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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

Yesterday it was announced that President Donald Trump’s beleaguered press secretary Melissa McCarthy Sean Spicer, was resigning from his position. Spicer’s combative relationship with the press, bombastic attitude during press conferences, and consistent use of “alternative facts” made him one of the most recognizable press secretaries in recent years. So, the internet took news of his resignation pretty hard. Check out some of the funniest tweets below:

Wishing Sean Spicer the best of luck in all future endeavors.

We’ll always have those six months of you lying to us every single day.

— John Dingell (@JohnDingell) July 21, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Twitter Pays Tribute to Sean Spicer appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

— S (@Yes_Its_Me_S) July 19, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delaney Cruickshank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celia Heudebourg

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

The post Judge Orders Trump to Release Mar-a-Lago Visitor Logs appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Karen DaltonBeninato (@kbeninato) June 19, 2017

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

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

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) June 19, 2017

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

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

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) June 19, 2017

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

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

On Wednesday, two deadly terror attacks took place in Tehran, and ISIS has since claimed responsibility. The attackers targeted two symbolically significant places: the Parliament building and the mausoleum of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini–not to be confused with the country’s current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

International leaders offered their support for the people of Iran, but it took longer for the White House. Finally White House officials published a statement condemning the attacks on its website, but in the last sentence seemed to say that Iran had itself to blame. It read:

We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times. We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.

On Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif criticized the language and rejected the condolences on Twitter. He called the choice of words “repugnant” and said Iran rejects the United States’ claims of friendship.

Repugnant WH statement & Senate sanctions as Iranians counter terror backed by US clients.Iranian people reject such US claims of friendship

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) June 8, 2017

The attack on Tehran was the worst in many years, and the first successful terror attack by Islamic State on Iran, if the group’s claims are true. The perpetrators were reportedly disguised as women, hiding weapons and suicide vests under their clothing. Five were men, one was, in fact, a woman. All six were killed. At least 12 other people died in the attacks and 46 were injured.

It seemed like Iran was unprepared for the violence, as it took hours to get the situation under control. Pictures on social media showed how people, including children, fled through the windows of the parliament building. The attackers shot at people on the streets outside, and at one point, one of them ran out on the streets to continue shooting.

Daily Brief: ISIS traps thousands in Mosul; Germany asked to arrest CIA deputy; #StopArmingSaudi; Iran attack; more https://t.co/TJocoOEo67 pic.twitter.com/i5mRQO1ggR

— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) June 8, 2017

Even so, the speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani, said the attacks were just a “minor incident” and called the attackers “some cowardly terrorists.” And Zarif, the foreign minister, also said: “Terror-sponsoring despots threaten to bring the fight to our homeland. Proxies attack what their masters despise most: the seat of democracy.”

Zarif’s comments seem to refer to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Salman al-Saud’s statements from last month, when he said that Saudi Arabia would bring the battle for regional influence to Tehran rather than fight the fight in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim, while Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia denied being involved in the attacks, but combined with the recent development involving Qatar, tensions are on the rise in the region.

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 Iran Dismisses White House Statement on Terror Attack as “Repugnant” appeared first on Law Street.

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

White House Criticized for Promoting Mar-a-Lago

In a blog post from April 4, the U.S. State Department promoted Mar-a-Lago as “Trump’s Florida estate,” and claimed that by visiting “this ‘winter White House,’ Trump is belatedly fulfilling the dream of Mar-a-Lago’s original owner and designer.” After Trump was elected president, the Florida resort doubled its membership fee to $200,000. The blog post received renewed attention on Monday after it was featured on the website of the U.S. embassy in London, as well as several other U.S. embassies. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden asked on Twitter why taxpayer money is “promoting the president’s private country club.” President Obama’s chief ethics attorney, Norman Eisen, called it “exploitation” and said that this behavior needs to be stopped. Eisen is also part of a group of attorneys who have already sued Trump for an alleged violation of the emoluments clause, which states that a president can’t accept gifts or payments from foreign states without approval from Congress.

Yes, I am curious @StateDept. Why are taxpayer $$ promoting the President’s private country club? pic.twitter.com/IlPhUlvMwa

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) April 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Storm clouds are gathering over the White House, and its resident lightning rod, Steve Bannon, might be in trouble. The first signs of a building storm popped up last week when Bannon, President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, was removed from the National Security Council. And then, reports of infighting began seeping out of the giant doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Bannon’s ideological and stylistic differences with Jared Kushner, Trump’s increasingly influential son-in-law, have led to a number of behind-closed-doors confrontations. And in an interview with the New York Post published on Tuesday, Trump indicated a personnel shake-up could be looming.

“I like Steve, but you have to remember, he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” Trump said in an interview with the Post’s Michael Goodwin. “I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. I’m my own strategist, and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.”

Bannon was largely responsible for reviving Trump’s sinking campaign last fall, and his ethos has been evident in a number of Trump’s governing decisions: the doom-and-gloom “American carnage” speech on Inauguration Day; the executive order banning refugees and visitors from seven (then six) predominantly Muslim countries; the combative press conferences with the media–a.k.a. “America’s enemy.” Bannon has infused the Trump doctrine with his distinct flavor; Trump’s anti-elite message comes straight from Bannon’s playbook.

Meanwhile Kushner, a quiet, media-shy 36-year-old who grew up with a millionaire father (not to mention has a billionaire father-in-law), is gaining influence in Trump’s orbit. Bannon reportedly told Kushner that the reason the two can’t reach a compromise on certain issues is because “you’re a Democrat.” After the spat attracted media attention–an unwanted distraction at a time when Trump is dealing with rising conflicts with Syria and North Korea–the president told his two aides to figure things out.

Many attribute Bannon’s waning influence not only to his arguments with Kushner, but with his governing vision, which proved effective during the campaign, but has not resulted in many legislative successes. Bannon’s anti-immigrant, anti-establishment leanings certainly influenced the travel ban, which is now held up in court for the second time. And the failed health care attempt–too populist for hard-right conservatives and too cheap for moderates–was also smothered in Bannon’s fingerprints.

Kushner, on the other hand, has long been viewed as a moderating force, a check on Bannon’s more unsavory tendencies. For weeks, the tension between the two, if there was any, was hidden behind a host of distractions and the media-sucking gaffes of press secretary Sean Spicer and counselor Kellyanne Conway. But  the Bannon-Kushner feud is spilling into the public eye, and the image-conscious president has taken notice. As Trump succinctly put it in his interview with the Post: “Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Is Steve Bannon in Trump’s Dog House? appeared first on Law Street.

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

You’re Fired: U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara

Over the weekend, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara tweeted that the Trump Administration had fired him. This comes after the Trump Administration asked 46 Obama-appointed federal prosecutors to resign last week. Bharara refused, claiming that Trump had asked him to stay on when they met in November. Bharara is perhaps best known for fighting corruption in New York City. Bharara later tweeted that he now knows “what the Moreland Commission must have felt like,” referring to a commission that investigated corruption in politics in 2013.

By the way, now I know what the Moreland Commission must have felt like.

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) March 12, 2017

A lot of people are confused about what is going on behind the scenes with the Trump Administration. Trump still has many empty seats to fill in the federal government, and experts from both parties say that the process is way behind schedule.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning the White House announced that President Donald Trump–presumably after taking a break from tweeting about everything from wire “tapps” to Arnold Schwarzenegger–signed a new executive order to revise his controversial travel ban.

Unlike the hectic nature of the initial executive order’s rollout, the revised order was announced throughout Monday morning, with Kellyanne Conway going on “Fox & Friends” to explain the alterations, the administration releasing a somewhat comprehensive fact sheet, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions explaining the legality and importance of the new order. Additionally, unlike the original order, which took effect immediately, the updated version will not be implemented for another 10 days. No cameras were around for the actual signing.

.@POTUS has signed a new executive order that will keep the nation safe. Read it at https://t.co/XcBwwEJJHF pic.twitter.com/Yx2mikXl2A

— Sean Spicer (@PressSec) March 6, 2017

Here’s what you need to know about this new EO:

1. The 90-day travel ban will prohibit the issuance of new visas for people from six countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). While the initial order targeted seven countries, Iraq is no longer on the list because “the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.”
2. The order only applies to people who do not already have a visa, which was a point of confusion for the last order. Therefore, green card-holders and current visa-holders will not be affected.
3. There is no longer an exception for people of minority religions. The previous order and subsequent comments by President Trump included a not-so-subtle hint that Christian refugees could be prioritized.
4. Decisions on applications for refugee status are suspended for 120 days, just like the old EO.
5. The cap for the number of refugees that the U.S. will take in 2017 is now set at 50,000 people. The Obama Administration had previously set a goal to accept 110,000 refugees in 2017 (which led to that stupid Skittles tweet).
6. The indefinite ban on Syrian refugees has been changed to a ban for a 120-day period, during which the refugee program will be reviewed.

As CNN reported, this new executive order was originally planned to be signed last Wednesday. However, after the unexpectedly positive reception of Trump’s address to Congress, the administration decided to ride the wave of positive coverage before instituting an order that surely would ruffle some feathers.

If you need any proof that the Trump Administration was right to expect that the new order would make people angry, within minutes of the announcement of the order’s signing, organizations like the ACLU  released statements criticizing the new ban.

Just in: @ACLU statement on new Trump travel ban — “a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws” pic.twitter.com/WSaKmTkcSJ

— David Mack (@davidmackau) March 6, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

The post What You Need to Know About President Trump’s New Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Here’s a breakdown of everything that happened to Kellyanne Conway in February:

The Bowling Green Massacre (February 2)

In an interview with Chris Matthews, Conway uses a fabricated massacre to justify the immigration ban.

The Bowling Green Massacre Response (February 3)

The day after the interview, Conway claims she misspoke.

On @hardball @NBCNews @MSNBC I meant to say “Bowling Green terrorists” as reported here:
https://t.co/nB5SwIEoYI

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) February 3, 2017

However, the Washington Post finds this isn’t the case, as Conway had referred to the “Bowling Green massacre” three times before.

Credibility Dispute with CNN (February 6)

CNN reportedly declines the White House’s offer to have Conway appear on Jake Tapper’s “State of the Union,” due to “serious questions about [Conway’s] credibility,” according to the New York Times. Conway refutes this claim on Twitter, but is quickly called out by CNN’s PR account.

. @KellyannePolls was offered to SOTU on Sunday by the White House. We passed. Those are the facts.

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) February 6, 2017

Mika Brzezinski, co-host of “Morning Joe,” tweets a response that suggests MSNBC also declines Conway appearances.

.@CNNPR @KellyannePolls you are not the first.

— Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) February 6, 2017

The Jake Tapper Interview (February 7)

Conway appears on Tapper’s other show, “The Lead.” The interview garners Tapper acclaim for his relentless grilling. At one point in the interview Conway seems to admit her boss is a liar. The interview also gives the internet Tapper’s resting bitch face:

the look on jake tapper’s face while talking to kellyanne conway… pic.twitter.com/NiQtNSh8Rt

— Nicole Cairns (@nicoleindc) February 7, 2017

The Ethics Violation (February 9) 

On “Fox & Friends,” Conway endorses Ivanka Trump’s Nordstrom clothing line–a violation of an executive branch regulation that prohibits employees from promoting the private gain of friends.

This prompts two members of the House Oversight Committee to send a letter to the White House and the Office of Government Ethics asking for recommendations for disciplinary action against Conway. According to POLITICO, the OGE’s website crashes due to traffic that same day. Later that day, Sean Spicer in a press briefing says Conway was “counseled” for her comments. This causes some controversy within the White House.

The SNL Sketch (February 12)

Presented without comment:

The Michael Flynn Interview Pt. 1 (February 13)

In an MSNBC interview, Conway claims that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn enjoys the “full confidence of the president” despite reports that revealed Flynn lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his communications with Russia’s U.S. ambassador. Flynn resigns later that day.

The Michael Flynn Interview Pt. 2 (February 14)

Conway is interviewed by Matt Lauer the morning after Flynn’s resignation. Lauer grills Conway on the timeline of Flynn’s resignation and Trump’s trust in Flynn. At one point, a frustrated Lauer tells Conway that she isn’t making sense.

The White Nationalist Twitter Account (February 14)

After her Lauer interview, Conway tweets “I serve of the pleasure of @POTUS. His message is my message. His goals are my goals. Uninformed chatter doesn’t matter.”

A Twitter account named “Lib Hypocrisy” responds, praising Conway’s “strength and resiliency” and expressing love for her. Conway subsequently retweets the praise while responding that she loves them back. It is discovered that “Lib Hypocrisy’s” bio includes the hashtags #Nationalist and #WhiteIdentity.

Conway tells Buzzfeed News that she wasn’t the one who retweeted the account, and that someone else has access to her account.

The Office of Government Ethics (February 14)

The OGE responds to the House Oversight Committee’s letter by sending a letter of their own to the White House ethics official, recommending that the White House take disciplinary action against Conway.

“Morning Joe” Ban (February 15)

The “Morning Joe” hosts officially ban Conway from their show because they believe she has lost her credibility.

The Spicer Leaks (February 15)

CNN’s Dylan Byers reports that five sources believe the person who has been leaking stories about Trump’s frustration with Spicer is Conway. They say Conway is doing this place the blame of the administration’s troubles on Spicer and to earn a “lasting place in the President’s inner circle.”

Sidelined (February 22)

You may have noticed there is a week-long gap between this controversy and the last one. Apparently, that was the White House’s intention as, according to CNN Money, the White House sidelined Conway because comments she made during appearances on multiple shows were “off message.”

When the news of the “sidelining” comes out, Conway refutes these claims and says she was invited to shows but wanted to focus on other pieces of her “portfolio.”

