w

— AprilDRyan (@AprilDRyan) February 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: February 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday night at the Golden Globe Awards, Meryl Streep went after President-elect Donald Trump. In an eloquent speech in which she didn’t even mention his name, Streep made her dismay at his meteoric political rise clear, saying:

There was one performance this year that stunned me. It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good. There was nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter, someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back. It kind of broke my heart when I saw it. I still can’t get it out of my head because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life.

And this instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.

Streep’s speech–love it or hate–caught Trump’s attention. And as is his nature, he tweeted about it.

Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn’t know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes. She is a…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 9, 2017

Hillary flunky who lost big. For the 100th time, I never “mocked” a disabled reporter (would never do that) but simply showed him…….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 9, 2017

“groveling” when he totally changed a 16 year old story that he had written in order to make me look bad. Just more very dishonest media!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 9, 2017

But Streep is as beloved as Trump is orange, and so a lot of supporters on Twitter decided to point out some other things that Trump thinks are “overrated.” Here are some of the best tweets from the hashtag #ThingsTrumpThinksAreOverrated.

#ThingsTrumpThinksAreOverrated:
First Amendment
Morality
The Pope
Patriotism
Beyonce
Facts
Hamilton
Paying taxes
POWs
Obama
Integrity

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) January 9, 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 What are Some #ThingsTrumpThinksAreOverrated? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s hard getting back to a normal routine after two weeks of holiday fun. But hey, it’s only a four-day workweek and after today you’re halfway through! 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:

Megyn Kelly is Making a Switch

Yesterday, Fox News host Megyn Kelly announced that she is leaving the network to go to NBC instead. According to Fox News her last day on air is Friday. Her motivation for making the move? According to Kelly, one factor was that she’ll now be working during the day, and will have more time to spend with her three young children.

She will play several roles at NBC, including hosting a daytime program and a Sunday evening news show. Kelly was with Fox News for over 12 years and became one of TV journalism’s biggest voices, especially during the 2016 presidential campaign when she sparred with President-elect Donald Trump.

An ending, and a new beginning… pic.twitter.com/clyKaDpQTW

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) January 3, 2017

This will probably be a hard blow for Fox News, after months of drama surrounding its founding chairman Roger Ailes. Multiple women, including Kelly, have accused Ailes of sexual harassment. Ailes denied all of the accusations but eventually resigned.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 4, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Hey everyone, happy winter solstice! Today marks the beginning of winter and the shortest day of the year for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere. But…that also means it’s only going to get better (and lighter) moving forward! So lean back and enjoy today’s RantCrush. 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:

ISIS Claims Responsibility for the Berlin attack

Yesterday, German officials released the suspect in the truck attack at a Christmas market in Berlin, as there was no hard evidence linking him to the attack. Also yesterday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that a lone “soldier” acted on the group’s behalf. The statement didn’t specify if the man was simply inspired by the group, or if he was directly affiliated with it. Either way, this means that the perpetrator is still at large, and German police launched a countrywide search. However, late last night, a warrant was issued for a 24-year-old Tunisian-born man whose residence permit was found in the truck used in the attack.

#BREAKING German officials confirm to @ABC that manhunt for perpetrator of #Christmas Market attack is 24 y/o Tunisian man pic.twitter.com/ZRFnoND23s

— Matt Gutman (@mattgutmanABC) December 21, 2016

At the same time, the far right in Germany blamed Chancellor Angela Merkel for the attack, claiming that her generous immigration policies are the problem.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Despite Donald Trump’s comments about Saturday Night Live, its writers are still going after the President-elect…hard. In last night’s cold open, Alec Baldwin reprised his fantastic Trump impression, and was visited by Beck Bennett as Vladimir Putin and John Goodman as Rex Tillerson. The SNL skit was incredibly entertaining, but certainly not subtle:

One highlight from the sketch was Putin’s gift of an “elf on a shelf” to Trump–telling him he should keep it out year-round and put it right next to his internet router. Putin and Tillerson also called each other the pet names “Pootie” and “Rexy,” showed off a secret handshake, and talked about oil while Trump asked if they could take out Vanity Fair. The message was clear: SNL was attacking Trump for his relationship with Russia.

And of course, the writers were just making fun of Trump generally. For example, they referenced Trump’s new word “unpresidented” which he has received plenty of flak for tweeting, given that it’s not an actual word.

It took Trump and his team 87 minutes to fix the word “unpresidented.” pic.twitter.com/Bz7NxSqwlo

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) December 17, 2016

Trump hasn’t tweeted about the show yet, but that doesn’t mean he won’t. Most of the previous SNL sketches featuring Baldwin’s impression have drawn Trump’s wrath.

SNL hasn’t forgotten about Hillary Clinton either. Kate McKinnon once again reprised her role as Clinton, to star in a timely “Love Actually” sketch that also took some jabs at Trump.

Clinton shows up at an elector’s door to ask her to vote for anyone else on December 19, presenting a very, very long list of reasons why Trump should not be president.

Regardless of Trump’s feelings about the comedy show, it seems likely that SNL will continue to have some good fodder for sketches for the next four years.

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 SNL Still Isn’t Pulling Any Punches When it Comes to Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

— HamiltonElectors (@HamiltonElector) December 3, 2016

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

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

— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) December 6, 2016

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

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

A North Carolina man was arrested Sunday after he entered a Washington D.C. pizzeria with an assault rifle hoping to investigate an online fake news story involving Hillary Clinton.

Police respond to reports of man with gun at Comet Ping Pong restaurant in D.C. https://t.co/ccH50zq6KH pic.twitter.com/b6mLPkxxRg

— WTOP (@WTOP) December 4, 2016

Police say Edgar Maddison Welch, 28, of Salisbury, North Carolina walked into Comet Ping Pong–located in Chevy Chase–and pointed an AR-15 assault-style rifle in the direction of a restaurant employee, who fled and called police.

Welch reportedly fired the rifle inside of the restaurant, but no one was injured.

According to the Washington Post, police also seized a Colt .38 caliber handgun and a shotgun from Welch. One of those weapons was found inside the restaurant, while the other was located in his car.

Comet Ping Pong was the unlucky target of the #Pizzagate conspiracy theory that went viral last month. A string of fake news stories claimed that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman John Podesta were running a pedophilic sex ring from the pizzeria’s back rooms.

None of the rumors were true, but that didn’t stop the restaurant’s owner, James Alefantis, and his employees from being attacked on social media and receiving death threats.

Reddit banned the Pizzagate subreddit from its site, citing its strict policies against posting personal information of others; however, this was met with a wave of criticism from users on r/The_Donald, a popular pro-Trump subreddit, who felt Reddit’s decision was an act of censorship.

Every “conspiracy” theory has proven right&media wrong. Comet ping pong and #Pizzagate are real. I trust Twitter “reporters” more than CNN

— Jill SteinCrazy (@terrymendozer) December 5, 2016

The rise of fake news stories has become a growing concern as some experts argue it altered the fate of the presidential election. Facebook even went as far as to announce plans to crack down on fake news, but eradicating these types of stories from social media may be next to impossible.

In a statement on Sunday, Alefantis vowed that Comet Ping Pong would “continue to operate safely and securely,” and he condemned those who are working to spread the malicious accusations.

“What happened today demonstrates that promoting false and reckless conspiracy theories comes with consequences,” he said. “I hope that those involved in fanning these flames will take a moment to contemplate what happened here today, and stop promoting these falsehoods right away.”

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 Comet Ping Pong Gunman Says He Was ‘Investigating’ Fake News Story 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 Aides and Clinton Aides Get Heated

Yesterday, aides from the Trump campaign debated aides from the Clinton campaign at Harvard’s Institute of Politics, and it was no picnic. Both sides interrupted each other and raised their voices–team Clinton mostly about alt-righter Steve Bannon’s influence. The Clinton campaign’s Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri said, “If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician, I am more proud to have lost.”

Summary of exchange between Trump’s Kelly Ann Conway and Clinton’s Jennifer Palmieri: pic.twitter.com/CXjWTfTfn5

— (@leahmcelrath) December 2, 2016

What we learned tonight from Trump’s speech and Trump campaign at Harvard is they have not an ounce of graciousness or humility amongst them

— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) December 2, 2016

The conversation centered a lot on how Trump focused on immigration issues to appeal to white voters, and how the FBI bringing Clinton’s emails back into the spotlight could have affected the election. Both sides agreed that the media had acted irresponsibly, as many outlets didn’t take Trump seriously and focused a lot on Clinton’s emails. And when talking about whether Trump’s tweet falsely claiming that millions of undocumented immigrants voted illegally was appropriate, Kellyanne Conway said, “He’s the president-elect, so that’s presidential behavior.”

via GIPHY

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 2, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

— Linda (@lindapmgbosco) November 23, 2016

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

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

— Zach Schonfeld (@zzzzaaaacccchhh) November 24, 2016

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

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

— Yashar (@yashar) November 24, 2016

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

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

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

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

— Ryan Nicole (@kangasroo) November 28, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 24, 2016

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Reddit has been under fire since the company’s co-founder and CEO Steve Huffman admitted that he actively changed posts by Trump supporters on the site. The subreddit r/The_Donald is the most active one for Trump fans. On Thursday Huffman admitted in a post on the subreddit that he changed comments that targeted him personally by switching his Reddit username, u/spez, for the usernames of the Trump page’s moderators, so the hateful attacks seemed to be aimed at them. The spontaneous editing only went on for an hour, but the damage was already done.

Huffman said that it had been a long week trying to recover from “pizzagate” and being called a pedophile, but that his community team is “pretty pissed” at him so he won’t do it again any time soon. Pizzagate refers to an insane conspiracy theory that spread quickly through fake news articles and on Reddit, alleging that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were running a child trafficking business out of a pizzeria in Washington D.C. called Comet Ping Pong.

The pizzeria is real but the story is not, and the owner and staff endured threats and harassment when fired-up people believed the story was true. After Reddit decided to shut down the Pizzagate thread, Huffman got targeted instead. And some people still believe the fake story.

The less obvious upshot to Reddit CEO editing posts: will likely draw more attention to whatever nefariousness he was protecting #pizzagate

— Paul Nehlen (@pnehlen) November 24, 2016

But some people think arbitrary editing should be okay in cases where the original posts are harassing.

tbh I approve of the CEOs behavior. Harassing posts should be subject to edit at the site owner’s whim https://t.co/E63Qf3Ugh6

— Matthew Martin (@hyperplanes) November 28, 2016

However, many Reddit users called Huffman’s actions unethical and called for his resignation. And a legal site called Associate’s Mind argued in an online piece that this might have consequences for how Reddit will be treated under the law in the future. If it is no longer simply a medium for people to express their opinions, but rather a website where admins and owners edit content and express their own opinions, the company might be liable for content posted on it.

Huffman has not commented on some of the r/The_Donald subreddit users’ calls for him to step down as CEO. But he did say that Reddit needs to improve its policies for moderating hate speech. This summer, admins of the site tried to stifle the Trump subreddit’s popularity by changing its algorithm so that it wouldn’t rise to the top or front pages of the site. No matter how small the editing was this time, it was still seemingly a violation of Reddit’s regulations for policing posts and it will remain to be seen how this will affect the company’s popularity.

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 Reddit CEO Admits to Editing Trump Supporters’ Posts appeared first on Law Street.

Despite his transition into the White House, President-elect Donald Trump took time out of his day on Sunday to rehash the election results, going so far as to claim that millions of votes were cast illegally. He made the claim without citing evidence and despite an apparent consensus among election monitors that there was no indication of widespread voter fraud.

President-elect Trump’s comments came as popular vote counts began showing Hillary Clinton’s sizable lead in the popular vote. While Clinton lost the electoral college and the election as a result, it looks likely that she will have a popular vote lead of somewhere between 2.5 to 2.7 million votes, or about 2 percent of all votes cast. This appears to have troubled the president-elect, leading to his claim that enough votes were illegally cast to lose the popular vote.

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

This unprecedented attack on the legitimacy of the same process that elected him president surprised many, particularly because earlier in the day, Trump sent out a series of tweets denouncing the recount effort organized by Green Party candidate Jill Stein. On Saturday, Trump tweeted that the recount effort was a scam.

The Green Party scam to fill up their coffers by asking for impossible recounts is now being joined by the badly defeated & demoralized Dems

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

Last week Stein began raising money to fund a recount in multiple key states, and on Friday, announced that she initiated the recount process in Wisconsin. The Clinton campaign said that it would join in the recount effort, although a lawyer for the campaign indicated that he did not expect the process to change the final outcome. However, that appears to have been enough to upset Trump, who went on to criticize Clinton in several tweets. Trump cited Clinton’s concession speech and statements made during the presidential debates to indicate that she was hypocritically challenging the election after criticizing him for doing the same thing during the campaign.

Just a few hours later, Trump claimed that millions of votes were cast illegally and then alleged that voter fraud occurred in several states. He also claimed that if the popular vote determined the outcome of the election he would have campaigned differently and won that as well.

It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4–

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

states instead of the 15 states that I visited. I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California – so why isn’t the media reporting on this? Serious bias – big problem!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 28, 2016

Glenn Kessler, the fact-checker at the Washington Post, quickly refuted Trump’s claims and gave his statement a “four-Pinocchio” rating, which is reserved for particularly brazen and false claims. While the exact source of Trump’s statements remains unknown, the claim that millions of non-citizens voted illegally has been making its way around some right-wing media sites.

One of the most notable examples of this argument came from the conspiracy website Infowars, which cited a Twitter user and self-described voter fraud expert who made claims about fraud before election data was even available. The site Infowars is run by Alex Jones, a well-known conspiracy theorist who, among other things, seems to believe that no one died in the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. During the campaign, Jones had Trump on his radio show and after the election, he claimed that Trump called to thank him for his support.

Based on all available evidence, claims of widespread voter fraud are false. Trump’s statements have been criticized by independent monitors and election officials alike. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement on Sunday:

It appears that Mr. Trump is troubled by the fact that a growing majority of Americans did not vote for him… His unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud in California and elsewhere are absurd. His reckless tweets are inappropriate and unbecoming of a President-elect.

ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative news outlet that coordinated a massive effort to monitor the election across the country, also refuted the claim in a series of tweets.

We had 1,100 people monitoring the vote on Election Day. We saw no evidence the election was “rigged” no matter what Stein or Trump say. /1

— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

Whether Trump genuinely believes that millions of illegal votes were cast or, as many critics speculate, whether he was using his tweets to distract from other potentially damaging reports–such as the conflicts of interest that Trump will face once in the White House–remains to be seen. However, given that the president-elect has openly challenged the legitimacy of the election, it’s possible that his comments may lead to further calls for recounts.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Without Evidence, Donald Trump Suggests Millions Voted Illegally 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 Election that Will Never End

Over the weekend, Wisconsin began recounting the ballots to see if the totals were right the first time. Green Party leader Jill Stein started the initiative, and on Saturday, Hillary’s campaign team said it will join the effort, after receiving “hundreds of messages, emails, and calls urging us to do something, anything, to investigate claims that the election results were hacked and altered in a way to disadvantage Secretary Clinton,” according to campaign lawyer Marc Elias. Of course some have criticized Hillary for the effort, even calling for punishment.

I Sure Hope @realDonaldTrump Changes His Mind About Prosecuting Hillary Clinton After She Changed Her Mind About Recount #MAGA #AmericaFirst

— Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) November 26, 2016

Trump hit back by saying he would have won the popular vote if you deducted the “millions” of illegal immigrants who voted for Clinton.

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

But if that claim was accurate, wouldn’t he be happy to have a recount to make sure only citizens voted?

Recount the whole god damn thing. NOW. @HillaryClinton you have always been a fighter. For god sake, FIGHT NOW. It’s time. This is real. https://t.co/bbnpVvtxOV

— Elliott Lusztig (@ezlusztig) November 27, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein took on a pretty big project over Thanksgiving weekend–a Wisconsin recount effort. Trump won a narrow, upset victory in Wisconsin. But Stein raised money to look into that victory–citing concerns of election tampering, perhaps from Russian nationals. Now, the Clinton campaign has lent its support–although officials from the campaign don’t seem particularly optimistic.

Stein went after Wisconsin first, given that the deadline to file for a recount was on Friday. She now promises to file in Pennsylvania and Michigan, two other swing states that narrowly went for Trump. In order to support her efforts, Stein has raised more than $5 million (more, CNBC ironically points out, than she raised for her entire presidential campaign).

The margins were indeed thin in those states. According to the New York Times:

In Wisconsin, Mr. Trump leads by 22,177 votes. In Michigan, he has a lead of 10,704 votes, and in Pennsylvania his advantage is 70,638 votes.

