Why Trump Is Attacking a Popular, Hispanic, Female Republican Governor
Speaking at a New Mexico rally on Tuesday night, Donald Trump took a few surprising-if-he-were-someone-else shots at the state’s Republican governor, Susana Martinez, who also just so happens to be the head of the party’s well-heeled and influential governor’s association. Via the Washington Post:
“We have got to get your governor to get going,” Trump said to a cheering audience. “She’s got to do a better job. Okay? Your governor has got to do a better job. She’s not doing the job. Hey! Maybe I’ll run for governor of New Mexico. I’ll get this place going. She’s not doing the job. We’ve got to get her moving. Come on: Let’s go, governor.”
Trump also criticized Martinez for allowing “large numbers” of Syrian refugees to resettle in the state. Although governors have limited control over these federal resettlements, Trump faulted Martinez for allowing it to happen. “If I was governor, that wouldn’t be happening,” Trump said.
Martinez is her state’s first female governor, the nation’s first Latina one, and generally thought of as a rising star within the Republican Party—aka not someone you would expect a presidential hopeful who is struggling to win over women, Latinos, and party power players alike to needlessly attack from the stump in her home state. Trump being the thin-skinned reality TV star that he is, though, this isn’t all that much of a shock.
To date, Martinez has been publicly coy about her support for Trump, dodging questions about him by telling reporters that she won’t be voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election. Privately, though, she’s been significantly more forceful with her critique of her party’s new standard-bearer, particularly when it comes to his implausible and inhumane wall-building plans for the Mexican border. Following the rally, the governor’s office responded with a statement saying she would “not be bullied into supporting a candidate.”
Trump is a bully, and his attack last night could have been an effort to force Martinez’s hand, or a warning to other party figures still on the fence. It could have been Trump trying to re-establish his anti-establishment bona fides now that the GOP is mainstreaming him, or simply him overreacting to a political slight, either because he couldn’t stop himself or because he didn’t want to. It could be all of those things, or none of them. But with Trump, the intent isn’t what matters as much as the outcome. And this latest outburst will once again make it clear that if the party is going to unite, it will have to come to him, not the other way around. A verbal assault on a popular party figure like Martinez probably makes that a more unappealing prospect for party holdouts, but it also gives them more incentive to move to Trump now, before they find themselves the subject of one of his quasi-impromptu stump speeches.
State Department Report Officially Confirms That Hillary’s Private Email Server Was Dumb and Bad
For a while now, it's seemed clear that Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state was an irresponsible, arrogant violation of security and public-transparency rules. The Washington Post has now gotten its hands on a copy of the State Department inspector general's report about the controversy, which makes that assessment official:
The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”
The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal record laws are followed.
This is obviously on some level bad for Clinton's presidential campaign, and it's obviously also bad for anyone who wants their public officials not to behave like paranoid, secretive dopes. But as the Post notes, it's also probably good for Clinton that the report—which doesn't allege any illegal activity and also criticizes the email practices of previous State Department honchos like Colin Powell—was released now rather, than, like, Nov. 1. Meanwhile there's still no indication that the FBI's parallel investigation into whether Clinton's handling of classified material constituted criminal negligence has turned up anything damaging. At this point it doesn't look like Clinton's use of the private server, however ill-advised, is going to sink her campaign. At the same time, it probably has contributed to the fact that two-thirds of registered voters find her untrustworthy. Isn't 2016 great?
Paul Ryan Spokesman Denies Report That Ryan Is About to Endorse Trump
Here at Slate, we believe that it is inevitable that Paul Ryan will cravenly endorse Donald Trump despite Ryan's ongoing show of principled reticence. Thus it was not surprising when Bloomberg News reported Tuesday night that Ryan regretted his standoff with the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and was possibly planning an endorsement this week:
House Speaker Paul Ryan has begun telling confidants that he wants to end his standoff with Donald Trump in part because he’s worried the split has sharpened divisions in the Republican Party, according to two people close to the lawmaker ... Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, told a small group of Republican lawmakers Thursday that he expects Ryan to endorse the party’s nominee as early as this week, according to two people in the meeting.
Trump campaign sources have apparently told ABC the same thing. Bloomberg, however, noted that "Ryan aides say nothing has been decided about a possible Trump endorsement," a position that a Ryan spokesman also reiterated forcefully this morning to ABC:
A Ryan spokesman, when asked today whether Speaker Ryan is preparing to endorse Trump, said, "There's no update and we've not told the Trump campaign to expect an endorsement."
"He's also not told anyone he regrets anything," the spokesman said of Ryan.
So there you go. Paul Ryan might endorse Donald Trump, but he might not! But he probably will.
Tech Billionaire Peter Thiel Reportedly Bankrolling Hulk Hogan’s Gawker Lawsuit
A day after Gawker founder Nick Denton told the New York Times he had a “personal hunch” that someone linked to Silicon Valley was funding the onslaught of lawsuits against Gawker Media—which resulted in a potentially destructive $140 million award to Hulk Hogan—Forbes is reporting that Peter Thiel, the billionaire founder of Paypal and early backer of Facebook, is the one who has been quietly bankrolling Hulk Hogan's legal crusade against Gawker. The Forbes report linking Thiel to Hogan is anonymously sourced.
Hulk Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, won the whopping $140 million jury award in March for Gawker’s 2012 publication of a sex tape featuring Hogan and the wife of his best friend. Gawker is challenging the suit on the grounds that information was improperly withheld from the jury. Earlier this month, Hogan sued Gawker again. But why would a tech billionaire be out to get Gawker?