Merriam-Webster (February 23)

At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Conway says she doesn’t identify with being a feminist because “[modern-day feminism] seems to be very anti-male, and it certainly is very pro-abortion.” The Merriam-Webster Twitter account then tweets this in response:

’Feminism’ is defined as “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” https://t.co/Zjf7CAPUjL

— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) February 23, 2017

Misconduct Complaint (February 24)

The Washington Post reports that 15 law professors specializing in legal ethics filed a professional misconduct complaint against Conway, who is a member of the D.C. bar.

The Couch (February 27) 

Presented without comment:

Kellyanne Conway photographed making herself comfortable on Oval Office couch https://t.co/4qeNGFjJWdpic.twitter.com/978aeedbxM

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) February 28, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

The post Kellyanne Conway and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Month appeared first on Law Street.

The White House has taken the next step in its war against the media, by blocking journalists from some of the biggest news outlets from the daily press briefing on Friday. Reporters from the New York Times, CNN, Buzzfeed, the Los Angeles Times, and Politico, all of which have published critical pieces about Donald Trump, were stopped from entering the press briefing.

The only news outlets that were allowed in had been confirmed previously, the White House said, and included right leaning Breitbart News, the One America News Network, the Washington Times, and Fox News. ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg were also allowed in. The briefing was also changed from an on-camera event to an off-camera gaggle.

This marks an unusual and brusque new approach to the Executive Branch’s relationship with the media. Journalists from Time and the Associated Press chose to not attend in solidarity, even though they were allowed in.

The executive editor of the NY Times Dean Baquet condemned the White House’s move in a statement:

Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties. We strongly protest the exclusion of The New York Times and the other news organizations. Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest.

Naturally the announcement by Spicer caused an uproar.

AP and Time boycotted the gaggle today because of the way it was handled.

— Adrian Carrasquillo (@Carrasquillo) February 24, 2017

Here’s CNN’s response:

CNN was blocked from WH @PressSec‘s media gaggle today. This is our response: pic.twitter.com/8SfY2uYKEI

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) February 24, 2017

And many reporters showed solidarity with each other and pointed out that no matter political difference of opinions, government press briefings should be open to all.

Some at CNN & NYT stood w/FOX News when the Obama admin attacked us & tried 2 exclude us-a WH gaggle should be open to all credentialed orgs https://t.co/8Vjcs0KCPR

— Bret Baier (@BretBaier) February 24, 2017

Numerous White House reporters have split up the duties of transcribing the Spicer gaggle to share with their colleagues who were excluded.

— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) February 24, 2017

The move to shut some reporters out came just hours after President Trump’s speech at the CPAC, where he said that the media is “the enemy of the people.” He said reporters shouldn’t be allowed to have anonymous sources, and claimed they just make information up. “We’re going to do something about it,” he said.

The White House Correspondents Association disapproved of the White House’s actions. “We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not,” the organization said in a statement. “The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.”

Some analysts believe the president is doing all he can to discredit the media and shake people’s trust in it, since it is one of the biggest treats to his presidency. “By hammering reporters as dishonest purveyors of fake news, Trump simultaneously rallies his fans and lays the groundwork for dismissing fair-minded journalism as the work of partisan hacks,” said Peter Slevin, an associate professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to believe the rumors and repeat Trump’s cry of “fake news.” But that won’t stop journalists from doing their jobs.

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 White House Bans Reporters From Press Briefing: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

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

USTA Accidentally Played Nazi-Era Anthem at Tennis Match

The United States Tennis Association had an incredibly embarrassing moment on Saturday when a banned verse of the German national anthem was accidentally played at the Fed Cup quarterfinal in Hawaii. The banned part of the anthem hails from Nazi Germany and was used as Nazi propaganda. It’s unclear how the mistake happened and Germany responded with outrage. The German team’s coach, Barbara Ritter, called the incident “inexcusable.” The USTA issued an official apology to Germany and said it won’t happen again. But for German player Andrea Petkovic, the damage was already done, as the incident happened right before her match. “I thought it was the epitome of ignorance, and I’ve never felt more disrespected in my whole life,” she said.

The USTA extends a sincere apology to the German Fed Cup team & fans 4 the outdated National Anthem. This mistake will not occur again. pic.twitter.com/4LyG3ACe5u

— USTA (@usta) February 11, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel refused to reinstate President Donald Trump’s seven-country travel/immigration/Muslim/DEFINITELY-NOT-A-BAN ban.

The decision was an unmitigated loss for Trump. And what does President Trump usually do when things don’t go his way?

He has his communications team release a measured and coherent statement reiterating the White House’s position on the issue.

Just kidding.

He tweets about it.

So, after the decision was announced, Trump vented his frustrations on the beautifully insufferable and addictive cesspool that we call Twitter.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

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

And then….well…see for yourself:

“oh no, not court” —judges

— both are equally bad (@caseyjohnston) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT WHERE WE ALREADY ARE BUT A DIFFERENT COURT SHUT UP NO YOU’RE STUPID!

— Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) February 10, 2017

Saying “SEE YOU IN COURT” after losing a court case is like yelling “LET’S TAKE THIS OUTSIDE” after you just lost a fight outside.

— Adam Conover (@adamconover) February 10, 2017

“I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT!” is really the worst thing to yell after you just lost in court

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) February 9, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT! I HOPE THAT BALIFF WITH THE PUPPET OF HIMSELF IS THERE. I LOVE THAT PUPPET! CRACKS ME UP! pic.twitter.com/SdVJBwJAkG

— Jake Fogelnest (@jakefogelnest) February 10, 2017

And then he tweeted…..
“SEE YOU IN COURT”
After just LOSING IN COURT‼️ pic.twitter.com/RZrku9Pp1C

— Dory (@Dory) February 10, 2017

Nap, then therapy, where I will very likely be told to stay off twitter. SEE YOU IN COURT

— Dan Harmon (@danharmon) February 10, 2017

An all caps “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT” is the whitest thing to ever happen in black history month.

— Akilah Hughes (@AkilahObviously) February 10, 2017

{loses in checkers} SEE YOU IN CHECKERS

— Charles Finch (@CharlesFinch) February 9, 2017

trump: “SEE YOU IN COURT!”
court: pic.twitter.com/tNNKsLqq9S

— Giuliana (@Princessofwifi) February 10, 2017

My teacher: F
Me: SEE YOU IN COURT!

— Lexi (@lexi4prez) February 10, 2017

“See you in court” sounds like dialogue from a bad tennis movie. “See you in court. There’ll be no love. Except for your score. Loser!”

— Michelle Wolf (@michelleisawolf) February 10, 2017

me if Beyoncé doesn’t sweep the grammys https://t.co/5JiXwFeIys

— Matt Bellassai (@MattBellassai) February 10, 2017

TRUMP: SEE YOU IN COURT

JUSTICE: pic.twitter.com/85mQSKUK5Z

— jake (@jakebeckman) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT, DONALD. pic.twitter.com/yqIhRjDClC

— Michael Skolnik (@MichaelSkolnik) February 9, 2017

“SEE YOU IN COURT” is what the rich white villain in a dance crew movie yells after he loses a rec room turf battle to a bunch of teens.

— Miles Kahn (@mileskahn) February 9, 2017

And now

*sips martini*
*rolls up sleeves*
*removes earrings*
*takes another sip*

LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT COMMA pic.twitter.com/BRz3g44WJM

— Benjamin Dreyer (@BCDreyer) February 10, 2017

Twitter is so beautiful sometimes. Watching this entire mess reminded me of something. Last night, I just couldn’t put my finger on it, but I suddenly had a revelation this morning.

I want to remind you all of a true classic in American cinema: “Air Bud.”

If you will recall, “Air Bud” is the story about a golden retriever, who is later renamed “Buddy,” who runs away from his abusive owner, a professional clown who is also an alcoholic (this movie has many layers). He then forms a relationship with a teenaged boy who just lost his father in a plane crash. Basically, Bud and the teenage boy form a bond and it’s really beautiful. Oh, also, Bud can play basketball. And he becomes famous. Again, many layers to this film. Anyway, Buddy’s old owner tries to get him back and, in a very tense scene, confronts his dog’s new owners. Check it out starting at 19:49 below:

Welp. There it is. “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT.” Who knew “Air Bud” could be so relevant in 2017.

If you’re interested, you can watch the full movie on a random afternoon on the Freeform channel (formerly ABC Family), probably. Or in your old VHS collection. Either one is a sure fire bet.

There’s no telling what Trump means exactly by “SEE YOU IN COURT,” but today, during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump said “We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country, you’ll be seeing that sometime next week. In addition, we will continue to go through the court process and ultimately I have no doubt that we’ll win that particular case.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

The post Twitter Goes in on “See You In Court” appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no doubt that there are a lot of celebrities who are missing President Barack Obama: his effortless cool drew big names to the White House during his 8-year tenure. Now Chance the Rapper, the 23-year old hip-hop star, has taken his Obama appreciation to the next level, modeling for a new fashion line  named “Thank You Obama.”

I’m a model now. #ThankUObama droppin in like 15 minutes. ThankUObama.us pic.twitter.com/Y7jOHKzRam

— Lil Chano From 79th (@chancetherapper) February 2, 2017

The line, from Chicago designer Joe Freshgoods, includes hoodies and tees showing appreciation for the Obama family. In addition to “Thank You Obama” and “Thank You Michelle” clothing, the line also includes a “Malia” t-shirt that includes the message “We all smoke, it’s OK” (a reference to a video of the Obama daughter that sparked some controversy).

Freshgoods wrote about his motivation to start the line on the site:

With this project I wanted to timestamp a period in my life where I felt like I can do whatever I wanted to do and be whatever I wanted to be. The night Obama won his first term gave me so much hope, especially & most importantly as a black man. I decided to make a collection saying “thank you” and give me something to smile at every now and then when I look in the closet.

The ties between Chance and the former president run pretty deep: Chance’s father, Ken Williams-Bennett, served as Obama’s state director when he was a senator. And it appears Obama is a fan, as he cited Chance as one of the “top rappers in the game” in an interview last October. The fellow Chicago native was also tapped to perform at the White House Tree Lighting Ceremony this past December, and was an attendee at Obama’s goodbye party.

Look up Kensli, say cheese!

A photo posted by Chance The Rapper (@chancetherapper) on Dec 31, 2016 at 4:11pm PST

If you’re looking for a fashionable way to show off your gratitude to the former First Family, you can check out the line at thankuobama.us.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Chance the Rapper Models a New Line of Obama Appreciation Gear appeared first on Law Street.

Throughout the election, there was one particular superficial criticism of President Donald Trump that seemed to stick–that his hands were rather small. Trump–who’s known for dealing poorly with criticism–may have taken that particular jab to heart. Because now some internet sleuths are claiming that the White House is photoshopping official photos to make Trump’s hands look bigger than they actually are.

Here’s the evidence, in gif form:

The discrepancy in hand size appears to have first been noticed by Dana Schwartz, who writes for the Observer. She tweeted:

Trump 100% photoshopped his hand bigger for this picture hanging in the white house, which is the most embarassing thing I’ve ever seen pic.twitter.com/MGTbFfdLqp

— Dana Schwartz (@DanaSchwartzzz) January 27, 2017

Schwartz, as well as some of her followers, tried to get to the bottom of what I’ve wisely decided to dub PhotoshoppedHandGate.

@DanaSchwartzzz Here, this is the absolute most precise I could get it. The color & contrast changes, but nothing moves. pic.twitter.com/zHFItu8Knx

— Christopher Keelty (@keeltyc) January 27, 2017

@DanaSchwartzzz tried to scale the photos based on their shoes (and was generous). Trump’s hand is still enormous compared to the original. pic.twitter.com/9XraoWKO8l

— Joon Lee (@iamjoonlee) January 27, 2017

Based on my (unscientific) eye Trump’s hand certainly looks bigger in the White House release. But what exactly happened? Some have hypothesized that PhotoshoppedHandGate may be similar to the “dress” phenomenon–lighting and angles are playing a trick on our eyes. And Philip Bump, from the Washington Post pretty handily (see what I did there?) debunked it on Twitter.

OK. So, this “Trump’s hand is Photoshopped” thing is nonsense.

— Philip Bump (@pbump) January 27, 2017

First, the ABC segment clearly uses a version of the photo from Getty, not a shot of the photo on the wall. https://t.co/h0JMpVsU1A

— Philip Bump (@pbump) January 27, 2017

Second, if you compare ABC shot (in preceding tweet) with image from Getty, below, they’re the same, except color. https://t.co/cbeUwuoNp8

— Philip Bump (@pbump) January 27, 2017

And here you go: A GIF that I just made. Not aligned perfectly (my fault), but the hand is the same. pic.twitter.com/N7Zii1qRMY

— Philip Bump (@pbump) January 27, 2017

So as fun as it could have been to pretend that there’s an official White House staffer dedicated to photoshopping Trump’s hands in photos…that’s almost certainly not the case. But, for a few minutes during a long week, at least we were all distracted by the possibility.

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 Is the White House Editing Pictures of Trump’s Hands?: Probably Not appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) January 22, 2017

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

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

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

— Moshe Kasher (@moshekasher) January 24, 2017

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

— Dan Wilbur (@DanWilbur) January 23, 2017

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

— Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) January 24, 2017

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

— Paul Scheer (@paulscheer) January 24, 2017

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

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

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

When Jim Acosta, CNN’s senior White House correspondent, tried to ask Donald Trump a question at his press conference last week, it didn’t end well.

Trump started the event by criticizing CNN for alleging that he has close ties to Russia and that U.S. intelligence agencies had briefed him about the possibility that Russia may have compromising information about him. Acosta then thought it would be fair if he, as a representative from the news outlet that Trump criticized, could ask a follow-up question. But Trump refused to answer, called CNN “fake news” and said, “your organization is terrible.” Acosta kept trying to ask a question but to no avail.

