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.

A new ad released by the Our Principles PAC attacks Donald Trump using his own words–specifically his own words about women.  The roughly one minute spot uses past Trump quotes about various women–including Princess Diana, Carly Fiorina, and Megyn Kelly–to highlight how the current Republican frontrunner ostensibly feels about women.

The Our Principles PAC is conservative-led but anti-Trump, and was founded this January. It was created by Katie Packer, a Mitt Romney aide during the 2012 presidential election. Our Principles PAC’s mission, as stated on its website, is:

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 New Ad “Quotes” Highlights Trump’s Nasty Comments About Women appeared first on Law Street.

Standing in front of hundreds of people at the University of Utah and thousands of people watching on TV and online, Mitt Romney laid down the strongest indictment of Donald Trump from a member of the Republican Party yet. Romney’s powerful speech denounced Trump in no uncertain terms, going further than any Republican has been willing to in this election cycle so far.

Although his attempt and attempts like it will likely fail–and some even argue that his speech could help Trump–Mitt Romney moved into uncharted territory for the party and its efforts to stop its front-runner. It’s now clear that Romney and many of his fellow more traditional Republicans won’t go down without a fight.

Romney described Trump using Trump’s own words–calling him a phony and a fraud–in an attempt to hurt his appeal as a straight-talking, anti-politician. Romney even threw in a couple sharp one-liners like, “His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University.” Despite a couple quick quips, Romney maintained his status as a well-respected and well-spoken conservative.

In his strongest criticism, Romney summed up what a Trump presidency would do to the country:

His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

You can watch Romney’s speech below and read his prepared remarks here.

In many ways, the content of Romney’s criticism was predictable. He reflected the many complaints that Republicans and even Democrats have with Trump. While there have been multiple big pushes in the “Never Trump” movement, Romney marks a large and visible step forward: the party’s most recent nominee wrote a speech meant specifically to take down Trump.

Along with Romney is the National Review’s editorial board, who published a blistering editorial making the distinctly conservative case against Donald Trump. On the morning of Romney’s speech, several prominent Republican national security leaders also signed an open letter denouncing Trump and his foreign policy views.

The emerging ‘stop Trump’ faction of the Republican Party is starting to make its efforts much more public than before and Mitt Romney’s speech may be the start of a very significant split in the party. Romney’s attack is in many ways unprecedented. The New York Times even asked several historians if they could draw a parallel from past elections and most found it very difficult to identify a case in which a prominent politician went after a person in his or her own party. While it may not end up being all that effective in terms of its consequences for Trump’s support, it is clear that Romney’s speech marks a pretty significant move from the Republican Party to thwart its front-runner.

As this new faction comes together, so too does a new strategy to take down Trump. Republicans are calling for an all-out effort to prevent Trump from earning a majority of the delegates. Because party rules require an outright majority to win the nomination, members of the stop Trump coalition have started calling on people to vote for the most viable alternative in each state. In his speech, Mitt Romney made a similar case when he said, “Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.”

As far-fetched as it may seem, it appears as if a contested convention is the only option for Trump’s opponents within the Republican Party. In the event that Trump does not have a majority of the delegates at the time of the convention, the delegates will participate in a second round of voting in which they are no longer bound to vote for a specific candidate. Some Republicans hope that if a contested convention occurs, elected Trump delegates could defect to support a more establishment-friendly candidate.

Not only did Romney advocate for such a strategy in his speech, he gave a hint, albeit a very subtle one, that he might be interested in coming in to save the party as a consensus candidate at the convention. He notes that this election has already broken from any sort of historical precedent and that a divided party in the primaries is preferable to one unified behind Trump.

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 Mitt Romney’s Last Stand appeared first on Law Street.

The pageantry and anticipation surrounding the Olympic Games has subsided recently. The mismanagement by certain host countries (Greece and Russia among others) has had a sobering effect on future host-candidates. In other words, countries are still down to party at your place, they just don’t welcome you coming over and ruining their expensive city.

