The US Department of Justice on Thursday released a copy of the legal memo prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel about President Trump's executive order on immigration. The acting head of the office, Curtis Gannon, wrote that the order was approved for "form and legality."
Afp / AFP / Getty Images
WASHINGTON — Third party candidates have been trying to get onto the stage at presidential debates for decades, with little success. Since 1988, Ross Perot has been the only one allowed to join a debate, in 1992, and that was only at the request of Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush's campaigns.
Past attempts to challenge debate participation rules in court have failed. But a coalition of third parties and election reform advocates scored their first major court win on Wednesday evening, when a federal judge in Washington, DC, found that the Federal Election Commission failed to show that it seriously considered the latest round of complaints about the process.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan described the FEC’s filings in the case as "threadbare." There was no evidence in the record, she wrote, "that the FEC considered the relevant factors or took a hard look at the evidence." She ordered the FEC to go back and explain how it reviewed complaints alleging election law violations by the Commission on Presidential Debates. She also ordered a new review of a challenge to the participation criteria.
The timing of the ruling is significant. Civil lawsuits can last years, especially if there's an appeal. More than three years out from the next presidential debates in 2020, there's time for this case — filed in August 2015 — to play out in court before the next campaign season.
Chutkan's decision "marked the first time the FEC and [Commission on Presidential Debates] have been successfully challenged over debate rules. This is an enormously important ruling. It could pave the way for a new kind of election in 2020," Alexandra Shapiro, a lawyer for the challengers, said in an email to BuzzFeed News.
An FEC spokesperson declined to comment.
Since 2000, the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-governmental entity, has determined that in order to participate in one of the presidential debates, a candidate must have support from at least 15 percent of voters, according to national polls. FEC regulations require debate "staging organizations" such as the Commission on Presidential Debates to be nonpartisan.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia in response to the 2012 election, has two parts. The first part involves the FEC's dismissal of two administrative complaints claiming the debate commission and its directors violated election laws by engaging in partisan activity in support of the Democratic and Republican parties. The Green Party, Libertarian Party, and other challengers presented evidence that commission directors contributed to candidates and made statements supporting particular parties.
The second part of the case involves a request by Level the Playing Field — a group that advocates for election reforms — that the FEC revise its rules to block the the commission from using a polling threshold to decide participation in presidential and vice-presidential debates. The FEC declined the request. The challengers presented analysis from experts about the hundreds of millions of dollars a candidate would have to spend to meet the 15 percent polling target, and argued that the rule was not an objective criteria. Instead, they said, it was specifically designed to keep out candidates not affiliated with the Republican or Democratic parties.
Chutkan wrote that the FEC failed to show that it properly considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the challengers. On the polling threshold issue, she wrote that her "task is made all the more difficult by the fact that the evidence unaddressed — or outright ignored — by the FEC is quite substantial." The judge also said she was "concerned about the agency's cursory treatment" of the rule change petition.
"The FEC appears to have stuck its head in the sand and ignored the evidence that its lack of rulemaking and lack of enforcement may be undermining the stated purpose of its regulations and the [Federal Election Campaign Act]. This is not the reasoned decision-making that is required of all agencies," Chutkan wrote.
A separate lawsuit challenging the presidential debate system is before the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. In that case, third parties and former candidates claimed the debate commission colluded with the Democratic and Republican parties in violation of US antitrust laws. A federal judge in Washington, DC, had dismissed the case in August, but the challengers appealed.
Win Mcnamee / Getty Images
WASHINGTON — If you’re working to keep up with what’s happening every day, you are not alone.
“At midnight I’m checking all the stories, and I’m doing the same at 6 a.m. so I can make sure I’m up to speed with what may or may not happen,” said North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows.
Welcome to the new normal in Washington, D.C., where in less than two weeks, Trump signed a sweeping executive order that barred refugees; implementation difficulties and protests ensued; he fired the acting attorney general, after she refused to defend it; the White House press secretary said the president believed voter fraud cost him the popular vote; the president announced his intention to investigate said voter fraud; the White House, president, much of the press, spent days talking about inauguration crowd size; and about 16 other things.
So it is, with a mix of “excitement and nervousness,” as one House GOP staffer put it, the Republican conference greets the deluge.