After the press conference, Acosta said that soon-to-be White House press secretary Sean Spicer approached him and warned that he would ban him from future press conferences if he repeated his “behavior.” Since then, Trump’s transition team has repeatedly demanded that Acosta and CNN apologize. On Sunday, Spicer said on Fox News, “The idea that he took no responsibility for his behavior was highly unacceptable and inappropriate, and he does owe us and his fellow members of the press corps an apology for his behavior.” After the press conference, Spicer and Acosta exchanged tweets.

Regardless of party, @acosta behavior was rude, inappropriate and disrespectful. He owes @realDonaldTrump and his colleagues an apology https://t.co/LnTkYam8IJ

— Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) January 12, 2017

I have covered 4 presidential campaigns. Democrats and Republicans. This has never happened. Let’s deescalate, find a way to work together. https://t.co/wgNsXlwt4z

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) January 12, 2017

Despite criticism from Trump’s team, Acosta has not apologized and CNN stands behind him–claiming that he was only doing his job. “Being persistent and asking tough questions is his job, and he has our complete support,” the network said in a statement on Monday. The statement went on to say:

As we have learned many times, just because Sean Spicer says something doesn’t make it true. Jim Acosta is a veteran reporter with the utmost integrity and extensive experience in covering both the White House and the President-elect.

Spicer and many in conservative media agree that Acosta was behaving inappropriately and want to keep him from entering future White House events. CNN and Acosta clearly disagree. Current White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at the White House briefing the day after the conference that he had never felt the need or urge to toss a reporter out. “I can never recall a scenario in which I was tempted to throw somebody out of the room,” he said.

Earnest then seemed to imply that Spicer and the Trump team created the loaded atmosphere at the conference by starting it off by condemning Buzzfeed. He said, “there’s some pretty tough, even outrageous claims that were made. And so it’s not hard to see how that kind of environment is shaped by the people who organize the event.”

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 Trump Team Wants Apology from Jim Acosta, CNN Says No Way appeared first on Law Street.

Steve Bannon, the chief strategist for President-elect Donald Trump, faced heavy criticism last week, with many calling him an alt-right white nationalist–a label he denied in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

In the interview, Bannon said:

I’m an economic nationalist. I am an America first guy. And I have admired nationalist movements throughout the world, have said repeatedly strong nations make great neighbors. I’ve also said repeatedly that the ethno-nationalist movement, prominent in Europe, will change over time. I’ve never been a supporter of ethno-nationalism.

Despite his denial, Twitter exploded as many suggested that the former Breitbart executive should accept the title.

Steve Bannon is a WHITE NATIONALIST. Call him one. He’s earned it. https://t.co/FY0kaHUAfM

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) November 20, 2016

STEVE BANNON IS A WHITE NATIONALIST
STEVE BANNON IS A WHITE NATIONALIST
STEVE BANNON IS A WHITE NATIONALIST

— DigitalBridget (@BridgetMarie) November 14, 2016

Bannon said the political attacks against him and Breitbart News are “just nonsense.” According to CNN, Bannon has been associated with Breitbart since 2007.

Breitbart was vehemently pro-Trump throughout his presidential campaign. Described by The Wall Street Journal as an “attack machine against Democrats and ‘establishment’ conservatives,” the site has faced criticism for pushing conspiracy theories and for articles that have been labeled racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic.

Bannon dismissed the alt-right’s appeal to racists as a mere coincidence in an interview with Mother Jones.

“Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe,” he said. “Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that’s just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements.”

Like Trump, Bannon has criticized establishment politicians and the GOP. In the wake of the election, he plans to usher in a “new political movement,” one that he hopes could allow the GOP to hold its reign over the government for some 50 years.

President-elect Trump will assume office on January 20, and in the meantime, he continues to fill his future cabinet.

Bryan White

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

The post Steve Bannon Tries to Clear Up his Image appeared first on Law Street.

It can be hard to focus on things other than the election results right now, but there are already speculations brewing about who will run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

Senator Cory Booker is a popular choice for many Democrats. The 47-year-old New Jersey lawmaker has become famous for rescuing things–and people. He saved a freezing dog, let people who lost power during Hurricane Sandy hang out at his home, saved a woman from a burning house, and bounced around town shoveling snow from people’s driveways after the Snowpocalypse of 2010. Booker was the mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013. He is also known for his pretty decent sense of humor:

Sir, it looks like you live in Dublin, Ireland. I’ve got 99 problems & your ditch ain’t one MT @leedalyire Can u sort the pothole outside?

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) November 5, 2012

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is also a favorite. She’s a strong woman, very anti-Wall Street, and has an impressive resume. She was by Hillary Clinton’s side during the 2016 campaign, standing up to Trump. One potential downside: her age. She would 71 in 2020, and if she won she would be the oldest president ever elected. Trump currently holds that distinction, at 70.

Elizabeth Warren announces her 2020 presidential campaign in 3…2…

— Matt Viser (@mviser) November 9, 2016

Queens-born New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is popular in the city for positioning himself as a progressive Democrat, with some of the same positions as Senator Bernie Sanders, such as pushing for a $15 minimum wage and being strongly pro-gay marriage. His long-time girlfriend happens to be television star, chef, and author Sandra Lee, and she would be a pretty cool First Lady.

Andrew Cuomo should run for President only because Sandra Lee could figure out a way to put vodka in her First Lady cookie recipe

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) August 23, 2016

Hillary’s running mate Senator Tim Kaine, of Virginia, impressed many Hispanic voters when he delivered speeches in Spanish in Phoenix and Miami. He was the first ever candidate on a presidential ticket to do so. In the political world he is relatively young at 58, but has a long political career behind him, having served as mayor of Richmond, chair of the DNC, and U.S. Senator.

Watch @TimKaine make history. He’s the first candidate to deliver a presidential campaign speech entirely in Spanish. pic.twitter.com/WsjfXm5uco

— MoveOn.org (@MoveOn) November 5, 2016

The weirdest celebrity who is being talked about as a future presidential candidate is, of course, Kanye West. Since the rapper, reality star, and Kim Kardashian’s husband mentioned running for president at the MTV Video Music Awards in 2015, his fans have taken him somewhat seriously and urged him on…although it’s unclear if he was actually being serious or not. But earlier this year it seemed as if he actually was, when he told BBC: “I don’t have views on politics, I just have a view on humanity, on people, on the truth. If there is anything that I can do with my time and my day to somehow make a difference while I’m alive, I’m going to try to do it.”

I WOULD HONESTLY BE HAPPIER WITH KANYE WEST #kanye2020

— Sydney Fleischman (@MsSydneyCupcake) November 9, 2016

There’s only one man who can save us now #kanye2020 #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/C9b4tPJGZF

— Abi Morris (@abicmorris) November 9, 2016

And of course everyone would love to see Michelle Obama in office. But unfortunately for voters, her husband has said that she will absolutely not run for office. “Let me tell you, there are three things that are certain in life: death, taxes and Michelle is not running for president. That, I can tell you,” Obama said in January. But he did confirm that she will stay “really active” after they leave the White House, so hopefully we can get a healthy dose of the Obamas still.

Is it too early to nominate presidential candidates for 2020?

MichelleObama & @BernieSanders

— Shailene. (@ShaileneG) November 10, 2016

And a last thought on the phenomenon of the 2016 election:

My hope for 2020 is that we get away from the 2 party system & nominate candidates we’re excited to vote for. No less of 2 evils approach.

— Bobby Bauer (@Bauer_Bobby) November 9, 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 Fast Forward: Who Could Run for President in 2020? appeared first on Law Street.

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

You Guys Ok?: Republicans Are Flipping Out

With one week to go until the election, team Trump is finding new ways to provoke people. On Monday night the hashtag #HillaryForPrision trended among people who want to see Hillary locked up. The word “prison” was misspelled to avoid detection by Twitter’s “censors”–the users employing the hashtag claim Twitter is trying to silence their opinions. Smart move, Republicans?

#HillaryForPrison Has been blocked by Twitter, so use the hashtag #HillaryForPrision!

— Democrats for Trump (@YoungDems4Trump) October 31, 2016

Please tell me again HOW she’s still allowed to run for President? 2 FBI criminal investigations? Seriously? #HillaryForPrision

— Heather Ross (@RealHeatherRoss) October 31, 2016

Also, during a rally in Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump supporter Wayne Allyn Root basically wished for the deaths of Clinton and Huma Abedin by comparing them with the movie characters Thelma and Louise. Hint: the movie ends with them driving their car off a cliff.

via GIPHY

And lastly, someone dumped a huge truckload of cow poop outside the Democratic Party headquarters in Lebanon, Ohio on Saturday. Can this election get any crappier?

Pile of manure dumped in front of Warren County Democratic Party HQ early today https://t.co/3QOOjyrfpV pic.twitter.com/MvwZwZwpzK

— Ohio_Politics (@Ohio_Politics) October 29, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In his State of the Union address last year, President Barack Obama acknowledged the need for an update to the nation’s overtime pay rules: “We still need to make sure employees get the overtime they’ve earned,” he said. To the delight of Obama and perhaps millions of workers nationwide, but the chagrin of employer groups and some Republican lawmakers, this need has been addressed.

The Department of Labor (DOL) announced a severe adjustment to overtime pay rules on Wednesday, raising the salary threshold for those eligible for overtime pay from $23,660 per year to $47,476. The rule update–which goes into effect December 1–is designed to give 4.2 million Americans who previously did not qualify for overtime pay the money they earned from working hours beyond 40 per week. The DOL expects the new rules to generate $12 billion in wages over 10 years. The rules will be updated to reflect inflation every three years, starting in 2020.

“Increasing overtime protections is another step in the President’s effort to grow and strengthen the middle class by raising Americans’ wages. This extra income will not only mean a better life for American families impacted by overtime protections, but will boost our economy across the board as these families spend their hard-earned wages,” read the official statement from the White House released on Tuesday, a day before the new rules were announced.

In 2014, Obama issued a directive to the Secretary of Labor to “update and modernize” overtime pay regulations, suggesting a $50,440 threshold, which is slightly higher than the figure that was announced on Wednesday.

Critics of the newly designated threshold, which is nearly double the previous one, fear that it could lead to less jobs and less opportunity for upward mobility within a career. Citing an Oxford Economics study, the National Retail Federation (NRF), an advocate of the retail industry that opposes the new rules, sees a handful of hidden costs in raising the overtime pay threshold. While overtime pay would increase, they agree, base pay and hours worked would drop, leading to an overall decrease in take home pay. The study estimates a $745 million cost for retail and restaurant businesses.

“We would hope it would be a reasonable and responsible update and this final rule is not even close to that,” Lizzy Simmons, Senior Director of Government Relations at NRF said in an interview with Law Street. “[The new threshold] doesn’t reflect reality, the math is bad.”

She added that employers–in retail and other fields–will not have sufficient time to deal with the threshold increase (they have six months to adjust, Simmons said 12-18 months would be more realistic), and would have liked to see a less “reckless” increase in the new threshold.

And although both Democrats and Republicans see a need to overhaul overtime pay rules, Republicans in the House and Senate announced legislation–the Protecting Workplace Advancement and Opportunity Act–in an effort to preempt the DOL’s ruling. 

“The Obama administration’s decision to drastically redefine overtime will hurt our workforce and our employers. It will lead to reduced hours, confusion for job creators, and will limit growth opportunities for employees,” said Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), a member of the Senate Labor Committee, one of the sponsors of the bill.

As the fight over the minimum wage rages on, the other issue middle class Americans hope will provide a boon to their bank account–overtime pay–has been settled for now. Exactly what that means for employees and employers remains to be seen.

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 Department of Labor Doubles Threshold for Overtime Pay appeared first on Law Street.

Seventy-one years after the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan, leveling most of the city, killing 80,000 civilians and effectively winning the Pacific War, a sitting U.S. president will visit the city to commemorate the victims and highlight a future free from nuclear weapons.

After weeks of speculation, the White House released a statement yesterday detailing President Barack Obama’s May 21-28 trip to Vietnam and Japan, during which he will make his landmark visit to Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park. He will be accompanied by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Secretary of State John Kerry visited the same site last month, along with U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy, in a trip that many assumed was a precursor to Obama’s visit. Some commentators criticized Kerry’s trip as an “apology tour,” and though today’s announcement was expected, similar denouncements aimed at the president are likely to be made in the coming days.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest defended the trip, which will also include the annual G-7 Summit, assuring doubters that it will not include an apology from Obama, though he did acknowledge the call for a “legitimate line of inquiry.”

But during an era of increased Japanese nationalism, as some experts claim Japan has been experiencing under the leadership of Abe, the visit could be perceived differently from the other side of the Pacific, at least by the Abe government.

In a written post on Medium on Tuesday, White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes sought to assuage doubters and clarify the motivation behind Obama’s visit. “He will not revisit the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II. Instead, he will offer a forward-looking vision focused on our shared future,” he wrote, adding that the visit will “symbolize how far the United States and Japan have come in building a deep and abiding alliance based on mutual interests, shared values, and an enduring spirit of friendship between our peoples.”

But it’s also important to note the trip holds different significance for other American politicians. For Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a nuclear Japan might be necessary to combat a threat from North Korea. So as Obama looks to shine a light on the atrocities caused by nuclear weapons and look toward a world free of their destructive power, his potential successor could be in favor of proliferation.

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 Nearly Seven Decades Later, A U.S. President to Visit Hiroshima appeared first on Law Street.

On a dusty former oil-mining field in Dilley, Texas, enclosed by barbed wire fences and watched by guards day and night, hundreds of mothers and their children who are seeking asylum in America wait. They wait for a chance to plead their case to a judge. They wait for days, weeks, sometimes months. They wait for a future.

The South Texas Detention Complex is one of three such holding facilities–officially dubbed “family detention centers”–that hold undocumented immigrant families (mothers and children who are without a husband and father) while their asylum request is processed. Many come from Central America’s Northern Triangle: Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Some are fleeing gang violence, among the most lethal in the world. Others are escaping domestic abuse and oppressive governments.