But, those are still larger margins than have ever been overcome in a recount. Marc Elias, a lawyer for the Clinton camp explained the campaign’s reasoning for participating, but the statement was decidedly somewhat pessimistic that the recount would change anything:

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.

President-elect Donald Trump was (unsurprisingly) quite unimpressed with Stein’s effort. He called it a “scam” and said “the results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused, which is exactly what Jill Stein is doing.” But as Elias said: “now that a recount is underway, we believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported.” We’ll have to see if Stein’s efforts unearth any new news.

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 Recount Effort Underway in Wisconsin, Clinton Camp Now Participating appeared first on Law Street.

Today is Thanksgiving–a day for giving thanks, eating food, and bonding with family. But after the incredibly contentious and divisive 2016 election, a lot of people are worried they may get into fights with their family members over their presidential preferences. Worried you’ll get sucked in? Check out a roundup of some of the  best tweets about avoiding politics this Thanksgiving, and good luck!

Me: Don’t talk about politics at Thanksgiving
Inner Me: *scream I’m With Her & flip the table* pic.twitter.com/ZgfNs3Gror

— Tyler Philolius (@tylerphilolius) November 22, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post For All the People Who Don’t Want to Talk Politics With Their Relatives on Thanksgiving 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:

Don’t Shoot The Messenger?

Yesterday, CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin interviewed author Charles Kaiser, who is a Trump critic. But when he used the n-word when quoting Steve Bannon, Trump’s pick for White House strategist, she cut him off. “The fact that somebody used the N-word on this show–it is not OK. It is not OK, Charles Kaiser,” she said. She seemed to be close to tears when she interrupted the show and called for a break. Kaiser later wrote to CNN apologizing and also saying he mistook Bannon for Jeff Sessions. Yes, the n-word shouldn’t be normalized, but Kaiser quoted someone else, so didn’t Baldwin miss the point when she cut short the interview?

@BrookeBCNN by being scared of that word you give it power. The context was completely appropriate, esp. in regards to a cabinet member.

— Skyler Acord (@Skyduck64) November 22, 2016

You’re more upset over someone quoting a bigot than you are over that bigot. Don’t act holier than thou. YOU’RE the problem! @BrookeBCNN

— Nnenna..aaaaa (@Live_Beautiful) November 22, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 23, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

People like to caricature millennials as entitled, uninformed, lazy, and a host of other characteristics that are largely off the mark. One thing we all can agree on, however, is the decisive role millennials played in the 2016 election–by either voting or not voting–and the role young people will play in the future of U.S. civic life. Millennials are the most diverse chunk of the electorate in the history of the country, making for an elusive group, one that politicians struggle to understand and connect with. So how did millennials–in all of our diverse glory–vote last Tuesday? And how will our preferences and attitudes shape elections to come?

How Millennials Voted

Members from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tuft’s Tisch College hosted an event at the Brookings Institute in Washington D.C. on Thursday, where they presented data they averaged from multiple sources and polls in regard to the youth vote in 2016. One thing CIRCLE found is that young people voted at about the same rate in 2016 as they did in 2012, with about half of millennials, or 24 million, casting ballots. Of those who voted, 57 percent did so for Hillary Clinton, and 34 percent for President-elect Donald Trump. But these figures tell only a fraction of the entire story.

“There are many stories of young people, and they have different realities, different priorities, and how they voted really reflected that divide they have,” said Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, the director of CIRCLE who presented the data at Brookings. Unsurprisingly, young people’s ethnicity, religion, race, and gender largely colors their feelings and perspectives, and thus shape how they vote.

For instance, in CIRCLE’s pre-election poll, 67 percent of African-Americans youth, and 36 percent of young Latinos said they would be afraid of a Trump presidency, much higher than young whites who felt the same. This is unsurprising, given the fact that the vast majority of Trump’s voters were white, among young, middle-aged, and older voters alike. But there is more to that story as well. Fifty percent of young white women voted for Clinton, while 42 percent voted for Trump. Comparatively, 54 percent of young white men voted for Trump, while 35 percent voted for Clinton.

Shifting Identities

And although millennials turned out in similar numbers as they did in 2012, enthusiasm toward the two major parties is somewhat down. At the Brookings event, Kawashima-Ginsberg and her CIRCLE colleague Abby Kiesa, discussed how political identities and affiliations are different for millennials than they were for previous generations. For example, young people are more likely to embrace the ideological label of “liberal,” yet are also less likely to identify as Democrats.

Young people might increasingly embrace a liberal ideology, Kiesa said, “but don’t necessarily see the Democratic party as an institution that can represent and advance those ideas.” She thinks at least some of this is “related to some young people’s curiosity of third parties.” The Brookings panel also included two important voices, Carmen Berkley and Jane Coaston, both millennials and women of color. They discussed how to keep millennials of all stripes engaged in the political process, and not just every four years, as well as the crosscurrents that could explain how young people voted in 2016.

What Kind of Change?

Like then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008, while with a decidedly different tone, “change” was a galvanizing element of 2016, especially for Trump voters. Coaston, a political reporter for MTV News, questions what change means exactly. Trump voters, she said, “were looking for change, but they weren’t looking for Republican style change, they were looking for Trump style change.”

In other words, it wasn’t change via Republican orthodoxy–small government, less regulation, and free trade–but via Trump’s radical, if not entirely ideological, platform. In the final weeks of the campaign, Coaston said, Trump started talking about infrastructure investment and making schools affordable. “That’s not standard GOP language,” she said.

Engagement

Berkley, the civil, human, and women’s rights director at the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, is focused on a different sort of change. “If you’re a group of white people that work in an institution, and you’re talking about race, racism, gender, and LGBTQ issues, and there are none of us sitting at the table then you are already doing it wrong,” she said.

Berkley thinks the key to ensuring progressive goals expand and strengthen is that communities of color need to be represented in leadership positions. Another key factor of millennial engagement, she said, is though the media channels they use most.

Kawashima-Ginsberg thinks listening to young people’s want for change, not ignoring it and silencing it, is the key to an engaged civic society in the future. “We need to make sure we take that voice of dissent to the current system and make sure they can engage in a professional and democratic manner moving forward,” she said. “Mending our civic fabric is not a luxury, it’s a necessity and I hope we’re all ready to contribute.”

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 Millennial Vote in 2016 and Beyond 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:

Hillary Is Disappointed, and So Are We

Last night Hillary Clinton spoke publicly for the first time since losing the election to Donald Trump. She has stayed out of the public eye since last Tuesday but speaking at a Children’s Defense Fund event in Washington, she said “I know many of you are deeply disappointed about the results of the election. I am, too–more than I can ever express.”

Just watched Hillary Clinton’s speech at the Children’s Defense Fund’s awards ceremony. Oh America. You made a monumental mistake.

— kc wildmoon (@wildmoon) November 17, 2016

“There have been a few times this past week when all I wanted to do was just to curl up with a good book or our dogs, and never leave the house again,” she said. We feel the same, Hillz.

via GIPHY

But she ended on a positive note, saying that America is still the greatest country in the world, and: “This is still the place where anyone can beat the odds. It’s up to each and every one of us to keep working to make America better and stronger and fairer.”

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 17, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

After Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the White House to Donald Trump as a result of the Electoral College system, there have been calls for change. On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill that would abolish the Electoral College and, according to many hopefuls, make future elections fairer.

The presidency is the only office where you can get more votes & still lose. It’s time to end the Electoral College. https://t.co/OXZ9vHaIH1

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (@SenatorBoxer) November 15, 2016

On Tuesday, Clinton was leading the popular vote by 990,758 votes. And by the time that all the votes are counted, the New York Times estimates that she will lead by more than two million, which would be over 1.5 percentage points. Barbara Boxer Boxer said in a statement:

She is on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama. This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts.

Even Donald Trump at one point thought the system was undemocratic, as he pointed out in a long series of tweets in 2012. He even confirmed his stance in an interview on “60 Minutes” on Sunday. He said: “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”

.@realDonaldTrump is exactly right – the candidate with the most votes should win. pic.twitter.com/CG1cvcKbQx

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (@SenatorBoxer) November 15, 2016

But that was Sunday. On Tuesday, he had changed his opinion again, and praised the system on Twitter.

The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2016

He also pointed out that if the election had been based on the popular vote, he would have won it anyway, because he would have focused on campaigning in New York, California, and Florida.

If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2016

Trump is the fifth presidential nominee to win the election despite losing the popular vote. The last one before him was George W. Bush, who beat Al Gore in 2000 even though Gore won the people’s vote by 0.5 percentage point. Since Boxer’s bill is an amendment to the Constitution, it would have to pass by a two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as three-quarters of all states. But no matter the outcome, it is a sign that more people are realizing that the Electoral College is old-fashioned and outdated.

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 Senator Barbara Boxer Introduces Bill To Get Rid of the Electoral College appeared first on Law Street.

One of the best things to come out of this year’s ridiculously messy and drawn-out election cycle was Kate McKinnon’s impression of Hillary Clinton on “Saturday Night Live.” (Although, Larry David’s Bernie Sanders and Alec Baldwin’s Donald Trump renditions were almost as priceless.) On Saturday night’s episode McKinnon reprised her Clinton character by singing “Hallelujah” and ending her song with “I’m not giving up and neither should you!”

Here’s the full cold open:

It was an interesting move for the show–not clearly a comedic take on Tuesday night’s results, but also Clinton’s campaign juxtaposed with some of the lyrics added a touch of poignant levity. For example, she sang:

I did my best, it wasn’t much, I couldn’t feel, so I tried to touch.

I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come to fool you. And even though it all went wrong, I’ll stand before the lord of song, with nothing on my tongue but hallelujah.

The scene was also a nice remembrance of the song’s writer, Leonard Cohen, who died earlier this week.

Alec Baldwin didn’t come back as Trump this week; he had previously said he “hoped” he wouldn’t be back, seemingly indicating that he hoped that Trump wouldn’t win the election and require a new skit.

It’s unclear if Baldwin will continue to play Trump throughout the duration of his presidency. While he makes a perfect Trump, he doesn’t seem to enjoy the role very much. Appearing on “The Brian Lehrer Show” recently, he said:

I’m not an impressionist, per se, but if you do any kind of comedy and they ask you to do that, most of the time, there’s some degree of appreciation, I think, involving somebody you like. Trump is somebody who, I don’t hate Trump, but he’s not somebody I admire, so it was more difficult.

So whether this marks the end of McKinnon’s Clinton, Baldwin’s Trump, or both, it’s a sad day for “SNL.”

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 Kate McKinnon’s Hillary Clinton Has a Perfect Election Wrap Up Song appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mariam Jaffery

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

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

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

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

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

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) November 10, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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:

This. Is. Really. Happening.

Yesterday was a dark day. Hillary Clinton delivered a classy but painful concession speech, saying, “this is not the outcome that we wanted and we worked so hard for, and I am sorry that we did not win this election.” She spoke to supporters and campaign staff in New York about how she did not manage to break the glass ceiling and become the first female president, but that someday, someone will.

Five moments from Hillary Clinton’s concession speech that will break her supporters’ hearts. pic.twitter.com/FjDLpaAwto

— CBS News (@CBSNews) November 9, 2016

Clinton and her listeners were emotional, and many people cried. But she kept a positive and dignified tone, ending with the words: “Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead.”

Thank you @HillaryClinton for your speech and for your endless bravery. We are stronger together.

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) November 9, 2016

And today President Obama is meeting with Trump in DC to go over practical matters. He also kept it cool by telling people, “We’re all on the same team,” referring to our hope that the country will be governed in a good way. Let’s hope that can happen.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 10, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

The Morning After

Last night, it became clear that Donald Trump was the unexpected winner of the election and is going to be the 45th president of the United States. Wednesday morning saw people on the streets of New York in tears and many fear that this is the start of a xenophobic and sexist presidential period. The hashtag #StillWithHer trended on Wednesday morning.

I hope @HillaryClinton knows there was nothing more she could’ve done. She was a warrior. And she made me proud. #StillWithHer

— Max Weiss (@maxthegirl) November 9, 2016

Donald Trump doesn’t respect women, LGBT, Muslims, or any people of color. Therefor, I won’t be respecting him back. #NotMyPresident

— antonio (@antoniodelotero) November 9, 2016

But when the shock subsides, let’s come together and keep fighting to make the world better and more united, not more divided.

We all need to give President-Elect Trump a chance. Support the good. Lobby against what we disagree on. No one is bigger than us all

— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) November 9, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The map above will be updated on election night to reflect the election results as they come in. All results will be based on the official Associated Press state projections. Scroll over the map to see when the polls close in each state as well as how many electoral votes are at stake.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post 2016 Election Results: State by State Map appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, FBI Director James Comey announced that after reviewing new emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer, his decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton remains. Barring any new information, the FBI’s announcement effectively closes Clinton’s case–a conclusion that has left many unsatisfied.

FBI Dir just informed us “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Sec Clinton”

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) November 6, 2016

The FBI was in the process of investigating Anthony Weiner’s computer because of an alleged sexting affair with an underage girl. During the course of that investigation, the FBI found emails related to Hillary Clinton sent or received by Weiner’s estranged wife Huma Abedin, a top Clinton aide.

Soon after Comey’s announcement, conspiracy theorists and Donald Trump supporters questioned whether the FBI could review so many emails in just over a week. Michael T. Flynn, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, seemed to imply that Comey himself had looked through all of the documents.

IMPOSSIBLE:
There R 691,200 seconds in 8 days. DIR Comey has thoroughly reviewed 650,000 emails in 8 days? An email / second? IMPOSSIBLE RT

— General Flynn (@GenFlynn) November 6, 2016

It took 1 year to review 60K and 8 days to review 650K? Smart machines or not, something does not jive. Thoughts?

— General Flynn (@GenFlynn) November 6, 2016

In response to a tweeted question by journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted back an explanation of how a computer could do this:

@jeffjarvis Drop non-responsive To:/CC:/BCC:, hash both sets, then subtract those that match. Old laptops could do it in minutes-to-hours.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) November 7, 2016

Snowden, who revealed the NSA’s metadata surveillance program, said that such a review shouldn’t take very long. And according to reports, most of the emails, that were found on Weiner’s computer were duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI.

John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told NBC on Sunday, “In the days that come, we will have many questions about the FBI’s handling of this investigation. In the meantime, however, I welcome this news confirming again that no charges are warranted in this matter.”

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 Snowden Debunks FBI Investigation Conspiracy Theories with One Tweet appeared first on Law Street.

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

Deja Vu: Clinton Is Cleared By The FBI – Again

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

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

— Nasty Gnu (@GopSux2) November 6, 2016

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

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

via GIPHY

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

Rant Crush

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

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

In the first part of Law Street’s look at the presidential candidates’ environmental policies, we evaluated Donald Trump’s plan to deregulate the energy industry and peel back many of the existing efforts to address climate change. His plans largely focus on undoing as many regulations as possible to allow greater operational freedom to American businesses and using his executive powers to undo previous president’s attempts to protect certain areas of land from fracking and mining.

In the second part, we will review Hillary Clinton’s environmental record and policy proposals. Since Donald Trump’s plans focus more toward energy production rather than protecting the environment and combating climate change, it is not surprising that Hillary Clinton’s positions do more from an environmental perspective. She has committed to some extremely ambitious goals with regards to renewable energy implementation. At the same time, she has chosen to forgo several of the traditionally recommended policy tools used to combat climate change, such as the carbon tax. Are her plans really attainable or are they just empty claims used to attract alienated far left voters to her side? Is she even likely to follow through on her promises based on her political track record? Read on to find out.

Read Part One: Where Does Donald Trump Stand on Environmental Policy?

Hillary Clinton the Environmentalist?

In stark contrast to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton believes in climate change, believes it’s man made, and believes it’s an urgent threat. She has publicly spoken on the importance of combating climate change since the early 2000s; however, her legislative track record on major issues doesn’t always indicate that she’s driven by environmental interests. When asked her position on current issues related to the environment, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, she has often avoided taking a stance. Clinton chose not to take a final position on the Keystone XL Pipeline for over a year, even stating that she wished to declare a position after the election ended. But in September 2015, she announced her formal opposition to the pipeline.

Whether you interpret this as anti-environment is up for debate; Clinton has maintained that her lack of a stance on the issue stemmed largely from the fact that the analysis of whether the pipeline was beneficial to national interest was incomplete. If you see her lack of a choice as her withholding a stance until all the facts were clear, then her decision is understandable. However, many environmental activists, including her primary challenger Bernie Sanders, saw the issue as much more simple: the pipeline endangers U.S. waterways and sets the United States on a track toward dependence on oil instead of investing and committing to renewables. Your interpretation of her stance largely depends on how hard-line of an environmentalist you are.