Hill Republicans have been walking around elated at the opportunity this election afforded them: In control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, they look certain to be able to pass the agenda they have only been able to talk about for the past eight years. But the only certainty of the first 13 days of Donald Trump’s presidency has been the utter lack of certainty.
“What a mess,” griped a second House Republican staffer earlier this week, as the dust continued to settle in the wake of the rocky roll out of the travel ban — replete with protests, outside members’ D.C. offices, and in their home districts. Republicans on the Hill are just trying to keep up.
The immigration order, in particular, caught a number of members flat-footed. Republicans were slow to release statements, with few saying anything publicly before Sunday. “Predictably, every Republican in Congress was immediately asked about it, and they didn’t have basic information to understand the policy let alone go advocate for it,” said Alex Conant, a Republican consultant and the former communications director for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. “So it’s hard to be a surrogate without talking points. It’s hard to have a well thought out position without knowing basic facts.”
Trump’s policy-making as president is coming as fast and furious as his tweets. Policy prescriptions are far less easy to ignore than a tweet, and that has left Hill Republicans trying to figure out how to respond appropriately.
“We by no means want to start by commenting on everything he does,” said a third House GOP staffer, of how they were dealing with this. Republicans, he said, “don’t know whether one day he’s going to be the savior of the Republican Party and the next day bring the Dark Ages back.”
There are continued efforts at normalcy. At a press conference Tuesday, the top House Republicans spoke calmly and seriously about repealing Obamacare and passing the Congressional Review Act. It was as though there was nothing else happening — until the speeches ended and the questions from reporters began.
Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Stivers, who chairs the House Republican campaign arm, brushed off the turbulence. “I’ve been in the military 32 years, and there’s always distractions; you just need to focus on your mission,” he told BuzzFeed News.
The upside, say some Republicans, is that with the attention focused elsewhere, they can focus on the unglamorous work like writing bills. That is especially true for House Republicans, who have some time on their hands as they wait for the Senate to work its way through cabinet confirmations and, now, a Supreme Court nomination fight, before they can focus their attention on things like Obamacare repeal and tax policy.
"I actually think that the leaders in both houses are doing a very good job focusing on moving important big ticket items, not chasing the story of the day but putting one foot in front of the other to make it progress,” said Michael Steel, who served as press secretary for former House Speaker John Boehner.
The question is just how long this tumult will last. Does it wind down as the new administration gets its sea legs? Or is this simply how Trump does things?
“We are not bracing for [this to be] how it is,” said the third House GOP staffer. The first House GOP staffer took a different view. This, he said, is the “new normal, and it’s only going to get crazier once Congress gets into deep legislative mode. Buckle up.”
South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, who was on the other side of this equation when he was governor, said he did not believe this was “a sustainable normal.”
“I think that there’s a value and a necessity with regards to predictability. It allows forces to align for you and against you, and, therefore, the normal give and take of politics to work. If you don’t have that, then there’s chaos because people don’t have a sense of what’s coming next. If they don’t, they get anxious,” he told BuzzFeed News.
One House GOP aide pointed out that things have rarely been so subdued on that side of the Capitol, which has drawn attention for all manner of Republican infighting and unanticipated drama over the past several years. Now, compared to the White House, the House looks almost sedate.
“When,” asked the aide, “was the last time House Republicans weren't the biggest shit show in town?”
Sarah Mimms contributed to this report.
Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images
WASHINGTON — Well before President Trump’s inauguration, his top adviser Steve Bannon met with a few top-tier donors — the kind of donors capable of writing million-dollar checks.
The message, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversations, was that Bannon wants to use the 2018 midterm elections as the arena to test the political clout of Trump’s populist message.
“The days of [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell picking Republican nominees in Senate races are over,” Bannon has told the donors, according to sources familiar with the meetings. He also mentioned the US Chamber of Commerce as declining in influence, according to one of those sources.
Bannon did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.
The former chairman of far-right news website Breitbart was light on specifics and didn't say which 2018 Senate races he had in mind, according to the sources familiar with the conversations. But he encouraged donors to starting giving to the outside entity created by Trump allies that was still taking shape at the time.
The group, a nonprofit called America First, officially launched this week.