But former detainees and advocacy groups are fighting to shut down these three family detention centers that continue to operate in the U.S. due to unlivable conditions and held an event to further their cause outside the White House this week. The other two facilities besides the one in Dilley are in Karnes City, Texas and Leesport, Pennsylvania. Advocates of closing the centers saw a boost last summer when a federal judge in Texas ruled the facilities as operating against the law.

Last week, however, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services issued a temporary child care license for the Karnes County Residential Center, which can house 580 migrants at a time and is privately operated. This would allow Karnes to continue operating under the law by operating under the title of “child care facility.” A small victory for advocates against the license came yesterday when a judge in Texas ruled on behalf of Grassroots Leadership, an organization focused on ending for-profit incarceration, issuing a week-long restraining order on the child care license.

Though the number of illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. from Central America has dipped after a surge that peaked in the summer of 2014, 98 percent of Dilley’s 2,400 beds are filled with women and children from that region, according to Lindsay Harris, Legal Fellow at the American Immigration Council, or AIC.

“They are here because they’ve expressed a fear of returning back to their home country,” Harris said during an interview on Wednesday. There are six AIC members on the ground at the dirt plains of the Dilley complex, assisting asylum seekers through the legal process.

According to Harris, the legal process of seeking asylum is as follows:

Between 80 to 150 families each day are put through an informal interview with a member of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), who rotate every two weeks between the three centers. The one to three hour interview is informal, and the families are allowed a legal representative (such as Harris), though many do not have one because of the deluge of daily interviews.

Those whose “credible fear” (the metric by which a migrant’s asylum request is judged: whether their situation back home is horrifying enough for them to stay in the U.S.) is rejected are subject to review by a judge. They are usually represented pro bono by a lawyer from an organization such as AIC.

Harris noted that most families do pass that stage and can further pursue their asylum claim, but are required to wear bulky ankle monitors and have weekly or monthly check-ins with immigration officers. She said rulings that don’t go the asylum seekers’ way aren’t always fair.

“These are survivors of trauma and torture, rape, incest, domestic violence,” she said. “Some of them have a very hard time articulating to a male asylum officer what they’ve been through.”

Recently released mothers are monitored via these bulky ankle bracelets, which require frequent charging and can’t be removed. [Image courtesy of Jeff Pearcy via UUSC]

Ten of the women who were previously detained and able to convincingly articulate their need to stay in the U.S. came to the front step of the White House yesterday, many with their children, on a mother-to-mother mission to shut these facilities down.

The “Let Hope Bloom” event, held under a chilly gray sky at Lafayette Square just feet from the White House’s north gate, saw the mothers–all from Central America–handed certificates and a bouquet of lilies, daisies, and azaleas from the event’s sponsors, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC) and other religious and secular non-profit groups.

“The greatest gift we pray to give would be the ending of family detention,” Reverend Sharon Stanley-Rea of the religious group Disciples of Christ said at the event.

Giant Mother’s Day cards were signed by the mothers, their children and supporters, which were then delivered to two White House officials at the west gate. The cards were addressed to four mothers at the White House: First Lady Michelle Obama, Second Lady Dr. Jill Biden, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, and Obama Assistant Cecilia Munoz.

A mother signs a direct appeal to the most powerful mother in the White House: Michelle Obama. [Image courtesy of Alec Siegel via Law Street Media]

One of the formerly detained mothers traveled from Alexandria, Virginia with her daughter to the White House.

“I’m happy [in America], it’s much better than being locked up,” she said in an interview with Law Street Media (through a translator), preferring her name be left out for privacy concerns. “When I was in detention I didn’t suffer physically but mentally it was really tough.”

She left her home in La Ceiba, Honduras to escape threats of extortion and was housed at the Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes City, Texas for 15 days before being released to pursue her claim of asylum and joining family members in Alexandria.

“I think my mom is very strong for the things that she’s gone through for me,” said her daughter, 15, also through a translator and requesting her name not be used for privacy concerns. “Coming to this country is not easy and I know that she did it for me.”

This mother fled Honduras after threats of extortion with her daughter, now a 9th grade student in Alexandria, Virginia. [Image courtesy of Alec Siegel via Law Street Media]

Hannah Hafter, Senior Program Leader for Activism at UUSC, one of the sponsors at yesterday’s event, recently spent two weeks at the facility in Karnes and saw conditions unsuitable for children to spend any amount of time living in.

“There is no humane way in allowing children to grow up in detention,” she said in a phone interview with Law Street Media. She said babies are not allowed to crawl on the floors and that basic movement is restricted. She sees the centers as inherently flawed. “They can’t have enough toys, they can’t have enough classes to make [the centers] acceptable.”

An alternative method to family detention centers, according to Harris, would be to allow the asylum seekers to independently integrate into communities, with periodic check-ins with law enforcement, while they wait for their asylum request to be processed.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opened a controversial family detention center in 2014 to accommodate the influx of families coming from Central America. The center, in Artesia, New Mexico, was closed in late 2014. The migrants who were being housed at the time were transferred to Dilley or Karnes.

Officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the DHS branch that handles the family detention centers, did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publishing, and neither did representatives from Dilley or Karnes.

Last summer, Jeh Johnson, Secretary of DHS, released a statement supporting reforms to the detention centers, citing the increase in the facilities’ capacity as a response to an increase in illegal immigrants from Central America.

Harris, the legal fellow with AIC who spoke at the “Let It Bloom” event yesterday, noted that these facilities are a waste for every party involved: government resources, time, and taxpayer dollars. (She said it costs one thousand dollars to house a family of three).

“These are not criminals,” she said “They’re seeking protection and they should be given information and access to council, not put in detention.”

Editor’s Note: This post was updated on 5/6 to clarify the asylum process.

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 Mother’s Day Appeal Outside the White House Aims to Abolish Family Detention Centers appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, President Barack Obama’s final White House Correspondents’ dinner as sitting president was held at the Washington Hilton in D.C. Celebrities, reporters, and politicians all dressed up in their finest for a night of (mostly laughs), and Obama didn’t disappoint. Check out five of the funniest moments from Obama’s speech last night.

Obama vs. Donald Trump

It should come as a surprise to no one, but Obama went after the walking joke that is the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. Obama pointed out that Trump hadn’t attended the dinner, saying:

Well let me conclude tonight on a more serious note. I want to thank the Washington press corps. The free press is central to our democracy and … nah! I’m just kidding! You know I’m gonna talk about Trump! Come on!

And it is surprising: You’ve got a room full of reporters, celebrities, cameras — and he says no.

Is this dinner too tacky for The Donald? What could he possibly be doing instead? Is he at home, eating a Trump steak, tweeting out insults to Angela Merkel? What’s he doing?

And he ended his Trump tirade with this zinger:

And there is one area where Donald’s experience could be invaluable and that’s closing Guantanamo because Trump knows a thing or two about running waterfront properties into the ground.

While the Trump-talk certainly wasn’t a surprise, it was a lot of fun.

via GIPHY

Sanders & Clinton Get Jabs Too

While Obama was harshest on Trump, he also made some comments about the two Democratic candidates still in the race. About billionaire-basher Bernie Sanders, Obama said:

For example, we’ve got the bright new face of the Democratic Party here tonight, Mr. Bernie Sanders. Bernie, you look like a million bucks. Or, to put it in terms you’ll understand, you look like 37,000 donations of $27 each.

Obama also joked about Hillary’s slogan, pretending it was “Trudge up a Hill” as opposed to Bernie’s more youthful “Feel the Bern,” and her seeming inability to connect with younger voters:

You’ve got to admit it though, Hillary trying to appeal to young voters is a little bit like your relative who just signed up for Facebook. ‘Dear America, did you get my poke. Is it appearing on your wall? I’m not sure I’m using this right. Love, Aunt Hillary.’

And a Little Fun at His Own Expense

Obama didn’t shy away from making fun of himself a bit, particularly when it comes to his meetings with world leaders. He made a reference to Prince George greeting the President in his bathrobe:

Even some foreign leaders, they’ve been looking ahead, anticipating my departure. Last week, Prince George showed up to our meeting in his bathrobe. That was a slap in the face. A clear breach of protocol.

Which (side note) led to this adorable picture:

Toddler prince meets President; bathrobe steals the show https://t.co/ofE5Q2cYxP #PrinceGeorge #bathrobe pic.twitter.com/OxnMZzuwZ2

— Acculturated (@Acculturated) April 26, 2016

Obama also commented on his recent meeting with his younger and very handsome Canadian counterpart, Justin Trudeau:

In fact somebody recently said to me, ‘Mr. President, you are so yesterday. Justin Trudeau has completely replaced you. He is so handsome and he’s so charming. He’s the future.’ And I said ‘Justin, just give it a rest.’ I resented that.

via GIPHY

An Actual, Physical Mic Drop

As a fitting farewell to his last White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama left the stage with the comment “Obama, out” and a literal dropping of the mic.

WATCH: Pres. Obama drops the mic at end of #WHCD remarks: “Obama out” https://t.co/cpmMPwSnpo

— ABC News (@ABC) May 1, 2016

John Boehner Video

Finally, I’m just going to let this fantastic video about what Obama will do when he’s no longer in office (also starring Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, and John Boehner) speak for itself:

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 Top 5 Moments of Obama’s Last White House Correspondents’ Dinner Speech appeared first on Law Street.

April is sexual assault awareness month. And on Friday, one of the four former Vanderbilt football players involved in the infamous Vanderbilt rape case from June 2013 was retried alone. After nearly three hours of deliberations, the jury came to their conclusion and justice was timely served this awareness month. The jury found Corey Batey, a 22-year-old former Vanderbilt football player, guilty of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery.

According to a Washington Post poll conducted last year, 25 percent of women and 7 percent of men are victims of “unwanted sexual incidents” while in university. The Washington Post conducted the poll last year by telephone, which surveyed 1,053 women and men undergraduate students at a four-year college, between the ages of 17 to 26, living on campus or nearby. Sexual assault was defined as five different types of “unwanted contact: forced touching of a sexual nature, oral sex, vaginal sexual intercourse, anal sex and sexual penetration with a finger or object.” Using that definition specifically, “5 percent of men and 20 percent of women said they had been sexually assaulted in college.”

With sexual assaults on college campuses increasing and becoming an issue that needs to be addressed more urgently than ever, more colleges are joining the effort to put an end to sexual assault each year and are implementing “mandatory sexual assault awareness programs.” In addition to these mandatory awareness programs, “many universities have joined President Obama’s “It’s On Us” campaign, which is a nation-wide promotion aimed at putting an end to sexual assault on college campuses.” Though universities are showing a commitment to effectively address the issue of sexual assault on campuses, there are been results that indicate that these programs are not yet working. This last fall, Indiana University invited more than 7,000 undergraduate and graduate students to take a survey about their perceptions and experiences with sexual assault. It found:

Twenty-nine percent of the undergraduate women reported experiencing some form of nonconsensual sexual touching while at IU […] 35 percent of the undergraduate women and 34 percent of the graduate women reported being the victims of some form of sexual harassment while at IU […] and, 86 percent of the undergraduate women and 85 percent of the graduate women participants who reported experiencing some form of nonconsensual sexual contact did not report the incident to anyone at IU.

As these findings are similar findings with studies conducted at other universities, an answer on how to solve the epidemic of sexual assault on campuses remains to be solved. Hopefully, this recent court ruling against Batey will influence sexual assault victims to speak up and encourage universities to continue to make efforts with protecting and creating a safe space for sexual assault survivors, and putting an end to this horrendous crime for good.

Ashlyn Marquez

Ashlyn Marquez received her law degree from the American University, Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree from The New School. She works in immigration law and has a passion for worker’s rights, tacos, and avocados. Contact Ashlyn at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Deja Vu: Former Vanderbilt Football Player Found Guilty of Rape appeared first on Law Street.

The newest massive dump of confidential American military information came this week, and it focused on one much-criticized aspect of American foreign policy: our use of drones in conflict. The information, which was released via an eight-part report entitled “The Drone Papers” by the Intercept, doesn’t look good for the U.S. It contains many shocking revelations, including the fact that nearly 90 percent of the people killed in recent drone attacks in a five-month period in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets.”

The papers, which were released by an anonymous whistleblower only identified as “a source” are secret, classified documents. They encompass the United States’ use of drones from 2011-2013 in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iraq, and outline the chain of command and process through which the United States government approves an attack. They also go through in detail the evolution of the United States’ drone program.

The Intercept–which was founded in the wake of Edward Snowden’s release of NSA documents that clued Americans into the spying being conducted by the U.S. government–has been hinting that it has a new source of information for a while now. So, while this drone report release doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise, it’s hard to deny that the revelations are anything other than grim, and echo the concerns that human rights activists have been uttering since we began using drones as tools for warfare. As the Intercept puts it, what should be understood as a result of the release of these documents is clear:

Taken together, the secret documents lead to the conclusion that Washington’s14-year high-value targeting campaign suffers from an overreliance on signals intelligence, an apparently incalculable civilian toll, and — due to a preference for assassination rather than capture — an inability to extract potentially valuable intelligence from terror suspects. They also highlight the futility of the war in Afghanistan by showing how the U.S. has poured vast resources into killing local insurgents, in the process exacerbating the very threat the U.S. is seeking to confront.

The source also explained his motivations for releasing the information to the Intercept, explaining that the public deserves to know the truth about the American drone program, and stating:

This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong,

The Obama Administration has long assured the American people that the use of drone strikes attempted to mitigate civilian deaths–this information seems to indicate that those assurances are simply not accurate. So far the various American government agencies involved, including the Pentagon, the White House, and the Defense Department have all avoided public comment. While mum may be the word for now, Americans will almost certainly start demanding answers, similar to the controversy over the NSA and the Patriot Act after Snowden’s papers were released. That leak fundamentally changed the conversation about privacy in this country–this newest release threatens to do the same when it comes to the use of American military force via drone.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post The Drone Papers: The Intercept Releases Massive Report on America’s Use of Drones appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of hub-bub in the political Twitter-sphere lately over a young man named C.J. Pearson. He’s 13, from Grovestown, Georgia, a conservative activist, and he catapulted to fame after making a video last winter criticizing President Obama for how he has responded to terror threats. Since then he’s been a relatively recognizable name, particularly in certain online circles. But now Pearson has made a splash on a whole new level–he’s claiming that the White House blocked him on Twitter, and incited a political shitstorm in the process.

