Arizona’s 2018 gubernatorial race is already garnering a lot of national attention thanks to Noah Dyer and his unorthodox approach to campaigning…complete and utter honesty!

Arizona Gov. hopeful Noah Dyer wants honesty in politics–on everything: https://t.co/HJk9AG3Uri pic.twitter.com/g97pRAfTkY

— Slate (@Slate) February 23, 2017

Rather than wait for his campaign rivals to dig up any unsavory oppo research on him, the Democratic candidate is committed to transparency.  So much so, that under the “Scandal & Controversy” tab of his campaign website Dyer outlines the “nitty-gritty” details of his personal finances, divorce, and even his sex life in the hope that his honesty will win over voters.

“Think about how much time political campaigns spend digging up dirt on their opponents,” reads Dyer’s website. “Noah is confident that all time spent this way is wasteful and unfortunate. It is his belief that the cleverly disclosed scandals that come out of the woodwork in the midst of campaigns mainly serve to divert and distract away from meaningful dialogue.”

By serving up his dirty laundry on a “silver platter,” Dyer believes his would-be constituents will realize these facts have no bearing on his ability to serve as governor.

And Dyer seemingly doesn’t hold anything back. Under the section titled “Sex” it reads:

Noah has had both deep and casual sexual experiences with all kinds of women.  He is an advocate of open relationships.  He’s had group sex and sex with married women.  He has sent and received intimate texts and pictures, and occasionally recorded video during sex. Noah has always been forthright with his partners.  All of his relationships have been legal and consensual, never coercive, or abusive, and he condemns such behavior. Noah is unapologetic about his sexual choices, and wishes others the same safety and confidence as they express themselves.

Woah….!

via GIPHY

He also reveals that he has nearly $100,000 in student loan debt, occasionally fights with his ex-wife, and was technically homeless at one point in his life.

The jury is still out on whether or not this campaign strategy will work in his favor (most likely not), but he’s already getting some praise on social media.

I’m not able to vote in Arizona, but if I were, #NoahDyer would have my vote. Sounds like a man of the people. 10/10 campaign strategy.

— Taylor Hedric (@TaylorHedric) February 24, 2017

Cheers to honesty!

via GIPHY

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 This Arizona Governor Candidate Just Aired His Entire Sexual History appeared first on Law Street.

In a five-minute televised address on Tuesday, South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye, who has single-digit approval ratings after a scandal that rocked the nation, said that if parliament would like, she will “step down as president.” Tuesday’s speech was the latest in a string of public apologies since it came to light that she had received secret advice from the daughter of a cult leader and longtime friend, Choi Soon-sil, who she also allegedly helped embezzle millions of dollars.

“I will relegate the decision to the National Assembly, including the shortening of my presidential term and resignation,” Park said. “If the governing and opposition parties inform me of the way to minimize the confusion and vacuum in state affairs and ensure a stable transfer of power.”

With an impeachment vote initially expected on Friday, now likely to be pushed back, some saw Park’s speech as a way to deflect an immediate resignation, and delay relinquishing power through impeachment proceedings. Many opposition lawmakers rejected the idea of Park’s resignation residing with the National Assembly.

“This is nothing but a sly trick to avoid impeachment,” said Youn Kwan-suk, a spokesman for the main opposition Democratic Party. “What the people wanted was her immediate resignation.” Instead, lawmakers from opposition parties as well as Park’s own ruling party, Saenuri, will proceed with their impeachment efforts. A vote is expected on December 9.

Park’s first term was set to end in February 2018. That was before thousands took to the streets to protest and demand her resignation. A two-thirds majority of the 300-member legislature would need to vote for Park’s impeachment for it to pass, and the Constitutional Court would get 180 days to ratify the vote. If she were to be impeached, the similarly unpopular Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn would assume the presidency.

Since the scandal took hold, members of Park’s cabinet have stepped down and she has ceded some of her powers. A few weeks ago, she gave parliament the ability to choose the next prime minister. With the looming impeachment vote and plunging approval ratings, Park’s speech signals she is aware that her previous concessions will not be enough.

“I am giving up everything now,” Park said. “I hope that the nation will find stability.”

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 With Impeachment Looming, South Korean President is Willing to Resign appeared first on Law Street.

The streets of Seoul were packed with thousands of protesters last weekend in the wake of a leaked email scandal concerning President Park Geun-hye. Park ordered ten members of her cabinet to step down because of their involvement in the scandal, and even Prime Minister Yoo Il-ho was pressured to step down, resulting in Yim Jong-yong being named the new finance minister and deputy prime minister.

The scandal stems from the interference of Choi Soon-sil, a longtime friend of President Park, in state affairs. Choi is the daughter of the cult leader Choi Tae-min, who was Park’s mentor until his assassination, and served as a close confidante for the President, allegedly having access to classified documents and important decision making procedures. There are even reports that Choi organized a secret cabinet of “eight fairies” who advised Park behind the scenes, despite not being elected officials or official presidential appointees.

Choi returned to Korea from Germany this week to cooperate with the investigation and was immediately placed under detention after prosecutors expressed fears that she might destroy evidence of her involvement. A tablet computer was found in her possession that showed evidence of her involvement in classified government affairs, including copies of speeches that President Park had yet to give. President Park acknowledged that she let Choi edit drafts of her speeches, which prompted an estimated 9,000 Koreans to march in protest, carrying signs reading “Who’s the Real President?” While editing speeches may not seem like a dramatic crime, Choi has been compared to Rasputin in Czarist Russia and those calling for Park’s resignation argue that Choi was attempting to interfere with the democratic process, molding the government to her own aims. Choi is accused of advising Park on political appointments and policy decisions, and using her influence to force corporations to donate to the foundations that she works with. As she was escorted into prosecutors’ offices this week, Choi stated on the record that she had “committed wrongs for which I deserve to die.”

South Korea’s constitution protects Park from criminal prosecution except in the case of treason or insurrection but that has not stopped calls for her resignation, especially from the younger population. Park’s presidential term will end in 2018 but with her ministers being forced out and her aides resigning, President Park may barely have a cabinet left to work with during the “lame duck” phase of her Presidency. With her reputation destroyed, Park will now most likely fail to push through the changes she had hoped to make to the economy. The protesters who rallied this weekend were doubtful that Park will face impeachment, as that process must be approved by the supreme court (which is staffed by presidential appointees), but hoped that her crumbling cabinet and rock bottom approval rankings will force her into resignation. And now, Park has had to give up her ability to select a new Prime Minister.

The vitriol expressed against President Park is eerily similar to that expressed against Secretary Clinton over her private email server. Both of their political careers have been so severely damaged by email scandals that they may never recover.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post South Korea’s Email Scandal: Protests in Seoul appeared first on Law Street.

South Korea’s president walked to a meeting with the speaker of Parliament on Tuesday, streaming past opposition lawmakers who held yellow signs that read “step down.” President Park Geun-hye did not announce her resignation during the rare meeting, but she did take a step in placating the opposition by weakening her powers: Parliament will now choose her prime minister, rather than allowing her unilaterally chosen nominee to hold the largely ceremonial post.

“If the national assembly recommends a new prime minister, I will appoint him and let him control the cabinet,” Park told Chung Sye-kyun, the speaker of Parliament, and a top leader of the opposition Democratic Party.

Park is responding to concerns from everyday South Koreans and lawmakers, many of whom are calling on her to resign completely. The country erupted when news broke of a scandal involving Park and one of her longtime confidants and unofficial aides, Choi Soon-sil. Choi, the daughter of a controversial cult leader, is accused of using her connections to Park to embezzle millions of dollars into two personal foundations, as well as offering unqualified advice to the president. Choi, along with some of Park’s aides, have been arrested. Others are being investigated.

“The crisis facing the president is a crisis in state governance and a crisis of the nation as a whole, and thus people are very worried,” Chung said during the meeting, adding: “Therefore, what is most important is placating public concerns.”

Park moved to do that by allowing Parliament to choose her next prime minister. Last week, Park unilaterally chose a new prime minister, Kim Byong-joon. Lawmakers were upset that she filled the post without consulting them, so to quell the uproar, she is allowing the legislature to deliberate on the decision. In the meantime, Kim will remain the prime minister designate, but will likely withdraw if he is not the legislature’s chosen candidate.

With 15 months left in her term, some opposition lawmakers, and some members of her own party, would like Park to stay out of government completely. Others are calling for her to partake only in foreign policy matters, leaving domestic matters for Parliament and others in the cabinet, including the new prime minister.

Over the weekend, tens of thousands of people protested in Seoul, and more mass protests are planned for the coming weekend. Meanwhile, Park has the lowest approval rating–five percent–since South Korea democratized in 1987.

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 South Korean President Relinquishes Ability to Select Prime Minister appeared first on Law Street.

Wells Fargo, America’s biggest bank by market capitalization, has apparently been scamming its customers by opening unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts for years. High sales targets and promises of bonuses prompted employees to commit illegal cross-selling–which is when you sell multiple products or services to the same customers. In fact, 5,300 employees have been fired for “inappropriate sales conduct” over the past five years.

On Thursday the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) fined the bank $100 million, which is the highest fine the federal agency has ever issued. Additional fines of $35 million and $50 million each are to be paid to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and to the City and County of Los Angeles.

The director at CFPB, Richard Cordray, said in a press release:

Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses. Because of the severity of these violations, Wells Fargo is paying the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed. Today’s action should serve notice to the entire industry that financial incentive programs, if not monitored carefully, carry serious risks that can have serious legal consequences.

Banking analyst Dick Bove said on Friday that it’s time to sell your stocks in the bank. He told CNBC: “What Wells has done is it’s saying that it’s treating customers badly, it broke faith with customers. There is no business in the world that can treat its customers badly and continue to expect to grow.”

To gain back the public’s trust after something big like this, especially with the 2008 financial crisis fresh in mind, Bove said Wells Fargo would need to do something drastic. For example, forgive all student loan debt. He said:

If you do that to customers who have student loans, they’ll stay with you for life. It requires something big, comprehensive and meaningful. Whether it’s that exact action or some other action that they come up with, I don’t know. I think it requires a significant step to re-establish faith with the consumer.

Many Twitter users reacted to the news.

“Hello Wells Fargo, I’d like to open a checking account, savings account and two credit cards.”
“You’re in luck. We’ve already opened them.”

— Fake Dispatch (@Fake_Dispatch) September 9, 2016

And one popular question is why no higher executives have been held accountable.

It’s weird how 5,000 front line Wells Fargo employees hit on similar scams without any wrongdoing by high-level executives.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) September 9, 2016

Essentially, employees at the bank boosted their sales by secretly opening new accounts and then funding them by transferring money from customers’ existing accounts. This often brought along additional fees and charges for the customers. It’s been reported that more than two million deposit or credit accounts were opened in this fashion. According to Reuters, employees were told that most customers used six financial tools but that they should push them into using at least eight.

According to CNN’s Douglas Rushkoff, the scale of these scams show that it’s not just the behavior of one bad banker, but rather a symptom of extreme capitalism in the banking world. Since banks make money from extracting funds from customers who want to invest or make transactions, they need to make sure those processes happen. During a time with slow growth though, the bankers need to create some kind of growth synthetically, out of fear of losing their jobs or missing out on a bonus. An easy way to do this is extract more money from people who already are customers, by offering new credit cards with higher fees or loans with higher costs or new terms that are worse for the customer but better for the bank.

Wells Fargo has been known for its ability to cross-sell multiple products to the same customers. In a statement on the bank’s website it said:

Wells Fargo is committed to putting our customers’ interests first 100 percent of the time, and we regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request.

Wells Fargo has issued a statement regarding definitive settlement agreements. Read more: https://t.co/tCMOlGkfln. pic.twitter.com/DSEjFC1BpA

— Wells Fargo News (@WellsFargoNews) September 8, 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 How Will Wells Fargo Recover From its Fraud Scandal? appeared first on Law Street.