America First will focus on issue advocacy, but could eventually direct fire on congressional Republicans who defy Trump’s agenda. The group will be run by Brad Parscale — who is close with Jared Kushner and served as digital director during the campaign — and strategists Nick Ayers, Rick Gates, and Marty Obst. Others from the campaign, David Bossie and Katrina Pierson, will also be part of the group.
“President Trump campaigned on a bold but basic concept: America First,” the group’s leaders said in a joint statement. “This is a concept the American people both understand and support, but few in the media recognize and many politicians beholden to special interests will oppose. We will provide the counterbalance.”
As Trump takes office, associates and former aides have put together a constellation of outside groups — mostly with the express agenda of advancing the policy aims of a president who has swiftly indicated he will try to do what he promised to do. That could put more traditional Republicans — and donors, especially those who sat out the 2016 election — in a tense spot.
Several of those donors are now looking for places to put their money to show they're on the Trump train, albeit belatedly. But not everyone’s convinced that the America First group is the way to go. They were more excited when they thought Kellyanne Conway was going to be running the group, for one thing. And even inside the Trump administration, there’s some skepticism about the likely effectiveness of the group. (A similar effort by Obama aides — Organizing for America — never delivered much politically.) Already, GOP mega-donors Bob and Rebekah Mercer are considering cutting ties with America First, Politico recently reported.
Other Trump-affiliated groups are also ramping up for 2018 and competing for dollars with America First and other GOP groups. Great America Alliance, a nonprofit, and Great America PAC, a super PAC that spent nearly $27 million on behalf of Trump in 2016, will back Trump’s agenda and candidates who back those policy priorities. On the same day that America First launched, the group announced it was bringing on Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. The former New York mayor helped the super PAC with fundraising last year.
Aaron Manaigo, an adviser to Great America Alliance, said efforts were already underway to put resources into ensuring the confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, and issue advocacy. A high-level official who has worked with the group said that effort would primarily focus on the 10 Democratic senators facing re-election in states where Trump won. The group will “absolutely” target Republicans if any prove unsupportive of the president’s agenda, the official said, but also acknowledged Republicans will “get a lot more leeway.”
“The idea is to only go there if we really had to,” he added.
There’s also the understanding inside and outside the White House that a single Trump tweet about a policy or a congressional race could make the work of these groups irrelevant.
The Great America groups have no plans to get involved in candidate recruitment for now, and will focus primarily on Senate races, not House races. That could change if Trump decides to personally put his finger on the scale in any race. “If he does, we’ll follow his lead,” the official said, but cautioned: “I wouldn’t say that we expect him to get down into this.”
The unpredictability of Trump, and his orbit, has left operatives and candidates in a state of uncertainty, able only to guess at what might await them in a primary.
The stakes could be highest, say Republicans watching this unfold, for Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, who was one of the most vocal critics of Trump during the campaign. In a closed-door meeting between Trump and GOP senators last year, Flake reportedly confronted the now-president about his divisive rhetoric. Trump in turn threatened Flake and told him he would lose his re-election. He wasn’t up that year.
But he is up in 2018. Conservative outside groups, who have backed Flake in the past, are growing increasingly concerned about him, especially since he had only $594,000 in his campaign coffers as of his most recent report at the end of September, a pittance for a candidate who could face a serious primary and general. Although he is in good standing with those based on his voting record, outside groups are still deciding if they want to go all-in on him in a primary and potentially go up against Trump or just sit it out.
“Flake needs to help himself first,” said a top official of a major conservative group, saying the senator needs to pick up his fundraising and try to keep a lower profile on issues he disagrees with Trump on.
People “aren’t right now real happy with Sen. Flake,” said Arizona GOP Rep. Paul Gosar, who briefly weighed a primary run against Flake before ruling it out 24 hours later. “I think you ought to be starting to work in concert with the nominee. He obviously touched a nerve within the country; that’s a little more than our two senators have been part of, and I think that they need to jump on board and start helping out instead of creating a problem,” Gosar told BuzzFeed News.
Sens. Tim Kaine and Jeff Flake on Capitol Hill in 2015.
Win Mcnamee / Getty Images
Flake already has one primary challenger: Former state senator Kelli Ward, who unsuccessfully primaried Sen. John McCain last year, announced her intentions to take on Flake in October.