The video that first landed Pearson some notoriety was published last February on Youtube, and entitled “President Obama: Do you really love America?”

Since then, he’s kept posting videos, often criticizing President Obama or other popular progressive figures. He’s even weighed in on the increasingly tumultuous 2016 Republican presidential primary, supporting Senator Ted Cruz. He’s been on Fox News, and profiled in multiple publications including USA Today and the Washington Times. Most recently, he released another video criticizing President Obama for inviting Ahmed Mohamed, the young man who was suspended from a Texas high school after bringing in a clock that was mistaken for a bomb.

While I personally disagree with many of the points Pearson makes, it’s undeniable that he’s an incredibly intelligent, articulate, and passionate young man. As as result, he’s attracted a loyal base of fans, particularly on Twitter and Youtube.

So, when he posted this tweet yesterday afternoon, it gained a lot of traction:

Well, this sucks. pic.twitter.com/S9jESl5ybi

— CJ Pearson (@thecjpearson) September 23, 2015

It appears to show that Pearson was blocked by the official presidential Twitter account. The posting garnered plenty of uproar, with many criticizing the President for blocking a vocal critic.

However, the White House has vehemently denied that Pearson was blocked–Assistant White House Press Secretary Frank Benenati responded to the controversy via Twitter, stating:

Public Service Announcement: Nobody is or has ever been blocked from the @POTUS twitter account

— Frank Benenati (@Benenati44) September 23, 2015

After the White House chimed in, plenty of Twitter observers, conservative media outlets, and commentators continued to rally in support of Pearson, claiming that the White House was probably lying.

Now, liberal sites are claiming that Pearson is lying, pointing out issues in his story like the fact that a similar picture was tweeted out by a parody site a few days ago, and the fact that the White House would choose to randomly block a kid is ridiculous, even if he is a vocal critic of the Obama administration.

The entire thing has devolved into an incredibly stupid mess, the kind that exists only in a perfect storm of narcissism, internet access, boredom, and an election cycle. So, did the White House block CJ Pearson? Probably not–it seems a little too unbelievable and far-fetched of a story. But it’s a fun distraction from the impending government shutdown, refugee crisis in Europe, and the mess that is the 2016 primaries.

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 Did the White House Really Block 13-Year-Old CJ Pearson on Twitter? appeared first on Law Street.

The White House is the center of power and the home of the president. But what’s going on outside the hallowed halls? We sent Law Streeter Symon Rowlands to go check out “Who’s at the White House.” Check out the results below:

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Who’s at the White House appeared first on Law Street.

A historic breakthrough for international diplomacy was reached Tuesday when President Obama announced the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations after 20 months of discussions and international debate. The deal ensures that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and provides security measures that should instill trust in the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has agreed to dramatically decrease its nuclear infrastructure in exchange for relief from international sanctions that have suffocated Iran’s economy for years. A few fundamental points of the deal include Iran’s agreement to keep its uranium enrichment levels at or below 3.67 percent, a dramatic decrease. The deal reduces Iran’s nuclear stockpile by about 98 percent, allowing the state to maintain a uranium reserve under 300 kilograms, which is down from its current 10,000-kilogram stock. Iran has also agreed to ship spent fuel outside its borders, diminishing the likelihood of uranium enrichment intended to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran will be bound to extremely intrusive inspections by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and will face the looming possibility of harsh sanction reimposition if it is found to be evading its commitments or in noncompliance with the deal.

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama held a press conference in the White House East Room where he welcomed critics and reporters to ask questions of him regarding the newly struck nuclear deal. The conference lasted more than an hour, and drew out several candid responses from an increasingly condescending President Obama along with a slew of entertaining commentary by the president toward critics of the nuclear deal. Frustrated, annoyed, or patronizing–whatever the president’s mood was, it was rightfully earned; the criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal thus far and during the press conference are almost disappointingly invalid or inadequate. It’s easy to see how it becomes aggravating to explain the details of a decision that has been 20 months in the making to politicians who had prearranged to lobby against the deal before it even existed. It’s also easy to see how he became flippant toward reporters who are asking questions about Bill Cosby in the middle of the press conference that is supposed to address one of the most critical, comprehensive, and complex diplomatic agreements in history. So with that in mind, here are the best and sassiest quotes from Wednesday’s press conference:

1. “Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better.”

After CBS News reporter Major Garrett asked the President why he is “content” with the fanfare around the Iran deal when there are four American political prisoners currently in Iran, Obama was not happy. His response was that the United States should not act on this deal based on the detainees’ status because Iran would take advantage of the American prisoners and try to gain additional concessions by continuing to hold them captive. He stated that deal or no deal, we are still working hard to get these four Americans out.

2. “My hope is — is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts… But, we live in Washington.”

Well, let’s be honest, those of us who actually live in Washington would prefer that Congress not be lumped in with the rest of us during this debate. Can they debate somewhere else?

3. “You know, the facts are the facts, and I’m not concerned about what others say about it.”

Sticks and stones, Barack, sticks and stones.

4. “The argument that I’ve been already hearing… that because this deal does not solve all those other problems, that’s an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic: it makes no sense.”

Here, Obama made a direct jab at Republicans in Congress who are trying to justify their opposition to the nuclear deal by saying that Iran is not moderate and won’t change because of this deal. The President said that the deal was never designed to solve every problem in Iran. Obama says this rhetoric, besides being plain wrong and nonsensical, loses sight of the number one priority–making sure Iran does not develop a bomb.

5. “I’m hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about “This is a bad deal. This is a historically bad deal. This will threaten Israel and threaten the world and threaten the United States.” I mean, there’s been a lot of that.”

Condescending Obama strikes again, and reminded us that this deal won’t, in fact, make the world implode. Pro tip: read the quote within the quote in a nasally, Obama-making-fun-of-Congress voice.

6. “This is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and wheel off somewhere.”

Obama said that under the new safeguards and the international community’s watchful eye, the Iranian government simply won’t be able to hide any uranium or plutonium that they might be (but probably aren’t) covertly enriching. Because under the bed and in the closet is definitely the first place the United Nations will check, duh.

7. “Now, you’ll hear some critics say, “well, we could have negotiated a better deal.” OK. What does that mean?”

The Republicans are right. We could have also found a unicorn and put sprinkles on top.

8. “So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement…to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong.”

Mic drop.

9. “It’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East.”

Well that didn’t stop anyone with the last name “Bush” from trying.

10. “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

While this wasn’t from the press conference, it was too good not to include. Obama faces a hard sell to Congress and is determined to push the deal through. He stated that if the nuclear deal fails in Congress, it won’t just be a slap in the face to the American officials who negotiated this deal, but to the international community and the other five countries who spent years negotiating.

The president left the press conference promising to address the deal again, stating, “I suspect this is not the last that we’ve heard of this debate.”

Emily Dalgo

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

The post Top 10 Condescending Quotes From Obama’s Iran Deal Press Conference appeared first on Law Street.

Since his first presidential campaign, President Obama has advocated for immigration reform, and his administration has experienced its share of successes and failures. Notably, it failed to accomplish its goal to see through the passage of the Dream Act, legislation that would allow unauthorized immigrant students without a criminal background to apply for temporary legal status and eventually earn U.S. citizenship if they attended college or enlisted in the U.S. military. Immigration reform seemed to truly pick up steam, however, during Obama’s second term. In 2013, he proposed earned citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. But what exactly is earned citizenship?

Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

An undocumented immigrant is a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, often by crossing the border to avoid inspection, or someone who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics, 11.4 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States as of 2012. The combined number of undocumented immigrants living in California, Texas, New York, and Florida accounted for 55 percent of that figure.

More than eight million, or 71 percent of all undocumented immigrants, were from Central American countries in 2008-12. Asia accounted for 13 percent; South America for seven percent; Europe, Canada, and Oceania for four percent; Africa for three percent; and the Caribbean for two percent. The top five countries of birth included: Mexico (58 percent), Guatemala (six percent), El Salvador (three percent), Honduras (two percent), and China (two percent).

In the U.S., 61 percent of unauthorized immigrants are between the ages 25-44 and 53 percent are male. Interestingly, 57 percent of unauthorized immigrants over the age of 45 are female.

What is Obama’s Earned Citizenship Proposal?

In 2013, Obama called for earned citizenship in an attempt to fix what he calls a broken system. It is an alternative to deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S illegally that allows a legal path for them to earn citizenship. In this proposal, unauthorized immigrants must submit to national security and criminal background checks, pay taxes and a penalty, wait a specific amount of time, and learn English in order to earn citizenship. If the eligibility requirements are met, citizenship is guaranteed. Lastly, young immigrants would be able to fast track citizenship through military service or higher education pursuit.

Provisional Legal Status

Unauthorized immigrants must first register, submit biometric data, pass both national security and background checks, and pay penalties/fees in order to be eligible for provisional legal status. Before applying for legal permanent status–a green card–and eventually U.S. citizenship, they must wait until current legal immigration backlogs are cleared. A provisional legal status will not allow federal benefits. Lawful permanent resident status eligibility will require stricter requirements than the provisional legal status, and applicants must pay their taxes, pass further background and national security tests, register for Selective Service if applicable, pay additional fees and penalties, and learn English and U.S. Civics. In accordance with today’s law, applicants must wait five years after receiving a green card to apply for U.S. citizenship.

DREAMers and AgJOBS

This proposal includes the voted-down Dream Act. Innocent unauthorized immigrant children brought to the U.S. by their parents can earn expedited citizenship through higher education or military service. Agricultural workers can fast track legal provisional status as well in a program called AgJOBS. This a measure to specifically fight against employers taking advantage of unauthorized farmers who will work for the bare minimum.

Combatting Fraud

The proposal allocates funding to DHS, the Department of State, and other relevant federal agencies to create fraud prevention programs that will “provide training for adjudicators, allow regular audits of applications to identify patterns of fraud and abuse, and incorporate other proven fraud prevention measures.” These programs will help ensure a fair and honest path to earned citizenship.

2013 Immigration Reform Bill

Much of Obama’s proposal for earned citizenship came to life in the Senate’s 2013 Immigration Reform Bill. “Nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me,” the President said, “but the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform.” The bill was a heavily bipartisan effort, written by a group of four Republicans and four Democrats called the Gang of Eight. The bill would have provided $46.3 million in funding for its implementation. Immigrants could start applying for a lawful permanent residence when specific goals and timelines of the bill are reached.

Border Security

The bill mandated a variety of border security measures, including the following: the training and addition of 19,200 full-time border agents amassing to 38,405 in total; activation of an electronic exit system at every Customs and Border Control outlet; constructions of 700 miles of fencing; increased surveillance 24 hours a day on the border region; and some specific technology measures including ground sensors, fiber-optic tank inspection scopes, portable contraband detectors, and radiation isotope identification devices. The bill also mandated more unauthorized immigration prosecution, including the hiring of additional prosecutors, judges, and relevant staff. Interior Enforcement would be required to increase its efforts against visa overstay, including a pilot program to notify people of an upcoming visa expiration. And finally, a bipartisan Southern Border Security Commission to make recommendations and allocating funds when appropriate.

Immigrant Visas

Registered Provisional Immigrants’ (RPI) status would be granted on a six-year basis. Unauthorized immigrants would be eligible for application if they have been in the U.S. since December 31, 2011, paid their appropriate taxes as well as a $1,000 penalty. Applicants would need a relatively clean criminal background, although the bill allowed judges more leniency in determining the severity of a person’s criminal background. After ten years of living in the U.S. with continuous employment (or proof of living above the poverty line), the payment of additional fees, and additional background checks, those with RPI status could apply for legal permanent residence. Naturalized citizenship could be applied for after three years of legal permanent residence.

Between 120,000 and 250,000 visas would be handed out each year based on a two-tier point system. Tier one visas would be designated for higher-skilled immigrants with advanced educational credentials and experience, and tier two visas would be reserved for less-skilled immigrants. The top 50 percent that accrued the most points in each tier would be granted visas, and points would be based on a combination of factors including: education, employment, occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, family ties, age, and nationality.

Interior Enforcement

Essentially, this provision mandated the use of E-verify, which is “an internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States by comparing information from an employee’s Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from U.S. government records.” E-verify, in use now on a limited basis, would be mandated for all employers in the time span of five years. Employers would be required to register newly hired employees with E-verify within three days, and regular assessments would take place to ensure that E-verify isn’t used for discriminatory purposes.

Watch the video below for more information on the Immigration Reform Bill.

Stopped in the House

The Senate passed the bill with overwhelming support in a 68-32 vote. Both sides were highly pleased with the bipartisan teamwork the bill produced. “The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country,” said Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-NY). “It’s going to send a message to the other end of the Capitol as well.” When the bill was finalized, the group broke into a “Yes, we can!” chant.

Devastatingly, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) refused to even allow the bill to come to a vote after previously claiming that something needed to be done about immigration reform. He said:

The idea that we’re going to take up a 1,300-page bill that no one had ever read, which is what the Senate did, is not going to happen in the House. And frankly, I’ll make clear that we have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill.

No room was allowed for comprise or debate on potential house legislation.

Obama’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions

President Obama’s immigration reform executive actions, announced in November 2014, focus on three items: cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, deporting felons instead of families, and accountability. Basically, these encompass a minor segment of the immigration reform he was trying to pass all along. People attempting to cross the border illegally will have a greater chance of failure. Border security command-and-control will be centralized. Deportation will focus on those who threaten security and national safety. Temporary legal status will be issued in three-year increments for unauthorized immigrants who register, pass background checks, and pay appropriate taxes. It will protect up to five million unauthorized immigrants from deportation.