“Secretary Clinton Speaks at a Press Conference” courtesy of United States Mission Geneva; License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

As Secretary of State, she openly supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which critics claim would prevent individual countries from being able to establish environmental trade regulations. Critics also argue that the TPP openly supports anti-environmental practices such as over-fishing and deforestation. As the Trans-Pacific Partnership evolved it has been modified to include wildlife protection mechanisms to promote the sustainable management of forested zones and fisheries. However, most of these efforts are considered to be small in scale, without any monitoring system in place and the long lasting negative impacts of the TPP are projected to outweigh any potential benefits.

Read More: Growing Holes in Our Ocean’s Fisheries

As a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has reversed her position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership as well–recently coming out against the final deal, while having supported the effort during her term as Secretary of State. It bears noting that Donald Trump has historically opposed the TPP on the grounds that it will damage American manufacturing. If Clinton hadn’t doubled back on her original stance, this would make the deal one of few issues where Trump is effectively taking a more  environmentally progressive position.

Voting Record

Clinton’s voting record also tells a confusing story. While serving as a Senator she voted for a variety of small-scale bills supported by environmental groups and co-sponsored a number of unsuccessful bills to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. But she’s also given her support to several policies that have had seriously detrimental effects on the environment. Possibly the most notable example of this is Clinton supporting the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the legendary bill that gave hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel companies and allocated only a fraction of this money to renewables. The bill also contained Dick Cheney’s infamous Halliburton Loophole, which gave fracking companies special permission to inject toxic chemicals underground and essentially opened the doors for hydrofracking within the United States.

Hillary Clinton has also taken flack over the years for taking donations from fossil fuel interests. According to the most recent analysis by Open Secrets, Clinton has raised a total of $2,203,018 from energy employees, with $2,167,333 of this going to the campaign and the remaining $35,685 going to associated Super PACs. While there’s no way to connect the money she’s taken directly with particular policy decisions, some have claimed that this represents a conflict of interest in terms of her claims of being an environmentalist. Given her confusing voting record, recent shifts on controversial issues and her willingness to take fossil fuel funds, many accuse Clinton of green-washing her public persona for the election, especially in order to compete with Bernie Sanders’ pull with the environmentally-minded millennial generation. Objectively speaking, Hillary Clinton has supported environmentalism out loud but has generally done little to help the movement and on several occasions has directly supported policies that will hurt the environment.

Hillary Clinton’s Plan

Of the two front-runners, Hillary Clinton is the only one with an environmental policy at all, unless you call dismantling E.P.A. regulations an environmental policy. She has publicly committed to supporting and building upon President Obama’s Clean Power Plan as well as ensuring that the United States lives up to its COP 21 Paris Agreement commitments. Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta have both stated that while she would like to see a carbon tax imposed, given the current makeup of Congress such a law would be highly unlikely to pass. In its place, Clinton is committing to more achievable goals, which include increasing funding for renewables, research and development, and energy efficiency, all in the context of increasing American jobs. Even though she has voted for large subsidies for fossil fuel companies in the past, she currently advocates for cutting back funding for oil and gas interests and she has proposed getting rid of tax expenditures for the fossil fuel industry.

With regard to renewable energy, Hillary Clinton has an incredibly aggressive plan to increase proliferation of renewables throughout the country. The plan has two main parts, the first being the goal of installing half of a billion solar panels across the nation during Clinton’s first term. The second is to generate enough renewable energy to power every U.S. home within a decade. To do this she wants to expand upon the Clean Power Plan with a Clean Power Challenge, which would utilize competitive grants, tax incentives, and other market-based incentives to encourage and enable states to independently work toward renewable proliferation. The challenge also places a huge emphasis on updating the grid, improving its infrastructure, and thus also the reliability and efficiency with which it transmits energy. The challenge would include the creation of a fund or a prize that would help enable low-income families and communities to install rooftop solar panels. In addition to increasing renewable energy implementation in American communities, Clinton has championed utilizing public land in the West for solar arrays and wind farms as well as opening up offshore wind farming.

If these goals sound incredibly lofty and ambitious it’s because they are. In fact, they are more ambitious than really anything proposed by anyone before, with the possible exception of Clinton’s primary challenger Bernie Sanders. Many critics have projected that it would be literally impossible to make such a policy work without a carbon tax to make renewables competitive with America’s incredibly cheap natural gas supply. The fact that Clinton has chosen to not pursue a carbon tax and instead attempt to pass smaller scale measures through Congress have made many skeptical that she’s not going to be able to actually do enough to turn her plan into reality.

Realistically, she’s almost certainly right that a carbon tax wouldn’t make it through Congress, but it’s pretty unclear if her alternative plan would be any more welcome. The Clean Power Challenge would cost $60 billion, and its main selling point to Republicans would be that it is designed to create new job opportunities. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the challenge’s commitment to renewable energy flies against what the majority of Republicans are interested in supporting. To bypass Congressional gridlock, Clinton’s plan places a strong focus on using executive power to make these things happen. While it’s not Clinton’s fault, there’s only so much she’ll be able to accomplish solely through executive action; large chunks of her plan will certainly require Congressional approval.

So What Can Actually be Accomplished?

There have been numerous claims over the years that if X or Y region was properly utilized, it could provide enough energy to power the entire United States. While it is technically possible to power this country completely with renewable energy, these claims are often touted by people who don’t understand the engineering behind energy systems or by people with a zealous and innocent belief in what policymakers are capable of or willing to do. Currently, one of the most comprehensive plans for how the United States could run on 100 percent renewable energy has been created by renewable research heavyweight Mark Z. Jacobson and the Standford Precourt Center for Energy. Even this highly ambitious plan projects that if the necessary massive social and economic change were to happen in order to make such policies possible, and it was followed to the letter, the United States still wouldn’t be able to convert fully until 2050. One of the biggest impediments to such a nationwide conversion to renewable energy is that it would require every fuel source to be changed, including the liquid fuel we use to power our cars, trucks, boats, and planes. To completely transform the American transportation sector is a borderline impossible goal because while a solar panel or a wind turbine can feasibly connect to and power any home, most of our cars still run on gas. Electric cars just don’t have the mass circulation that would make such a change possible and to completely eliminate gas-powered cars would go against fair business laws.

What’s truly interesting about Clinton’s renewable plan is that she’s one of the first major politicians to call for opening up the use of offshore wind farming. There’s a good reason why the coastal regions of the United States have been called the “Saudi Arabia of Wind.” There is a massive amount of unused energy lying along our coasts that has been incredibly difficult to tap into thus far due to the extremely high cost of launching such projects, combined with the many public interests that bitterly oppose the industry. It is nearly impossible for Hillary Clinton to live up to her goal of powering the United States on 100 percent renewable energy. However, if she aggressively pursues spreading renewable energy throughout American communities, on public lands and offshore, she could still have a gigantic impact on our renewable energy makeup. The real question is whether she’d actually be able to make any of that happen or if her efforts will be completely blocked off by Congress. Unfortunately, we will simply have to wait and see what happens if she’s elected.

One of the more original and intriguing elements of Clinton’s plan is her proposal to create a Western Water Partnership with the goal of coordinating water use between the West Coast states and the different agencies that control water use within the region. Furthermore, she has proposed creating a Water Innovation Lab dedicated to utilizing and recycling water more efficiently. This proposal is one of the first of its kind in terms of addressing water scarcity in the West on a large scale and could be part of a much-needed solution to help alleviate the burden of the California drought. Clinton has also called for significant revisions to water infrastructure in the United States, including dams, sewage, and waste water systems. This is actually one of few ideas that she and Trump might actually agree on; Trump has stated that he believes water to be a vital issue and that it’s crucial that we update our water infrastructure. However, unlike Clinton, he has given no details on how to do this and has stated that he wants to remove restrictions on drilling near waterways, which would ultimately worsen the American water crisis. Clinton has also promised to protect public lands and prioritize wildlife conservation, in stark contrast to Trump’s announcement that he would open up all federally protected land to oil and gas companies.

Conclusion

Neither candidate has a sterling history of environmentalism, but only one candidate has actually made a commitment to combat climate change. If Trump were to become president, it would be possible for him to hinder progressive environmental policy by replacing the EPA leadership with climate deniers while fighting to remove environmental regulations. If his preferred candidates to lead the EPA were to get approval from Congress, then it would be feasible for him to undo a lot of the progress that has been made thus far with American environmentalism.

Clinton has a spotty record when it comes to the environment and has made dubious choices about many important issues in the past, such as the Energy Policy Act, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Keystone XL Pipeline. However, her current environmental platform has made her commitment to the environment clear and she has doubled back on all of her previous controversial positions (at least with regard to the environment). Whether her current stance is due to green-washing for the 2016 election, or due to Obama’s legacy of the Clean Power Plan influencing her opinions, or due to Bernie Sanders forcing her to move further to the left in the primaries, the end result is that she’s pursuing an aggressively progressive environmental policy. Whether her methods to make that policy a reality will be effective remains to be seen, but when it comes to environmental policy, Hillary Clinton is the superior candidate.

Resources

The Atlantic: How Green is Hillary Clinton?

Business Insider: Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Climate Change

Democracy Now: How Much Money has Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Taken from Fossil Fuel Companies?

Environmental Protection Agency: Summary of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Fact Check: Clinton’s Fossil Fuel Money Revisited

Grist: Who’s Really in Charge on E.P.A. Rules? A Chat With Legal Scholar Lisa Heinzerling

High Country News: Are Hillary Clinton’s Clean Energy Goals Achievable?

Hillary Clinton Fact Sheets: Renewable Energy Vision

National Geographic: 4 Ways Green Groups say Trans-Pacific Partnership will Hurt the Environment

New York Times: Clinton’s Ambitious Clean Power Plan Would Avoid Carbon Tax

NPR: Fact Check: More on Hillary Clinton and Fossil Fuel Industry Contributions

Open Secrets: Hillary Clinton

Politico: Clinton Says her Keystone XL Position Isn’t a Flip Flop

Politico: Hacked emails from John Podesta: Clinton Disses Environmentalists in Private Meetings with Unions

Politico: The Politico Wrong-o-Meter: Fact Checking the 2016 Presidential Debate

Think Progress: Environmentalists: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a Disaster for Climate Change

Scientific American: Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Combat Climate Change

Sierra Club: Trans Pacific Partnership

The Washington Post: Campaign Finance 2016

The Washington Post: Bernie Sanders Thumps Hillary Clinton for Keeping Mum on the Keystone XL Pipeline

The Washington Post: Energy Bill Raises Fear about Pollution, Fraud

The Washington Post: Fact Checking the Campaigns for and against the TPP Trade Deal

The White House: What Environmental and Conservation Advocates are Saying about the TPP’s Environmental Chapter

Vote Smart: Hillary Clinton’s Voting Records

Vox: Here’s What it Would take for the U.S. to Run on 100% Renewable Energy

Time: Lobbyists Celebrate Democratic Party’s New Embrace at Convention

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Hillary Clinton Stand on Environmental Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday afternoon the internet went totally wild after finding out about one more leaked email that supposedly proved that John Podesta, and therefore the whole Clinton clan, are Satanists.

#SpiritCooking: Podesta has band-aid on middle finger, likely from a cut, just like Marina Abramovic suggest for a “Spirit Dinner” pic.twitter.com/4Edf1bdLqC

— MicroTurkeyLeaks™ (@WDFx2EU7) November 4, 2016

The email in question was sent to John Podesta from his brother, asking if John could join him for a dinner at artist Marina Abramovic’s place. He included the forwarded email from Abramovic, in which she described the dinner as a “Spirit Cooking”. Because of that phrasing, right wing people online got all frenzied and started sharing their best conspiracy theories. The hashtag #SpiritCooking had over 500,000 tweets by late afternoon.

#SpiritCooking

It all makes sense now. The whole family is involved in this satanic cult. pic.twitter.com/KVV7FbOV6w

— Neil Turner (@NeilTurner_) November 4, 2016

The most disturbing thing about the whole #SpiritCooking Scandal is that NO DEMOCRATS are condemning it! Their silence speaks volumes!!!

— Joshua (@joshuakassemi) November 4, 2016

Despite the influx of conspiracy theories, it doesn’t seem likely that it was a real, blood-drinking orgy that took place. “Spirit Cooking with Essential Aphrodisiac Recipes” is the name of a cookbook that Abramovic created for a 1996 exhibition at the MoMA. It was accompanied by a piece of performance art in which she paints with blood and incorporates  a huge snake.

Wow. I just got to this video about #spiritcooking…skipping dinner this evening… https://t.co/Qahq8OGcav via @YouTube

— Hispanic4TrumpPence (@esgrimista73) November 4, 2016

The list of ingredients in the cookbook did call for “fresh breast milk with fresh sperm milk” to be consumed “on earthquake nights,” but the dinner she invited the Podestas to was more a normal one, with real food. “It was just a normal dinner,” she said to artnews.com on Friday afternoon. “There was no blood, no anything else. We just call things funny names, that’s all.” She told the website that John Podesta never made it to dinner and they have never met in real life. She called the right-wing attacks “absolutely outrageous and ridiculous.”

At least as President, Hellary could call the Vatican hotline & get the Pope to perforrm an exorcism #SpiritCooking

— Deplorabe Majority (@trolling4tuna) November 4, 2016

Thankfully all of this insane election mudslinging will be over soon.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post The Internet Thinks Podesta is a Satanist After Leaked #SpiritCooking Email appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Kathy (@PayDownTheDebt) November 4, 2016

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

— Fortune (@FortuneMagazine) November 3, 2016

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

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

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

— jack (@jack) November 2, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Robert McNees (@mcnees) November 4, 2016

Alexis Evans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mariam Jaffery

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

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

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

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

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

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

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

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

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

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Black voters showed up in historically large numbers in 2008 and 2012 to help elect Barack Obama to the White House. Will that trend continue in 2016? If early voting numbers are any indication, black turnout will be a bit lower than in the previous two elections. And on Wednesday, President Obama, in an interview with radio host Tom Joyner, said African-American turnout is “not as solid as it needs to be,” for his preferred successor, Hillary Clinton.

“I need everybody to understand that everything we’ve done is dependent on me being able to pass the baton to somebody who believes in the same things I believe in,” he said, noting that Trump might even rip up Michelle Obama’s vegetable gardens.

Obama has been pushing this message in the weeks leading up to Election Day, and in the midst of the early voting period, when compared to 2012 numbers, the number of black voters casting ballots early has dipped slightly. For instance, in North Carolina, blacks have cast 23 percent of the state’s early votes, 111,000 less than at this point in 2012, when they made up 28 percent of early voters. Clinton is failing to muster Obama-level enthusiasm among black voters in Florida as well.

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina tried to change the state’s voting laws, but a federal court struck down the measure because it “targeted black voters with surgical precision.” Obama told the audience at a rally in Chapel Hill on Wednesday as much, adding that it is now “easier to vote than ever” in North Carolina. “What’s our excuse?” he added.

Obama is not the only Clinton acolyte making an 11th hour pitch to black voters. Bill Clinton visited Detroit on Wednesday and met with black ministers. But Obama–who captured 95 percent of the black vote in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012–is Clinton’s most valuable and vocal supporter in the waning days of the election.

He warned voters on Wednesday of the implication a Trump White House could have on his legacy: “If we let this thing slip and I’ve got a situation where my last two months in office are preparing for a transition to Donald Trump, whose staff people have said that their primary agenda is to have him in the first couple of weeks sitting in the Oval Office and reverse every single thing that we’ve done.” 

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 Obama Says Black Turnout “Not as Solid as it Needs to Be” appeared first on Law Street.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch will likely face more questions in regards to her “secret meeting” with former president Bill Clinton, thanks to a new lawsuit filed Wednesday by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) against the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The meeting between Lynch and Clinton took place aboard her plane on June 27 in Phoenix, Arizona, and lasted about 30 minutes. It was deemed controversial, given that it came a week before Lynch announced that her department had closed its federal probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails without filing any criminal charges.

At the time Lynch claimed that the pair’s conversation was “primarily social” and that they had spoken a great deal about grandchildren, traveling, and golf. But even Lynch agreed that the meeting had “cast a shadow” over the investigation.

The ACLJ previously sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the DOJ and the FBI demanding an explanation as to why the meeting was allowed to transpire, calling for her resignation.

Then last week, in a letter to Congress,  FBI Director James Comey announced a new investigation into Clinton’s emails–this time focusing on emails found on devices belonging to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide, and her former husband Anthony Weiner.