A close Trump ally, Arizona state treasurer Jeff DeWit, is still mulling a challenge. Days after Trump’s win, Breitbart touted a poll that showed DeWit leading Flake and suggesting that Flake could “pay a price for his opposition to Trump.” DeWit has hinted he’s spoken with Trump about a challenge, but hasn’t made a decision. Not all Trump allies are convinced DeWit is the right candidate, however, and a source said although it might be hard to convince Trump of that, there’s a quiet effort to push DeWit away from the Senate bid. Politico recently reported DeWit is considering a job within the administration.
And here’s where the particularly difficult calculus starts: Backing DeWit would put these Trump-allied groups at odds with Republican institutions like the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican Party arm charged with electing Republicans to the Senate. The NRSC has vociferously defended incumbent senators against primary challengers for the past two cycles, and will continue to do so this cycle. That means everything from organization to significant amounts of money.
Some Republican campaign veterans wonder just how much power those in Trump’s orbit will be able to exert. Trump’s campaign may have broken the conventional mold, but there is skepticism that such a model is transferrable — especially in down-ballot races where name recognition reigns supreme, and many of the “establishment” style candidates of yore have already been ousted in the last decade of Tea Party inspired primaries.
“Just because somebody that has Trump’s support, doesn’t mean they’re Trump,” said one Republican strategist.
Ward in Arizona, for instance, has already cast herself as the Trump-like candidate in 2018, as she did against McCain last summer. But she struggled with fundraising — even with a large cash infusion from the Mercers.
Another Trump ally, conservative media star Laura Ingraham, recently said she was considering challenging Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine. Ingraham’s closeness to Trump and Kaine’s spot on the Democratic presidential ticket last year could make the Virginia race ripe for involvement from Trump allies. “Intuitively, she’s been part of the outsider theme” that helped propel Trump to victory, said Virginia GOP Rep. Dave Brat, a close ally of Ingraham’s, though he professed no insider knowledge of whether Trump-world might get involved. But, he said, “I would think that the themes line up pretty well.”
But Virginia’s a tough state for Trump acolytes. The state’s elections tend to be decided by the affluent northern part of the state, and a number of other prominent Republicans have been talked about as possible candidates in that race, including Carly Fiorina and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore. Ingraham has a large megaphone with her radio show, but she does not have the connections to the state that other candidates do.
If Trump and his allies decide to play in primaries, they could have more success making a mark in House races, smaller markets where the monetary support and name recognition that could come with Trump’s tacit support could go a long way. Trump’s initial foray into an internal Republican conflict was on an even smaller scale: the Ohio GOP chairman’s race, a contest decided by the 66 members of the Ohio GOP central committee.
“If you’re looking at state GOP chairs, then I think our expectation would be that they’re probably going to start looking at House races too at some point,” said Club for Growth communications director Doug Sachtleben. “Nothing’s a surprise right now.”
Conventional wisdom runs that the president is unlikely to get involved in something so small as a House or Senate primary. On the other hand, who really knows anything?
“I’d be surprised and disappointed if Donald Trump is wasting his time meddling in state of Ohio leadership politics,” state Senator David Goodman, a member of the Ohio GOP state central committee who backed Trump’s preferred candidate in the race, told BuzzFeed News on Dec. 30.
Six days later, Trump was making personal calls to lobby for his pick. She’s now the chair of the Ohio Republican Party.
Rep. Tom Price.
Carlos Barria / Reuters
WASHINGTON — Democrats boycotted a committee vote on two of President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees for a second day on Wednesday morning, in an attempt to delay the nominations of Rep. Tom Price and Steven Mnuchin. But Republicans, fed up after two days of sitting in a half-empty hearing room, moved to change committee rules and passed both nominations on their own, sending them to the Senate floor for a final vote.
Senate Finance Committee Orrin Hatch’s move to bypass a full committee vote including members of both parties is unusual, though he argued Wednesday that Tuesday’s boycott was unusual as well.
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues,” Hatch said. “As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. That all changed yesterday.”
Democrats object to both Price’s nomination to head the Department of Health and Human Services and Mnuchin’s nomination for Secretary of the Treasury, but with just 51 votes now needed to pass them on the floor of the Senate (where Republicans control 52 votes), both are likely to pass anyway.