At this point your guess is probably better than mine when it comes to answering the question “was Ryan Lochte lying about being robbed in Rio?” Not only has the silver-haired swimmer changed his story several times, but contradictory video footage from a security checkpoint and gas station seem to back up Brazilian authorities’ theory that the whole thing was an elaborate drunken coverup. In other words, things aren’t looking too good for the 12-time Olympic medalist.

While it might be a while before we finally learn the truth, Lochte is lucky he gets to safely sit this one out back in the U.S. The internet, however, wasted no time dubbing the swimmer guilty before ferociously mocking the scandal online. Since we can’t help but laugh (even though we kinda feel bad) at some of the memes, here are some of the funniest Twitter responses to #LochteGate and #LochMess:

Ryan Lochte lied about a night on the town to his mom and started an international incident. I’m dead.

— Ashley Weatherford (@sincerelyash) August 18, 2016

Confession: I robbed Ryan Lochte. I used my Lackawanna County Sheriff’s badge a squirt gun & a bad Brazilian accent. Sorry.

— RainnWilson (@rainnwilson) August 18, 2016

Exclusive footage of the U.S. swim team’s gas station fight https://t.co/ImltY6Ikzo

— MTV News (@MTVNews) August 18, 2016

Lochte’s fastest time was getting out of Brazil

— Vann R. Newkirk II (@fivefifths) August 18, 2016

Synchronized swimmers would keep their story straight.

— Steve Rushin (@SteveRushin) August 18, 2016

Sketch of the guy who held up Lochte pic.twitter.com/sPLUvWz5dC

— Vann R. Newkirk II (@fivefifths) August 18, 2016

There is no justice where there is Comic Sans: this is the Brazilian judge’s order in the Ryan Lotche controversy. pic.twitter.com/ZqWblg7YLS

— Dr. Anthony M. Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) August 18, 2016

If it includes the letters “LOCH” then chances are it’s a hoax. #LochteGate pic.twitter.com/3gzHltXkER

— nascarcasm (@nascarcasm) August 18, 2016

#LochteGate pic.twitter.com/ADDAEiqCfS

— Brendan Mackey (@Bmackey34) August 18, 2016

#LochteGate pic.twitter.com/v4jMReZ2ws

— Dominique Ringle (@dringle427) August 18, 2016

Brazilian Authorities: Mr. Lochte, you story doesn’t add up.

Ryan Lochte:

#LochteGate pic.twitter.com/W1ol0S9zcR

— KristinDeLuciaMorgan (@kmorgan76) August 18, 2016

Brazilian Police: “And you made the whole story up, didn’t you?”

Lochte: pic.twitter.com/O2YKasN62s

— Chief (@BarstoolChief) August 18, 2016

Honestly, now would be the perfect time to actually rob Lochte

— Myles Brown (@mdotbrown) August 18, 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 Hilarious Online Responses to Ryan Lochte’s #LochteGate and #LochMess appeared first on Law Street.

“Deflategate” is easily one of the biggest scandals to ever rock the NFL, continuously generating headlines a year and a half later. The intricacies of the controversy have become so complex, that coming this fall the University of New Hampshire’s Law School will offer a class that focuses specifically on the scandal. A legal expert for Sports Illustrated and a nationally prominent UNH law faculty professor, Michael McCann, will lead the course.

According to the class description,

The nationally publicized “Deflategate” case illustrates the power struggle that results when sports and law collide. [The course] will introduce [students] to the role the legal system plays in sports, relevant practices and applications in the field, and the journalistic methods used to fuel a scandal that has dominated the professional sports landscape since January of 2015.

It’s been 544 days since the scandal began with the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts’ AFC Championship Game. On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected a request from Patriots quarterback Tom Brady to avoid a four-game suspension for his role in deflating footballs to make them easier to catch during rainy games. For now, it looks like the New England QB will be watching the games from the sidelines.

Why is this still a thing? #Deflategatepic.twitter.com/gLWWtwxGc1

— Ships Have Sailed (@ShipsHaveSailed) July 13, 2016

Click here to read Law Street Media’s previous coverage on “Deflategate.”

The federal appeals court’s decision could finally be the end to a long and embarrassing string of violations, but Brady can still ask the Supreme Court to overrule his suspension. The odds of that happening are slim though, because the Patriot’s first game takes place in less than two months.

“That would be an extremely long shot, and, of course, could not be finally resolved soon, even were the justices to hear the appeal,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

The NFL Players Association issued a statement regarding the court’s ruling to deny Brady’s request. The statement reads:

We are disappointed with the decision denying a rehearing, as there were clear violations of our collective bargaining agreement by the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell. Despite today’s result, the track record of this League office when it comes to matters of player discipline is bad for our business and bad for our game. We have a broken system that must be fixed. We will review all of our options carefully on behalf of Tom Brady and all NFL players.

Tom Brady when he heard his 4-Game Suspension was being upheld. #Deflatriots #DeflateGate https://t.co/l9b3S4hscM

— SteelersNation (@TheSteelZone) July 14, 2016

The transformation and complications of the scandal will make the law course on the topic an intriguing option for students. The scandal has transformed from cheating accusations over the air pressure in footballs, to a multi-million dollar legal battle involving the nation’s top lawyers. It has also raised questions about the powers of the commissioner and unionized employees’ right to due process in a disciplinary hearing.

“When deflated footballs dominate national headlines, it’s clear that sports have become much more than just a casual pastime in the United States,” reads the class description. “Often the real game takes place on a playing field where legal, regulatory, and journalistic systems converge on the governance of professional sports.”

The Patriots’ backup quarterback, Jimmy Garoppolo, is expected to fill in for Brady in games against the Arizona Cardinals, Miami Dolphins, Houston Texans, and Buffalo Bills. Brady would be eligible to make his regular-season debut in Week 5 against the Cleveland Browns.

Despite the team playing with a second-string player, the Patriots are still predicted to perform well this upcoming season. But during those four games, Brady is set to lose approximately $235,294 in salary.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UNH School of Law Offers Course on “Deflategate” appeared first on Law Street.

Signaling the beginning of the end for Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, the Senate voted on Thursday in favor of impeaching the 68-year-old leader of Latin America’s largest country. She will be stripped of her duties for 180 days while the Senate holds a trial and debates whether to remove her from office permanently. Vice President Michel Temer will lead the country in the interim.

Rousseff has called the impeachment proceedings a “coup” and “fraudulent.” Her response to the day’s events, which saw the Senate vote 55 to 22 in favor of her impeachment: “It’s the most brutal of things that can happen to a human being—to be condemned for a crime you didn’t commit,” she said at a news conference Thursday morning. “I may have committed errors but I never committed crimes.”

Riordan Roett, Professor and Director of the Latin American Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University called the result “inevitable,” adding that Rousseff is “not a politician and did not understand how to work the system.”

“The mood of the country turned so negative,” said Roett, who is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, in an interview with Law Street. “It’s a combination of the scandals, increasing unemployment, increasing inflation, and the worst recession in a hundred years.”

Mistrust and public disapproval began in 2014, when members of her government, but not the president herself, were implicated in a corruption scandal involving the state-owned petroleum giant Petrobras. Calls for impeachment followed in 2015 after Rousseff was allegedly using illicit accounting practices to cover up the country’s sinking economic statistics.

Brazil’s economy has been tanking for years, with the central bank announcing in March that it expects the economy to shrink 3.5 percent in 2016, continuing the country’s worst recession in decades. Over the past year, millions of Brazilians have taken to the streets to protest Rousseff’s government. Seas of green and yellow gathered in Brasilia–the capital–and beyond: people waving flags and brandishing protest signs, wearing national soccer jerseys, some had their faces painted in the image of the country’s flag.

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s president of six years, was impeached on Thursday, after months of political and social unrest. “Presidente da República Dilma Rousseff concede entrevista” courtesy of Senado Federal via Flickr

Her political opponents saw Thursday’s impeachment as necessary, the consequence of Rousseff breaking the law by allegedly trying to cover up government deficits and her role in the bribe scandal that rocked Petrobras–where executives paid politicians for contracts–in 2014. Rousseff was chairwoman of the Petrobras–the world’s sixth largest oil company–from 2003 to 2010.

“Did anyone think that we would get to 2018 [the next election year] with a recovery under this government? Impossible,” said Jose Serra of the PSDB, or Party of Brazilian Social Democracy, who lost the 2010 election to Rousseff’s Workers’ Party. “The impeachment is just the start of the reconstruction,” he said.

And that reconstruction will begin with Michael Temer, the 75-year-old of the centrist Democratic Movement Party who was also implicated in the Petrobras ordeal. He has promised to expand social programs while also calling for austerity measures to get the economy back on track.

While polls show a slim majority of Brazilians support Rousseff’s ouster (61 percent in April), and wish the same fate for Temer (58 percent), her supporters deem the impeachment as a machination of the right-leaning political elite that has historically dominated the country’s politics, but has taken a backseat to the leftist Workers’ Party since it rose to prominence 13 years ago.

In April, when the first round of voting to impeach Rousseff passed through the lower house of Congress, her supporters expressed malcontent with what they saw as a conservative coup.

“Power in Brazil is always very conservative and elite, and at various events in the history of Brazil, we had a rupturing of institutions and the rules of democracy so that the economic elite could maintain its power,” Workers’ Party Congress member Maria do Rosario told the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper.

But Roett, the Johns Hopkins professor who has spent years in Brazil, disagreed with that assessment and with Rousseff’s claim that this is a coup by the right. “This reflects the mood of the country,” he said, noting that the history of the word “coup” dates back to the military coup of 1964, and Rousseff’s inclination to brand her political downfall with that loaded word. “People resented her attempt to glamorize herself,” by posing as the martyr of a political scheme.

And while he sees a long road ahead for Brazil–opening the economy, liberalizing labor legislation, reducing inflation and creating jobs–Roett is hesitantly hopeful about the country’s new leader.

“Let’s see if Temer can build the coalition that Rousseff never could,” 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 Impeached in Brazil: President Booted Amid Scandal and Public Outrage appeared first on Law Street.

If there’s one person who is sure to always hit us where it’s relevant, it’s Shonda Rhimes. On the mid-season finale of “Scandal” (spoilers ahead, for those who aren’t caught up), Mellie filibusters in front of the Senate for nearly a full day in order to ensure that Planned Parenthood’s funding isn’t considered discretionary, and Olivia aborts Fitz’s child. Even with the trigger warning at the beginning of the episode, viewers were surprised with where the plot took them.

All of this aired just eight days before a gunman attacked a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It occurred in the midst of a lawsuit against the state of Texas for trying to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding. And it tackled a real-life issue that has been discussed with increasing fervor since the fall—defunding Planned Parenthood altogether. Planned Parenthood remains front-page news, which is rare for an organization that has been around for nearly one hundred years. Yet it stays relevant, and will continue to stay relevant in mainstream media as long as the country is polarized by the subject of abortion. So, here’s a breakdown of all the latest Planned Parenthood stories, and what they mean for the future of the organization and healthcare.

Is Planned Parenthood going to be defunded?

In short, as of right now, it’s hard to say whether Planned Parenthood will still be funded next year.

There are two ways that Republicans could go about trying to defund Planned Parenthood. There is a bill that just passed the Senate that would both remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood for one year and repeal part of the Affordable Care Act. This bill had already passed in the House of Representatives. However, given that it’s part of a bill to repeal Obamacare, President Obama is expected to veto it.

So, if that doesn’t work, it is possible that the defunding would be tacked onto the spending bill that has to pass by December 11 in order for the government to continue functioning.

Why defund Planned Parenthood?