In the complaint, the conservative Christian organization is demanding specific information regarding communications sent between Lynch and the former president, as well as the names of any officials or staff members present during the exchange.

The organization has repeatedly condemned President Obama and his appointees  in the past. In fact, this marks the fourth major federal lawsuit the ACLJ has filed against the Obama administration for what it considers to be “corruption and failure to comply with FOIA.” It has also launched a petition demanding a full, thorough, and unbiased FBI investigation into Secretary Clinton’s email server.

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 ACLJ Sues Loretta Lynch Over “Secret Meeting” With Bill Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

Innocent Googlers just trying to figure out the definition of “pathological lying” were subjected to internet trolling on Monday, when users edited its Wikipedia page to include presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s picture.

Everyone Google the words – Pathological Lying – right now. This is what I got – no joke. pic.twitter.com/jX7m1krIE3

— Brett R. Smith (@BrettRSmith76) October 31, 2016

Typically when Google users put in their search query, the first result is often a brief section of the query’s corresponding Wikipedia page. Because of this feature, the first search result users saw alongside the Wikipedia page for “pathological lying” was Hillary Clinton’s photo.

The Wikipedia revision history for the “pathological lying” page shows the many different users who meddled with the article. The first of these changes occurred on October 28, by an anonymous user who “Added the only person who has a proven track record for being a Pathlogical [sic] liar. References can be easily looked up on wikileaks, most media sites, and thru [sic] congressional hearings.”

IP addresses are used to identify anonymous users who make changes or additions to Wikipedia posts. From a search on the internet, the aforementioned user’s IP address was located in Bedminster Township, New Jersey at the time of the search, only 10 minutes from the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster. Interesting.

On October 29, a different anonymous user added the photo of Clinton to the page. This IP address is located in Boise, Idaho, where Clinton is far behind Trump in multiple polls.

Users went back and forth reverting each other’s edits until October 31 when moderators locked the page until November 3, citing “persistent vandalism.”

As of November 1, moderators had locked the page until after the election, writing, “Changed protection level of Pathological lying: make protrection [sic] consistent with other articles being attacked, until after the election.”

In similar fashion, the first result when users search “45th U.S. president” is the Wikipedia page for “United States presidential election, 2016,” which briefly showed a picture of only Trump. Wikipedia moderators also chose to lock this page due to a wave of recent edits.

@triplejHack What in the Wide World of Sports is going on with Google!? pic.twitter.com/PJHC23CzDK

— Dilo on Fire (@FireDilo) October 31, 2016

Julia Bryant

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

The post A Rigged Election, A Rigged Search Engine, and Rigged Wikipedia appeared first on Law Street.

Actress Lena Dunham hit the mark with her 2016 Halloween Costume, seemingly inspired by quotes from Republican nominee Donald Trump. She dressed as a surprised cat with two plastic hands attached to her, portraying a “grabbed p***y.” She posted a picture on her Instagram on Monday evening. “Happy Halloween! With love from a Grabbed P—y,” she wrote.

@LenaDunham sassily takes aim at Donald Trump with her Halloween costume https://t.co/znoJ4dogVF pic.twitter.com/0oUufCP6lL

— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) November 1, 2016

Dunham’s inspiration came from the audio recording that was leaked earlier in October when Trump was heard saying, “when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything,” to TV personality Billy Bush, who has since been sacked by NBC. And ironically the tape might have still been a secret if Bush himself hadn’t bragged about having had that conversation with Trump while in Rio covering the Olympics. Someone at NBC then thought it would be funny to dig up the old tape and release it, which Bush probably hadn’t counted on.

Dunham is a Clinton supporter and spoke out against Trump in People Magazine after the audiotape was released:

To hear someone in a position of power, in the race for the highest office in the land, to say something that is so distinctly violent, and so distinctly abusive — I think it creates a lot of fear and a lot of sort of pain in the public consciousness that we’re going to be dealing with for a long time.

Over the weekend and on Monday, she campaigned for Clinton in North Carolina and has been urging people on Twitter to go vote early.

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 Lena Dunham Took a Shot at Trump with Bold Halloween Costume appeared first on Law Street.

Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader and retiring Democratic Senator of Nevada, sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey calling on him and his team to release to the public the “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government” that Comey allegedly possesses. But does the FBI possess any “explosive information” regarding Trump’s ties to Russia? And what about those recent claims by a former spy that Trump’s allies maintain a backchannel to a Russian bank?

First, a bit of background:

Comey and the FBI find themselves at the center of an extraordinarily divisive presidential campaign that cannot end soon enough for all parties (and voters). It started with an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, which concluded without an indictment. Last week, however, Comey’s team stumbled upon some emails that were pertinent to the Clinton case while reviewing Anthony Weiner’s sexting case. Comey sent a letter to Congress alerting them of the new development, which in turn sparked claims of Comey’s anti-Clinton bias by Democrats and a new round of Clinton attacks by Republicans.

A story published Monday by the website Mother Jones featured a “former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence” as a source. He said that “in recent months he provided the [FBI] with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump.”

The FBI has in fact investigated Trump’s ties to any Kremlin entities, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leader who Trump has profusely praised. They also investigated, and continue to investigate, the hacks involving Democratic emails released by Wikileaks in recent weeks. FBI officials, speaking under the condition of anonymity, told The New York Times on Monday that “no clear link” has been discovered between Trump and Russia, and that the hacks are intent on undermining American democracy rather than electing Trump, as many Democrats have implied.

“It isn’t about the election,” a senior official told the Times. “It’s about a threat to democracy.” And then there are the accusations by the former spy who spoke with Mother Jones that Trump and his team maintains a back channel to Russia’s Alfa Bank, which the Clinton campaign–which seesawed between attacking Comey for his renewed probe into her emails and remaining silent on the matter–called “the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.”

The FBI investigated the Trump-Alfa Bank connection, and found “there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.” Trump’s Press Secretary Hope Hicks responded to the allegations regarding the server: “First of all, it’s not a secret server. The email server, set up for marketing purposes and operated by a third-party, has not been used since 2010,” she said. “The Trump Organization has no communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.”

Alfa Bank, the largest private commercial bank in Russia, responded to the claims as well. A spokesman for the bank said rumors that the bank is involved in a shadowy connection with Trump or his campaign is  “patently false.” He said the activity between the two servers were “caused by a spam attack.” He added: “Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr Trump or his entities.” 

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 How Credible are the Claims That Trump Has Deep Ties with Russia? appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton is seriously considering Vice President Joe Biden to fill her secretary of state cabinet slot if she wins the White House, according to a source with knowledge of the deliberations. Clinton and her aides are composing a strategy of how to convince Biden to join a Clinton administration, the source told Politico, and the vice president, who nearly ran against Clinton in the Democratic primaries, has yet to be approached by her camp.

“[Clinton] is spending a lot of time figuring out the best way to try to persuade him to do it if she wins,” the source told Politico. Biden seemed to have shot down the possibility in an interview on Friday: “I’ll do anything I can if Hillary’s elected to help her, but I don’t want to remain in the administration,” he said. It’s unclear if he has spoken to Clinton about the matter, and if she still plans to sway him to her camp.

Biden certainly brings a wealth of international experience–he headed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee–yet he and Clinton share a history of divergent opinions on key foreign policy issues. As secretary of state, Clinton consistently held more hawkish stances than Biden: He was resistant to the troop surge in Afghanistan; she supported the move. Biden opposed maintaining a troop presence in Iraq, a move Clinton supported. Clinton supported arming Syrian rebels; Biden did not. And Clinton was in favor of bombing Libya–she in fact pushed the move–while Biden was not.

Other names that the Clinton camp is reportedly chewing on: Wendy Sherman, undersecretary to Warren Christopher from 1993 to 1996, and the former CEO and President of the Fannie Mae Foundation; Bill Burns, currently the President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and a former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and Jordan.

A key question, of course, is whether Biden, if approached by Clinton, would want to continue to serve in political office. He flirted with a 2016 presidential run (“Lord, have mercy,” Clinton’s Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri wrote in an email at the time”), ultimately deciding to forgo that path. While campaigning for Clinton on Monday in Toledo, Ohio–he has ravenously campaigned for her–Biden offered a tiny hint of where he might be headed in the coming months: “I may write a book,” 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 Clinton Considering Biden for Secretary of State; Does Biden Even Know? appeared first on Law Street.

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

1. Nasty Woman

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

— People Magazine (@people) October 24, 2016

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

Alexis Evans

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

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

FBI Director James Comey, in a letter sent to Congress on Friday, announced a new probe into emails Hillary Clinton sent over a private sever. The new investigation is unrelated to the previous one that ultimately found Clinton not guilty of any criminal offense, but of being “extremely careless.” Comey writes:

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation

The New York Times is reporting that the emails were discovered after the FBI investigated devices belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her ex-husband, Anthony Weiner, in their case involving Weiner’s sexting practices. Apparently, there are three emails, not necessarily even involving Clinton, being reviewed.

Despite Election Day’s rapid approach, Comey said he “cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work.” Comey’s letter had an unexpected ripple effect after its release today: the stock market dipped, as many investors expecting a Clinton victory on November 8 were caught off guard. The Dow Jones average fell by over 150 points.

But a source told NBC’s Pete Williams that the FBI’s second look at Clinton’s email practices does not quite constitute a “reopening,” (in fact, Comey does not use this word in his letter) as many media outlets are reporting. Williams said that it appears that the new probe involves “another device,” and while Clinton could face a political fallout from the announcement, there might not be legal ramifications.

Donald Trump seemed excited by the FBI’s announcement. At a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, he said he was “very proud” of the bureau, adding “I think they are going to right the ship, folks.” On cue, the crowd commenced with their go-to chant: “Lock her up!” Trump also said Clinton’s seemingly immortal email scandal is “bigger than Watergate.”

While social media is bursting with Clinton supporters questioning Comey’s motives, and Clinton detractors reading his letter as the final dagger in her candidacy, Comey might simply be doing his job by reexamining fresh evidence, saying nothing of the content of that evidence–damaging or not. According to Newsweek, Comey likely did not have a choice but to renew the investigation: “because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.”

The Associated Press is also reporting that according to a U.S. official, the new emails did not come from Clinton’s private server. Hang on folks, Election Day is almost here. Until then, stay tuned to Law Street for the latest updates on this and other issues.

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 Is the FBI Reopening its Investigation into Clinton’s Emails? appeared first on Law Street.

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

North Carolina

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

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

Florida

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

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

Red to Blue?

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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:

PA AG Goes to Prison

If you like weird political scandals, then boy do I have a doozy for you. You may or may not have heard of Kathleen Kane, the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania. She ran for office to break up the “old boys club” dominating PA politics, but her methods weren’t so pure. She ended up leaking grand jury testimony about one of her rivals (which is illegal) and lying about it to a different grand jury (also super illegal.) She was found guilty of two felony perjury charges and seven misdemeanor counts and resigned from office. She has now been sentenced to 10-23 months in prison.

Former Pa. Attorney General Kathleen Kane leaves in handcuffs after her sentencing at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown. pic.twitter.com/3Zkkld66Nh

— Dan Gleiter (@DanGleiter) October 24, 2016

Rant Crush

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

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

The average premium cost for a midlevel plan on the federal health care exchange will rise by 25 percent in 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on Monday. With two weeks to election day, it’s an issue that voters will be paying close attention to, and an issue Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will likely address in the coming days.

In addition to premium hikes, customers in some states will have a much smaller pool of insurers to choose from, as a handful of major firms–United Health Group, Humana, Aetna–have pulled out or scaled back in a number of states. Customers in the 39 states that participate in the HealthCare.gov exchange can expect some relief in the form of income-based subsidies.

President Obama successfully passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and the federal marketplace launched in 2013, though not without some hiccups. Obama, who has acknowledged his fix for America’s health care–and perhaps one of his legacy-defining issues–is not a silver bullet, called the 2017 forecast “growing pains,” while pushing a government-sponsored “public option” to supplement the private plans. To quell customers’ concerns about rising out-of-pocket costs, the Obama administration pointed to increased subsidies that could help offset the costs in some cases, as well as the option of switching to a cheaper plan.

Donald Trump, as well as Republican lawmakers who have long doubted the ACA, pounced on the new HHS report. The first step to improving health care affordability is “to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare,” according to his campaign website. Trump’s plan is largely based on the idea of opening up the insurance market across state lines, and removing the “barriers to entry into free markets.” Clinton’s stance on health care is to “defend and expand” the ACA while creating a “public option” and increasing subsidies.

Obamacare is a disaster – as I’ve been saying from the beginning. Time to repeal & replace! #ObamacareFail pic.twitter.com/5CvoMbVceT

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 25, 2016

Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told USA Today that the premium increases are due to “insurers catching up to the fact that the number of sick people signing up for insurance is bigger than expected.” He added, “Whether this is a one-time market correction or a sign of more problems ahead will depend in large part on how consumers react to the changes.”

Despite the price jump, the percentage of Americans who are uninsured is at a historic low; only nine percent lack coverage. In a news release, HHS said that more than 70 percent of HealthCare.gov customers will be able to find plans costing less than $75 each month after tax credits are accounted for. And although one in five customers will have only one insurer to choose a plan from, the average consumer will have 30 plans to choose from.

While premiums are projected to increase significantly, most Americans who get health insurance on the exchanges qualify for federal subsidies, which are designed to go up with premiums to reduce the effect of rising costs on consumers. However, 5 to 7 million Americans either do not get individual insurance on the exchanges or do not qualify for federal subsidies, forcing them to bear the brunt of the cost increase or switch to a cheaper plan.

Overall, competition on the exchanges has dwindled. In 2016, there were 232 insurers in the 39 participating states (insurers are counted for each state they have plans in). In 2017, that number will shrink to 167.

Open enrollment for the 2017 exchange begins on November 1.

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 Average Premium Under Obamacare to Rise by 25 Percent Next Year appeared first on Law Street.

AT&T’s $85.4 billion deal to buy Time Warner turned media consolidation into a campaign issue for both Democrats and Republicans this past weekend. 

The biggest deal of the year–announced just over two weeks before the November 8 U.S. election–received backlash from critics who believe the combination of AT&T’s millions of wireless and pay-television subscribers with Time Warner’s stable of TV networks and programming would reduce competition and hurt consumers.

Any merger would have to be reviewed and approved by federal antitrust regulators. The announcement caused a stir in Washington and led the candidates to criticize the status quo on antitrust and regulatory enforcement.

Donald Trump’s campaign has remained vocal about its distaste for the media and proposed merger did not sit well with the billionaire mogul.

“As an example of the power structure I’m fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” Trump said during a speech on Saturday.

The Republican candidate has been vocal about the “disgusting and corrupt” media. The campaign’s economic advisor Peter Navarro criticized the new media oligopolies for unduly influencing America’s political process.

“AT&T, the original and abusive ‘Ma Bell’ telephone monopoly, is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal because it concentrates too much power in the hands of the too and powerful few,” Navarro said in a statement on Sunday.

Trump said that if he is elected, he would look at breaking up the 2011 merger of Comcast and NBCUniversal. The Obama administration approved the merger with some restrictions in 2011.

Trump said of Comcast-NBCUniversal, “We’ll look at breaking that deal up, and other deals like that. This should never, ever have been approved in the first place.”

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hasn’t yet weighed in on the merger plan, but her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he shared “concerns and questions” raised by fellow Senator Al Franken, a Democrat representing Minnesota. Franken, a member of the antitrust subcommittee, said in a statement that huge media mergers “can lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers.”

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders joined the political opposition and urged the Obama administration to kill the deal. He tweeted:

The administration should kill the Time Warner-AT&T merger. This deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 23, 2016

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The AT&T-Time Warner Deal Quickly Becomes a Campaign Issue appeared first on Law Street.

What do you get when you put cute animal videos next to hard political news? A nice way to take your mind off of the craziness of this election, that’s what!

The writers over at The Washington Post must be having a hard time coping with the stress of the election, and they seem to feel that most Americans are as well.

Because of the increasing anxiety leading up to November 8, WAPO has unveiled a series of videos intended to help people relax–a much needed distraction from fiery rhetoric and constant insults.

One of the videos features a koala bear getting its belly rubbed for around 45 seconds.

The videos are all titled “Election-free video: No Trump, no Clinton. Just [insert cute or amazing thing here],” and there are currently five of them on the Post’s video channel Relax 2016.

They begin each video with an aggressive flashing of election coverage clips all over the screen. Then the video suddenly cuts to all black, adding the text “And now, The Washington Post presents something else entirely.”

Are cute animals not really your thing? How about drone footage of Versailles?