And no city makes headlines for being unwelcoming quite like Boston. Last Thursday, America’s bid city held its first community meeting on the 2024 Olympics at Suffolk Law School. The organization No Boston Olympics–a grassroots coalition that has seemingly summoned the hospitality of Louise Day Hicks–was a vocal participant at the meeting. Essentially, No Boston Olympics feels the cost of hosting the 2024 Games would financially cripple the city, and everyone within the blast radius would foot the bill via taxes. The group makes a strong point: spending lots of money often sucks. But like other groups of contrarian fiscal hawks (see: Tea Party), they don’t see the entire picture.

The truth is, the success of the Olympic Games usually depends on who’s hosting. Greece, a country whose debt is becoming as famous as its Baklava, has not rebounded from hosting the 2004 Olympic Games.  Russia, which is having difficulty financing its own imperialistic urges, is now also struggling to pay off the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games.

On the flip side, the 2008 Summer Olympics turned a profit in Beijing. The 2012 Games in London, which were not cheap, could generate up to £40 billion in economic growth for England by 2020. Are those examples too foreign for you? The good ol’ US of A turned a profit after the ’96 games in Atlanta. As we did for the ’84 games in Los Angeles and then again for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002.  Don’t we have faith that an Olympics in Boston would follow the lead of England or prior American Olympics rather than those games in Greece and Russia?

Here are a couple of reasons why Boston could be a good spot. The CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake games–Mitt Romney–lives in the area, and Boston is where his venture capital firm is headquartered. Not only is he local, but he also could have some free time on his hands! This is not a joke. Speaking of saviors for winter sports, do you know who else calls greater Boston home? Bob Kraft, the Patriots owner who privately financed his new stadium and turned a moribund afterthought into a four-time Super Bowl winning machine. He’s also been fingered as an adviser for the 2024 bid. Another big name is Red Sox owner John Henry, who was one of the few people who made millions during the 2008 recession and has already approved of Olympic use for Fenway Park.

This really isn’t a coincidence. There are many people in Boston who manage money well and who know the business of sports. It’s also densely populated, connected by a major subway system, and has vacant college housing during the summer. You get the point. Now let’s hear some counter-points courtesy of Boston.com’s coverage of the committee meeting.

1. “Members of Boston Homeless Solidarity Committee questioned why  . . . a cure for AIDS couldn’t get the resources and attention that an Olympic bid might.” (You can host the Olympics when you cure AIDS. Deal, fat cats?)
2. “At one point during Mandredi and Blauwet’s presentation, they showed a rendering of the proposed beach volleyball stadium on Boston Common. That idea drew hissing.” (Boston Common is for ice skating and for smoking pot in between Emerson classes. Not beach volleyball.  GAWT IT? If Boston wins the bid, don’t be surprised if there’s a spinoff protest for this particular issue. #NAWTOWAHCAWMIN)

Being frugal about local resources is understandable. People want the T (subway) fixed. People want better infrastructure. And people want these things completed quickly, without being too expensive. Well you know what could potentially make that happen? The Olympics. This isn’t that novel of an idea. If the International Olympic Committee and the United States are pushing for a smooth, seamless Olympics, you’ll probably get outside funding to fix some of your local problems. Romney got $3 million from the federal government specifically to help extend Salt Lake City’s light rail for its Olympics. In fact, for the last three American Olympics the federal government has spent $1.4 billion to improve the host cities’ transportation and infrastructure, a figure that will increase considering the government knows how inflation works. This money comes in addition to the millions that these cities receive from outside investors and through corporate sponsorship.

I realize many in Boston still suffer from a Big Dig hangover. That mega-engineering project spiraled out of control and the debt won’t be paid until 2038. But one bad investment–and its badness is debatable–shouldn’t stop the city from taking some financial risks in the future. The list of potential hosts is getting smaller, which means the IOC will soon be forced to scale down the costs involved in hosting the Olympics, which means the possibility of profit could be even greater. So while this may not be an obvious opportunity for Boston, maybe we should fully evaluate the idea[r] before calling in the militia. I mean, who doesn’t love a pahty, kid?