The woman’s health organization has been under fire since several videos were released in July 2015 that imply that baby parts are sold by the organization. Since then, it has been proven that these videos were manipulated by an anti-abortion organization, but the damage had already been done. The president of Planned Parenthood has since had to testify before a congressional hearing, and the threat to defund the organization has become very real.

What would happen if Planned Parenthood is defunded?

If Planned Parenthood is defunded, the results could be disastrous. While it is anyone’s right to decide what side they fall on in the ongoing and ever-relevant debate about abortion, that is only a fraction of the work that Planned Parenthood clinics do across the country. According to its own statistics, 80 percent of its work is focused on preventing unintended pregnancies. Aside from that, it also provides 4.5 million STI tests and treatments each year, including nearly a quarter of a million HIV tests. When Planned Parenthood was defunded in rural Indiana, there was an explosion of HIV in the county. For many women, Planned Parenthood is the only source of STI testing, birth control, and other women’s health services available to them. Defunding Planned Parenthood would take those services away from the five million people who visit clinic locations each year.

Arguments for Defunding Planned Parenthood

On the flip side, the government funds that are funneled into Planned Parenthood each year have many other worthy recipients. Jeff Duncan, a Representative from South Carolina, said that the Boys and Girls Club, for example, only gets a fraction of the funds that Planned Parenthood gets each year. There is also the argument that there should be fewer government-sponsored programs all together, and Planned Parenthood is just another program that should be funded in another way.

However, no matter how it’s stated, it comes down to this—pro-lifers, and even some pro-choicers, don’t think that the government should fund any organization that has anything to do with abortions, even if it is illegal for federal funds to pay for abortions themselves. In this belief system, Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be a government-funded agency, and therefore defunding the organization would free up tax dollars for other uses.

What’s going on with Planned Parenthood in Texas?

Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, announced in October that the state was going to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds. In return, Planned Parenthood and ten patients are suing the state of Texas in the hopes of stopping officials from cutting off the Medicaid funds that allowed the patients to be treated at Planned Parenthood locations. Texas is the fourth state, following Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana, to be involved in such a lawsuit this year.

Abbott made his announcement after the uproar that the July 2015 videos caused. The videos depicted supposed Planned Parenthood officials discussing selling aborted fetal parts for research, including staff members at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which is located in Houston, Texas.

Does Planned Parenthood stand a chance of winning the lawsuit?

This lawsuit could go either way.

In Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas, the state had to stop proceedings to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds until officials looked into the matter more closely. This means that there is a chance that the removal is unconstitutional, or breaks some kind of law for restricting federal funds. Federal health officials did warn the Texas Health and Human Services Commission in October that removing Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding could be a violation of United States law.

This is also not the first time that Planned Parenthood has sued the state of Texas. In 2012, Texas Republicans removed Planned Parenthood from the Texas Medicaid Women’s Health Program. The state of Texas argued that the federal government gave individual states the right to decide how to allocate federal Medicaid funds, and Planned Parenthood eventually lost the lawsuit.

As of November 23, 2015, the state of Texas had not yet received legal papers in the lawsuit. Once papers are received, the case will likely end up in front of a federal judge.

What about the shooting in Colorado Springs?

On Friday November 27, 2015–Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving best known for shopping deals—there was a fatal shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Three were left dead and nine injured in the shooting, and one of the deceased was a police officer. After a five-hour standoff with police, the shooter was taken into custody.

As of right now, the exact motive for the shooting is unknown. Robert L. Dear was arrested and appeared at a hearing on Monday November 30 wearing a security smocked designed to prevent suicides. Allegedly, when Dear was arrested, he uttered “no more baby parts,” but police have not been forthcoming with any other information.

How does this affect where Planned Parenthood stands?

The spotlight right now is on the potential Presidential candidates. None of the Republican candidates specifically addressed the attack until Saturday, a full day after the events took place, and then, it was on Twitter, and the statements were vague. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders released supports of sympathy. President Obama, meanwhile, stated his continued frustration with gun violence in the U.S.

The Senate voted this week on the bill that will defund Planned Parenthood, and while it was successful, it goes before President Obama now. Additionally, Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, has stated that Republicans are no longer planning to force a government shutdown over the defunding of Planned Parenthood, something they had been threatening to do in early November. However, the status of Planned Parenthood’s funding remains to be seen.

How is all of this related to a prime-time television show?

Shonda Rhimes is not a woman who shies away from controversial issues, as the midseason finale of “Scandal” clearly showed us. It is Rhimes’ relevancy that strikes a nerve with viewers. She was able to show a scenario playing out in the Senate–which is exactly where the bill that may defund Planned Parenthood for a year sat at the time–when a Republican junior Senator from Virginia filibusters so that funding for Planned Parenthood is not downgraded to discretionary. Not only that, but we see Olivia Pope–a strong woman, a character with gumption–in the most vulnerable position a woman can find herself in: on a bed with her feet in stirrups and a doctor between her legs. Put the two women together in a single episode, and you leave your audience with a powerful image.

After the episode aired, Planned Parenthood released this statement:

Tonight, the millions of people who tune into Scandal every Thursday night learned that our rights to reproductive health care are under attack. Never one to shy away from critical issues, Shonda Rhimes used her platform to tell the world that if Planned Parenthood lost funding for contraception counseling, STI testing, cancer screenings, and safe, legal abortion—millions of people would suffer. And this episode wasn’t the first time one of Rhimes’ characters had an abortion, yet tonight we saw one of our favorite characters make the deeply personal decision that one in three women have made in their lifetime. We applaud Shonda Rhimes tonight—and every Thursday night—for proving that when women are telling our stories, the world will pause and watch. We just hope those in Congress—and throughout the nation—who are steadfast on rolling the clock back on reproductive health care access are taking note.

But, further proving the contentious nature of this issue, the conservative Media Research Counsel released their own statement the day after the episode aired:

Hollywood’s liberal values permeate movies and television. Last night’s episode of ABC’s Scandal was pretty much an hour-long advertisement for Planned Parenthood. In the most disturbing scene, the main character has an abortion to ‘Silent Night’ (a hymn celebrating the birth of Jesus) playing in the background. This is Hollywood’s moral depravity on full display.

This particular episode was an interesting juxtaposition when considered side-by-side with what is currently happening in Texas and Colorado Springs. Rhimes showed women making powerful statements about the importance and commonplaceness of women’s health organizations like Planned Parenthood. In the current contentious political climate, “Scandal’s” arc showed a fictional look at some very real issues.

Conclusion

Planned Parenthood will likely always be in the news; such is the case when something as polarizing as abortion is involved. Religious and moral beliefs will cause the country to be split in two on the issue, as has been the case since Planned Parenthood opened its doors one hundred years ago. As long as the issue is relevant, we will continue to see media portray the issue in different lights, both in fiction and in mainstream media. And it is likely that Planned Parenthood and the news surrounding it will stay relevant for a while.

Resources

Primary

Planned Parenthood: Planned Parenthood at a Glance

Additional

Texas Tribune: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over Medicaid Removal

Los Angeles Times: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over Medicaid Funding

The New York Times: What Defunding Planned Parenthood Would Really Mean

Denver Post: What We Know about the Planned Parenthood Shooting in Colorado Springs

Refinery 29: Scandal Season 5, Episode 9 Recap: The Women Take a Stand

Entertainment Weekly: Scandal Abortion Shock: ABC Hit Slams Planned Parenthood Defunding

NPR: After Planned Parenthood Shooting, Obama Again Calls for Action on Guns

The New Yorker: The Planned Parenthood Shooting and the Republican Candidates’ Responses

The New York Times: For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack

The New York Times: No Shutdown Expected on Planned Parenthood

The New York Times: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas in Dispute of Funding for Clinics

Huffington Post: Indiana Shut Down Its Rural Planned Parenthood Clinics and Got an HIV Outbreak

Slate: The GOP Argument for Defunding Planned Parenthood is Incoherent

The Wall Street Journal: Republicans Look for Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood, Repeal Parts of Health Law

The Atlantic: ‘Scandal’ Gracefully Tackled Abortion in Its Midseason Finale

Refinery 29: Planned Parenthood “Applauds Shonda Rhimes” for Last Night’s Episode of Scandal

Daily Signal: Why Haven’t GOP-Led States Defunded Planned Parenthood?

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Planned Parenthood’s Continued Relevancy appeared first on Law Street.

It really isn’t looking good for the University of Louisville Cardinals’ basketball team after former escort Katina Powell aired out their dirtiest laundry in her new book “Breaking Cardinal Rules: Basketball and the Escort Queen.” Powell, 42, claims that from 2010-2014 Cardinals’ coaches used her and her girls to recruit players with illicit stripper dorm parties, where they paid dancers to have sex with the recruits.

In the book, which was compiled out of four years worth of Powell’s personal journal entries, she claims that she did “everything to make those guys sign,” and even felt like she was part of the recruitment team.

Continuing coverage today of our exclusive local interview with Katina Powell @WHAS11 @WHAS11Tabnie pic.twitter.com/73IdSIqNfu

— Renee Murphy (@WHAS11Renee) October 20, 2015

Shortly after the book’s release ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” launched its own investigation into the “sex party” claims and uncovered evidence that seemingly supports Powell’s assertions.

Watch the ESPN interview below  

The interview was chock full of juicy, salacious material, but here are the five most important facts you need to know.

1. Andre McGee allegedly orchestrated the parties

Former Director of Basketball Operations and graduate Assistant Coach Andre McGee was the alleged “point person” for all of the dorm stripper parties that took place in U of L’s Billy Minardi Hall. Powell claims that McGee asked her if some of the dancers would have sex for money. In her interview with ESPN’s Powell said,

He asked me, ‘Is there any girls that want to make extra money,’ pretty much a side deal with the players. … So I asked the girls and their eyes lit up like, ‘Well, yeah.

[…]

I just knew ‘Side deals’ were sex, and if they [the dancers] wanted to make extra money, that’s what the ‘side deal’ was, sex.

2. Players who supposedly had sex with dancers are being named

Powell outed former Louisville recruits JaQuan Lyle, Antonio Blakeney, Jordan Mickey, and Terry Rozier as all having had sex with dancers during their recruiting visits. She also claims that two former Cardinals players who made it to the NBA were also involved. She named Memphis Grizzlies point guard Russ Smith and Houston Rockets power forward Montrezl Harrell as having had sex with her daughters Lindsay Powell, 24, and Rod Ni Powell, 22, respectively.

3. Katina pimped out her own daughters

Opps, did I forget to mention that she pimped out her own daughters?

Her three daughters were paid to strip and have sex during these parties. But she made a point to mention that they were all at least 18 when they were first paid for sex. Great job mom.

4. Recruits are backing up her story

ESPN found five former Louisville basketball players or recruits who asked to remain anonymous, who are corroborating her story. One recruit who eventually signed to play elsewhere said, “I knew they weren’t college girls. It was crazy. It was like I was in a strip club.”

5. Coach Rick Pitino claims this is news to him

Many are wondering whether or not Cardinals Head Coach Rick Pitino knew anything about these parties. Powell, however, is pretty sure that he did, saying, “I said, ‘Does Pitino know about this?’ And he said, ‘He’s Rick. He knows about everything.'” As of now Pitino has no plans to step down, and is directing all blame on McGee, but the blowback from this scandal could easily make him the next casualty.

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 Ex-Escort Claims Louisville Coaches Paid for Recruits’ Strippers & Escorts appeared first on Law Street.

Votes swinging based on bribes, secret deals made in backrooms, corruption at the highest levels. No, this is not about the next presidential election–not yet anyway. Instead this is how the last few World Cups have allegedly been awarded. To many jaded sports fans familiar with the International Olympic Committee or NCAA, this is not surprising. Even for the naïve, allegations of corruption in FIFA are not startling. What was unexpected though was that the powerful people at FIFA would actually be caught. With the recent arrests, the narrative of the story has shifted from if the tree is rotten to how far up that rot goes. Read on to learn about the scandal rocking FIFA and what it means for the future of the World Cup and its decisionmakers.