Still, Democrats boycotted both hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday in an attempt to slow down the nominations, hoping to get at least two Republicans to change their minds on Price and Mnuchin.
Sen. Ron Wyden, the leading Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, has lead the charge, raising questions about whether Price used legislation to benefit financially from his shares in healthcare companies and whether Mnuchin lied in written testimony to senators about the foreclosure practices conducted by a mortgage lender when he was CEO.
Hatch’s move to push the nominees through committee comes after Senate Democrats on the committee wrote a letter to Hatch Wednesday morning, asking for Price and Mnuchin to answers those questions.
“Finance Republicans just broke their own rules to jam Pres. Trump’s nominees for HHS & Treasury through despite concerning new information,” Sen. Maria Cantwell said in a tweet after the vote.
Hatch said Wednesday that part of his justification for moving forward with both nominees is the need for the Trump administration to have both a Treasury Secretary and a HHS Secretary in place, as the party works to repeal and replace Obamacare. “[This is] the longest transition period without a confirmed treasury secretary in our nation’s history,” Hatch said.
The Senate will vote on final confirmation for secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson Wednesday afternoon. Votes on Price and Mnuchin could come later this week.
LINK: Senate Democrats Boycott Key Committee Votes On Trump Nominees
Pool / Getty Images
Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi signaled openness Tuesday to working with President Trump on parts of his policy agenda, marking a break with activists and progressives hoping for top-to-bottom opposition from the party.
During a CNN town hall broadcast live from Washington on Tuesday night, Pelosi suggested Democrats might be able to cooperate with Trump on two initiatives in particular: infrastructure investment and legislation aimed at child care costs.
"If we can build infrastructure — our roads, our bridges, our broadband, our water systems, etc., high speed rail, mass transit — let's find a way to do that together. We can find ways to work family-and-work balance, as he said in the campaign was a priority, let's do that," Pelosi said.
The veteran California congresswoman recalled working with the last Republican president, George W. Bush, on various initiatives such as HIV/AIDS and poverty even as she vociferously opposed him on the Iraq war and Social Security policy.
"We respect that he's the president," she said. "We want to work together."
During his campaign, in one of a handful of policy announcements, Trump identified child care as families' "single largest expense" and an area where "very little policy work has been done." He proposed tax deductions for child care costs, diverging from the tax credit-style plans proposed by Democrats and some Republicans.
In a phone call with Trump after the election, Pelosi discussed the issue with the president, the New York Times reported. (Trump, according to the Times, handed the phone to his daughter Ivanka Trump, who may champion the issue herself.)
Trump also came into office promising a massive infrastructure bill. The other top-ranking Democrat in Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, has also identified the effort as an opportunity to collaborate, saying that Democrats should look to collaborate when their "values" align with Trump's.
“We're not going to oppose things just because Trump's name is on it,” Schumer told the TODAY show in an interview on the morning of the inauguration.
Following Trump's first week in office — a tumultuous seven days that brought a sweep of executive orders including a controversial ban on refugees and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries — those who make up the Democratic Party's base have demanded a far less conciliatory approach.
Pelosi's televised event began shortly after Trump revealed Judge Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court. The announcement set off a debate among Democrats over whether the party should attempt to block Gorsuch, as Republicans did with former president Barack Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.
Earlier on Tuesday evening, protesters assembled near Schumer's home in Brooklyn to demand a firm line against the president's appointees and legislative agenda.
The prominent Democratic operative David Brock described the new divide in the party as between those who want to "oppose everything" and those willing to pick battles — replacing Democrats' "ideological factionalism of the past," as he put it.
Throughout the CNN town hall, Pelosi was largely critical of Trump, denouncing his refugee and travel ban, his plan to build a wall across the southern border, and his rhetoric. She also described his Supreme Court decision as a "hostile appointment."
Addressing the question of whether Democrats should work with Trump more broadly, however, Pelosi said, "Where we can engage, we certainly will. We have that responsibility to the American people, to find our common ground."
Still, forecasting the next big fight ahead, she added: "Where we will draw the line is if he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act."
Steyer in 2013.
Isaac Brekken / Getty Images
Tom Steyer wants to be the guy to take on Donald Trump — and not just on climate.