The executive actions established Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). While DACA protects immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, DAPA provides temporary relief from deportation for eligible parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

 Are the Executive Actions legal?

These executive actions saw immediate backlash. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) responded, “The president’s decision to recklessly forge ahead with a plan to unilaterally change our immigration laws ignores the will of the American people and flouts the Constitution.” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) moved for the House to sue the president.

On Feburary 16, 2015, conservative Texas district court judge Andrew Hanen ruled in favor of Texas and 25 other states to overturn Obama’s action as unconstitutional. Hanen  ruled that the executive actions would cause these states “irreparable harm.”

The matter will now be appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Obama’s actions are blocked indefinitely. Until then, a number of states including New York, California, and New Mexico, have asked for a lift of the ban for their states. They await a ruling.

 Conclusion

Immigration has been the center of heated debate for years. The closest our government came to finally passing a bill that would aid the problem of illegal immigration didn’t even come to a vote in the House. So President Obama decided to take the matter into his own hands. Whether forcing states to participate in his immigration reform is constitutional or not will be a decision left to the courts. Obama’s proposal for earned citizenship started a snowball effect of immigration policy that will likely end in a showdown at the Supreme Court.

Resources

Primary

White House: Earned Citizenship

White House: Immigration

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to S.744

Immigration Policy Center: The Dream Act

Politico: Immigration Reform Bill 2013: Senate Passes Legislation 68-32

U.S. News & World Report: Is Obama’s Immigration Executive Order Legal?

Washington Post: Boehner Closes Door on House-Senate Immigration Panel

Washington Post: A Dozen States Will CAll for Courts to Allow Obama’s Executive Actions to Proceed

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Immigration Reform: Earned Citizenship and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

Picture your Netflix homescreen. Besides some errant selections courtesy of your (ahem, tasteless) roommate, it’s pretty much a haven of your unique preferences. Like a doting butler, it recommends you watch “Breaking Bad” since you enthusiastically plowed through every episode of “Orange is the New Black.” Netflix knows you. Or think about Amazon. It’s your data-powered best friend. It recalls your purchase history and movie preferences better than you do. So what if this data-powered framework for knowing you is applied to healthcare? What if your doctor knows you as well as Netflix?

That’s what the Precision Medicine Initiative aims to do–unleash the full power of science and data to make our healthcare system better, more effective, and more specific to individuals and conditions. The new model proposes a system of health care that treats you like the complex human being you are. Just as Amazon cares deeply about your past purchase behavior, the new healthcare system would care about the science-based reasons you’re you: your genes, your lifestyle, and your environment. Instead of pushing purchases, it would use what it knows about you to determine what treatments and preventions work best for your health.

President Barack Obama announced the Precision Medicine Initiative during his 2015 State of the Union Address and since then people have been discussing the pros, cons, and implications. Here’s an overview of precision medicine and what it means for you.

What is precision medicine?

Take a look at the video below for a summary of precision medicine from Jo Handelsman, Associate Director for Science at the White House.

Precision medicine revolves around you. It uses your genes, environment, and lifestyle to determine what treatments keep you healthy.

The Precision Medicine Initiative may be new, but precision medicine has some history. Doctors already use it to treat conditions like cancer and Cystic Fibrosis. Examples of precision medicine in action include processes like blood typing and medications like Imatinib (Gleevec), a drug for Leukemia that inhibits an enzyme produced by certain genes. The new initiative plans to expand the reach of precision medicine to to tackle other diseases.

The plan stems from a  2011 report from the National Academy of Sciences. The report called out a major healthcare weakness: data suggests possible causes of deadly diseases, yet we don’t treat people until telltale signs and symptoms surface. You don’t wait until your friend’s liver is wrecked to stage an alcoholism intervention. Why wait for symptoms of a deadly disease when early risk factors might be available?

Great idea in theory, right? Of course, the execution promises far more complexity. Experts hope that precision medicine is within our grasp now because of recent scientific advances that make it easier to collect and analyze patient data.

Advances That Make Precision Medicine Possible

Advancement 1: New Methods of Uncovering Biological Data

It’s easier to understand patients and tumors on a cellular and genetic level more than ever before because of things like:

• The Human Genome Project, an initiative that aims to map the DNA sequence of the human genome to determine a sort of biological instruction manual for how humans function. The study of the genome is called genomics.
• Proteomics, a discipline that involves studying proteomes, the entire system of proteins in an organism. The goal is understanding changes, variations, and modifications in proteins over time to determine biomarkers for human diseases, especially cancer.
• Metabolomics, a field that leverages analytical tools to discover and quantify metabolites, which are substances produced by metabolism. Studying them provides experts with a glimpse of an organism’s physiological functioning as metabolism is a huge factor in overall health.

Advancement 2: New Tools For Biomedical Analysis

New analytic tools make it possible to decipher the intricate medical data collected by the disciplines above. Computers and programs help to collect, store, and study biological and medical information. Overall, the discipline is called bioinformatics.

Advancement 3: New Digital Health Tools That Make Large Datasets Manageable

I said large data sets. Sound familiar? Yes, we’re talking Big Data. You’ve probably heard enough about it, but it’s actually an amazing thing, especially when applied to healthcare. Take a look at the video below for more information.

From collecting to analyzing, sophisticated data management tools make the Precision Medicine Initiative possible.

Collectively, these advances create the right environment for the unified national effort that the Precision Medicine Initiative proposes.

How will it work?

The President’s 2016 Budget provides $215 million for the program. Four key agencies slated to do a bulk of the work each get a chunk of the budget.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Project Budget: $130 million.

Task: Recruit a volunteer research cohort and leverage existing data.

The National Institutes of Health must find 1 million American volunteers willing to provide medical records, gene profiles, lifestyle data, and more. While data drives the initiative, you need people to get the data. In addition to this, the NIH will find existing studies and research to build a foundation for the initiative. It’ll collaborate with stakeholders to determine approaches for collecting patient information.

National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Budget: $70 million.

Task: Find better cancer treatments.

The National Cancer Institute will explore precision treatments for cancer by increasing genetically based cancer trials, researching cancer biology, and establishing a “cancer knowledge network” to inform treatment decisions.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Budget: $10 million.

Task: Develop safe, new DNA tests.

The Food and Drug Administration will seek technologies that rapidly sequence DNA and the human genome. Tests should make genetic data collection easier and more standardized.

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC)

Budget: $5 million.

Task: Manage the data.

The ONC has a tough job. It needs to figure out how to store, use, access, and exchange all of this medical data without any privacy concerns.

What Precision Medicine Could Mean For You

Here’s Notre Dame’s video on precision medicine in action:

Precision medicine could mean treatments more specific to you. For example, about 55-65 percent of women with mutations in the BRCA1 gene get Breast Cancer; only 12 percent of those without the gene get it. If the gene mutation is discovered, doctors can recommend enhanced prevention measures like increased cancer screenings or prophylactic surgery to remove at-risk tissue.

We hope more precise treatments lead to better outcomes. Using precision medicine, we hope to answer many questions, including:

• How can we treat this better?
• Is there a cure?
• Why does this disease happen in the first place?

The Downsides to Precision Medicine

Of course, the Precision Medicine Initiative has some drawbacks. The sheer amount of time it will take to collect and analyze all of this patient data leads the charge of negative comments. Below are some other downsides.

Interpretability

This article from the New Yorker calls out the problem of interpretability. To quote the author,l Cynthia Graber,

Many doctors are simply not qualified to make sense of genetic tests, or to communicate the results accurately to their patients.

Since doctors will be the sole executors of the initiative, more need to become fluent in the human genetic code. Programs like MedSeq have recognized this need and are already working to make genetic information translatable for practitioners.

The Budget Just Isn’t Enough

Experts say that even the $215 million proposed isn’t enough to meet the initiative’s lofty goals, like recruiting one million patient volunteers. One upside? Money can be saved by incorporating existing data, which the initiative plans to do.

Collecting the Data is Going to be Hard (This is an Understatement) 

If they do save money by integrating data from different studies, keeping the data clean will be hard considering the different time frames, constructs, and controls of various studies.

And as a practicing doctor writing for a New York Times blog points out, the lifestyle factors will be especially hard to study because of some uncooperative and intensely complex patients.

Insurance Companies May Not Pay For It

Precise matching of individuals to disease treatments sounds great, and extremely expensive, especially in the early days. Patients will need even more help determining what treatments suit them.

Hope For the Future

Sorry to bring up Netflix up again, but let’s face it, it’s very good at leveraging data to give you what you want. Consider any of its popular original series. Do you think Netflix just guessed what 50 million subscribers would like? Probably not. It used its massive stores of data to make informed decisions.

Early doctors and researchers puzzled over the symptoms of just a few patients, trying to find patterns, causes, and cures. While they did a fair job with the resources they had, trial and error medicine should be relegated to the less fortunate past. Today we have the power and knowledge to access data that helps doctors make more informed decisions on healthcare treatments.

Precision medicine will be complicated, difficult, time consuming, and who knows what else. But imagine what we can learn. We should be cautious, but we can also dare to hope.

Resources

Primary

White House: Infographic: The Precision Medicine Initiative

White House: FACT SHEET: President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative

White House: Precision Medicine is Already Working to Cure Americans: These Are Their Stories

National Cancer Institute: BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing

National Institutes of Health: Precision Medicine Initiative

National Cancer Institute: What is Cancer Proteomics?

Additional

Nature: Obama to Seek $215 Million for Precision-Medicine Plan

New England Journal of Medicine: A New Initiative on Precision Medicine

National Academies: Toward Precision Medicine

National Institutes of Health: Precision Medicine Initiative

Nature: U.S. Precision-Medicine Proposal Sparks Questions

Brookings Institution: The Significance of President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative

New Yorker: The Problem With Precision Medicine

The New York Times: A Path For Precision Medicine

National Human Genome Research Institute: What is the Human Genome Project?

BioTechniques: What is Metabolomics All About?

Bioplanet: What is Bioinformatics?

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Precision Medicine: The Future of Health Care? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I’ve talked about immigration a lot in the past, it’s a pretty big issue here in Texas. On Monday, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville prohibited the Obama Administration from carrying out immigration programs announced in November 2014. These programs would allow protection from deportation and give work permits to nearly five million undocumented immigrants. One of those many programs was supposed to start today, but that’s not happening now.

Hanen found that the state of Texas, as well as the 25 other states that had filed against this initiative, had satisfied the minimum legal requirement to bring the lawsuit, stating that the Obama Administration failed to comply with the basic procedures required in order to put the program into effect.

Of course, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated that the administration was “within the bounds of the law” and implied that it would be appealing the decision. Any appeal in this case filed by President Obama would be handled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott stated that “Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks.”

All of the states that oppose this measure argue that President Obama has very clearly violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which limits the scope of presidential power. Only time will tell what will happen next, though one thing’s for sure: it will be a long, drawn-out process but it’ll be fun to see how things turn out.

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 Texas Federal Judge Halts Obama’s Immigration Plans appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

A major hacking scandal at the entertainment company Sony has escalated quickly over the last few weeks. It started with leaked information, and has now led to full on terror threats against theaters that show the movie The Interview, a comedy that centers around the premise of killing North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. The release has since been cancelled. The hacker group responsible called themselves “Guardians of the Peace.” This morning, the FBI put out a statement that included the following:

As a result of our investigation, and in close collaboration with other U.S. government departments and agencies, the FBI now has enough information to conclude that the North Korean government is responsible for these actions.

Just before 2:00 PM today, President Barack Obama held a news conference to address the Sony issue, among other things. It is his final press conference of 2014.

The first question of the day was, as expected, about the Sony hack.

A Politico reporter asked whether or not Sony made the best choice pulling The Interview. Obama was clear: he thinks that Sony made a mistake. He talked about the need to be able to resist cyber attacks, saying “we’re not even close to where we need to be.” He also emphasized the need for strong cyber security laws that would serve to protect both the public and private sectors. He then made an excellent argument for why Sony’s decision was wrong, saying:

We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship in the United States. Because if someone is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary they don’t like, or news reports they don’t like. Or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of someone whose sensibilities need to be affected. That’s not who we are. That’s not what America’s about.

He continued to emphasize the need to stand against terrorist demands, because of the slippery slope to which it could lead, specifically referencing North Korea in this case–not a surprising move given that the FBI had already done so. He said there would be a response, but he wasn’t going to go into detail today, emphasizing the need for international cooperation on the issue of cyber security. Later, in response to another question, he pointed out that despite the international aspect, there’s no evidence to indicate that North Korea was working with any other country.

It’s been a long few weeks for Sony, and the idea that a foreign government could use cyber-terrorism to intimidate an American company is concerning. But President Obama was right–negotiating and giving in to terrorists may be even more dangerous down the road. While his plan about how to respond to North Korea was, completely understandably, very vague, I have a feeling the White House may need to take tough actions here to mitigate Sony’s caving to the cyberterrorists’ demands.

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 President Obama: Sony Made a Mistake Pulling “The Interview” appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we really appreciate entrepreneurial spirit–especially when it creates cool new technology we can fawn over. Since Christmas is fast approaching, I decided to highlight some fascinating Christmas-themed inventions and innovations. Some of these are already in the works and some are future projects, but either way they’re sure to make your holiday bright!

[SlideDeck2 id=30195 ress=1]

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 Technology Innovations: Christmas Edition appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, a New York federal district court ruled that TVEyes’ use of Fox News’ video clips is a fair use according to the federal Copyright Act.

Who is TVEyes?

You may not have heard of TVEyes, Inc. before, but you’ve probably heard of some of its subscribers: the White House, 100 members of Congress, the United States Army, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and the Associated Press.