WAPO said on October 19, “From now until Election Day, The Washington Post Video team will share daily politics-free videos to help you de-stress from the calamities of this election season.”

Their latest video features a polar bear playing in a kiddie pool filled with ice.

People on  social media seem to really be enjoying these posts as well.

@washingtonpost love your non election video of zen & a koala getting a belly rub. ❤ from your mates Down Under. https://t.co/UgtxNsX8c4

— Danielle Lonnon (@DameDivaDan) October 19, 2016

This is very important. https://t.co/xO56cgA297

— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) October 18, 2016

A reminder: The world is actually wonderful — Election-free video: Just a beautiful jellyfish. https://t.co/v9dkngj9R6

— Doubtful News (@DoubtfulNews) October 18, 2016

It is hard to speculate what other videos they plan to put out, but whatever they come up with will probably  be much better than listening to nonstop election coverage.

Julia Bryant

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

The post The Washington Post is Stressed Out by This Election appeared first on Law Street.

In an unusually personal and venomous presidential campaign, it is hardly a surprise that when the two candidates got together Thursday night for a charity roast, the mood darkened quite quickly. Usually an occasion for convivial ribbing, this year’s Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner was no casual affair. Named after the first Catholic to win a major party nomination, Democrat and former New York governor Alfred E. Smith (he lost to Herbert Hoover in 1928), the quadrennial dinner is meant to raise money for a Catholic foundation, and less officially, to temper the home stretch before Election Day.

Donald Trump started off strong, toeing the line between roasting his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and using the podium as yet another opportunity to launch personal attacks. One of his more well received jabs of the night came when he addressed the claims that his wife Melania has plagiarized speeches by Michelle Obama. “They think [Obama] is absolutely great,” he said. “My wife Melania gives the exact same speech, and people get on her case.”

At times however, Trump sounded like he thought the audience was made up of his rally attendees, not a gaggle of New York City elite. His more caustic remarks drew jeers and boos from the crowd at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City, which included former mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, and the city’s Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman.

“Hillary believes that it’s vital to deceive the people by having one public policy and a totally different policy in private,” Trump said. “Here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics.” He was referring to one of Clinton’s leaked emails that included a transcript of a speech in which she mentioned keeping public and private stances separate, and another in which one of her campaign officials questioned some Catholic beliefs.

Watch Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton roast each other at the annual Al Smith dinner pic.twitter.com/x0TaKpic22

— Press Association (@PA) October 21, 2016

Though the night was centered around them speaking about each other, Clinton and Trump hardly acknowledged each other’s existence. Eye contact between the two was a rarity, and they only briefly shook hands as they were leaving the room. With Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, sitting between them (the “iciest place on the planet,” he said), there was no elbow rubbing or dinner chatter, though they did share a fleeting private conversation at one point.

Clinton was more self-deprecating than her famously thin-skinned counterpart. “I took a break from my rigorous nap schedule to be here,” she said. “Usually, I charge a lot for speeches like this,” referencing her widely-maligned paid speeches to Wall Street firms. She also found material in Trump’s penchant for hitching a number ranking to women: “Donald looks at the Statue of Liberty and sees a ‘4,’” she said. “Maybe a ‘5’ if she loses the torch and tablet and changes her hair.”

Clinton also addressed Trump’s recent claims the election will be rigged, saying he will only accept the results “if I win.” Clinton said: “It’s amazing I’m up here after Donald. I didn’t think he’d be O.K. with a peaceful transition of power.”

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 Boos and Burns: At Thursday’s Charity Roast, Clinton and Trump Got Personal appeared first on Law Street.

What’s Wrong With the Original?

Twitter is a force to be reckoned with. Marvel was basically forced to pull its character Riri Williams as the new Iron Man after sharp criticism from Twitter users and The Mary Sue. People claimed that the character, a fifteen year old, was being sexualized, and that she was drawn in a manner that did not match that of a teenage girl.

Riri Williams is 15 years old. Unfortunately, it seems some comic artists have never laid eyes on a young teenager… pic.twitter.com/hUxKhaGbxc

— Donna The Dead (@MildlyAmused) October 19, 2016

The artist, J. Scott Campbell, told the Twitterverse he was simply trying to portray “a sassy, coming-of-age young woman” and did not expect this reaction. Now his Riri Williams is being replaced with a new version.

.@Marvel pulled the controversial #RiriWilliams variant cover & released these teaser sketches of #InvincibleIronMan https://t.co/BkghwthWoo pic.twitter.com/T0yFnTbRTE

— The Mary Sue (@TheMarySue) October 21, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Because this year’s election couldn’t get any weirder, song spoofer extraordinaire Weird Al autotuned his own version of the third presidential debate. The song, aptly called “Bad Hombres, Nasty Women,” was released by Schmoyoho, a Youtube channel that mostly features autotuned songs and videos. In the video, Weird Al acts as the moderator, posing “questions” to the candidates, and then autotuning and mixing the answers they actually gave at the debate itself. Check it out below:

While the answers were just autotuned versions of the ones that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump said at the actual debate on Wednesday night, Weird Al’s questions, were, of course, facetious. Weird Al asked if they would thumb wrestle Vladimir Putin–whose name obviously came up a lot on Wednesday. He also asked the candidates about their Supreme Court plans, noting that he would not be in the running–which is unfortunate if you were looking forward to autotuned and spoofed judicial decisions. In true rhyming fashion, other questions from Weird Al included: “can everyone achieve the American dream?” and “should they sign up for my Ponzi scheme?”

This, of course, isn’t the first fantastic spoof to come out of the exhausting debates between the two candidates. Bad Lip Reading did a very solid rendition of the first debate:

And of course, everyone has loved “Saturday Night Live’s” version of the debates, starring Kate McKinnon as Hillary Clinton, and Alec Baldwin as a fantastic Donald Trump:

While this election cycle might feel like it’s never-ending, at least there are plenty of funny things to watch.

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 Weird Al Releases His Own Version of the Third Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange revealed in early October that he will publish a huge tranche of one million leaked documents before the U.S. presidential election–and over the last few weeks these revelations have caused a stir in American politics.

Julian Assange’s whistleblower platform WikiLeaks has published about 20,000 pages of emails illegally stolen from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair. Podesta, a longtime Clinton hand and Democratic party operative, was President Obama’s top political adviser before becoming chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign in February 2015.

The hacked emails provide an unprecedented glimpse into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign and its allies.

The U.S. government has said there is mounting evidence to suggest that Russia was responsible for supplying WikiLeaks with the hacked emails.

Clinton condemned the email hack during the third and final presidential debate. Moderator Chris Wallace, of Fox News, pressed the Democratic nominee to clarify her opinion on “open borders.” While Clinton rejected that she ever supported “open borders,” Wallace pointed to a $25,000 speech to a Brazilian bank, recently exposed by WikiLeaks, in which Clinton said that her “dream is a hemispheric common market, and open trade and open borders.”

“You are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks. What’s really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russians have engaged in espionage against Americans,” Clinton said. “They have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the internet.”

Clinton accused the highest levels of the Russian government and Putin himself for the cyberattacks on the U.S. The Democratic nominee called on Donald Trump to reject Russian espionage against Americans.

The Republican nominee criticized Clinton for pivoting the conversation about immigration to Putin. Trump offered his insights on the Russian leader, saying:

I don’t know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russian and the US get along well and went after ISIS that would be good.

When asked whether he condemned Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. elections, he said: “Of course I condemn, be it Russia or anybody else.”

The emails have raised fears for both political parties. Florida Senator Marco Rubio warned GOP officials earlier this week to stay quiet about the hacks.

“As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it,” Rubio said. “Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us.”

The 2016 presidential election continues to remain an unpredictable cycle marked by the leaks of emails, voice recordings, tax returns and classified information.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Political Fears Surrounding WikiLeaks: What You Should Know appeared first on Law Street.

Good news, everyone! We don’t have to worry about Trump contesting the election and claiming it was rigged…if he wins. Here’s a video:

JUST IN: Trump: “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election… if I win” https://t.co/4z453rVzqK

— CNN (@CNN) October 20, 2016

This speech from Trump was a follow up to last night’s debate, when Trump was asked if he would respect the outcome of the election. He said: “I will tell you at the time,” and “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?” Trump has been claiming the election is rigged for a while now (check out fellow Law Street Alec Siegel’s article on the distrust Trump has been sowing among the electorate for more on that.) But this ambiguity about whether or not he’ll accept the election results if he loses seems to go a step further.

There’s more to this than just a narcissistic celebrity who, by almost every definition, is a sore loser. Refusing to accept the democratic outcome of an election is deeply problematic–and can undermine our political system. That’s not to say that when there is corruption or election fraud we shouldn’t be vigilant, but rather to say that when we know that there’s not voter fraud, it’s irresponsible to keep encouraging the narrative that there is. Shaun Bowler, who teaches political science at the University of California Riverside wrote for Vox:

Donald Trump is a candidate who seems to want to claim that, whenever he loses, it is not because more people voted against him than for him, but because the election is rigged. From this assumption arises his frequent call for ‘poll watchers’ with no legal authority and questionable roles. (Will they intimidate voters? Will they interfere with the process?) The longer-term consequence will be the same as in Mexico, Ukraine and elsewhere: They will undermine voter support for the system. The difference is that in the US, the claims have very little basis in actual levels of election fraud.

Donald Trump, by constantly positing that this is a rigged election, and saying he’s not sure that he’ll accept the outcome of the vote, is encouraging even more mistrust in our democracy than there already is. In fact, Trump’s claims are so outrageous that a lot of Republicans are speaking out against them. Both Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) refuted the idea that the election is rigged last night, as did Senator Lindsey Graham:

My thoughts on a ‘rigged’ presidential election. pic.twitter.com/075n83NXMH

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 20, 2016

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had perhaps the strongest condemnation of Trump’s “rigged” comments, saying:

This election is not rigged, and it’s irresponsible to say that it is. Faith in the democratic process is one of America’s greatest strengths, and it’s more important than the outcome of any election.

Clinton’s chances to win on November 8 are looking even more promising, given recent polling results. Whether Trump will accept that reality remains to be seen.

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 Don’t Worry, Trump Will Accept the Outcome of the Election…If He Wins appeared first on Law Street.

The third and final debate in Las Vegas, Nevada began with a notably different tone compared to previous debates. Chris Wallace, the moderator, guided the candidates through the predetermined categories to address a few of the substantive issues that have gotten little attention throughout much of the election season. But the formality that we saw in the beginning quickly subsided as the questions turned to the legitimacy of the elections and the candidates’ past records.

Here’s a quick rundown of the highlights:

The Show Started Before the Candidates Took the Stage

The circus surrounding the debate got started well before 9 PM on Wednesday when news about debate guests started circulating. Trump’s guests included Malik Obama, President Obama’s half-brother and a Trump supporter, as well as Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, who was killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. In light of Trump’s similar efforts to shake up the second debate, the Clinton campaign moved to make sure guests and families did not cross paths when entering the stage, which was approved by the debate commission.

But while talk of guests took up much of the attention going into Wednesday’s event, they appeared to have little effect on what happened on stage. While most expected Smith’s attendance to force the issue on Clinton’s response to the Benghazi attack, the topic hardly came up.

Trump Doesn’t Commit to Respecting the Election Outcome

When asked about his recent rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims that the election is “rigged,” Trump continued criticism of incomplete voter registration data, going so far as to indicate that the election may be mishandled. But when Chris Wallace followed up and asked if he would accept the outcome of the election, Trump refused to say yes, responding with “I will look at it at the time.” He later added, “I will keep you in suspense.”

This is a significant reversal from his response to the same question at the first debate and was probably the most striking moment at the entire debate. His response was also striking in light of his statements at the second debate, when he promised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton and indicated that she belonged in prison. Both of these comments amount to a significant departure from established democratic norms to promote the peaceful transition of power and the nonpartisan rule of law.

Rukmini Callimachi, a New York Times foreign correspondent, has heard that notion before:

8. Trump refuses to say he’ll accept results of election. “I’ll tell you at the time.” (I heard that a lot covering African elections)

— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) October 20, 2016

Striking Disagreement on the Economy

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are running on vastly different economic platforms and some of those differences made their way to the forefront in Wednesday’s debate. Trump’s plan to cut taxes, particularly for the highest earning Americans, stood in striking contrast to Clinton’s plan, which would modestly raise taxes for those at the very top. Clinton highlighted her plan to use those new revenues to invest in infrastructure and working families while Trump claimed that his massive tax cuts would unleash unprecedented economic growth. He later dodged questions on his plan’s consequences for the deficit and the national debt, claiming that they wouldn’t matter with all the new jobs he plans to create.

Still No Questions on Climate Change

For the final point here, I’ll highlight something that was missing from tonight’s debate, as well as the two that preceded it. Climate change is an issue that the Democratic Party and nearly all governing parties throughout the rest of the world have agreed is one of the most significant problems facing the world. But in an election to determine the next president of the United States, and arguably one of the most influential people in global climate policy in the next decade, barely any time was devoted to discussing it. President Obama has said of climate change, “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” but if you are a voter worrying about how the candidates plan to address it, you were left waiting.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post 4 Highlights from the Third Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

With only 19 days until election day, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will take the stage Wednesday night for the third and final presidential debate.

Here’s some quick background on the format and timing:

The third and final debate will be hosted by the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and will be moderated by Chris Wallace of the Fox News Network. The format will largely resemble the first debate as the two candidates will be seated at a table and will respond to questions from the moderator. Wallace announced the seven categories that his questions will focus on last week, namely: debt and entitlements, immigration, the economy,  the Supreme Court, foreign hot spots, and fitness to be president. The debate starts at 9 PM and will go to 10:30 PM without commercial breaks. You can watch it on the major networks and broadcast channels and it will be streamed online by major news organizations on Youtube and Twitter.

The primary question going into the debate is whether there is anything Donald Trump can do to make up his particularly large polling deficit with Clinton. With that in mind, here is a rundown of the major unanswered questions and continuing challenges to keep an eye out for at the debate.

Trump’s Response to Sexual Assault Allegations

Donald Trump’s treatment of women has been widely discussed throughout the entire campaign, going all the way back to Megyn Kelly’s questioning at the first Republican debate last year. But between the recently uncovered “Access Hollywood” tape and Anderson Cooper’s tough questioning at the second debate, the issue is back in the forefront. When Cooper pressed Trump on the issue–noting that what Trump talked about was sexual assault–he asked whether he had actually done what he said in the video. Trump denied it, saying it was just “locker room talk,” but shortly afterward many woman came forward claiming that Trump had in fact sexually harassed and assaulted them.

With the exception of flatly calling each accusation false when asked for comment, Trump has not yet had to face many questions about the recent allegations. It seems likely that either Chris Wallace or Clinton will bring this up at the debate. It remains unclear exactly how Trump will respond to the issue but it’s certainly something to look out for. Will he continue to deny everything? Will he make any effort to apologize? Or will he continue to try and turn the conversation to Bill Clinton?

Wikileaks

While many of the recent scandals have focused on Trump, the Clinton campaign has had to address questions surrounding Campaign Chairman Jonn Podesta’s leaked emails, which are being released in batches by Wikileaks. While most of the emails provide a window into the inner workings of the campaign and are more embarrassing than anything else, some do point to potential issues. Notably, a batch of emails illustrates a potential ethics issue surrounding donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. As Reuters notes, a $1 million donation pledge from Qatar may have breached Clinton’s ethics agreement at the State Department. Look to see if Clinton tries to address the controversy or if she simply refuses to discuss the hacked information.

In addition to the information found in the emails, it’s important to acknowledge their source. Many security officials believe that the Russian government supplied the hacked emails to Wikileaks. If the recent leaks do come up at tonight’s debate–and it’s pretty likely that they are at least mentioned by Donald Trump–look for how both candidates respond to the prospect of foreign interference in U.S. elections.

What About Policy?

With so much else going on in recent weeks, there’s been a notable lack of discussion of some major policy issues on the campaign trail. Health care got a brief time in the spotlight at the last debate, but despite the quick discussion, there are many unanswered questions. Clinton provided a full-throated defense of Obamacare and laid out a rough plan to help fix some of its core issues, but she has said little about how she would accomplish that if Republicans continue to hold control of all or part of Congress. For his part, Trump offered some sort of discussion about wanting to “break out the lines and allow the competition to come,” but what exactly that means as well as his larger plan to address Americans’ health care concerns remains extremely murky.

We also haven’t heard the candidates talk about crucial issues like climate change, a long-term plan for the ongoing civil war and humanitarian crisis in Syria, and declining productivity growth and dynamism in the U.S. economy. It’s also important to look out for each candidates’ plan to fill the vacant Supreme Court and the possibility that more seats will open during the next president’s term. More broadly, look out for any indication of how the candidates plan to work with Congress to accomplish their goals in the ongoing period of polarization and gridlock.