The billionaire will expand the focus of his environmental political advocacy group, NextGen Climate Action, to fund initiatives and candidates with an eye to issues well beyond the realm of climate change, Steyer said in an interview on Tuesday.
The 59-year-old Steyer, a San Francisco hedge fund manager and possible contender for next year’s California governor’s race, said he made the decision to broaden his reach in response to Trump and to a legislative agenda he described as “deplorable” and “a barrage against the basic fabric of American society.”
The exact contours of NextGen’s transition, Steyer said, will be determined by what he hears in response to a video he released Tuesday to solicit ideas from activists like the millions who attended marches over inauguration weekend. “We want to know what matters most to you, and what should be done,” he says in the clip.
An aide described Steyer’s goal as “crowdsourcing the resistance.” After a few weeks, the aide said, Steyer plans to unveil his plans for a reimagined NextGen.
Speaking by phone from California, Steyer outlined possible changes that could make NextGen a group with diverse aims: organizing a network of nationwide activists, registering voters, forming alliances with other liberal groups — while still investing millions in progressive candidates, as Steyer did in 2014 and 2016.
“The point of that video is to say look, we should be listening,” said Steyer, who attended marches after Trump’s inauguration in Oakland and San Francisco. “This isn’t just a talk-down speaking exercise. This is a bottom-up listening exercise.”
Asked if he has concerns about widening beyond climate — particularly when so few leaders in the party make it their top political priority — Steyer said that under the new Trump administration, progressives cannot consider causes in isolation.
“All of these issues are merging. There is a concerted attack from the administration and their allies against what we think of as basic American rights. It’s a barrage, honestly. It’s been a barrage against Americans and American rights."
“It would be a mistake to try to silo issues,” he said. “The response has to be much broader.”
Via youtube.com
The move comes amid a larger debate among Democrats over whether to pick battles strategically under Trump, or to "oppose everything" he puts forward — a posture advocated by much of the party's base. Steyer suggested that he falls in the latter category. “The way that Trump wins is not because we’re going to agree with him — we’re not," he said. "It’s when we acquiesce to him. That’s how we lose.”
NextGen's initiatives in the last election already signaled a possible move beyond climate. Over 2015 and 2016, aides said, Steyer's group led a multimillion-dollar effort to register 1 million voters and organize on 370 college campuses.
“Our mission statement has always included promoting prosperity,” Steyer said. “We’ve always felt that to separate climate — and to not put it in the context of American jobs, American wages, and American health — was a mistake.”
Steyer gave more than $87 million to liberal causes during the 2016 election, making him the largest individual contributor — Democrat or Republican — to fund federal candidates, parties, super PACs, and so-called 527 organizations.
He has said since there’s “no limit” to what he’s willing to spend to fight Trump.
Though he is the party’s single biggest donor, Steyer’s efforts to elevate candidates who embrace his views on climate have yet to yield sweeping victories. In 2014, a year of Democratic losses across the map, four of NextGen’s nine candidates failed. And in 2016, three of seven NextGen-backed candidates fell short to Republicans.
Steyer is still considering a bid to replace Jerry Brown as governor in 2018.
It was two years ago this month that Barbara Boxer announced her retirement from the U.S. Senate, setting off three days of intense deliberation among ambitious California Democrats over who would vie for the seat in 2016 and who would wait for a governor’s race in 2018. Steyer considered running, asking his team to commission polling and assess his viability, but bowed out of the competition. (The former state attorney general, Sen. Kamala Harris, now occupies Boxer’s seat.)
In recent interviews, Steyer has suggested that Trump's victory altered his calculations on the governor's race. On Tuesday, he indicated that while “circumstances have changed,” electoral politics is still on his mind.
"There is a very broad-based attack on fundamental American rights," he said. "Anything I decide to do personally has got to be made in that context. And it will be."
Carolyn Kaster / AP
Judge Neil Gorsuch has been front and center as Oklahoma’s death penalty process has been repeatedly called into question in recent years, hearing key cases at the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit over the state’s handling of executions — and siding with the government.
Just a few months ago, Gorsuch — now President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court — ruled against the estate of a man who was executed in one of the worst botched lethal injections in US history. Gorsuch and two other judges ruled that it was an “innocent misadventure” or an “isolated mishap,” but not cruel and unusual punishment.