FIFA

To understand the FIFA scandal, it is first necessary to understand the organization itself, and its former leader, Sepp Blatter.

What is FIFA?

FIFA–the Federation Internationale de Football Association–was founded in May 1904 by the international football associations of seven countries. The organization continued to grow, but remained entirely European until 1909 when South Africa joined and the United States followed in 1912. FIFA went through hard times during WWI and nearly fell apart altogether, however it endured and began expanding anew.

In 1930, FIFA staged its first World Cup, an event it had been building up to ever since soccer was first played at the Olympics in 1908. In the ensuing years, the organization and its membership grew while also dealing with issues such as travel causing many of best teams to not participate in the first few World Cups. By the 1970s FIFA had really emerged on the world stage incorporating members from Europe and South America in growing numbers as well as many new members from former colonial holdings. Under the much-maligned supervision of Sepp Blatter, FIFA has grown into a powerful global entity with 209 members worldwide, divided into six regional confederations, and with unquestioned clout.

Who is Sepp Blatter?

Sepp Blatter first became part of FIFA in 1975, after leaving his job at a Swiss watchmaker. He spent the next 40 years serving in a variety of roles since his start, namely as secretary general for 17 years and then president of the organization since 1998. Under his leadership FIFA’s crowning tournament has been played on two new continents, Asia and Africa, and become a multi-billion dollar tournament.

Despite his role in dramatically growing the game’s presence worldwide, Blatter is known as much for controversy. In the past he has made numerous inappropriate comments and been repeatedly accused of corruption in the court of public opinion. The awarding of the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 contest to Qatar seemed to be the ultimate examples of his duplicitousness.

Still, even with this reputation and after the recent arrests of senior FIFA members, Blatter was able to avoid indictment and was actually elected to a fifth term as FIFA president. However, following persistent criticism of himself and FIFA as a whole, Blatter finally relented and resigned his post in 2015. Nonetheless, Blatter will remain in his position until a new election takes place either later this year or early next, meaning the reign of Sepp Blatter at FIFA is not over just yet.

A History of Bribery, Corruption, and Kickbacks

While allegations of corruption and bribery have long haunted Blatter and by extension FIFA, this has had little or no effect on the all-important bottom line. In the last four years alone, FIFA has generated $6 billion in revenue; however, how the money is used has come under greater question. While this money was earmarked for soccer development worldwide, it was instead used for FIFA’s leaders’ own ambitions.

Acting on all the rumor and speculation concerning FIFA’s backroom dealings, the U.S. Justice Department indicted nine of the organization’s leaders for bribery amounting to $150 million. The arrests were part of a larger joint raid made along with Swiss authorities that also saw five corporate executives arrested and charged with racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption. The British are also considering filing their own charges.  The video below explains the FIFA scandal and arrests in detail.

Picking a World Cup

The World Cup is easily the most popular sporting event across the world. In 2010 for example, 200 million people tuned in for the draw or group selection process, not even an actual game. For comparison’s sake, the amount of people who watched the Super Bowl in 2015, a record for the event, maxed out at approximately 121 million people.

How the Process Works

Until 2002, every World Cup was played in either Europe, North America, or South America. However, this finally changed when Japan and Korea co-hosted the event. This also led to a major change in how the hosting country is selected. In 2006, FIFA instituted a system in which the tournament would be rotated among its six regional confederations.

While this was scrapped in 2007, a similar rule was put into place that same year stating that all countries in a particular regional confederation would be ineligible to host two World Cups following the event hosted by a neighboring country. In other words, if the U.S. hosted the 2018 World Cup, other countries in its region, such as Mexico, would not be eligible to host a World Cup until 2030 at the earliest.

The voting process itself is the responsibility of the executive committee, which is made up of 24 people. These include the president and vice president of FIFA, as well as seven other vice presidents representing each continental soccer federation and one from one of the home nations of the United Kingdom. To clarify, there are actually only six continental confederations–Antarctica is left out in the cold, thus the need for the seventh member. Lastly are 15 members elected from the 209 member countries, who are appointed to four-year terms.

These members are in charge of who gets the right to host the World Cup. The voting process involves each country interested in hosting the event giving a presentation on television before the committee. Once all the prospective hosts have presented their cases, the executive committee votes by secret ballot until a winner is declared. In the case of a tie, it is up to the president of FIFA to cast the deciding vote.

Corruption at Every Turn

As can be expected from a process of this nature, corruption is rampant. Of the many accusations, members selling votes is most common. In the most recent World Cup bid process, actual evidence of this phenomenon emerged. Two undercover British journalists were approached and offered votes in exchange for bribes. The notion of corruption however, should not be a surprise, in fact the way FIFA is constructed basically lends itself to this.

While not every country votes on who will host the World Cup, each has a say in another important way. Every member votes for the organization’s president. This is a system that can encourage small countries that are more dependent on FIFA stipends to be more likely to sell their vote in exchange for more support. This is the case because the amount of support each country receives has nothing to do with its size. Thus, for example, a massive country like China can receive less money from FIFA than a small country such as Bermuda.

In addition, aside from money, small countries can also expect other benefits for supporting certain people or countries’ bids. This comes in the form of recognition, namely FIFA along with having a poorly defined system for allocating funds also has an unclear definition of what makes a nation. For example Gibraltar, a small rock governed by the U.K. but claimed by Spain, nearly won recognition as its own nation despite only having a population of 29,000 people. The following video highlights the most recent FIFA presidential election.

Trouble With the Machine

The controversial decisions to award Russia the World Cup in 2018 and Qatar the event in 2022 are hardly the first incidents with picking a host country. In 2002 when Japan and South Korea co-hosted the event there were minor issues with the travel required between the venues causing the organizers to never again hold a multi-country event.

The controversy only ratcheted up for the next World Cup in 2006, when allegations concerning bribery surfaced when Germany won an upset bid for the tournament over supposedly favored South Africa. Recently, details have emerged of specifically what this bribery entailed; in this case it far exceeded the norm. In 2006 Germany is alleged to have temporarily lifted an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and to have shipped the country weapons in exchange for its vote. It is also accused of using the lure of investment from German companies such as Volkswagen, to get Thailand and South Korea to also support its candidacy.

Controversy continued when the tournament moved to Africa. In 2010 South Africa finally succeeded in its bid for the World Cup. According to a recent report, Morocco actually received more votes but, through a series of bribes, South Africa was declared the winner. At the center of this scandal was former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, who reportedly took bribes from both countries for the votes he controlled, he may also have taken money from Egypt who was also bidding for the tournament that year.

Like a perpetual storm cloud, problems followed the World Cup when it arrived in soccer mecca Brazil. The issues evolved far beyond just bribery and affected society as whole. Just a few of the major problems included the forced eviction of thousands of poor residents, social unrest, police brutality, unfinished infrastructure projects, unused stadiums, worker deaths, and lasting social inequality that was actually exacerbated by the tournament.

Russia and Qatar

ll these issues bring us back around to the next two proposed hosts for the World Cup: Russia and Qatar. Russia was awarded the tournament despite continued human rights abuses as well as its flagrant invasions of Ukraine and Georgia. Additionally, like Brazil before it, while Russia agrees to host the lavish tournament, people at home will be feeling the cost. Russia plans to spend at least $20 billion–a new record–despite the Ruble losing half its value in the last year and U.S.-led sanctions taking their toll on the Russian economy, as well.

Then there is Qatar, whose selection to hold the 2022 tournament was so preposterous that it played a huge role in authorities finally stepping in to clean up FIFA’s corruption. Qatar plans to spend $220 billion on the tournament, which will make that record-breaking Russian figure look minuscule. Also, in an effort to avoid the average 106 degree temperature there, the World Cup in Qatar will be moved to winter. On a human level, most of the work is being done by migrants who are working in slave-like conditions and dying in droves. This does not even take into account the laws against things such as drinking alcohol or homosexuality.  The following video explains many of the negative issues as a result of the World Cup in Qatar.

With this as the backdrop and with the still-simmering scandal, it comes as little surprise then that bidding for the 2026 tournament has been put on hold. Additionally, despite FIFA saying there is no legal ground on which to take hosting duties for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups away from Russia and Qatar, many are eager to explore that option as well.

Conclusion

The FIFA scandal far exceeds the traditional borders of sport. The organization is so powerful that it has the ability, directly or indirectly, to boost an unpopular leader and even legitimize states. It also has sponsorships from some the world’s most powerful corporations and is the most popular sport globally. With this in mind then, the recent arrests of FIFA’s top leaders were surprising only in the fact that they actually happened. These men and this organization have been basically untouchable for decades.

Thus, while the U.S. and Swiss indict leaders and promise further action, it is hard to believe any of it will actually happen, or at the very least stick. Even the resignation of Sepp Blatter, despite the ardent support of Vladimir Putin, comes with a caveat. Blatter was elected in a landslide right before his resignation and was allowed to leave on his own terms instead of in hand cuffs, as many feel should be the case.

While its leaders fall like dominoes, FIFA will likely survive this scandal as it survived two world wars, membership issues, and a host of other problems along the way. The real question in the wake of this scandal is, will any of these arrests, indictments, or resignations make this seminal organization less corrupt and more honest? Based on the system in place and its recent elections the answer looks like no.

Resources

Top End Sports: Host Country Selection

MLS Soccer: What is FIFA, Who is Sepp Blatter, and What is All the Fuss About?

Goal: World Cup Bidding Process Explained

FIFA: History of FIFA

Time: These Are the Five Facts That Explain the FIFA Scandal

Five Thirty Eight: How FIFA’s Structure Lends Itself to Corruption

Reuters: Germany Sold Arms to Saudi Arabia to Secure Its Vote for 2006 World Cup

Sports Illustrated: Morocco Beat South Africa in Vote For 2010 World Cup

World.Mic: Seven Big Problems the World Cup Left Behind in Brazil

LA Times: So Many Things Wrong With Qatar World Cup 2022

CNN: FIFA to Suspend Bidding For 2026 World Cup Amid Corruption Scandal

BBC: Vladimir Putin Expresses Support for Blatter

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FIFA Scandal is No Surprise if You’ve Been Paying Attention appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday June 5, Rick Perry announced his plans to run for the Republican presidential bid in 2016. Despite his blunder in a Republican presidential debate almost four years ago, Perry decided that reforming his image and enhancing his stage presence will give him a good shot at running for president this time around. But considering Perry’s low support among Texans and his indictment regarding his alleged abuse of power as governor, Perry might not be able to rally any support for his bid.

So far, Perry has focused his presidential bid on his experience as a governor who stimulated Texas’s economy and on his military experience. His primary tactic is to distinguish himself from the other Republican candidates by being the face of leadership and experience. He’s also emphasized his humble background by relaying his childhood upbringing on a cotton farm. But this technique has not quite corrected his previous blunder, nor is it garnering the same support that he had the first time around.

Perry has already lost crucial support in Texas and many Texans don’t even support him; in a recent poll he barely polled at 2 percent compared to Scott Walker at 18 percent and Marco Rubio at 13 percent. Many Republican and Tea Party members have flocked to Ted Cruz instead of Perry.

The last piece of the puzzle that is seriously damaging Perry’s chances of winning the Republican bid for the presidency is the indictment that accuses Perry of abusing his power as governor when he was in office. Perry allegedly threatened Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign after she had pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served a 45-day sentence. She refused and Perry vetoed the funding to her office’s Public Integrity Unit, which focused on anti-corruption measures. As a result of the indictment, Perry faces the possibility of 109 years in prison. Perry’s defense appeals to the rule of the law, as he stated:

I stood up for the rule of the law in Texas, and if I had to do it again, I would make exactly the same decision.