For some more unanswered questions, check out this list from the New York Times.

 Can Trump Win Over New Voters?

Donald Trump is currently–and pretty much has been since the end of the primary campaign–lagging behind Clinton in the polls. According to most polling averages, Trump has never really had a lead in the general election, with the possible exception of the brief period between the Republican and Democratic conventions. Put simply, Trump doesn’t just need to make sure his core base of support turns out on election day, he needs to court new voters as well. Meanwhile, Clinton has managed to consolidate the support of many undecided voters, though a relatively large number of voters still haven’t made up their minds or plan to vote for third parties.

Recently, Trump has shown almost no interest in expanding beyond his core base of support. He has doubled down on baseless claims that the election is being rigged against him and has said that if he were to become president he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate his opponent, an unprecedented breach of the nonpartisan rule of law. While such arguments may play well to Trump’s base–who have very negative views of Clinton–it will likely do little to win over undecided voters.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post What to Look Out for at the Final Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

— Scholastic (@Scholastic) October 18, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexis Evans

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

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

A GOP office in Hillsborough, North Carolina, was vandalized and later destroyed by an apparent act of arson.

The Orange County Republican headquarters suffered damages caused by a substance thrown through one of the building’s front windows. The flammable material damaged the building’s interior before going out. The firebombing occurred at some point between Saturday night and Sunday morning. Graffiti and threatening words also marked the territory. An adjacent building was graffitied “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else” accompanied by a swastika.  No one was injured.

Hillsborough Mayor Tom Stevens released a statement and reminded people that elections should be an opportunity to become more democratic, rather than moving into acts of violence.

“This highly disturbing act goes far beyond vandalizing property; it willfully threatens our community’s safety via fire, and its hateful message undermines decency, respect and integrity in civic participation,” Stevens said. “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of people who make Hillsborough their home: Acts like this have no place in our community. Our law enforcement officials are responding quickly and thoroughly to investigate this reprehensible act and prosecute the perpetrators.”

According to the town, “no damage estimates are available yet, and Hillsborough police are continuing to investigate the incident with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”

Governor of North Carolina Pat McCrory declared he will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in the investigation. McCrory’s staff helped deliver new campaign materials to Orange County hours after the bombing.

“The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy,” McCrory said in a statement. “Violence has no place in our society – but especially in our elections. … I will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in this investigation.”

The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy. pic.twitter.com/fr9FWGQUoG

— Pat McCrory (@PatMcCroryNC) October 16, 2016

Thank you for your thoughts & prayers, Sec. @HillaryClinton.

— NCGOP (@NCGOP) October 16, 2016

Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning @NCGOP

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina GOP Office Firebombed: Trump Blames Democrats appeared first on Law Street.

Tweets sent out by WikiLeaks on Sunday afternoon had Julian Assange fans really concerned. The messages seemed like a “dead man’s switch”–which are encrypted messages containing highly classified material that become unveiled in case someone dies. This is what the messages looked like:

pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

pre-commitment 2: Ecuador
eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab72

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

These messages had Twitter users speculating that Assange was, in fact, dead.

There were also theories about what the messages actually meant. One possibility is that John Kerry is next to be targeted by a big release of classified information, considering recent WikiLeaks publications have focused on the Democratic Party specifically. According to former Trump adviser Roger Stone, Kerry has previously threatened the Ecuadorian government.

John Kerry has threatened the Ecuadorian President with “grave consequences for Equador” if Assange is not silenced @StoneColdTruth

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) October 17, 2016

Another interesting and bizarre aspect to the story is that actress Pamela Anderson unexpectedly and uninvited dropped by the embassy on Saturday to share a vegan lunch with Assange. Some fans even speculated that she was the one who had killed him, maybe hired by the American government, by bringing him a poisoned sandwich…but that obviously seems incredibly far-fetched.

@alburyj GET ASSANGE OUT OF THERE AND INTO HIDING. How do we know that Pamela Anderson isn’t working 4 someone to set up him up?

— Rosa Marzullo (@niftyrosa1) October 17, 2016

Pamela said she is an Assange supporter and that she is worried about his health. She wanted to bring him “a nice vegan lunch and some vegan snacks.” But maybe he would have preferred some hearty meat. “He said I tortured him with bringing him vegan food,” she said jokingly.

Finding out that Pamela Anderson & Julian Assange are friends is like watching an unlikely animal friendship video https://t.co/JnTTgrYCGg

— Gabriella Paiella (@GMPaiella) October 17, 2016

By Monday, everything pointed to Assange still being alive and well. Gizmodo speculated that “pre-commitment” in this case stands for a cryptographic plan to prevent classified and yet unreleased material from being tampered with.

The WikiLeaks Twitter account was active on Monday, also a good sign. In the early morning, it posted a tweet saying “a state party” had intentionally cut off Julian Assange’s internet connection. The message went on to say that the organization had “activated the appropriate contingency plans.”

Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

On Saturday, WikiLeaks released the alleged full transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to financial firm Goldman Sachs. Many people thought the Monday cutoff of Assange’s internet was revenge for messing with Clinton.

We and many others believe Julian Assange’s internet was cut for criticizing Hillary Clinton. #FreeJulian

— Anonymous (@LatestAnonNews) October 17, 2016

Assange has been in hiding at Ecuador’s embassy in London for the last four years, trying to avoid extradition to Sweden over a rape case, which could lead to deportation to the U.S., where he fears he would be charged with espionage. The alleged internet cutoff comes after recent news that Sweden is not dropping the charges against him, and a press conference he held via video link on October 4. In that speech he promised 10 weeks of new releases of classified material, in celebration of Wikileak’s 10-year anniversary.

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 What’s Going on With Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? appeared first on Law Street.

Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican and former congresswoman, has said that voting for Hillary Clinton in November will lead to more sexual assaults. According to Bachmann’s opinion, the Democrats are using Trump’s comments about women–and now sexual assaults–to make women vote for Clinton. But she says if they do, the country would apparently become way worse for women.

“I believe that Hillary Clinton will set a standard in this country that will lead to more sexual assaults against women because she will be setting an anti-biblical agenda,” she said in a radio interview on Tuesday on the Christian show “Stand In The Gap.”

The utter moral bankruptcy of the allegedly Christian Right has never been more hilariously blatant. https://t.co/UzRJzqceWB

— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) October 13, 2016

When asked about a report that states that the recent revelations about Trump’s behavior in the past have created a gender divide among voters, she said it was made up of lies, and was a conspiracy theory funded by George Soros. She also claimed that Trump’s alleged assaults were nothing in comparison to Bill Clinton’s past actions, and accused him of criminally assaulting women.

Bachmann’s recent statements about Trump in the wake of the 2005 audio recording of Trump have left many people upset…

Michele Bachmann called #TrumpTapes “bad boy 11 year old locker room talk.” I teach 11 year olds. Pretty sure they don’t brag a/b assault.

— De Elizabeth (@deelizabeth_) October 8, 2016

Michele Bachmann is trending. This is proof we all died in the predicted rapture of 2011 and THIS is hell.

— Dorianna Gray (@blurbette) October 8, 2016

…and some just speechless.

Dear @CNN, I have NO INTEREST in anything @MicheleBachmann has to say about anything till the end of time, ad finitum, yada yada. Thank you.

— Girls Really Rule. (@girlsreallyrule) October 11, 2016

The man who interviewed Bachmann, Sam Rohrer, agreed that trying to make women vote for anyone else than Trump is a satanic effort to divide Evangelical homes. Bachmann also said:

This is an effort by Hillary Clinton supporters and George Soros, through Sojourners and other so-called Christian organizations, to divide us. These are lies and we, as Christians, need to recognize that this is a lie and a deception and we need to wake up and resist these lies

Michele Bachmann used to run a gay conversion center with her husband in Minnesota and has previously made headlines with bizarre statements like claiming that the Lion King is gay propaganda, that visiting Iraq was like to going to the Mall of America because there was marble and water everywhere, and that God picked Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee.

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 Michele Bachmann Claims Voting For Hillary Will Lead to a Rise in Sexual Assaults 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:

Women For Trump?

After Trump’s horrible comments about sexual assault, women supporting Trump are in the limelight and it’s confusing a lot of people.

Take a look:

A lot of us are like: why, just why? Hillary becoming president is one of the best things that can happen for the majority of American women, historically speaking, and they just want to vote for Trump?

It’s their vote, I guess, but WTF.

WE ALL STAND BY TRUMP. WOMEN FOR TRUMP. HE’S OUR ONLY SAVIOR. #maga #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016 #Trump @Cher pic.twitter.com/vOcgXMr0FB

— Ingrid Mueller1 (@_Women4Trump) October 9, 2016

Rant Crush

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

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

In an article published Wednesday by The New York Times, two women describe how Donald Trump sexually harassed them: one said Trump groped her 36 years ago when she sat next to him on an airplane. The other said he forcibly kissed her on the lips in 2005, when she was a secretary for one of his real estate firms in Manhattan. At a rally in West Palm Beach, Florida on Thursday, Trump, calling the women “horrible, horrible liars,” dismissed the charges as “all fabricated” and “pure fiction.” He claimed they were whipped up by the media and Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent.

“These vicious claims about me, of inappropriate conduct with women, are totally and absolutely false. And the Clintons know it,” Trump said at the rally.

A spate of sexual assault accusations involving the Republican presidential hopeful have surfaced in the days following a leaked tape in which Trump, in 2005, brags about forcing himself on women because he’s a “star.” Aside from the two women who shared their stories with the Times, Natasha Stoynoff, a writer with PEOPLE Magazine, recounted an incident from 2005 in which Trump assaulted her at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

“We walked into that room alone,” Stoynoff wrote, referencing a “tremendous” room Trump showed her while giving her a tour of his mansion. “Trump shut the door behind us. I turned around, and within seconds he was pushing me against the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat.”

Trump vociferously denied all of these reports on Thursday in front of a boisterous crowd, saying:

And so now we address the slander and libels that was just last night thrown at me by the Clinton machine and the New York Times and other media outlets, as part of a concerted, coordinated and vicious attack. It’s not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment, and all together at the same time as WikiLeaks releases documents exposing the massive international corruption of the Clinton machine, including 2,000 more e-mails just this morning.

Trump’s attorneys, meanwhile, threatened the Times, saying it would be sued for libel unless they took the article down. Times’ Vice President and Assistant General Counsel David McCraw responded in a letter:

“Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself,” he wrote, adding: “If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.”

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 Dismisses Sexual Assault Stories as “Fabricated” and “Pure Fiction” appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

FLOTUS said:

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

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

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

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

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 13, 2016

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

Watch Part of Michelle Obama’s Speech Below

Alexis Evans

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

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

The “Today Show’s” Billy Bush faced extreme backlash from network executives and the public after an audio recording surfaced of the television host having a lewd conversation with Donald J. Trump.

The compromising recording from 2005–in which Trump brags about groping women–quickly became the business mogul’s most pressing issue to date as Republican officials unendorsed their party’s nominee. The GOP presidential nominee posted a statement on social media, telling voters that he is not a “perfect person” and that the words captured in 2005 “don’t reflect who I am.”

In the recording, Bush also exchanged lewd and misogynistic remarks about women. Bush, known as the nephew of former President George H. W. Bush and the cousin of former President George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, worked for Access Hollywood at the time.

Bush issued a statement on Friday evening saying, “Obviously I’m embarrassed and ashamed. It’s no excuse, but this happened 11 years ago–I was younger, less mature, and acted foolishly in playing along. I’m very sorry.”

Everyone hasn’t been so quick to accept the apology.

Noah Oppenheim, the NBC executive in charge of “Today,” wrote in a memo to his staff members on Sunday that “I know we’ve all been deeply troubled by the revelations of the past 48 hours.”

“Let me be clear–there is simply no excuse for Billy’s language and behavior on that tape,” he said. “NBC has decided to suspend Billy, pending further review of this matter.”

Bush co-hosts the third hour of the “Today Show” and has remained off-air since Monday. This isn’t his first time coming under fire during his brief stint on the show. Bush, was the first to report the debunked Ryan Lochte robbery scandal and it led to questions about his journalistic approach.

The leak leads to larger questions about journalism ethics. The 44-year-old television host withheld knowledge of a presidential nominee admitting to sexual assault.

“Late Night” TV host Seth Meyers unleashed on Donald Trump and his performance in Sunday night’s debate. Meyers referred to him as “the pervert on the bus” and said that there is “currently a higher standard for the third hour of the “Today Show” than there is for the Republican nominee for president.”

Bush’s future remains unclear. A variety of media sources have speculated that his official departure is only a matter of time.

Sources: Billy Bush’s departure from NBC matter of “when,” not “if” — @brianstelter reports https://t.co/d9B2PW78Hohttps://t.co/lO8dviqF9n

— CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) October 12, 2016

Bush worked on “Access Hollywood,” NBC’s entertainment news show, for nearly 15 years before being promoted to “Today” in August, after contributing to the network’s coverage of the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NBC’s “Today” Show Has Higher Standards Than the GOP 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:

Haitians Urging People Not to Donate To the American Red Cross

While many people across the world are calling for donations to help the 350,000 displaced and vulnerable victims in Haiti, others are pointing to the red flag that is the American Red Cross. Facebook and Twitter posts are popping up, warning altruists not to give to the organization:

Do *NOT* donate any monetary funds for #Haiti to the American Red Cross. ARC has a *long* track record of pocketing donations.

— canoecanoa (@canoecanoa) October 8, 2016

According to The Independent, “despite collecting nearly half a billion dollars to provide relief after the 2010 Haiti earthquake and pledging to build 700 permanent homes, the ARC has been accused of only building six.”

In a joint investigation, ProPublica and NPR found that ARC has a huge issue with donation mismanagement and does not accurately report the success of its rebuilding projects.

via GIPHY

An estimated 10,000 people are sick with a recent outbreak of cholera and more than 80,000 Haitians have fallen ill with the disease since 2010 when the bug was introduced into the country’s river system.

This essentially means many of the issues Haiti now faces could have been prevented years ago.

Clintons/Red Cross /several Republicans just big fish in #Haiti aid scam, 100s of churches/NGOs/charities make it a cottage industry

— HaitiInfoProject (@HaitiInfoProj) October 8, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The Internet’s New Darling

After the debate, uncommitted voter and power plant operator Ken Bone from Illinois became an internet sensation. After asking the presidential nominees a question about their energy policies, he was suddenly all over the web thanks to his mild manners, cute mustache, and bright red sweater. The sweater in question actually sold out online.

BREAKING: The Ken Bone sweater has sold out pic.twitter.com/q9FnjeuNPa

— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) October 10, 2016

“Yesterday I had seven Twitter followers and two of them were my grandma,” he said about his very sudden rise to fame. He also said he was supposed to wear a green suit to the debate, but that since he gained some weight he ripped the pants when getting into his car and had to “move to plan B.”

via GIPHY

Ken actually said that he had leaned toward voting for Trump, but that Hillary’s answers and cool way of handling Trump’s personal attacks impressed him. But can’t we just vote for Bone for president?

Rant Crush

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

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

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

 You Know They Had to Talk About The Tape

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

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

That video represents exactly who Donald Trump is.

-Hillary Clinton.#debate

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) October 10, 2016

More Sniffling

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

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

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

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

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

symptoms of cocaine abuse

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

— Hutch Harris (@thethermals) October 10, 2016

Trump Threatens to Put Clinton in Jail

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

Excuse me, Moderators

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

The Candidates Had to Say Something Nice About Each Other!

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

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

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

Alexis Evans

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

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

On Friday, in an interview with the Associated Press, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations told of an episode that could prove to further the theory that Donald Trump has some sort of ties to the Kremlin. Vitaly Churkin, the ambassador, said that he lodged an aggressive complaint to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on September 13 about negative comments made by the U.N. human rights commissioner in April. Essentially, a top Russian diplomat went to bat for Trump.

During a speech in Cleveland in April, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights decried the “bigotry” of Trump, and the dangerous road his positions might pave: “Less than 150 miles away from where I speak, a front-running candidate to be president of this country declared, just a few months ago, his enthusiastic support for torture,” Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the high commissioner, said, referencing Trump’s pro-waterboarding remarks in Ohio in November 2015.

Churkin told the AP that Zeid’s criticisms of several European politicians–particularly far-right ones who are stoking anti-immigrant fears–as well as Trump, were out of bounds. “Prince Zeid is overstepping his limits from time to time and we’re unhappy about it,” Churkin said. “He should stick to his file, which is important enough.”