So your two next questions may logically be: 1) who is TVEyes? and 2) why do portions of the federal government and the country’s major media outlets care about it? The answer is that TVEyes is a for-profit 24/7 media-monitoring service that monitors and records more than 1,400 television and radio broadcasts and transforms the broadcasts into searchable databases. The searchable databases allow TVEyes’ subscribers,like the White House, to see how different television and radio stations from across the country are reporting a particular event.

How Does TVEyes Work?

You may also be wondering how TVEyes is able to record thousands of broadcasts at once, and how subscribers are able to use its database.  According to a New York federal court opinion published on Tuesday, September 9, TVEyes uses closed captioning and speech-to-text technology to record television and radio broadcasts, and then the company creates a database of the recorded content.  Subscribers log onto a Watch List Page, which monitors keywords, tabulates the total number of times a keyword was mentioned by all 1,400 television and radio broadcasts, and organizes keyword search results by day for a 32-day period. From the Watch List Page, subscribers can click on the Results List Page, which shows the number of times a keyword was used on a particular day.  Each result on the Results List Page contains transcripts of the television and radio broadcasts that mention the keyword as well as thumbnail images of that television or radio broadcast that said the keyword. The subscriber can then click the thumbnail image, and a video clip of the broadcast will play alongside a transcript on the Transcript Page, which contains a wealth of information such as the name and location of the broadcast channel, Nielsen Ratings data about the clip, and the publicity value of the clip.

TVEyes also provides the following notable features and pages:

• A Media Stats page that graphically illustrates the number of times a keyword has been used over a period of time;
• A Marketshare page that contains a “heatmap” indicating the geographical locations that use the keyword the most;
• A Broadcast Network page which depicts in a pie chart the breakdown of which broadcast stations use the keyword;
• A Date and Time Search that lets subscribers play a video clip that aired on a specific date and time on a specific television station; and,
• A Media Snapshot featurethat allows subscribers to watch live streams of everything that TVEyes records.

Moreover, subscribers can save, archive, edit, and download an unlimited number of clips, and email clips to anyone, regardless if he or she is a TVEyes subscriber. Once a recipient clicks on the e-mailed clip, he or she is directed to TVEyes’ website and not the content owner’s website (i.e., Fox News’ website).

Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Fox News sued TVEyes because it believed that TVEyes would divert its viewers to TVEyes’ website. Fox News claimed that TVEyes committed copyright infringement because TVEyes used Fox’ News copyrighted video clips to create content on TVEyes’ website, which its subscribers can play, save, edit, archive, download, and share. Specifically, Fox News alleged that TVEyes copied and infringed 19 one-hour programs on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network, such as two episodes of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, three episodes of Special Report with Bret Baier, three episodes of The Five, four episodes of The O’Reilly Factor, two episodes of The Fox Report with Shepard Smith, four episodes of Hannity, and one episode of Special Report Investigates: Death & Deceit in Benghazi.

Fair Use Defense

Whenever a plaintiff sues a defendant for copyright infringement, the defendant has certain defenses in the arsenal.  One of those defenses is fair use, which is a doctrine that allows the public to use a copyrighted work without an author’s permission in certain situations.  In this case, TVEyes argued that the features on its database constituted fair use.

The fair use statute, which is listed under 17 U.S.C. 107 in the federal Copyright Act, says that if a defendant uses a copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, there is a strong presumption that the defendant’s use of the work is fair use.  Nevertheless, a court must consider the four factors listed therein:

1. The purpose and character of the work.
2. The nature of the work;.
3. The amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that the defendant used.
4. The effect the defendant’s use has on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.

Each factor, however, must be viewed in isolation, and the court uses a balancing test.  No one factor brings about a resolution. Let’s see how the court analyzed the four factors.

Factor 1:  The Purpose and Character of the Work

The court noted that the main reason for looking at the purpose and character of a defendant’s work is to see if it adds something new to the original copyrighted work and is not merely a substitute for the original work. The court’s investigation of whether a work adds something new is referred to as “transformative” use. TVEyes argued that its features providing subscribers with Fox News’ video clips is transformative, but Fox News argued that TVEyes’ copying and disseminating of its copyrighted excerpts, circulations, and summaries is not fair use.

The court held that TVEyes’ features that provide its subscribers with Fox News’ video clips was transformative because the database converted Fox’s copyrighted works into a research tool. Moreover, TVEyes’ subscribers use TVEyes for research, criticism, and comment. Finally, although TVEyes is a for-profit company, and commercialism can sometimes weigh against a finding of fair use, the more transformative a work is, the less significance is placed on commercialism.  Since TVEyes’ work was transformative, factor one favored TV Eyes.

Factor 2:  The Nature of the Work

This factor considers the nature of the copyrighted work because some types of work are closer to the kinds of works that copyright law intends to protect. For example, the type of work at issue in this case (i.e., the news) is not copyrightable because the news contains facts. Facts are not copyrightable because society wants everyone to be able to freely disseminate facts in order to find the truth; however, the creativity in deciding how to portray, film, direct, sequence, communicate the news is copyrightable

Nevertheless, courts may favor fair use for a work that is factual or informational.  Wwhere the work is transformative, however, the second factor has limited value.  Thus, the court said that the second factor does not weigh for or against a finding of fair use in this case.

Factor 3:  The Amount and Substantiality of the Copyrighted Work the Defendant Used

TVEyes concedes that it copied all of Fox News’ content. This factor, however, does not just employ a quantative comparison between the original copyrighted work and the defendant’s work, it also asks whether the defendant copied no more than was necessary for any valid purpose stated in the first factor (i.e., transformative use). Since TVEyes’ business model depends on copying all of Fox News’ content, the court said that TVEyes did not take more than what was necessary to obtain its transformative use; however, like the second factor, the court held that the third factor weighed neither for or against a finding of fair use.

Factor 4:  The Effect of the Defendant’s Use on the Potential Market or Value of the Copyrighted Work

This factor considers the economic injury that the defendant’s work causes and the benefit the public generates from use of the defendant’s work, if any.

• Economic Injury: This part of factor four determines whether the defendant’s use would have an adverse impact on the potential market of the original copyrighted work. Fox News argued that TVEyes’ services decreased its ratings of the 19 individual, hour-long programs it aired between October 2012 and July 2013, and thus diminished the amount of per-subscriber carriage fees that advertisers and cable and satellite providers paid Fox News because TVEyes’ subscribers watched TVEyes’ copies rather than the Fox News Channel or the Fox Business Network.

The court stated, however, that the 19 shows were no longer available for TVEyes’ subscribers, and TVEyes erases its content every 32 days.  Moreover, during the 32-day period in which these programs were available, only 560 video clips played, and 85 percent of those played were less than a minute long. In addition, between 2003-2014, only 5.6 percent of all TVEyes users saw any Fox News content on TVEyes.  In only three instances between March 2003 and December 2014 did TVEyes subscribers access 30 minutes or more of Fox News Channel’s content, and no subscriber accessed any Fox Business Network content. Furthermore, 95 percent of all video clips played on TVEyes are three minutes or shorter. Thus, the court said there was no basis that TVEyes’ subscribers would likely watch ten minute clips sequentially in order to use TVEyes as a substitute for Fox news.

Fox also argued that TVEyes impairs the derivative work market for syndiciation partners like YouTube and Fox News’ exclusive licensing agent, ITN Source and Executive Interviews.  However, Fox could not point out the alleged customers that Executive Interviews lost.  Moreover, Fox’s revenue from syndication partners and licensing clips is a small fraction of Fox News’ overall revenue (i.e., north of $212,000 and $246,000 respectively) and would likely be outweighed by the public’s benefit of using TVEyes’ services.

• Public Benefit: TVEyes argued that it provides a tremendous public benefit because it creates a library of television broadcast content and makes it easy and efficiently text-searchable. It also argued that without TVEyes there would be no way to search 27,000 hours of daily television broadcast programming, most of which isn’t available online or anywhere else.

Moreover, TVEyes argued that subscribers use its service to comment and criticize broadcast news; government bodies use it to assess factually-reported accuracies; political campaigns use it to monitor political advertisement and campaign appearances during elections; financial firms use it to monitor and archive employees’ public statements for regulatory compliance; the White House uses it to evaluate news and to provide the press with feedback; the United States Army uses it to track media coverage about worldwide military operations to ensure national security and troop safety; journalists use it to research, report, compare, and criticize broadcast news coverage; and elected officials use it to conform informational accuracies reported on the news and to correct misinformation.

Thus, after analyzing the economic injury and public benefit factors, the court held that factor four favored a finding of fair use because the public benefit of TVEyes outweighed its minimal possibility of competition to Fox News.

Balance of Four Factors

Since TVEyes captures and indexes broadcasts that would otherwise not be there — and journalists, the White House, the United States Army, financial firms, elected officials, and political campaigns use TVEyes for purposes like criticizing news, correcting misinformation, assessing commercial advertising, evaluating national security risks, and tracking financial regulatory compliance — the court held that copying Fox News’ content for indexing and clipping services for TVEyes’ subscribers was fair use.

Limited Fair Use

The court held that it did not have to decide fair use for the full extent of TVEyes’ services because no sufficient evidence was presented about whether features that allow TVEyes’ users to save, archive, download, email, and share clips of Fox news’ broadcast content were integral to the transformative purpose of indexing and providing Fox News clips or whether they threatened Fox News’ derivative businesses.  Moreover, neither party was entitled to summary judgment on whether the date and time search function because the record failed to show whether the date and time search function was integral to the transformative purpose of TV Eyes’ service. The court said the factual record regarding the date and time search function should be developed further.

What’s Next?

The court scheduled the next court date for October 3, 2014, which will determine the remaining issues stated about in the “Limited Fair Use” case. We will have to wait and see how the court handles those issues.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Suffers Major Fair Use Defeat to TVEyes appeared first on Law Street.

As you may very well know, citizens of the United Sates can form and sign petitions on the White House Website. If a petition reaches 100,000 signatures in 30 days, the White House has to respond, though they sometimes respond to petitions with fewer signatures. For example, earlier this summer, a new petition went up asking the White House to change the name of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to the Tim Howard National Airport, in honor of Howard’s great performance as goalie for the United States Men’s Soccer team. This got me thinking, what are the wackiest, craziest, coolest, and dumbest White House petitions ever received? Well, here are my ten “favorites” (besides the Tim Howard one). This list includes a couple classics that you may of heard of before and some newer ones that you most likely have not. Enjoy!

[wooslider autoslide=”false” slide_page=”we-the-people-top-10-weirdest-white-house-petitions” slider_type=”slides” limit=”10″ thumbnails=”default” order=”DESC” order_by=”date”]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We the People: Top 10 Weirdest White House Petitions appeared first on Law Street.

John Boehner says the House of Representatives is suing President Obama for not faithfully executing the laws he has sworn to uphold. The suit claims that when Obama delayed the employer mandate for ObamaCare, he changed the law, something which can only be done by Congress. But this might not be Boehner’s only motive to sue. It sounds a bit implausible, considering Boehner has no love for the President, but he may be suing Obama to avoid impeaching him. And if that’s the case, it’s a downright genius move.

Boehner himself has said impeachment is not being considered, but he needs to silence the calls from other Congressman and noisy pundits in his party. Impeachment is a bad option for the Republicans for a few reasons. One is that Boehner knows that even if the House did impeach Obama, the Senate would never go along with it. Also, as unpopular as Obama is, he’s still more popular than the House of Representatives. The same thing happened the last time Republicans impeached a president–President Bill Clinton. The whole ordeal led to the Speaker of the House having to resign and Republicans losing the midterm elections. Boehner seems to know that it is a terrible political move to impeach the president.

But perhaps the biggest reason Boehner wants to silence the calls for impeachment is that the Democrats are using impeachment speculation to fuel their fundraising efforts. It’s an election year where the left’s base did not have much to be excited about, but the impeachment talks have riled them up. For example, you’d think that FOX news would be very excited about Obama impeachment rumors, and would be covering the issue far more than any other news organization. In fact, they have mentioned impeachment a respectable 95 times so far this month. But MSNBC, the liberal bastion, has mentioned impeachment a whopping 448 times. Both organizations claim to deliver unbiased news, but I think we all know that FOX and MSNBC are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and the fact that the liberal news station mentions impeachment so much more shows how they want to get their base riled up. Boehner knows every time a Republican calls for impeachment on TV, it becomes a sound bite at the next Democratic Party fundraiser.

The lawsuit is also largely symbolic. It is doubtful that a court will say the House has standing to sue, and even if the House somehow wins the suit, the result would just be that Obama would immediately have to enforce the employer mandate. But odds are the case wouldn’t be decided until after the mandate begins enforcement in 2015 anyways.

There’s nothing for Boehner to gain legally, but there’s a lot to gain politically. This allows him to show he is doing something for those calling for impeachment. It allows conservative representatives to go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they have taken action against Obama. It is a symbolic gesture against Obama that will come to nothing in the long run–exactly what Boehner needs right now. This move also buys Boehner precious time. He can argue that impeachment would be pointless before the court makes it ruling. He’d be able to stretch out that excuse until the 2016 elections, at which point the whole impeachment argument would become null and void anyways.

Boehner has let the conservative end of his party control him before. For example, he could not get them in line nine moths ago, leading to a government shutdown. This lawsuit is his way of asserting control as the Speaker of the House. While the Democrats will still be able to fundraise by slamming the lawsuit, it gives substance to Boehner’s claim that impeachment is not being considered. The media will also focus on the lawsuit instead of impeachment rumors. This lawsuit has allowed Boehner to appease his conservative base, while limiting Democratic fundraising talking points. He found the narrowest of lines and is balancing on it beautifully. It will only take a slight breeze from his right to knock him off, but until that happens, this is an excellent move on Boehner’s part.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Speaker John Boehner via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Politically Genius: Boehner’s Suit Against Obama appeared first on Law Street.