However, the original complaint was actually filed before Perry vetoed the funding for the Public Integrity Unit. The team who filed the complaint found four other allegations that could point to felonies. The claim for the complaint is focused more on Perry threatening another official and actually has little to do with his vetoes. All of these accusations could spell problems for Perry on the campaign trail.

Perry seems to be taking on a lot as he runs for the Republican presidential bid. The fact that he is accused of abusing his power as governor should put a lot of doubt in voters’ minds. And even though his presidential campaign has focused on important issues so far, such as increasing jobs, Perry has not been successful in gaining support in Texas. Some could say it’s admirable that he is trying to run for the presidency again, but he should be more focused on his abuse of power charges, which may end up determining his presidential campaign before it even really begins.

Sarina Neote

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

The post Rick Perry’s Hands Are Full appeared first on Law Street.

This week’s installment of the best legal tweets of the week feature law students motivated for finals by TV lawyers, contracts-fueled breakups, and everyone’s favorite development: Chipotle deliveries! Check out the slideshow below of the best legal tweets of the week.

[SlideDeck2 id=38768 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

University of Oklahoma’s President is giving chapter members of the fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) exactly one day to get off the campus after a shocking video of the fraternity brothers chorusing a racist chant surfaced on social media.

The video uploaded to Youtube Sunday reportedly shows a bus full of of well dressed white men and women on Saturday chanting in unison: “There will never be a ni**** in SAE. There will never be a ni**** in SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me. There will never be a ni**** in SAE.”

The video can be found here, but keep in mind it is extremely offensive.

According to KOKO Oklahoma City, President David Boren gave the fraternity brothers until midnight Monday to pack up their things and leave. In his statement he denounces the members saying:

Real Sooners are not racist. Real Sooners are not bigots. Real Sooners believe in equal opportunity. Real Sooners treat all people with respect. Real Sooners love each other and take care of each other like family members.

Updated statement attached – DBo pic.twitter.com/xxfiJwCh0P

— David Boren (@President_Boren) March 9, 2015

Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s national chapter was quick to shut down Oklahoma’s Kappa chapter after being informed of the video saying they were “disgusted by this video” and “offer our empathy not only to anyone outside the organization who is offended but also to our brothers who come from a wide range of backgrounds, cultures and ethnicities.” They took to Twitter to offer this official statement:

While we correct our server issues, here’s our statement. pic.twitter.com/yOBqubcLFO

— Sigma Alpha Epsilon (@sae1856) March 9, 2015

The university is taking this situation seriously, announcing they will be launching a formal investigation into the video and will punish any students involved.

If the video is indeed of OU students, this behavior will not be tolerated and is contrary to all of our values. We are investigating. – DBo

— David Boren (@President_Boren) March 9, 2015

What’s probably most shocking about the video is the perfect unison in which the students are heard chanting. It doesn’t at all sound like this is the first time they’ve recited this chant and the lynching references could mean this tradition dates back awhile. However, Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s national chapter is denying any ties to the chant and seems to be just as disgusted with it as the rest of the nation. Like in many hazing or other Greek life scandals, this video may end up tarnishing the organization’s reputation as a whole.

The only positive thing that can be said about this video is the zero tolerance policy for racism shown by University of Oklahoma administrators. This video is just further proof that contrary to some people racism is still alive, and this nation has a lot more work to do before we see its extinction.

—

Alexis Evans (@Lex_vans) is an Editorial Assistant at Law Street and a Buckeye State native new to Washington D.C. She received a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in business from Ohio University. When she’s not taking Buzzfeed quizzes, she enjoys watching reality TV and cooking. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jeff Simms via Flickr]

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 University of Oklahoma Fraternity Shut Down After Racist Chant appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year! Get ready for a full day of listening to your friends, family, and every D-lister on the morning shows drone on and on about their 2015 resolutions. Diets, new jobs, and all the usual suspects will make the rounds no matter who you talk to, but here are some resolutions celebrities and politicians should be making if they were really being honest with themselves.

Rep. Michael Grimm

Start paying taxes; stop threatening to throw reporters off balconies.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Sony Co-Chair Amy Pascal

Leave racially insensitive comments to unfiltered grandparents during the holidays and not in emails to colleagues.

Latest Sony email hack shows Scott Rudin and Amy Pascal making racist jokes about Obama http://t.co/RrNLdhplvR

— NY Daily News Gossip (@NYDNgossip) December 11, 2014

Justin Bieber

Start the Justin Bieber “Center for Kids Who Can’t Give Depositions Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.” Also, avoid Interpol.  

President Obama

Figure out a way to differentiate the Baltimore Ravens roster from the Freaks and Geeks cast.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Kim Kardashian

Learn how the internet works; determine whether or not it’s actually “breakable.”

The 10 most popular stories of the year on http://t.co/M1Ru3U4Ixe http://t.co/SQUr0yv8JQ pic.twitter.com/OwzDevBv0Y — PAPER Magazine (@papermagazine) December 31, 2014

Zooey Deschanel

Don’t break any more horses.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Sen. Ted Cruz

Stop practicing puppy dog face in mirror. Face is beginning to get stuck that way.

Courtesy of Twitchy.com.

Taylor Swift

Bring back surprised face–people seem to miss it.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Shonda Rhimes

Take over ABC, rename Shondaland. Make sure all programming includes strong female lead with some flaws, an emotional kiss scene, and an improbable natural catasrophe.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Charlie Crist

Track down promised campaign donation from the United Fan Makers of America.

Hon. John Dingell

Keep being awesome.

Proud Michigan resident & dear friend @grahamdavis got a bulldog today and named it Dingell. I see no similarities. pic.twitter.com/aqKwGwMM9Y

— Rep. John Dingell (@john_dingell) October 19, 2014

Mama June Shannon

Take a break from dating.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Former Rep. Trey Radel

Stop throwing stones from glass house.

Ya give him a breathalyzer test every-time he votes…duh http://t.co/lX5ojfqnqu — starchy (@me_starchy) December 31, 2014

What other resolutions do you think they should make? Let us know in the comments.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Year’s Resolutions Celebs & Politicians Should Make for 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

With the success of recent television shows like ABC’s “How to Get Away with Murder” and “Black-ish,” many in the industry are starting to reevaluate their positions on race in television. The “old guard” of television often said that the American people wouldn’t watch a television show that heavily featured characters who weren’t white — often relegating anyone who doesn’t fit into that box to a life of being the sidekick, or worse yet, losing all sense of identity and being whitewashed.

Characters on television shows need to be interesting, developed, and sympathetic. The diversity of a character does not only fall in ethnic background, but it is certainly a way to give that character a deeper history. Still — as someone who regularly watches television it is clear that on-screen diversity on screen is growing, especially when you consider shows like “Scandal”, “Glee”, “Grey’s Anatomy,” and “Orange is the New Black”. It is pretty much expected now for a show to have one character who doesn’t fall into the cis-gendered straight white category.

And we are noticing — think back to all of the press and negative coverage that “Girls” received (and still receives) because of its lack of ethnic diversity. But “Girls” is just one in a long line of history.

Still, one must consider some of the most popular television shows in the last two decades. These shows, the ones that get the push from the individual stations and the media, are still white. “Seinfeld,” “Friends,” “Will & Grace,” “How I Met Your Mother,” and “Sex and the City” were all the most popular shows when they were airing, and they all featured white friends in New York City.

But why is this still happening when, according to Nielsen, white people don’t even make up the majority of the viewing audience?

“It’s not only that the African-American audience watches more TV, but it’s substantially more — two hours over other groups,” Ron Simon, head curator at the Paley Center for Media, told theGrio in an interview. “It’s known in the industry, but it certainly hasn’t gotten the attention I think that it deserves.”

Race and Watching Habits

Race is a social construct — that is the first thing we need to realize if we are going to discuss race at all. It is a way to categorize people into neat groups.

Except those groups aren’t so neat anymore.

Here are some pretty startling statistics about race and television in the United States:

This is a problem. When you look at the statistics, stations like Mundo, which focuses on the Latino community, or BET, which focuses on the black community, sometimes overtake shows on mainstream networks that are fledgling. According to the report, African Americans watch 37 percent more television than other demographics, which means that they are watching shows that don’t always represent them in the best light. Or worse — they are watching shows that don’t represent them at all.

Whitewashing

Whitewashing happens when an actor or actress is completely stripped of his or her ethnic qualities and either declared or assumed white by the writers and viewers of the show. Whitewashing is a dangerous happenstance because it not only eliminates the ethnic identity of the actors, but it also impacts the fans of the show. As we become more and more connected to our television shows through social media, and we know more and more about the actors, it seems harmful to completely remove their cultures. However, what about the people who don’t follow the actors and know their backstories — they simply never realize that they are watching someone who isn’t just white.

“Vaguely Eurasian”

One of the better shows on television when it comes to portraying diversity is Fox’s “Glee.” The show has been groundbreaking (though sometimes problematic) in giving light to all different types of characters. There’s no doubt that Kurt Hummel will go down as one of the revolutionary LGBT characters on television. But what about his boyfriend? Darren Criss, the actor who plays Blaine Anderson, is half Irish from his father and Filipino from his mother. Early in his tenure on the show, he is referred to as “Vaguely-Eurasian” by another character. Vaguely-Eurasian. It seems like a slap in the face because Darren Criss is clearly part Filipino. He has almond eyes with extravagant lashes, medium gold toned skin, and thick black curls. Many just assumed his character had the same history that he did.

Until the next season, when they cast Matt Bomer as his brother. Matt Bomer is a fantastic actor, but he is English mixed with Welsh, Scottish, and German. Now this wouldn’t be a problem if the show had given context for his family, but they haven’t. One cannot assume that there was a remarriage or they are step brothers. They are called brothers in canon, so that is what the viewer must take them to be. Could it possibly be that Fox didn’t want to push the boundaries by showing a couple that was gay AND two different races? Not so fast — another couple on the show, Brittany and Santana, fit that bill. So why whitewash Blaine Anderson? Is it because Darren Criss could pass as white? Is it because Darren Criss is the heartthrob of the show, and the heartthrob couldn’t possibly be anything other than white? Is it a push from Fox? Or are they not whitewashing him, just not talking about it? Glee isn’t the only show that does it, and it isn’t always a problem. But there is the question: why did they choose to whitewash him on a show where diversity is celebrated?

Awards and the Changing Times

The Emmy Awards are always a point of contention for viewers of television shows. The same complaints always arise during nominations — “why wasn’t [insert name here] nominated?” or, “Wow! [insert name here] was snubbed!”

One of the biggest snubs of the 2014 Emmys was of sitcom actress Mindy Kaling.

Kaling was a surefire nomination for her show “The Mindy Project” because she had been tapped to announce the nominees. When it came time to announce the category she was supposed to be nominated in, her name was nowhere to be found.

Is this a case of racism on television, or were there just more worthy nominees?

While we can’t get into the mind of the voters it is important to note that there has been only one non-white woman who has won an Emmy for acting in a leading comedic role: America Ferrera as Ugly Betty.

In fact, 2013 was the first time ever an African American woman won an Emmy for Best Actress in a Drama: Kerry Washington for “Scandal.”

Why don’t we have more diversity on TV?

Could the lack of diversity on television be caused by a lack of diversity among its writers? That is certainly a possibility. Shonda Rhimes is one of the only black female writers to get a television show of her own, and she now has three: “Grey’s Anatomy”, “Scandal,” and “How to Get Away With Murder” – all of which have strong, diverse characters.

So what are we to do to encourage more representation on television? Part of it is up to the viewer: demand it. Don’t watch shows that feature people of color in supporting roles that are degrading. Tweet about it to the companies, the actors, and the writers. Support shows that do provide a realistic depiction of diversity.