Andrew Blancato

The post Boston Olympics Backlash Filled With Cowardice and Stupidity appeared first on Law Street.

‘Monica Lewinsky’ is a name that has lived in relative infamy for the last decade and a half. In some ways, the real woman who had a brief affair with our 42nd President has fallen into obscurity, but her name and what she represents live on. The archetype of the staffer who gets involved with a powerful man is a facet in books, movies, and TV shows.

For example, ABC’s hit show Scandal is pretty overt about it; during the first episode (slight spoiler alert if you’ve been under a rock for the last two years) Olivia Pope actually invokes Ms. Lewinsky’s name. She tells a girl named Amanda who may or may have not been sleeping with the President to make herself scarce, and when Amanda insists she’s a nice person, Pope points out, “You know who else was a good person? Monica Lewinsky, and she was telling the truth and she still got destroyed.”

And that right there, that’s what Monica Lewinsky has become. She’s a symbol and a political pop culture facet. Her affair with Clinton has been, no pun intended, put to bed. He has ascended to a position as a sort of elder statesman of the Democratic Party. And Hillary has moved on too, from New York Senator to Secretary of State, to presumed Democratic frontrunner.

So why are we talking about Monica Lewinsky? Now I’m not accusing everyone of this. Mitt Romney, for example, in an interview, felt the need to emphasize that we shouldn’t bring up Lewinsky in a conversation about Hillary, stating, “On the other hand, he embarrassed the nation, he breached his responsibility, I think, as an adult and as a leader in this relationship, and I think that’s unfortunate. But I don’t think that’s Hillary Clinton’s to explain. She has her own record and her own vision for where she would take the country.”

This was after potential Republican candidate Rand Paul, weirdly brought up Monica Lewinsky to slam Bill Clinton, and by extension, Hillary. He brought up the supposed “War on Women” that has become a contentious topic between Democrats and Republicans. Within that context, Paul claimed that because Bill Clinton had an affair with a younger woman on his staff 15 years ago, that means that Republicans can’t possibly be prejudiced toward women, and Democrats are the real offenders. OK, whatever. Rand Paul can say whatever he wants about Bill Clinton. As much as I do like Bill Clinton’s politics, he was creepy toward Monica Lewinsky and their relationship was inappropriate.

But any attempt to bring up Lewinsky as a tactic to attack Hillary Clinton makes very little sense, and is quite frankly, ridiculous. And that has happened. Take this tweet by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus:

Remember all the #Clinton scandals http://t.co/IxTqPN44rC That’s not what America needs again

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) February 16, 2014

Now, Priebus could be talking about something else, I guess. As a political couple, there are other scandals surrounding the Clintons. But if someone says “Clinton Scandal,” you think of Lewinsky. And Priebus’ slam to Hillary’s campaign is poorly shielded and tactless.

So here’s the crux: say whatever you want about Bill’s affair, really, it’s fair game. But I don’t think it’s fair to imply that Hillary’s leadership may be in question because of something her husband did. She didn’t encourage him to have an affair, she didn’t get involved, au contraire, she handled the entire thing with a lot of poise and grace. To attack her for Bill’s mistakes either implies a) that she is somehow responsible, b) guilt by association, or c) that if she can’t keep her husband from straying, she’s not strong enough to be President.

There are substantive things to attack Hillary Clinton on, even as a huge fan I am 100 percent comfortable to admit that. Feel free even to attack her on the fact that she is famous mostly because of her relationship with Bill Clinton. But to analyze that relationship, to fault both for a mistake made by one is grasping at straws.

So Romney’s right, it shouldn’t be brought up. And while I hope that her competitors agree, I know they won’t. It’s a political maneuver, same as questions about Michelle Bachman’s relationship with her husband were in 2012. Monica Lewinsky is a buzzword, an easy political association. But please everyone, save the drama for Scandal.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [White House Photo via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Will Monica Lewinsky Matter in 2016? appeared first on Law Street.