In that case, Clayton Lockett’s estate sued the state of Oklahoma for constitutional violations in his 43-minute execution. Lockett was given a controversial sedative called midazolam, then two drugs that cause immense pain: a paralytic and a drug to stop the heart.
After he was injected with the drugs, Lockett raised himself on the gurney and said, “Shit is fucking with me.” Executioners had thought he was already dead.
Members of the state’s execution team examined his IV, which was set up near his groin and covered by a blanket. When they moved the blanket, they discovered the IV had infiltrated, creating swelling between the size of a golf ball and tennis ball. The drugs weren’t going into his veins like they were supposed to.
The prison warden called it a “bloody mess.” The state attempted to call off the execution 30 minutes in, but Lockett died anyway 10 minutes later.
“Everyone acknowledges that Lockett suffered during his execution,” Judge Gregory Phillips wrote in a ruling against his estate, which Gorsuch signed onto.
“Here, the Amended Complaint describes exactly the sort of ‘innocent misadventure’ or ‘isolated mishap’ that” a prior Supreme Court case “excuses from the definition of cruel and unusual punishment,” the court wrote. “Thus, Lockett’s suffering did not run afoul of the Eighth Amendment.”
The judges ruled that Oklahoma was not “deliberately indifferent” in the execution.
“Simply put, the Eighth Amendment does not require ‘the avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out executions.’”
After Lockett’s botched execution, Oklahoma was allowed to try again in another execution. The state used the wrong drug on an inmate, and his last words were that his body felt like it was on fire.
Months later, the state nearly made the same mistake again — a step that led a grand jury to begin investigating the state’s mistakes. This past year, the grand jury concluded that most corrections employees “profoundly misunderstood” what they were supposed to be doing during the lethal injection. “Although some [executioners] … were able to intelligently testify regarding the Protocol, the majority simply could not,” the report found.
The state’s attorney general, Scott Pruitt, said that some executioners were “careless, cavalier and in some circumstances dismissive of established procedures that were intended to guard against the very mistakes that occurred.” (Pruitt is now Trump’s nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency.)
Years before these mistakes happened, Gorsuch was one of the judges who upheld the use of midazolam as an execution sedative, as well as Oklahoma’s execution procedures.
The inmates “have failed to establish that the use of midazolam in their executions, either because of its inherent characteristics or its possible negligent administration, creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain,” Judge Mary Briscoe wrote in an opinion that Gorsuch joined.
At that time, the drug midazolam had already been used in other botched executions, including a nearly two-hour execution in Arizona.
Oklahoma’s expert, Dr. Lee Evans, did not cite scholarly research, but instead relied on the website Drugs.com which carries the disclaimer that it is “not intended for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.”
The inmates’ attorneys alleged Evans made several mistakes in his testimony.
“Although plaintiffs point to what they perceive as a number of errors in Dr. Evans’ testimony,” the 10th Circuit judges wrote, “we conclude these errors were not sufficiently serious to render unreliable Dr. Evans’ testimony regarding the likely effect of a 500 milligram dose of midazolam, or to persuade us that the district court’s decision to admit Dr. Evans’ testimony amounted to an abuse of discretion.”
The US Supreme Court agreed in 2015.
Since then, there have been several problematic executions in which the drug has been used. In one Alabama execution, the inmate had his eye open throughout the lethal injection. In another, the inmate heaved and coughed and clenched his fists.
Mike Segar / Reuters
Rep. Joaquin Castro Tuesday warned Tuesday that if the White House has ordered the US Customs and Border Protection Agency to ignore judicial stays against the controversial refugee travel ban, Congress must begin the process of formally censuring — and potentially impeaching — President Donald Trump.
In an interview with BuzzFeed News, the Texas Democrat also joined other Democrats including Senate Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin in calling for Congress to “investigate whether President Trump intentionally exceeded his constitutional authority,” arguing that if he has Congress must take steps to censure or ultimately impeach Trump, warning the country risks essentially becoming a “military junta.”
CBP spokesperson Gillian Christensen denied the agency was directed to ignore court orders halting enforcement of the executive order.