We need to also encourage more children of color to go into the arts, whether it be acting, writing, or directing.

The steps aren’t going to happen overnight, sadly, and the momentum is shifting — we just need to continue pushing.

Resources

Primary 

Critical Media Project

Center for Media Literacy: Does TV Shape Ethnic Images?

Additional

Salon: Whitewashed TV Isn’t Just Racist. It’s Boring! 

The New York Times: Minorities in Movies and Television

Grio: Nielsen Report Confirms Blacks Watch More TV Than Any Other Group

Hollywood Reporter: The Emmy’s Rocky Race Relations

Lee & Low Books: Where’s the Diversity? A Look at the Emmy Awards and TV 

San Jose Mercury News: Fall TV 2014: Diversity, is all the Rage–Finally

Noel Diem

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

The post Diversity on TV: The New Normal? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last week Rachel Craig, 28, from Waynesboro, Virginia was convicted under the state’s new revenge porn law. She faces up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The revenge porn law went into effect in July and it criminalizes posting nude pictures of someone on the Internet without the individual’s consent. Craig was said to have been in an argument with her former boyfriend when she allegedly stole a picture of his current girlfriend from his phone and posted it on Facebook. Craig even took full credit for the act and warned the victim “not to mess with her” according to Sgt. Brian Edwards of the Waynesboro, Virginia Police Department.

Okay. I’m sorry. What!?! I have so many questions. First of all, if he is your former boyfriend why are you still even communicating with him? Secondly, what was she doing with his phone at all? Third, don’t you think at 28 you would be mature enough to not take this to Facebook? I don’t get it. I don’t get the blatant disregard for an innocent bystander and the maturity level of this woman. I also kind of wish there was a stupid clause tacked on to the law to give this girl an extra six months to sit in solitude and think about how dumb this whole situation is. Craig might go to jail and have to fork over $2,500 for something petty that could have been avoided if she just stopped and thought about what was the real issue and not harming an innocent bystander.

Two months ago another woman in Virginia — Crystal Cherry — was also charged with revenge porn because she posted nude photos of her boyfriend’s former girlfriend on Instagram and Twitter just days after the new law went into effect. Again, another one of these women who is dumb enough to take to social media and create issues that could be avoided at all costs if she could just handle her problems like an adult.

I like this law. The only thing that concerns me is that if this is a first-time offense, both Crystal and Rachel will probably not do any time and will just pay the fee. I know prisons are crowded and our tax dollars are hard at work with sustaining life for idiots who like to break the law, but maybe there should be something a little bit more that we could do. Maybe a class on how to not be so stupid? Or teach kids the proper way to use social media?

I like Facebook and Instagram and I admittedly have a serious love of Twitter, but I don’t need to know everything that you are doing. I don’t need to read about your daily drama. And I definitely don’t want to see you posting nude photos of another woman just because you’re mad at some dude who probably won’t matter to you in five years. Craig and Cherry get to be reminded of that every day now for the rest of their lives when they have to include their misdemeanor convictions on any application they fill out.

This month Jennifer Lawrence is on the cover of Vanity Fair and in her interview she mentions the celebrity nude hacking scandal that she was a part of. J-Law called it a “sex crime not a scandal,” and I tend to agree with her. Not only did this hacker violate someone’s privacy but also committed a cyber crime. Hundreds of celebrities’ nude photos were splashed across the internet, violating their privacy. Some people say that when you choose the life of a celebrity you choose to give up your privacy, but I completely disagree. Celebrities are still people. But I will criticize anyone who is dumb enough to take nude photos and save them anywhere. iCloud is not secure. Your computer is not secure. There is always someone trying to hack into something that will violate you in some way and they may just be doing it for the fun or just because they can.

Even some idiot Pasadena, Texas school teacher gave nude photos to a student she was having an affair with who ultimately ended up sharing them with others. Ashley Zehnder, 24, had reported that nude photos of her were being shared throughout the school where she taught. An investigation revealed that she was sleeping with a student who shared them. Will anything happen to the student who was having the affair and sharing the nude photos? Probably not. But Zehnder lost her job, will go to jail, and will probably have to register as a sex offender. Can we say Mary Kay Letourneau?

I think that there is a lesson in all of this. People need to be more cautious about what they are doing and where it is being saved. Craig and Cherry’s victims are on the same side as Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities. The only difference is Craig and Cherry got caught. Zehnder is the predator and the victim. Her private nude photos were shared with an entire school but she also preyed on a student.

Word to the wise: if you are going to take nude photos use a Polaroid and burn them when you are done if you don’t want them to be shared. Or better yet, just don’t take them. Have a little modesty and respect for yourself. If you want to share being nude do it in person where the only other person looking at you can only use their memory, not a hard copy that could be sent out to the world.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PSA: Nude Photos Will Send You to Jail appeared first on Law Street.

In honor of this weekend’s round of LSATs, this week’s edition of Best Legal Tweets highlights all those prospective law students as they count down to the big deadline. One thing’s for sure: future lawyers LOVE Shonda Rhimes and her legal dramas. Unfortunately, watching “How To Get Away With Murder” and “Scandal” won’t get you into law school. Good luck to the test takers!

[SlideDeck2 id=25729 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week: LSAT Edition appeared first on Law Street.

For the last few days a video has been making its way through certain circles of the internet. One of our bloggers, the awesome Allison Dawson, even wrote a piece about it entitled, “9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly for These GW Students.” The video is a handful of students from The George Washington University here in D.C. answering a few questions on current events. The interviewer is Ashley Pratte, a spokeswoman for Young America’s Foundation. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s right here:

Now before I continue, full disclosure here. I’m a recent GW alum. I still have some school spirit. I had a great time at GW, made some of my best friends there, and will always be thankful for the opportunities I was offered. That being said, there are plenty of things that I will always slam GW for — looking at you former GW President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg for making offensive comments about rape into a particularly lurid art form. When it comes to this video though, I’m going to stand with my alma mater.

The tactics that YAF used were cheap, gotcha journalism. It seems like they came in with a hypothesis — students at a mostly liberal university that’s often named one of the most politically active schools in the country are a shining example of how today’s young people are ignorant about world events. I mean come on, the video started with the interviewer standing in front of kegs being unloaded. I’m sure that was just the most convenient place to stand, and not at all an entirely unsubtle reference to the fact that occasionally college kids drink rather than watch CNN.

And then let’s think about the questions they asked: 9/11, ISIS, and the celebrity nude photo leak. The phrasing of the 9/11 question was vague at best: “Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?” I was an international affairs major, so I’m just going to need you guys to believe me when I say I know a fair bit about 9/11. But to be honest, I don’t know I would have gotten that question right. I am a self-sufficient adult, yet I came really damn close to not realizing my birthday was coming up a few weeks ago. That’s not a fair question — ask me what major national event is coming up next week and I’m pretty sure my response is going to be “remind me what dates are next week?” A fairer question would have included at least an attempt at context, for example, “What major national event falls in the second week of September?” or an actually substantive question, such as “What happened on September 11, 2001?” or “Who committed the acts of terror against the U.S.?” Should more students have gotten the question right as it was? Probably. But is it fair to conclude from a vaguely worded question that those students don’t know what 9/11 is, or remember it? Hardly.

And let’s talk about the sample size used in this “study.” Thirty students who were put completely on the spot while cameras were rolling…out of a population of roughly 24,000, including grad students… who were randomly found on campus. Congrats, that’s a statistically negligible sample size of .00125 percent! Listen, if YAF had gone ahead and conducted a legitimate survey of a real sample size and gotten the same results, I’d be embarrassed on behalf of my alma mater. But this is just silly. Grabbing students on their way home from class or work, asking them poorly contextualized questions, and then watching your hypothesis come true is hardly good journalism.

What this was was a poorly laid trap.

Out of curiosity, I actually tracked down one of the students in the video. Noah Katz, a freshman in GW’s Elliott School of International Affairs, told me that while Pratte was very polite, he though the question about 9/11 was weirdly phrased. Katz told me, “they asked what landmark United States event is having its anniversary in the next coming weeks. I immediately thought about things like Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education.” 

Finally, let’s stop and think for a minute here. Even if some students don’t know the names of the journalists beheaded by ISIS, but do know that Jennifer Lawrence had her nude photos leaked, does that really tell us anything about them as people? You could play this game with anything. If you tracked me down on the street and asked me about music or physics, my answers would probably be pretty embarrassing. One of the greatest things about my college experience was that i was exposed to people from different backgrounds, different political affiliations, and with different interests, hobbies, and priorities than myself. That’s how real life is, that’s how America is, and that’s OK.

Yes, we should all strive our best to be informed, but a three-minute video on the street with 30 students and blatantly biased techniques doesn’t do much to convince me that we’re doing a bad job of that. Instead of tearing each other down for some gaps in knowledge, let’s celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we have the freedom to have those kinds of differences.

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 Response: Stupid GW Students or Gotcha Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve been on the internet in the last few days, you’ve probably seen news stories about a massive leak of celebrity nude photos. In a rather uncouth display, the mass release has been dubbed “The Fappening” by the internet. It’s a mix of “The Happening,” and…I’ll let you figure out the other part on your own. Celebrities included on the steadily growing list include Jennifer Lawrence, Rihanna, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kirsten Dunst, Kaley Cuoco, Ariana Grande, Kate Upton, Victoria Justice, and more. Some, like Mary Elizabeth Winstead, have acknowledged that the photos were real, while others like Victoria Justice claim they are fakes.

The pictures mostly surfaced on reddit and 4chan beginning on August 31. The photos then made their way to Twitter and other more mainstream sites. Most of the photos seem to have been obtained through hacking iCloud accounts. Put extremely simply, that means that the photos had been stored by the celebrity users to their personal accounts that included storage in the iCloud network. Benefits of the iCloud include the ability to access it from multiple accounts and locations, as well as freeing up space on a hard drive or other storage device.

How exactly the hackers obtained the nude photos is uncertain — they could have exploited a security flaw that Apple was unaware of, or they could have obtained the celebrities’ emails and then managed to gain access to their passwords by guessing security questions or some other method. Since celebrities seem to have been specifically targeted, the average user probably shouldn’t be too worried about sensitive material being stolen off their clouds right now — but the whole controversy does raise questions about cloud-type storage. The FBI has now gotten involved in the scandal and it appears to be searching for the hacker(s) who managed to get into the iCloud accounts and released the photos.

The whole fact that the photos got out in the first place is concerning. Celebrity pictures are leaked frequently, but usually just one or two. These leaks encompass hundreds, perhaps thousands, of photographs of young women whose privacy was seriously invaded for no other reason than the fact that they are both attractive and good at their jobs. And not only have their private accounts been hacked, the omnipresent internet trolls are more than willing to make fun of them for their concerns. Many have said that because the women took the pictures and uploaded them to the cloud at all, they deserve to have them released en masse.

Seriously? These women took pictures in the privacy of their own homes, with no intention of releasing them to the public. True, uploading them to a possibly hackable network was their own choice, but it was far from a damnable one. Imagine that these women had nude pictures taken of them by a peeping tom or a stalker. I have to think the public outcry would be greater — at least I hope it would be — but I don’t really see a huge difference. Either way, privacy is being ignored. The photos that have been leaked were stolen, plain and simple. And now that they’re out there, they’re going to be almost impossible to get down.

There’s a reason that one of the classic nightmare archetypes is realizing that you’re naked somewhere. I have a feeling that even if you’re a famous celebrity, that holds true. To all the people who are looking at the photos right now, please remember that those are real people who did not consent to have these pictures released to the public. Remember that before you look, and think about how you’d feel to have the entire world see your naked photos. I have a feeling it’s eerily similar to a nightmare.

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 Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach appeared first on Law Street.