In the past six months, if you were to Google the keywords college rape scandal, a disturbing amount of articles would pop up. Whatever side people stand on for the debate on college rape, every can agree that system is virtually broken. Previous notions of college campuses being an oasis for intellectual development and personal growth have begun to crumble as concerns over the sexual victimization of students are heightened. So the next question is, what do we do about it? Should we address rape culture, universities’ policies on sexual assault, or place all the burden on the individual? So far, it has been a combination of the three–here are all the facts on the college rape epidemic.

UPDATE: July 17, 2014

Statistics

Multiple organizations and government agencies have conducted surveys to gather data on the staggering amount of rapes that occur on college campuses:

Rape

• According to a survey conducted by the National Institute of Justice, one in four college women have survived rape or attempted rape in their lifetime.
• Estimated a college with a population of 10,000 students could experience more than 350 rapes a year.
• Fewer than 5 percent of attempted and completed rape incidents were reported to law enforcement officials. Victims commonly do not want their family and friends to know about the assault. Additionally, victims who do not report their attack, commonly fear of being treated with hostility by the police, that officials will not believe their account of the incident, and retaliation from their assailant.
• 7 percent of college men admitted to attempting rape, and 63 percent of those men admitted to multiple offenses, averaging six rapes each.
• 58 percent of incapacitated rapes and 28 percent of forced rapes took place at a party.
• On average only 12 percent of student victims report the assault to law enforcement.

College Involvement

Schools are suppose to follow ordinances in providing information about sexual assaults that happen on their campus, however that is not always the case:

• Only 37 percent of colleges and universities nationwide reported crime statistics that fully complied with the requirements of the Clery Act.
• 64 percent of schools do not provide new students with sexual assault awareness education.
• Fewer than 2 in 5 schools train campus security personnel to handle sexual assault.
• Only 46 percent of schools provide the option of anonymous reporting.
• Less than 50 percent of schools tell students how they can file criminal charge.

Mishandling by Colleges and Universities

Case Study: Amherst College

In May 2011, an acquaintance and fellow Amherst student raped Angie Epifano. A year after her assault, she published in a school newspaper her account of the attack and the callous treatment she received by college administrators. She wrote that she was questioned if she was really raped, her requests to change dorms and study abroad were denied. Furthermore, she was discouraged from pressing charges, and eventually brought to a psychiatric ward. These events led her to withdraw from Amherst while her alleged attacker graduated with honors.

The schools counseling center told her that,

“We can report your rape as a statistic, you know for records, but I don’t recommend that you go through a disciplinary hearing.”

This is only one example of how the college incompetently treated her.

Her wrenching account prompted other Amherst students and alumni to come forward and announce they, too, had been sexually assaulted at Amherst.

Another incident at Amherst is Trey Malone, a student who committed suicide after he could no longer cope with the sexual assault he endured while at school. His family released his suicide note for publication, where he alludes to Amherst’s incapability to help him,

“What began as an earnest effort to help on the part of Amherst, became an emotionless hand washing. In those places I should’ve received help, I saw none.”

Since Epifano, Malone, and others have stepped forward with their accounts of assault, Amherst has employed new measures to assist students who undergo such traumatic incidents.

Case Study: Occidental College

Students and alumni of Occidental College filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education stating the school failed to protect women from sexual assaults in April 2013. In their complaint, it was stated that they were, “raped, sexually assaulted, battered, harassed or retaliated against for speaking out against sexual violence.”

After the complaint was filed, the college was accused of tracking down students who had used anonymous sexual assault reports. When a student who had used the anonymous report was brought in to the college’s Title IX coordinator to discuss her accusation, she was denied information on how the college had been able to track her down.

Also, Occidental admitted that they failed to report 19 sex crimes to the annual Clery report statistics in recent years.

While the college has implemented new measures to combat sexual misconduct, many find these changes to be superficial and an attempt to salvage their reputation.

Omitting the incidents at other schools does not trivialize the horrific events those victims endured; there regrettably has been too many to thoroughly cover. Schools such as Wesleyan University and Tufts University have also been in the news for sexual assault.

Government Involvement

Department of Education Investigation

On May 1, 2014 the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a list of 55 colleges and universities under investigation for potential violations of federal law over the handling of sexual violence and harassment complaints. The Office of Civil Rights compiled this list to create more public awareness and transparency to enforcement work.

The release of the list works to advance a key goal of President Obama’s White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. It is hoped that this will increase discussion among communities about the issue and the best ways to combat assaults.

By having a college or university on the list does not indicated that the institution has violated or is violating Title IX. The schools under investigation will be continuously updated and accessible to the public upon request.

White House Involvement: President Obama

President Obama has taken great measure to combat sexual assault compared to previous administrations. He has publicly spoken out against sexual crimes, bringing to the nation’s forefront how it is an attack to the basic humanity and decency. The president has signed a memorandum creating a task force to respond to campus rapes.

The White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault was created with the objectives of:

• Provide educational institutions with best practices for preventing and responding to rape and sexual assault.
• Build on the federal government’s enforcement efforts to ensure that educational institutions comply fully with their legal obligations.
• Improve transparency of the government’s enforcement activities.
• Increase the public’s awareness of an institution’s track record in addressing rape and sexual assault.
• Enhance coordination among federal agencies to hold schools accountable if they do not confront sexual violence on their campuses.

As of April 3 the task force has received 30 Title IX complaints, equal to the total number of complaints in all of fiscal 2013.

The government also made a website, NotAlone.gov, to track enforcement and provide victims with information.

White House Involvement: 1 is 2 Many Campaign

Developed by Vice President Biden, the 1 is 2 Many Campaign focuses on dating violence and sexual assault suffered by teens and young women. After seeking ideas from students on how to prevent violence on campuses, it was found that an abundant amount of respondents answer was to get men involved.

Biden and Health and Human Services started an “app challenge” that in turn created apps geared toward young people. An example is Circle of 6 that puts a group of friends instantly in touch with each other. This is incase someone is in trouble they are able to send a “come and get me” message, complete with a GPS map to show the exact location.

Legislation: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 is federal law that was signed by President Clinton on September 13, 1994. It is a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Obama signed on March 7, 2013 imposes new obligations on colleges and universities under its Campus Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act) provision. The provision states that, “Most higher education institutions – including community colleges and vocational schools – must educate students, faculty, and staff on the prevention of rape, acquaintance rape, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.” Under the new requirements, colleges and universities are required to:

1. Report stalking, domestic violence, and dating violence further than the Clery Act already has mandated
2. Accept certain student disciplinary measures
3. Enhance or adopt institutional policies that will address and prevent campus sexual violence

Legislation: The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

Commonly referred to as the Clery Act, the federal statute requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep a daily public crime log provisions, maintain reporting obligations, and have extensive campus security-related provisions.

Legislation: Title IX

Signed into law in 1972 as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX prohibits schools receiving federal funding to discriminate based on gender. Under Title IX discrimination on the basis of sex can include sexual harassment, rape, and sexual assault.

Student Activism

Students Active for Ending Rape

Started in 2000 at Columbia University students, Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER) battles sexual violence and rape culture by empowering student-led campaigns to improve college sexual assault policies. The organization released a report in April 2013 examining how schools fail to completely address the problem, giving more than 80 percent of college policies a grade C or below, an F to nearly one-quarter, and said one-third don’t fully comply with the Clery Act.

Know Your IX

The mission of Know Your IX is to inform students in the United States of the rights guaranteed to them under Title IX. Survivors and activists who wish to share their expertise of their first-hand experience with violence, the law, and activism built the campaign. The ED ACT NOW campaign is a part of Know Your IX as an advocacy measure to better federal enforcement of Title

End Rape on Campus

Activists a part of End Rape on Campus (EROC) strive to assist individuals who are filling Title IX and Clery complaints. They want to hold schools accountable for the mishandling of sexual wrongdoing.

Of the 55 schools being investigated by the Department of Education, it cannot be ignored that some of the country’s highest ranked institutions make up a significant portion of the list. Why is that? Why are the schools that should be the pinnacle of our education system conducting themselves in such a lowly manner? Is it to preserve the good name of the school, even if that means endangering the very students that give it such a respected reputation? Thankfully students, organizations, and (some) government officials have taken measures towards reform. If the school administration will not mend their ways, then hopefully, newly enacted  legislation and courageous activists will led the charge.

UPDATE: July 17, 2014

Since this post was originally published, more stories have been reported about sexual assault taking place on colleges. In a particularly high-profile case, a freshman named Anna at Hobart and William Smith Colleges was reportedly raped by three football players during a fraternity party. Before this story broke, Hobart and William Smith Colleges was already one of the schools under investigation by the Department of Education.

Compared to the 60 days that are typical of a sexual-assault investigation, the Hobart and William Smith Colleges cleared the accused of all charges after only 12 days. The school’s disciplinary panel was ill equipped to handle this case, lacking tact and omitting evidence such as Anna’s rape kit and medical records. As with many individuals who are assaulted, Anna has been re-victimized by the community, receiving “physical threats and obscenities on her dormitory door, being pushed in the dining hall and asked to leave a fraternity party. Her roommate moved out with no explanation.”

Anna’s story has become all too common. It should not be a regular occurrence for these horrific acts to take place. Colleges need to reform their handling of sexual assaults, and fast.

 Resources

Primary

Amherst Student Newspaper: An Account of Sexual Assault at Amherst College 

Good Men Project: Lead a Good Life, Everyone: Trey Malone’s Suicide Note

U.S. Congress: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

U.S. Department of Education: List of Higher Education Institutions with Open Title IX Sexual Violence Investigations

Additional

One in Four USA: Sexual Assault Statistics 

Associated Press: Obama Targets College Sexual Assault Epidemic

National Institute of Justice: The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study Final Report

Medical University of South Carolina: Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study 

National Institute of Justice: Sexual Assault on Campus: What Colleges and Universities Are Doing About It

Huffington Post: Occidental College Accused Of Secretly Tracking ‘Anonymous’ Sexual Assault Reports

Huffington Post: USC, Occidental Admit Underreporting Campus Sex Offenses 

Los Angeles Times: Occidental College Settles With Students in Sexual Assault Case

Los Angeles Times: Occidental College Fell Short In Rape Response, Victims Allege

Clery Center for Security on Campus: Summary Of the Jeanne Clery Act

ACLU: Title IX and Sexual Violence in Schools

Campus Save Act: The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act of 2013

American Council on Education: New Requirements Imposed by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

White House Council on Women and Girls: Rape and Sexual Assault: A Renewed Call to Action

Students Active for Ending Rape: Moving Beyond Blue Lights and Buddy Systems: A National Study of Student Anti-Rape Activists

Alex Hill

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

The post College Rape Crisis: All the Facts on the Rape Epidemic appeared first on Law Street.

Two big fights are happening between the White House and the Senate over judicial nominees. Well, that’s nothing new, of course, but the two fights are pretty interesting.

Want to guess the two sides?

Well, if you guessed Democrats vs. Republicans…you’re wrong. The two sides in opposition are the Obama Administration and some Senate Democrats, although for very different reasons when it comes to the two nominees.

The first nominee is Michael Boggs. If appointed, he would have a lifetime seat on the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He’s a pretty conservative man–as a Georgia legislator he voted very much to the right on some contentious issues. These include voting to keep the Confederate symbol on the flag of Georgia, make abortion laws stricter, banning gay marriage, and defending discrimination against gay couples.

So why in the world would President Obama nominate Boggs? Well it’s all part of a deal. Georgia, like much of the United States, has long been plagued with a shortage of judges. There are constantly open seats on every level of the judiciary. Anytime one side nominates someone too controversial, they get bogged down and that seat never gets filled. So Obama made a deal with the two Republican Senators from Georgia–Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. They compromised on seven nominees–four of whom were GOP picks, three are liberal. And the nominees are a package deal, meaning the Senate need to approve all or nothing.

It was a gutsy move on Obama’s part. And it looks like it is really not panning out well at all. They do not appear to have a problem with the other three conservative nominees, but many Democrats say that Boggs is just too much of a compromise.

For example, Human Rights Watch released a statement, saying, “through this clear and unapologetic record Boggs has signaled his hostility towards issues of equality in his home state as an elected official. If confirmed, Boggs’ could entrench these destructive, anti-equality values on the federal bench for generations to come.” The Congressional Black Caucus said they were taken by surprise by the nomination and condemned the nomination. The hearing will be today, and it will be interesting to see if there’s enough opposition for this deal to fall completely apart. 

But Michael Boggs isn’t the only judicial nominee that’s causing problems for the White House. Obama nominated David Barron, a Harvard Law School Professor to a seat on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike with Boggs, the disagreement isn’t over Barron’s politics–he’s actually pretty liberal. Instead the hesitation comes from his work on a particular case, the killing of an American extremist named Anwar al-Awlaki.

Barron worked on the team that put together the legal justification for the killing of al-Awlaki by American forces. Liberal criticism of Barron includes the fact that they do not believe the White House has released enough information on Barron’s views and involvements on the subject. Prominent liberal lobbying group ACLU, as well as both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have demanded the release of supposed memos detailing that involvement.

All of these judicial nominees hang in the balance, which is sad because the deal would make progress in filling seats, and David Barron himself is supremely qualified. And honestly speaking, I think the problems come from a lack of prudence in the White House and a strange and surprising disconnect between Obama and fellow Democrats. He’s not running for election again, obviously, but that doesn’t mean that Obama can afford to piss off too many of his usual allies. They hold the power to make the last few years of his presidency pretty ineffectual. If they deny these nominees, lots of behind-the-scenes work will be thrown out of the window, leaving behind the problem of empty courts and backed up cases. Obama has a couple choices here: asking for permission or for forgiveness. So far he’s been choosing the latter, but at this point, the former may be better advised.

[Msnbc]
—

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.

Feature image courtesy of [Tim Evanson 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 Obama Administration Struggles with Judicial Nominees appeared first on Law Street.