Russia formally rebuking negative comments made about a U.S. politician is unusual enough, but given the fact that Moscow seems to have a stake in Trump defeating Hillary Clinton in November, Churkin’s actions are especially interesting.

Clinton’s senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan weighed in on the Kremlin’s latest favor for Trump: “This is not only strange – it’s scary,” he said. “A major party candidate for the presidency of the United States is being protected by the Kremlin. Wow.”

Trump’s relationship with Moscow has been questioned since he started praising Russian President Vladimir Putin. He suggested Russia hack whatever they could of Clinton’s deleted emails she sent from a private server while she was secretary of state. And he has also questioned NATO, a key check on the Kremlin’s power in Europe, hinting that the bloc could see less U.S. involvement if he were president.

While Russia steadfastly denies playing favorites in the election, it is hard to imagine a top Russian diplomat would defend any criticism of Clinton.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Did Russia Criticize the U.N. for Condemning Donald Trump? 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:

Vladimir Putin Dubbed Peacemaker by Surprise Banner

A banner lauding Putin as a “Peacemaker” appeared on NYC’s Manhattan bridge Thursday. It immediately stirred up a lot of buzz. It was removed in a couple of hours, but not before Twitter users grabbed some pics.

We spotted this Putin banner being unfurled on north side of the Manhattan Bridge at 1:47 p.m. https://t.co/DStAoerBz9 pic.twitter.com/kL2uUh9Vhe

— Gothamist (@Gothamist) October 6, 2016

Some observers were amused, but others not so much.

This Vladimir Putin banner dangling on Manhattan Bridge is equally as disturbing as the numerous clowns that are showing up in random places

— Call me James (@nyjones7) October 6, 2016

The thing that makes me madder than this banner is the fact that someone had to piss off a whole lot of bikers going uphill to put it there. https://t.co/qLAp9t09ie

— Scott Steinhardt (@ScottFromNY) October 6, 2016

Police are checking surveillance cameras to see who the person is behind this obvious statement.

Rant Crush

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

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

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

Yahoo: “U.S. Intelligence Made Us Do It!”

Reuters reported Tuesday that Yahoo has been doing broad sweeps of its users’ incoming emails under the (no longer) classified directive of the NSA or the FBI. The details of what the company was supposed to be looking for are still unclear. When asked about the matter, Yahoo said: “Yahoo is a law abiding company, and complies with the laws of the United States.”

Which is legalese for: Yahoo denies any semblance of wrongdoing. This news comes weeks after Yahoo announced a 500 million account hack.

*Suspicious squint*

Also Yahoo’s pending deal to be purchased by telecom giant Verizon for $4.8 billion is looking pretty rickety.

via GIPHY

Sources say that it is likely other tech companies have been ordered by the government to conduct this type of surveillance too. Reuters says Google and Microsoft have not responded to requests for comment on the issue.

Rant Crush

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

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

Tonight, Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s running mate, and Governor Mike Pence, Donald Trump’s running mate, will face off at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia at 9 PM EST. Here are the answers to the pressing questions you might have before tonight’s vice presidential debate:

So…Who are These Guys?

Republican VP nominee Governor Mike Pence was elected as Indiana’s governor in 2012. He served as a congressman for 12 years, and before that he worked as a political radio pundit. He’s a strong social conservative and a supporter of the Tea Party movement.

Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine has served as Richmond, Virginia’s mayor, Governor of Virginia, and now a senator from his home state. He also served as the DNC chair for part of Obama’s presidency. Kaine is Catholic, speaks fluent Spanish, and has a lot of experience working with the military and in foreign policy.

Why Haven’t I Heard a Lot About Either of Them?

Pence and Kaine both have impressive resumes, but when surveyed, 41 percent of Americans couldn’t name Mike Pence, and 46 percent couldn’t name Tim Kaine. Both Pence and Kaine were chosen, in part, to balance out their more attention-grabbing running mates.

Often VPs are put in a position to be a little more fiery than their running mates and to take shots at the other side not befitting a presidential candidate. Pence and Kaine are almost the opposite this year–they are supposed to be the calmer ones, and to soften their controversial presidential counterparts.

What Are They Talking About Tonight?

Both candidates are going to come in ready to defend their candidate’s platforms, and they’ll likely have to defend their candidates as well. From questions about missing tax returns to missing emails, you’re probably going to hear “Hillary” and “Donald” a lot tonight.

But that doesn’t mean that Pence and Kaine won’t get any personal jabs in on each other. Pence has been criticized for his extremely social conservative positions in the past, like his support of Indiana’s “religious freedom” law, which led to anti-LGBT discrimination. Kaine may have to defend the fact that throughout his career, he’s been viewed as a flip-flopper on the issues of abortion and the death penalty.

Will Tim Kaine do His Donald Trump Impression Again?

We can only hope.

Will Mike Pence’s Daughter Show up on Camera?

Mike Pence’s daughter didn’t show up in a mirror during a campaign stop earlier this summer. Will anyone ask Pence about his possibly vampiric daughter? We’ll have to see on that one.

at first you think w/e this is just mike pence and his fam enjoying a nice meal at chilis. then you realize HIS DAUGHTER ISNT IN THE MIRROR pic.twitter.com/fGO1PlEQXP

— Roberto Ferdman (@robferdman) September 26, 2016

Who is Moderating the Debate?

Tonight’s VP debate moderator is Elaine Quijano, of CBS News. She’s the child of Filipino immigrants, and she’s the first Asian-American individual to moderate a presidential or vice presidential debate. While Pence and Kaine will likely be slightly easier to reign in than Trump or Clinton, Quijano, as the debate’s sole moderator, certainly has a hefty task in front of her.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post What you Need to Know about Tonight’s Vice Presidential Debate 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:

Major Burn Alert: Joe Biden Doesn’t Think Trump Can Carry His Golf Clubs

After Trump’s attack on Hillary Clinton, in which he said she doesn’t have the physical stamina to be president or take on ISIS, Vice President Joe Biden attacked Trump’s own stamina.

“I’ll bet he couldn’t carry his bag 18 holes on one of his own golf courses, speaking of energy,” Biden said to CNN on Tuesday morning.

Trump has been mocking Clinton for stumbling when she was suffering from pneumonia, while he himself is deemed overweight, which he revealed in an interview with Dr. Oz in September.

Biden also commented on Trump’s recent middle-of-the-night Twitter activity when he—again—attacked former Miss Universe Alicia Machado: “I think the real issue here–can you imagine the president getting up at 3:30 in the morning and tweeting vitriol?” Biden said. We’ll see what Trump has to say to these comments:

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 4, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Donald J. Trump previously confessed that he tries to “pay as little as possible” when it comes to taxes. Therefore, it came as no surprise when a partial report of the Republican presidential nominee’s 1995 tax records confirmed his financial outlook.

The New York Times published Trump’s 1995 income tax returns on Saturday, which explain how the former reality TV show host and real-estate mogul could have avoided taxes for nearly two decades. That year Trump declared a $916 million loss, a loss that could have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

Trump was recently criticized by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the first presidential debate for not being forthcoming about his tax returns. Clinton suspected that the businessman didn’t pay his federal income taxes–a claim Trump said made him “smart.”

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed with Trump’s statement and called him a genius after the tax records were released.

“The reality is, this is part of our tax code. The man’s a genius. He knows how to operate the tax code to the benefit of the people he’s serving,” Giuliani told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

Legal, yes. Genius, not so much.

The Washington Post’s Allan Sloan, a seven-time winner of the Loeb Award (business journalism’s highest honor), didn’t offer the same sentiments as Giuliani. Sloan’s op-ed said:

Sure, the $900 million-plus of losses reported by the New York Times–losses that could be used to offset income for a total of 18 years–are totally shocking. Legal, yes. But shocking.

But there’s something I consider even more shocking–although it involves a much smaller number.

By my read of the Trump tax return published by the New York Times, he would have been tax-free because of a $15,818,562 loss reported on Line 11 of the return under “Rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, etc.” It looks to me that this loss reflects the outrageous, special tax break that real estate developers that people like Trump can get, but that the rest of us can’t.

In the current election cycle Trump has refused to release his returns, unlike every other presidential candidate in modern history. As the candidates begin to bridge the gap between voters, it is imperative they remain honest and forthcoming–a common complaint for both of their campaigns.

Trump declined to comment on the documents. Instead, he tweeted a personal attack at the Times.

I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2016

The Trump campaign released a statement that neither challenged nor confirmed the $916 million loss.

“Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the statement said. “That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes, along with very substantial charitable contributions.”

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Taxes: “Trumped Up, Trickle Down” Economics or Genius? appeared first on Law Street.

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

U.S. Transfers Internet to ICANN, Sparks Criticism

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

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

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

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

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

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

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

Trump’s Climate Change Mix Up

For some of us, climate change is a hard pill to swallow. Even the Trump campaign seems to be really divided on the issue. This week, both Trump’s campaign manager and his vice presidential pick were grilled on the campaign’s views on climate change. Donald Trump has repeatedly shifted his thoughts on climate change, first calling it a hoax created by the Chinese in 2012. In Monday’s debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump adamantly denied ever having said that.

On Tuesday, however, his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway clarified that Trump did not believe climate change was man made and was instead naturally occurring. Almost within the same hour, in a different interview, Mike Pence told New Day’s Chris Cuomo that climate change was indeed spurred by man made activities. He also said that he and Trump had differing views on the issue.

So which is it, guys? The American people need to know. It’s 39 days until the election that could change our lives forever and you still don’t know what’s going on?

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 30, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

This year is different.

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

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

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

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

— Dan Arel (@danarel) September 20, 2016

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

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

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

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:

Oh My Gosh, They Made A Three Parent Baby!

Five months ago, a scientific miracle was born in Mexico (because the U.S. ain’t about that life), a child born with the DNA of three parents. I know, I know, you must be asking: how does one have a three person baby? Well this family, fearing that their baby would inherit an awful condition from the mother’s side, allowed doctors to create an embryo using the dad’s sperm, the mom’s egg, and donor DNA, by removing the mitochondrial material that carried the disease and replacing it with the donor’s mitochondrial DNA. They essentially deleted the chance of that particular disease from the family’s offspring using this awesome new technique! Crazy, right?

The baby now carries less than one percent of that gene and doctors say it shouldn’t become a problem.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Trump will never be between two ferns

Funny or Die is a website and digital production company that specializes in, well, being funny, and producing programs such as Drunk History. One of its recent hits is “Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis”–which feels like a parody of the famous “Inside the Actors Studio.”

Background aside, Galifianakis has had many celebrities and even politicians on his mostly-scripted show, including President Barack Obama and more recently Hillary Clinton. Although the show is clearly meant as a satire, this has been lost on some Trump supporters.

Scott Auckerman, the show’s director, has been quoted saying Trump does have have “…thick enough skin,” to participate in the show. But Galifianakis made it clear that there was no chance Trump would be joining him between any ferns in a quote to the L.A. Times.

Zach Galifianakis on why he won’t feature Donald Trump on “Between Two Ferns.” pic.twitter.com/gqeSmV1td0

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) September 26, 2016

Rant Crush

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

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

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

Middle Eastern Cookies Cause Bomb Scare

Last week a gas station, a nursery, and a road were shut down after a community in Pennsylvania was alerted to a “suspicious” box. The box had Arabic writing on it and had been left at a gas pump, so a bomb unit from Scranton came to investigate. The bomb unit found no bomb but instead discovered that the box was filled with cookies. The Halwani Bros Maamoul Date Filled Cookies had Arabic and English writing on the box. Can these people not read? But many people agreed that it was always better to say something when you see something, especially after last week’s attacks in New York and New Jersey. Police are still investigating.

This cookie box was left at a pump at Gulf Station near E. Stroudsburg. Bomb squad was called to check it. @WNEP pic.twitter.com/qN9tJofLpn

— Carmella Mataloni (@Carmella_News) September 19, 2016

Rant Crush

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

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

Mel Brooks Tried Pulling Down President Obama’s Pants

Why? Because he’s Mel Brooks. Best known for his films “Spaceballs” and “Blazing Saddles,” the 90-year-old director was at the White House last night accepting the National Medal of the Arts from President Obama. Which is pretty awesome!

Anyway, Mel Brooks, like many 90-year-olds, doesn’t give a shit about social conduct. So he decided to pull a gag, by pretending to pull down Obama’s pants.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 23, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Meet Henry Lee, the ‘Rosa Parks’ of Charlotte, N.C.

He’s being called the ‘calmest man in Charlotte.’ After a new wave of protests broke out last night over the death of Keith Scott, a picture taken by a Guardian reporter of 51-year-old Henry Lee surfaced online.

The calmest man in Charlotte is protester Henry Lee, 51, who silently refuses to leave his chair. pic.twitter.com/8abgzPwoDZ

— Matthew Teague (@MatthewTeague) September 22, 2016

As rioters raged violently, Lee sat in this chair and refused to move–his own version of dissent. Some Twitter observers are cheering him on, while others question whether this is actually an effective way to protest.

I never put my political imput on social media but this image is so powerful. This is protest, this is peace but not all will sit silent. https://t.co/8aabU17wUF

— Mind of Sol (@Mindofsol) September 22, 2016

Rant Crush

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

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

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

The Participants

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

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

The Moderator

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

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

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

The Topics

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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:

History Teacher Stomps on an American Flag

You know it’s going to be an effed up day when you’re sitting in class, learning about freedom of speech and your teacher pulls down the American flag and stomps on it. Lee Francis, a teacher at Massey Hill Classical High School in Fayetteville, N.C., said he took down the flag, took two steps, and almost immediately students left the classroom.

Mr. Francis at Massey Hill Classical HS in Fayetteville stomped all over the American flag…”it was teaching first amendment rights” pic.twitter.com/f8dAR0zPlc

— (@TheMrsH_) September 20, 2016

Residents of Fayetteville have since called him unpatriotic and one observer said that he could stomp on the flag on his own time, but not in the classroom.

Francis maintains that he was simply teaching a lesson and didn’t mean any disrespect. In fact, he’s pretty shocked by the backlash.

He said: “Just because I step on the flag doesn’t mean I step on their graves. It doesn’t mean I step on their bodies as they return from overseas. It means I step on a piece of fabric.”

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Hollywood’s elite gathered last night in Los Angeles, California to celebrate the 68th Primetime Emmy Awards, and the stars that hit the stage made it very clear that politics were on their minds.

The ceremony, hosted by Jimmy Kimmel in the Microsoft Theater, celebrated shows such as HBO’s political satire “Veep” and epic fantasy drama “Game of Thrones”–winning two and three awards respectively. Ryan Murphy’s crime anthology “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story” scored big and won five awards, the most awards of the night.

Kimmel was quick to set the tone of the show during his opening number–a quick-witted video that showcased television’s favorite faces as the late-night host hitchhiked his way to the award ceremony. Kimmel eventually found himself in the presence of “Veep” President Selina Meyer’s motorcade, driven by former GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

The comedian stressed the importance of his arrival due to his hosting gig and nomination. Bush displayed excellent comedic timing and quipped, “If you run a positive campaign, the voters ultimately will make the right choice,” before telling a hopeful Kimmel that he was joking. The jab directed at Republican nominee Donald Trump, referenced his hostile tone and critical analysis of Bush’s energy.

Watch Kimmel’s Road to the Emmys below

Kimmel’s opening monologue proved to be successful. He garnered laughs from the crowd with jokes about diversity and the making of Donald Trump.

“If it weren’t for television, would Donald Trump be running for president? No,” Kimmel said. “He would be at home right now quietly rubbing up against his wife, Malaria, while she pretends to be asleep.”

Kimmel proclaimed the person who should be blamed for the Trump phenomenon was sitting in the audience–hidden amongst the sea of nominees.

“That’s right. That guy. Mark Burnett, the man who brought us ‘Celebrity Apprentice’,” Kimmel said. “Thanks to Mark Burnett, we don’t have to watch reality shows anymore, because we’re living in one. Thank you, Mark.”

The nominees who hit the stage only added to the fire.

“Veep” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus joked about life imitating art during her acceptance speech. On the topic of the current election she said:

I’d like to take this opportunity to personally apologize for the current political climate. I think “Veep” has torn down the wall between comedy and politics. Our show started out as political satire, but now feels more like a sobering documentary. So I certainly do promise to rebuild that wall and make Mexico pay for it.

Best comedy series writing winner Aziz Ansari also touched on politics during his acceptance speech, by declaring onstage “after careful consideration, I’m going with Trump!” He then went on to demand that they remove all Muslim and Hispanic nominees from the Emmy ceremony which he said would make things so much easier–“like the Oscars.”