The Blue Angels are regarded as some of the most highly talented and well-respected pilots in the Navy and the Marines.  As someone who has seen the Blue Angels fly overhead several times I can vouch for their skill–they literally take your breath away with their gracefully executed swoops and dives. But recently, their image has been tarnished as some former Angels are under investigation for sexual harassment, a hard blow to both the daredevils’ mission and public image.

The mission of the United States Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron is to showcase the pride and professionalism of the United States Navy and Marine Corps by inspiring a culture of excellence and service to country through flight demonstrations and community outreach.

Who are the Blue Angels?

The Blue Angels squadron is a team comprised of 16 volunteering officers, with six pilots who fly jets of varying capabilities. Blue Angels officers serve either two or three years (depending on their positions) with the squadron before returning to their fleets. The Blue Angels team is a unique military demonstration team and is highly respected in the military community.

The structure of the Blue Angels is what sets this unit apart. Unlike other military units, the commanding officer (CO) of the Blue Angels “is both the final authority and a wingman whose flying is critiqued by junior officers.” The Blue Angels lack an executive officer (XO), which is a typical chain-of-command arrangement. One former Angel explained that the unusual command structure in the Angels makes it difficult for the CO to act with authority while maintaining his peers as his equals. The atypical leadership structure paired with an inappropriate CO led to a toxic work environment in former CO Capt. Gregory McWherter’s second term.

The Controversy 

McWherter served as the CO for the Blue Angels from 2008 to 2010 and then again from May 2011 to November 2012. According to the Daily Mail, there were no reports of misconduct during his first term. But a service member has now filed an official complaint with the Navy about the inappropriate work environment.

The Department of the Navy made the investigation report public, and the contents were quite shocking. The most bizarre incident the report included was an unusual act of vandalism. Someone took it upon himself to draw a huge blue and gold penis “on the roof of the center point trailer at the Blue Angels’ winter training facilities in El Centro.” This inappropriate artwork was visible from space and even showed up on Google Maps for a while.

Other offenses that occurred under McWherter’s authority included members passing along pornographic images, pornographically carved pumpkins in the office, joking about their girlfriends’ nude photos, and making offensive jokes after Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed. The report specifically accuses McWherter of making sexist jokes about women.

McWherter lost his job as an XO of Naval Base Coronado in California due to the allegations of sexual harassment. He also resigned as the president of The Tailhook Association amid the scandal’s publicity. But McWherter’s removal is not the only change happening in the Navy.

A New Chain-of-Command

According to the Navy Times, the squadron will now be assigned an XO; this is the first time the Blue Angels organization will be overseen in such a way. The XO will be a designated aviator who oversees the squadron, but he will not fly along with the Blue Angels. The Navy Times explained, this change in command will serve as an attempt to restore the unit from the “hostile working environment rife with pornography, lewd behavior and other sexual harassment” fostered by McWherter.

To further uphold the prestigious reputation of the Blue Angels, the head of Naval Air Forces, Vice Admiral David Buss, incorporated additional changes in the selection process. He told The Navy Times the selection criteria was rewritten so as to provide opportunities for anyone to be considered regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race. Those who are considered will be reviewed by several new authorities and while Buss expects critics, he said these changes are necessary to improve the Blue Angels’ environment. These new checks and balances to be put in place after the 2015 selection round will help prevent future abuses of authority. Buss expressed his faith that restructuring the chain-of-command in the Blue Angels will only return the squadron to its esteemed origin.

Not a First-Time Offense

The Navy has dealt with similar scandals in the past–but the matter boils down to something much simpler than a scandal. What part of being a good pilot or fighter constitutes the need for lewd behavior and pornographic pinups in the office? These conditions are unprofessional and take away from the honor associated with the military. As silly as it may sound, the blue and gold penis scandal brings attention to the issue of sexual discrimination in the military.

An environment in which women are discussed as objects for aesthetic and sexual appeal is not professionally acceptable. Though the Blue Angels do not discriminate against female pilots on paper, no female pilot has ever been initiated into the squadron. That seems a bit strange, considering the Blue Angels have been around since the 1940s. Regardless, this scandal is a blessing in disguise for the Blue Angels. Though the public knowledge of the lewd work environment behind the dazzling air-show does not bode well in means of publicity, it made way for an improved future for the Angels.

With a more stringent selection process and restructured chain-of-command, the Blue Angels are sure to perform at their finest in the upcoming years. Applicants will be considered solely based on merit, career significance, and professionalism. The new chain-of-command will give way to a whole new professionalism to the Blue Angels, which is evidently much needed.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Official U.S. Navy Page via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

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

The post The Blue Angels: Harassment Investigation Sparks Changes appeared first on Law Street.

While the city of Toronto collectively wonders where in the world its mayor, Rob Ford, is today — Rehab? The U.S? Eating a sandwich at the corner deli? — we thought it’s the perfect time to take a walk down memory lane. Are Rob Ford’s 15 minutes of fame winding down? Doesn’t seem like it — this most recent sparkling example of stupidity was just released today.

The Toronto Sun released this video showing our favorite beleaguered crack head mayor ranting in a bar. It’s quite spectacular, especially it means that Ford has apparently mastered being in two places at once, given that he’s currently supposed to be in rehab and his family claims that he has not left rehab since being admitted. Rob Ford is saying some pure gold in this video, my favorite being: “I’m nodding here. I’m in f—ing divorce and going to the f—ing doghouse and going in a hotel. (Inaudible) I don’t know what to say.”   

Unrelated but awesome.

Oh yeah, Rob Ford’s doing as well as always. And if you like that video, make sure to check out 15 other ridiculous Rob Ford moments below.

Click here to read the original post published November 20, 2013.

Bumbling Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has made waves in recent weeks for the revelation that he once smoked crack while “in a drunken stupor” this February. I’d love to say that this was the only dumb thing Mayor Ford has ever done, but where would the fun be in that? Let’s look at a countdown of Mayor Ford’s oddest, most embarrassing, and downright idiotic moments.

15. That one time the Toronto City Council tried to strip him of his power after the crack smoking scandal and he compared his side of the story to…The Gulf War.

“This, folks, reminds me of when — and I was watching with my brother — when Saddam attacked Kuwait. And President Bush said, ‘I warn you, I warn you, I warn you, do not.’ Well, folks, if you think American-style politics is nasty, you guys have just attacked Kuwait. Mark my words, friends, this is going to be outright war in the next election, and I’m going to do everything in my power — everything in my power — to beat you guys.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: C’mon, Mayor Ford. The Gulf War, really? I hope we’re not talking about that Gulf War where tens of thousands of people were killed. You’re comparing your reelection campaign to a deadly war? A+ for complete lack of sensitivity.

14. In 2002, when Mayor Ford was a City Councilor, there was a discussion about putting a homeless shelter in his district. Mayor Ford made the always eloquent point that instead of having a “public meeting” about said homeless shelter, maybe a “public lynching” would be more appropriate.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Do I even have to answer this one? This wasn’t Mayor Ford standing up for his constituents like he claimed, it was him being a gigantic jerk about a legitimate proposal. That doesn’t really incite compassion in the hearts of those who should be voting for him.

13.  In 2006, Mayor Ford went to a Toronto Maple Leafs game. Mayor Ford got wasted. Mayor Ford then got kicked out of the Toronto Maple Leafs game. He got kicked out because he was screaming at, berating, and swearing at a nice couple from out of town.

(Image Courtesy: Wikimedia)

Why it’s cringeworthy: Why was he screaming at some random Toronto visitors? Did they root for the other team or something? Now, I’m not going to pretend I know that much about Toronto tourism, but it seems to me like that is not a good way to get anyone to visit your city.

12. Number 12 on my list is a nice followup on Number 13. After the news broke that Mayor Ford was kicked out of a hockey game, he had a great excuse: he claimed he was never even at the game. He originally told the Toronto Star: “This is unbelievable. I wasn’t even at the game, so someone’s trying to do a real hatchet job on me, let me tell you.” Eventually he had to admit that he was there, and just said that he had been irresponsible and wasn’t perfect.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Dude, we live in a world where everyone has a camera, or a camera phone, or something. It’s pretty hard to deny that you weren’t at a public event. It’s not even a good try.

11. At that same City Council Meeting where Mayor Ford compared his life to the Gulf War, he absolutely plowed into a woman while trying to walk.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Nothing says “let me keep running this city” and “I’m totally not on drugs” like being really, embarrassingly, uncoordinated.

10. In 2007, Mayor Ford said that if a bicyclist gets hit by a car it’s definitely the bicyclist’s fault. He also compared bike lanes to “swimming with the sharks.” My favorite part of this clip, though? Definitely the last sentence: “My heart bleeds for him when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Lack of understanding about the difference between sharks and humans driving cars aside, there is a huge logical fallacy to Mayor Ford’s argument. He says roads are dangerous and people shouldn’t be cycling. Then he goes on to say that therefore, the implementation of bike lanes, which would make this all safer, is a bad idea. Mayor Ford, that is not how logic works, but good try!

9. Mayor Ford’s use of the term “Orientals.” He stated:

“Those Oriental people work like dogs … they sleep beside their machines. The Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over … they’re hard, hard workers.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Are you kidding me?

8. In 2011, a Canadian comedian showed up at his door pretending to be a journalist and asking him satirical questions. It’s also probably important to note that she was dressed like Xena, Warrior Princess. Weird comedy show aside, a rational response to this is not to call the police, as Mayor Ford did. In an expletive-filled 911 call, he claimed he was “attacked.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Because it displays he has no sense of humor. Because it also displays a complete overreaction to a comedic stunt. And, because he apparently said to the dispatcher, “”Don’t you f***** know? I’m Rob f****** Ford, the mayor of this city.” Oof.

7. A former mayoral candidate, Sarah Thomson, ran into Mayor Ford at a political function about 9 months ago.  Ms. Thomson is a pretty woman, and no one seems to appreciate that more than Mayor Ford. He reportedly grabbed her butt and then told her she should have joined him in Florida a week earlier, because his wife wasn’t there. She later posted this picture to her Facebook:

Why it’s cringeworthy: At first I thought I was going to make a comment about not grabbing women’s butts in public, but I think Thomson covered it with her Facebook comment. So let’s all take a minute to appreciate the face he’s making in this picture instead.

6. Speaking of Rob Ford and women….he’s had a veritable plethora of problems with his wife and other female members of his family. On Christmas day in 2011, his mother-in-law had to call the cops because he was drunk, threatened to kidnap the couple’s children, and bring them to Florida.

Why it’s cringeworthy: A) Doesn’t he have better things to do? Like, I don’t know, run a city? and B) She made the call sometime between 4 AM and 5 AM. Who in the world is drunk and trying to go to Florida at 4 in the morning?

5. …To continue number 6, there have been multiple calls from Mayor Ford’s house alleging domestic abuse. On at least one occasion, both he and his wife may have been drunk or under the influence of drugs when the police showed up.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I seriously considered not including this one on the list, I really did. It’s about domestic abuse, and domestic abuse is not something that should ever be joked about it. But I did include it, because as funny and snarky as this list is supposed to be, there is a point. Mayor Ford is an idiot. He is unfit for office, and he should be embarrassed by the things he’s done. ALL of the things he’s done. And not shaming this man for his actions against his family and women…well that’s just unacceptable.

4. He used his mayoral letterhead to try to solicit donations for his high school football charity. In my opinion, that’s a little illegal, and a judge agreed.

Image Courtesy: Flickr

Why it’s cringeworthy: Mayor Ford’s defense? He didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to use his position to solicit funds from his own charity. In a bizarre move, an appeals judge actually agreed with that argument, and he was ultimately not removed from office.

3. As a Councillor in 2006, Rob Ford rallied against an AIDS prevention program, stating about the disease, “It is very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you will not get AIDS probably, that’s the bottom line. These are the facts.”