“CBP officers are not detaining anyone. Green card holders who arrive in the U.S. have to go through secondary screening but that process is working smoothly and relatively quickly," Christensen said. "Furthermore, visa holders who would be affected by the executive order are being denied boarding at their point of departure so they are not even making it into the U.S.”
Christensen also pointed to a Monday statement by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly in which he insisted “Since the court orders related to the executive order were issued over the weekend, CBP immediately began taking immediately began taking steps to be in compliance. We are and will remain in compliance with judicial orders.”
Despite those assurances, questions remain. Throughout the weekend immigration attorneys accused CBP agents at airports of attempting to deport people, refusing them access to clients, or generally ignoring all or portions of the various court orders halting the executive order.
Combined with an administration that has difficulty with the truth, Democrats remain skeptical. If the White House has indeed directed CBP to ignore the rulings, “there should be a resolution of censure. And if he does it again, there should be articles of impeachment,” Castro said.
Castro said he is increasingly concerned with Trump’s consolidation of power within the White House. “There’s no longer any checks and balances,” Castro said, adding that if Trump is indeed flouting court orders “you’re basically living in a military junta.”
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee for the US Supreme Court, would join the high court’s millionaires' club if he’s confirmed. A review of his latest financial disclosure report shows an extensive set of financial holdings.
But Gorsuch would differ from some of his new colleagues in that he doesn’t own stock in any individual companies. Corporate holdings have forced justices to recuse from cases in the past. In January, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. withdrew from a case he heard arguments in in December after realizing he owned stock in a company involved.
Gorsuch, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit since 2006, will have to continue filing financial disclosures if he’s confirmed, but he won’t have to follow other rules that apply to lower court judges.
For instance, the justices don’t have to separately report privately-funded seminars they attend that are specifically geared towards judges — events that judicial watchdogs contend are problematic because they give interest groups an opportunity to present information to judges on issues that could come up in litigation. (The change, if the past is any guide, likely won’t make a big difference for Gorsuch, who did not report attending any privately funded seminars since at least 2014.)
More broadly, however, the justices are not bound to follow the Code of Conduct for US Judges, a set of ethics rules that build on federal laws addressing conflicts of interest on the bench. The justices have said that they adhere to the rules, but they aren’t required to do so.
Gabe Roth, head of the court watchdog group Fix the Court, said in a recent report about ethics rules and the Supreme Court that “whoever President Trump nominates to fill the high court vacancy will have more responsibility yet less accountability.”
According to the latest financial disclosure report that Gorsuch filed in August, which covers his finances in 2015, he has few financial entanglements that could create conflicts of interest with cases if he’s confirmed. He teaches at the University of Colorado Law School, earning an annual salary of $26,000; federal judges are allowed to teach and earn income for doing so, subject to certain amount restrictions.
Gorsuch’s reported financial assets in 2015 were worth at least $3.3 million. The actual number could be much higher, since judges report the value of their financial holdings in ranges. Those assets included a brokerage account, retirement fund, IRA account, and a money management account that held a number of municipal bonds.
Gorsuch said he didn’t accept any gifts in 2015, and had no financial liabilities. A member of the bar in Colorado since 1994, he has no history of disciplinary action.
Gorsuch took just two trips in 2015 where his host paid for his travel expenses. He went to Renaissance Weekend in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, a retreat that takes a place a few times a year for “innovators” in various fields across the political spectrum, including the law, according to its website. He also traveled to London to participate in a legal exchange through the American College of Trial Lawyers, a professional organization.
His disclosure reports in recent years show that he rarely took the type of paid-for travel that would require reporting. In 2012 and 2013, he attended the annual convention of the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers group.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat Gorsuch would fill, was a frequent traveler, reporting numerous trips where his expenses were paid for by outside groups each year. He died while visiting a ranch owned by John Poindexter, according to news reports at the time, who also owns the manufacturing company J.B. Poindexter & Co. Months before Scalia’s trip, the Supreme Court considered but ultimately declined to hear a case that involved J.B. Poindexter.
Scalia’s stay at the ranch highlighted gaps in the financial disclosure rules, since although rooms at the ranch sell for several hundred dollars a night, the federal Ethics in Government Act doesn’t require public officials to report “personal hospitality” from the owner of a property.