“Transparent” star Jill Soloway took home Best Director of a Comedy Series. Soloway’s speech focused on the importance of LGBTQ+ issues and encouraged the toppling of the patriarchy.

Backstage she made bold statements about the current election cycle and drew upon the connection between Trump and Hitler. “It’s so incredibly timely, the notion of otherizing people to gain political power,” Soloway said. “Jews were otherized in Nazi Germany to gain political power, and right now Donald Trump is doing the same thing.” As an example, she said, “He calls women pigs if they don’t look like beauty-pageant contestants. He blames Muslims and Mexicans for our problems. He makes fun of disabled people. This is otherizing with a capital O. It has been used in our history before to start and win wars. “

Reactions from the public ranged. Users on Twitter were quick to praise the Emmys for celebrating diversity, as well as criticize the award show for the one-sided political storyline.

Last night’s wonderfully inclusive, diverse #Emmys was a rebuke of everything Trump stands for: https://t.co/sA03obd0VC

— Marlow Stern (@MarlowNYC) September 19, 2016

At #Emmys, @jillsoloway called Trump “an inheritor to Hitler.” No comment on HRC calling an aide, “f—g Jew bastard,” calling Jews greedy?

— Larry Elder (@larryelder) September 19, 2016

As we inch closer and closer to the upcoming election, we should expect to see more political rhetoric filtering into our entertainment.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emmy Awards Provide A Platform For Political Agendas appeared first on Law Street.

The rumors surrounding Hillary Clinton’s health won’t stop, Walmart bought Jet.com, and Finnish baby boxes are saving lives. ICYMI, learn about all that and more this Monday with Law Street’s best of the week!

1. Clinton’s Pneumonia: A Post-Speech Scare, a Body Double, and a Tame Trump

The facts are thin, and the story even thinner: Hillary Clinton has pneumonia. That’s pretty much it. But of course, that raises some very intriguing questions–especially if you’re a conspiracy theorist: Has she been harboring the disease, shielding her failing health from the media since she was Secretary of State? Did she contract it while delivering a contracted speech to Goldman Sachs? And given the very fact that Clinton has spent her entire career tag teaming with a body double–in speeches, in meetings with now-deposed Middle East dictators, at a dinner date with Bill–has she already moved on from not only this election season, but this life? Read the full article here.

2. What Walmart’s Purchase of Jet.com Says About the Retail Industry

In August, Walmart purchased the online-only retail website Jet.com for $3 billion. Before the sale, Jet.com forecasted that it would be losing money until at least 2020, as it attempts to establish itself prior to becoming profitable. That raises the question of why the world’s largest retailer, with an online presence of its own, would decide to buy a fledgling retail site that didn’t plan on making money for several years. Read on to find the answer to that question and how it is influenced by the changing retail marketplace, where online presence is more important than brick and mortar stores and is necessary to compete against online behemoths like Amazon and Alibaba. Read the full article here.

3. Thinking Inside the Box: How Finland Makes Parents and Babies Happy and Healthy

Washington, D.C. has the highest infant mortality risk of all the world’s high-income capitals–7.9 deaths for every 1,000 births. But the infant mortality rate in Finland is much lower, and one of the reasons for this is the simple but effective Finnish baby box. All new parents in Finland are eligible to receive a box from the government to help them through the early stages of their child’s birth. Inside the box, there are essential items for raising an infant such as clothes and, because it is Finland, a snowsuit. The box itself doubles as a crib, reducing the risk of accidental death during sleep. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

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

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

Happy Friday and welcome to today’s edition of RantCrush Top 5!

Taco Trucks On Every Corner? Clinton Responds

A couple weeks ago, mortgage broker and founder of Latinos for Trump, Marco Gutierrez, warned  MSNBC viewers of the armageddon that is taco trucks. Skip to 6:04 for Gutierrez’s crazy claim.

Wow. Just wow on so many levels.

Last night, at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Hillary Clinton cleaned up in support, when she addressed the backwards remarks that Gutierrez made: “You’ve stayed focused no matter what kind of outlandish and offensive comments we’ve heard from my opponent and his supporters,” she told the crowd. “By the way, I personally think a taco truck on every corner sounds absolutely delicious.”

That it does, Hillary, that it does.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

By the year 2040, whites will most likely no longer occupy the largest share of the American population. That is, 2040 is the year some demographers are pointing to as the year the longstanding majority will become the minority. Though that day is still decades away, it looms over the 2016 election like a slowly approaching tidal wave, its implications, for some at least, clear and discomforting.

2016 and Changing Demographics

The presidential candidates from both major parties, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, have addressed America’s changing demographics in different ways. Clinton has pointedly targeted the communities that will make up the bulk of the U.S. electorate during the second half of the 21st century, the communities that carried her then-opponent Barack Obama to victory in 2008. Trump has taken a different tactic, by vilifying minority communities, or largely ignoring them, and squaring his message at working-class whites, the largest share of the electorate in 2016.

It’s no secret that the top two options on the ballot hardly stir the passions of Americans. Both have record-low favorability ratings. For some minority communities, Trump’s scathing rhetoric might push them to vote against him. For others, long memories of Clinton (and her husband, President Bill Clinton) could sap any motivation to vote for either candidate, especially in black communities.

Black Voters

“There is a sense of ambivalence and agitation in many parts of the black community,” Michael Fauntroy, associate professor of political science at Howard University said at a Brookings Institute event on Wednesday. “Some are still angry at Clinton over [the 2008 election], and upset at President [Bill] Clinton over welfare reform or the crime bill.”

But hesitating to vote for the Democratic nominee–since 1936, black voters have overwhelmingly voted Democratic–does not mean they’ll flip to the Republican side. According to Fauntroy, who wrote a book called “Republicans and the Black Vote,” Barry Goldwater, the divisive Republican nominee in 1964, netted 6 percent of the black vote. Trump is currently polling at 2 percent.

Fauntroy repeated a question Trump himself has asked the black community: what do you have to lose? “African Americans have quite a bit to lose depending on the outcome of this election,” Fauntroy said, ticking off the potential losses that could accompany a Trump presidency: health coverage, access to unemployment benefits, and quality education.

Hispanic Voters

The reality in Hispanic communities is a bit different. Trump has aimed his ire directly at those communities, calling Mexicans “rapists” and pledging to build a “big, beautiful wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border. His tough rhetoric on deporting illegal immigrants has left a mark as well. “Parents are sending me emails about children coming home crying because classmates are telling them they’ll get deported when Donald Trump is president,” Maria Teresa Kumar, CEO of Voto Latino, said at the Brookings event. “The problem is that 99 percent of these kids are American born.”

Hispanic communities also don’t have the same history with the Clintons as black communities. Kumar noted how the 1990s were a largely prosperous time for Latinos. In 2012, 71 percent of hispanics voted for Obama. But since then, the crop of eligible Latino voters has grown, as those of voting age increases, and will continue to in the coming decades. At the moment, there are 27 million Latinos eligible to vote. That number is expected to grow by 17 million by 2032.

Challenges for the GOP

For Republicans, the voting trends are troubling. In 2012, at least 70 percent of African-Americans (93), Hispanics (71), and Asians (73) voted for Obama. With the 2016 electorate on track to be the most diverse ever–and future electorates are sure to be even more diverse–the GOP needs to prove it is the party for all communities–not just white ones.

“How do you make meaningful inroads in communities of color?” said Ron Christie, a special assistant to George W. Bush said at the Brookings event. A “conservative Republican,” Christie admonished Trump’s attempt at capturing the black vote by showing up at a church in Detroit: “Last time I checked, not all black folks go to church, and not all black folks show up in Detroit,” he said.

Christie pointed to John Kasich, who he worked for as a senior advisor in the nineties, as a successful example of Republican black outreach. Kasich carried 27 percent of the black vote during his successful bid for Governor of Ohio in 2010, Christie said. How? “John Kasich doesn’t talk to black people like they’re black people,” he said. “[Kasich] didn’t just focus on crime, welfare, and job training. It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations that President George W. Bush famously talked about that John Kasich has done so well in.”

Instead, Christie said, Kasich focused on the issues that matter to all Americans, regardless of their race: safe schools, safe communities, and well-paying jobs. “There is no monolithic entity as the African-American community. We’re all individuals,” Christie said.

Asian-American Voters

In the midst of America’s evolving racial make-up is its fastest growing community: Asian-Americans. A diverse constituency made up of dozens of nationalities, languages, and cultures, Asian-Americans have been largely ignored by both parties. “We’re not usually counted in exit polls, political parties don’t make any investment in terms of outreach to us,” Deepa Iyer, a South Asian American activist, writer, and lawyer, said at Brookings. “This needs to change because we are flexing our political muscle.”

There are currently 18 million Asian-Americans of voting age, Iyer said. Asian-Americans–with roots from the Middle East, from the Far East, from Southeast Asia, from India–are different than other minority communities in that they have not been historically tied to one party or the other. In the nineties, they leaned Republican, today, they tend to vote Democratic.

Iyer sees 2016 as a unique moment in American history, one in which the very question of what being an American means is at stake. “It is fundamentally a struggle about justice, equity, and belonging,” she 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 A Changing America: What Role Will Minority Voters Play in 2016 and Beyond? appeared first on Law Street.

Hackers have leaked personal emails from former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in which he describes Donald Trump as a “national disgrace” and an “international pariah,” Buzzfeed reported. The website DCLeaks.com obtained the emails, which include exchanges between journalist and former Powell aide Emily Miller as well as other Powell associates. The leaks also highlight disagreement between Powell and the Clinton campaign over the use of her private email server during her time as Secretary of State.

In one email to Miller, Powell wrote that Trump “is in the process of destroying himself, no need for Dems to attack him. [Speaker of the House] Paul Ryan is calibrating his position again.” Powell also said that the idea promoted by Trump and others that President Obama was not born in the United States is racist. He said:

Yup, the whole birther movement was racist. That’s what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn’t keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim.

Powell is a self-described lifelong Republican but has endorsed President Obama twice, indicating that he has problems with the direction Republican Party of today is heading. In another email with “Racism” in the subject line, he wrote, “Or as I said before the 2012 election, ‘There is a level of intolerance in parts of the Republican Party.’” He went on to say he wouldn’t comment about Trump to the media, arguing that it would feed into his ego.

Colin Powell also said that having Roger Ailes, who resigned from Fox news over sexual harassment allegations, as an adviser won’t exactly help Trump win over women’s votes, Buzzfeed reported.

Shortly after the leak, Powell confirmed that the emails are authentic and said that the hackers “have a lot more.” The website, DNCLeaks.com, has links to Russian-backed hackers who were previously accused of breaking into the accounts of the Democratic National Committee and releasing emails that embarrassed the party.

#DCLeaks Powell in leaked email: ‘I didn’t tell Hillary to have a private server at home’ https://t.co/uxALVOi4CC

— DC Leaks (@DCleaks_) September 14, 2016

In other leaked emails, Powell talked about Hillary Clinton’s private email server, an issue he wished to stay far away from. In February he wrote to Kenneth Duberstein, a White House chief of staff under president Reagan, saying, “I didn’t tell Hillary to have a private server at home, connected to the Clinton Foundation, two contractors, took away 60,000 emails, had her own domain.”

And in September 2015 email to Lawrence Wilkerson, his former chief of staff, he wrote, “[Hillary Clinton] and her mishandling of this has really given her a major problem I do not wish to get involved in, despite the best efforts of her team to drag me in.”

Defenders of Hillary Clinton like Representative Elijah Cummings have tried to point to Powell and Rice as a precedent for the use of a private email account while serving as Secretary of State. In a press release, Representative Cummings noted that both Rice and Powell had “received classified national security information” on their personal accounts. But Powell took issue with the classified emails that many cited, claiming that they were not classified at the time. Both Powell and Rice expressed, over email, an increasing annoyance with the situation.

This also led Powell to email Duberstein. “Stupid State Department dragged me in and I had to take care of myself […] I warned them. Don’t say these unclassified messages are classified or should have been classified,” he wrote.

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 Colin Powell Calls Trump ‘International Pariah’ in Leaked Emails appeared first on Law Street.

The facts are thin, and the story even thinner: Hillary Clinton has pneumonia. That’s pretty much it. But of course, that raises some very intriguing questions–especially if you’re a conspiracy theorist: Has she been harboring the disease, shielding her failing health from the media since she was Secretary of State? Did she contract it while delivering a contracted speech to Goldman Sachs? And given the very fact that Clinton has spent her entire career tag teaming with a body double–in speeches, in meetings with now-deposed Middle East dictators, at a dinner date with Bill–has she already moved on from not only this election season, but this life? Here’s what we actually know:

Friday Diagnosis

Following a week of coughing fits and mockery from her political opponents, the Democratic presidential nominee was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. That fact became evident on Sunday, while she spoke at a memorial event at Ground Zero in Manhattan. While getting into a Secret Service van after the ceremony, Clinton appeared unstable and required assistance from a few agents who held her upright as she climbed into the van.

According to her longtime doctor, Lisa Bardack, Clinton is “re-hydrated and recovering nicely,” in her upstate New York home. Clinton’s campaign announced that the candidate will be teleconferencing into her San Francisco fundraising events on Monday and Tuesday.

An Uncharacteristic (Yet Also Characteristic) Trump

Seemingly shocking everyone who expects Donald Trump to say something earth-shattering on a daily basis, “I just hope she gets well and gets back on the trail and we’ll be seeing her at the debate,” was Trump’s diplomatic response to his opponent’s diagnosis.

And while his well wishes were a bit of a surprise, Trump left room for some of his more conspiracy-minded supporters to question the pneumonia diagnosis. “You know, it was interesting because they say pneumonia on Friday, but she was coughing very, very badly a week ago, and even before that, if you remember. This wasn’t the first time,” Trump said Monday morning on CNBC. “So it’s very interesting to see what is going on.”

He wished her well, and then seemed to question the legitimacy of the diagnosis. He said “interesting,” a few times, hinting that perhaps there is something deeper that the Clinton campaign isn’t disclosing.

#BodyDouble

And as Twitter so often does after game changing events such as a routine pneumonia diagnosis, an inventive hashtag was hatched: #BodyDouble. Yes, as of Monday morning, that was a trending topic. People were voicing their–seemingly very real in some cases–concerns that Clinton has been using a body double, not only for Sunday’s 9/11 anniversary event, but for years before that.

Take a look at some of Twitter’s finest #BodyDouble musings below:

#Hillarys #BodyDouble on the left… Look at the hips. She came out 20 lbs lighter 2 hrs later with no medical or SS pic.twitter.com/ZFh4Vlj4iq

— MalibuUSA (@JamesABaade) September 12, 2016

This also could be her #BodyDouble @AnnCoulter @BreitbartNews @seanhannity should INVESTIGATE! #TrumpsArmy pic.twitter.com/FPUb7pui8N

— GIRLSFORTRUMP (@lbrot1) September 12, 2016

#hillaryshealth #BodyDouble guys if that wasn’t her she may not have recovered from the incident. What if she’s dead?

— Still Sanders (@StillBernin) September 12, 2016

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 Clinton’s Pneumonia: A Post-Speech Scare, a Body Double, and a Tame Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Is Hillary Okay?!?

It was an eerie sight to see Hillary Clinton, whose historical nomination inspired the world, nearly collapse to the ground Sunday morning during a 9/11 memorial service.

No matter how people feel about Clinton as a candidate, many were worried about her health and well-being. Others continued the rumors that Clinton was seriously ill with a more serious disease and questioned her overall fitness for the White House. But her doctors have diagnosed her with ‘walking pneumonia’ and suspect she will recover soon.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Brown University Provides Free Tampons for all!

Brown University, located in Providence, Rhode Island, has started providing free tampons and pads to its students. The university put pads and tampons in the women’s, men’s, and gender neutral bathrooms on campus, indicating that they’re a necessity, not a luxury item.

But the fact that the sanitary products were placed in men’s bathrooms has, of course, led some people to get their panties in a wad over trans bathroom access…again. For example, Daily Caller writer Blake Neff stated:

The decision reflects the view, embraced by Brown’s student government, that not all who menstruate are women. After all, a biological woman could declare herself to be man and start using the men’s restroom, while continuing to menstruate like usual.

But let’s just ignore the haters and embrace the good news here–this is a really cool thing for Brown University to do.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Um…Clowns are on the Loose in South Carolina?

According to eyewitness reports, there are clowns wandering around the woods in South Carolina. While the police haven’t confirmed the sightings, they certainly have the residents of Greenville County on edge. It may all be a hoax…but the entire idea is still incredibly creepy.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 2, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.