Image courtesy: Toronto Life

Why it’s cringeworthy: When I first started making this list, I was calm and sitting on my couch. I’m still sitting on my couch, but now I’m not calm and I’m working my way through a very large pile of leftover Halloween candy to soothe my soul. It’s not working, because I keep running across statements like this. These are not the facts, Mayor Ford. They are not. And you should stop talking, forever.

2. That time that Mayor Ford tried to find a drug dealer to buy OxyContin on the street for a constituent. In 2010, a phone call happened where a man claimed his doctor would not prescribe him Oxy. Comments like this were made by Mayor Ford:

“I’ll try buddy, I’ll try,” the councillor replied. “I don’t know this shit, but I’ll f****** try to find it.” A few moments later Mr. Ford asked: “What does OxyContin go for on the street, so I have an idea?”

Image Courtesy: WikiMedia

Why it’s cringeworthy: One hand, decent job trying to help a constituent. On the other, logical, hand, how could saying that ever seem like a good idea?

1. This.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I. Can’t. Stop. Laughing.

—

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 [Shaun Merritt 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 Where in the World is Rob Ford? 15 Minutes of Fame, 15 Dumb-Ass Things 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.

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

Also good at coat catching.

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

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

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

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

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

7. We Still Have No Idea What Exactly Happened

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

Shocked kitty doesn’t like dirty political tricks.

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

6. There’s a Rabbit Hole Here 

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

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

5. Christie’s Catch-22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Christie Could Come Out on Top 

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

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

No pressure.

1. This Feels Unreal

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

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

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

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Donkey Hotey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Bumbling Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has made waves in recent weeks for the revelation that he once smoked crack while “in a drunken stupor” this February. I’d love to say that this was the only dumb thing Mayor Ford has ever done, but where would the fun be in that? Let’s look at a countdown of Mayor Ford’s oddest, most embarrassing, and downright idiotic moments.

Courtesy of Shaun Merritt via Flickr.

15. That one time the Toronto City Council tried to strip him of his power after the crack smoking scandal and he compared his side of the story to…The Gulf War.

“This, folks, reminds me of when — and I was watching with my brother — when Saddam attacked Kuwait. And President Bush said, ‘I warn you, I warn you, I warn you, do not.’ Well, folks, if you think American-style politics is nasty, you guys have just attacked Kuwait. Mark my words, friends, this is going to be outright war in the next election, and I’m going to do everything in my power — everything in my power — to beat you guys.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: C’mon, Mayor Ford. The Gulf War, really? I hope we’re not talking about that Gulf War where tens of thousands of people were killed. You’re comparing your reelection campaign to a deadly war? A+ for complete lack of sensitivity.

14. In 2002, when Mayor Ford was a City Councilor, there was a discussion about putting a homeless shelter in his district. Mayor Ford made the always eloquent point that instead of having a “public meeting” about said homeless shelter, maybe a “public lynching” would be more appropriate.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Do I even have to answer this one? This wasn’t Mayor Ford standing up for his constituents like he claimed, it was him being a gigantic jerk about a legitimate proposal. That doesn’t really incite compassion in the hearts of those who should be voting for him.

13.  In 2006, Mayor Ford went to a Toronto Maple Leafs game. Mayor Ford got wasted. Mayor Ford then got kicked out of the Toronto Maple Leafs game. He got kicked out because he was screaming at, berating, and swearing at a nice couple from out of town.

Courtesy of Tim Alamenciak via Wikipedia.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Why was he screaming at some random Toronto visitors? Did they root for the other team or something? Now, I’m not going to pretend I know that much about Toronto tourism, but it seems to me like that is not a good way to get anyone to visit your city.

12. Number 12 on my list is a nice followup on Number 13. After the news broke that Mayor Ford was kicked out of a hockey game, he had a great excuse: he claimed he was never even at the game. He originally told the Toronto Star: “This is unbelievable. I wasn’t even at the game, so someone’s trying to do a real hatchet job on me, let me tell you.” Eventually he had to admit that he was there, and just said that he had been irresponsible and wasn’t perfect.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Dude, we live in a world where everyone has a camera, or a camera phone, or something. It’s pretty hard to deny that you weren’t at a public event. It’s not even a good try.

11. At that same City Council Meeting where Mayor Ford compared his life to the Gulf War, he absolutely plowed into a woman while trying to walk.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Nothing says “let me keep running this city” and “I’m totally not on drugs” like being really, embarrassingly, uncoordinated.

10. In 2007, Mayor Ford said that if a bicyclist gets hit by a car it’s definitely the bicyclist’s fault. He also compared bike lanes to “swimming with the sharks.” My favorite part of this clip, though? Definitely the last sentence: “My heart bleeds for him when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Lack of understanding about the difference between sharks and humans driving cars aside, there is a huge logical fallacy to Mayor Ford’s argument. He says roads are dangerous and people shouldn’t be cycling. Then he goes on to say that therefore, the implementation of bike lanes, which would make this all safer, is a bad idea. Mayor Ford, that is not how logic works, but good try!

9. Mayor Ford’s use of the term “Orientals.” He stated:

“Those Oriental people work like dogs … they sleep beside their machines. The Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over … they’re hard, hard workers.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Are you kidding me?

8. In 2011, a Canadian comedian showed up at his door pretending to be a journalist and asking him satirical questions. It’s also probably important to note that she was dressed like Xena, Warrior Princess. Weird comedy show aside, a rational response to this is not to call the police, as Mayor Ford did. In an expletive-filled 911 call, he claimed he was “attacked.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Because it displays he has no sense of humor. Because it also displays a complete overreaction to a comedic stunt. And, because he apparently said to the dispatcher, “”Don’t you f***** know? I’m Rob f****** Ford, the mayor of this city.” Oof.

7. A former mayoral candidate, Sarah Thomson, ran into Mayor Ford at a political function about 9 months ago.  Ms. Thomson is a pretty woman, and no one seems to appreciate that more than Mayor Ford. He reportedly grabbed her butt and then told her she should have joined him in Florida a week earlier, because his wife wasn’t there. She later posted this picture to her Facebook:

Why it’s cringeworthy: At first I thought I was going to make a comment about not grabbing women’s butts in public, but I think Thomson covered it with her Facebook comment. So let’s all take a minute to appreciate the face he’s making in this picture instead.

6. Speaking of Rob Ford and women….he’s had a veritable plethora of problems with his wife and other female members of his family. On Christmas day in 2011, his mother-in-law had to call the cops because he was drunk, threatened to kidnap the couple’s children, and bring them to Florida.

Why it’s cringeworthy: A) Doesn’t he have better things to do? Like, I don’t know, run a city? and B) She made the call sometime between 4 AM and 5 AM. Who in the world is drunk and trying to go to Florida at 4 in the morning?

5. …To continue number 6, there have been multiple calls from Mayor Ford’s house alleging domestic abuse. On at least one occasion, both he and his wife may have been drunk or under the influence of drugs when the police showed up.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I seriously considered not including this one on the list, I really did. It’s about domestic abuse, and domestic abuse is not something that should ever be joked about it. But I did include it, because as funny and snarky as this list is supposed to be, there is a point. Mayor Ford is an idiot. He is unfit for office, and he should be embarrassed by the things he’s done. ALL of the things he’s done. And not shaming this man for his actions against his family and women…well that’s just unacceptable.

4. He used his mayoral letterhead to try to solicit donations for his high school football charity. In my opinion, that’s a little illegal, and a judge agreed.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Mayor Ford’s defense? He didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to use his position to solicit funds from his own charity. In a bizarre move, an appeals judge actually agreed with that argument, and he was ultimately not removed from office.

3. As a Councillor in 2006, Rob Ford rallied against an AIDS prevention program, stating about the disease, “It is very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you will not get AIDS probably, that’s the bottom line. These are the facts.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: When I first started making this list, I was calm and sitting on my couch. I’m still sitting on my couch, but now I’m not calm and I’m working my way through a very large pile of leftover Halloween candy to soothe my soul. It’s not working, because I keep running across statements like this. These are not the facts, Mayor Ford. They are not. And you should stop talking, forever.

2. That time that Mayor Ford tried to find a drug dealer to buy OxyContin on the street for a constituent. In 2010, a phone call happened where a man claimed his doctor would not prescribe him Oxy. Comments like this were made by Mayor Ford:

“I’ll try buddy, I’ll try,” the councillor replied. “I don’t know this shit, but I’ll f****** try to find it.” A few moments later Mr. Ford asked: “What does OxyContin go for on the street, so I have an idea?”

Why it’s cringeworthy: One hand, decent job trying to help a constituent. On the other, logical, hand, how could saying that ever seem like a good idea?

1. This.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I. Can’t. Stop. Laughing.

—

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 [West Annex News via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Ford’s Fifteen: Fifteen Minutes of Fame, Fifteen Dumb-Ass Things appeared first on Law Street.

This is Rob Ford.  He is the current mayor of Toronto, the largest city in Canada.

Courtesy of West Annex News via Flickr.

He has been in the news for the past few days following an admission on November 5 that he had smoked crack cocaine while in office.

There’s more: the crack smoking is allegedly on tape.

There’s even more: Mayor Ford says that he has no plans to resign from his mayorship.

Mayor Ford doesn’t plan on stepping down because he “loves his job.”  He plans on finishing his current term, and next year he will run for reelection.

Backstory

On May 16, 2013, Gawker published an article which describes in great detail its investigation into the claims of Mayor Ford’s drug use.  Their research includes travel to Toronto, secret meetings in cars, and a cell phone video of Ford with a crack pipe in his mouth.  In fact, Gawker was so invested in securing this video as proof of their claims that they set up an Indiegogo for $200,000, the amount of money that the owners of the video said it would cost for them to sell.

Keep in mind these claims were made six months ago.  At the time, Ford vehemently denied that he had ever smoked crack.

He’s now changing his tune.

In reference to Canadian crackgate, Ford now says that reporters did not ask him the correct questions initially.  His exact words were, “you didn’t ask the correct questions…No, I’m not an addict.  And no, I do not do drugs.  I made mistakes in the past and all I can do is apologize.”

It’s all a technicality, you see.  During an impromptu press conference, he said he does not smoke crack cocaine, just that he has smoked crack cocaine.  Get it?  Semantics.

That’s not all, though.  Ford now says that he did smoke crack cocaine, but that it occurred at a time when he was in a drunken stupor.  He goes further, and implores the various members of the press to provide him with a copy of the video.  Due to the severity of this particular drunken stupor, he has no idea as to what this video contains.   He wants to watch the video with all of Toronto so that everyone can be on the same page.

Unsurprisingly, the Toronto City Council wants Mayor Ford gone sooner rather than later.  There has been a motion made for Ford to take a leave of absence, and other Canadian political figures have also voiced their lack of confidence in the Mayor’s ability to effectively lead the city.

Regardless of how other politicians feel, Ford feels like 1,000 pounds is off his back now that the secret’s out in the open. Phew! The admission of a little recreational crack will surely do wonders for Ford’s reelection campaign (which could probably use some donations right about now).

Why this matters

I don’t know much, if anything, about Canadian politics.  What I do know is that most municipalities prefer to have confidence in the leadership qualities that their Executive branches of government possess.

I also know that I’m a part of a generation that is routinely warned of the dangers of having a picture tagged on Facebook with a beer in my hand, lest that one beer lead someone somewhere to surmise that I’m a raging alcoholic with dangerous propensities and a terrible work ethic.

I know that though I am a recent law school graduate with a job, there are thousands of similar people out there with no job prospects despite high grades, bar passage, and the common sense to not get drunk enough to smoke crack.  So if you’re unemployed, you can always consider a career in politics.

 —

Featured image courtesy of [sari dennise via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Admits to Smoking Crack Cocaine While in Office appeared first on Law Street.