Money may not have been the main motivation in the first place. Thiel, who is gay, has made no secret of his distaste for Gawker, which attempted to out him in late 2007 before he was open about his sexuality. In 2009, Thiel told PEHub that now-defunct Silicon Valley-focused publication Valleywag, which was owned by Gawker, had the “psychology of a terrorist.”
It’s not illegal or unheard of for someone not involved in a legal proceeding to bankroll a case. The practice of “third-party litigation funding,” however, usually is a financial agreement aimed at generating large returns from any potential award in return for cash to litigate the case. There were several moves throughout the Hogan case and in subsequent suits that indicated some level of retribution may be at play.
First, the lawyer for Hulk Hogan, Charles J. Harder, was representing the former wrestler on a contingency basis, which means that some portion of his compensation for representing Hogan would be a share of the judgment. Harder, however, turned down multiple offers to settle by Gawker, which is highly unusual for a lawyer working on a contingency agreement, and he intentionally maneuvered during the case to make it such that Gawker’s insurance coverage wouldn’t cover the site’s legal fees, which would also presumably reduce the size of a potential award, as well as Harder’s cut.
Here’s more from the New York Times on the appearance of a third party funder:
As for the lawsuits against Gawker Media, “the evidence has built up over time that there are questions that are unanswered here,” Mr. Denton said. “The data point that really got us thinking was the move that they made on insurance, which seemed designed to prevent insurance paying for our defense.” Mr. Denton is referring to a decision by Mr. Hogan’s legal team to abruptly drop one of the claims — for “negligent infliction of emotional distress” — from its case. That claim had a particularly special meaning: It was the one claim that required Gawker’s insurance company to pay for its defense as well as potential payouts in the case of a settlement. (That provision of Gawker’s insurance policy became public after the insurance company, Nautilus, sued Gawker to try to limit payment for defense.)
Harder has also filed multiple similar suits against Gawker.
Prosecutors Will Seek the Death Penalty for Dylann Roof for Charleston Black Church Massacre
Federal prosecutors will seek the death penalty for white supremacist Dylann Roof when he goes to trial for the racially-motivated shooting of nine back members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina last summer. “Following the department’s rigorous review process to thoroughly consider all relevant factual and legal issues, I have determined that the Justice Department will seek the death penalty,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement Tuesday. “The nature of the alleged crime and the resulting harm compelled this decision.”
The 22-year-old Roof faces 33 federal charges for opening fire on a Bible study gathering at the church June 17, 2015. Roof reportedly sat in on the class for almost an hour before he began shooting. The nine victims ranged in age from 26 to 87 years old. Roof was charged 10 months ago, but his federal trial date has yet to be set. Roof also faces the death penalty in state court, which is scheduled to go to trial in January.
Here’s more from the Post and Courier:
The move is a relatively rare one for the federal government since it reinstated capital punishment nearly three decades ago. Of thousands of eligible cases since then, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has authorized prosecutors to seek execution in about 500. It’s especially unusual, experts said, because state prosecutors had already announced plans to seek Roof’s execution in their separate case against him… The development eliminates the possibility of a plea deal in either case, unless prosecutors later retract their intentions. If execution had not been sought, Roof would have pleaded guilty in exchange for a lifetime prison term, his attorneys in state and federal court have said.
Roof and his attorneys had previously indicated Roof wanted to plead guilty to the charges in return for life in prison.
A Lot of Voters Think Hillary Has an “Advantage” Because She’s a Woman. This Election Is Nuts.
Last month, Donald Trump stood on stage during one of his primary night victory press conferences and declared that the only thing Hillary Clinton had going for her is “the women’s card.” The now-presumptive GOP nominee continued: “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.” It was a remarkable statement even in the moment—one that would have been all the more gobsmacking if Trump hadn’t already dulled everyone’s senses with a year’s worth of bluster. It’s a comment worth revisiting in the wake of new polling that suggest a large swath of voters are buying what Trump is selling.
According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey, 32 percent of registered voters said that Clinton is getting “more of an advantage in this election” because of her gender than Trump is because of his. (Another 33 percent saw no net-advantage for either candidate). Put another way, roughly 1 in 3 voters in a nation that has never elected a woman to its highest office in its 240-year history—and which was still denying the vote to women as recently as this past century—believes that Hillary has it easier because she's a woman than Trump does because he’s a man. Um, really?!
This specific survey asked about Trump and Clinton, not generic male and female candidates. So it’s possible some Americans are simply assuming Trump’s unapologetic misogyny will come back to bite him down the road and hand the election to Clinton in the process. But the fact that nearly two-thirds of those who saw her with an advantage because of gender told pollsters it was “unjustified” suggests something else is at play here. More importantly, the perception that voters’ views on female candidates isn’t something that Clinton has needed, and will continue to need to overcome doesn’t square with reality.
For the better part of a century, Gallup has been trying to gauge Americans’ willingness to vote for a female candidate for president. When pollsters started asking the question back in the 1930s, only a third of respondents said they would be willing even “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Last year, that number was 92 percent. Progress? Sure. But the inverse of that number means that there are still 8 percent of Americans who aren’t only unwilling to vote for a female candidate no matter what, they’re willing to openly acknowledge it. It should not surprise you that Gallup doesn’t feel the need to bother itself with asking the same question about a hypothetical male candidate.
Other historical data tells a similar story. The General Social Survey has been asking Americans for the past four decades whether they agree with the claim that “most men are better suited emotionally for politics than most women.” In 1974, 44 percent of respondents agreed. In 2014, 17 percent still did.
It’s no secret that Clinton’s team has struggled with the historic nature of her campaign. She spent much of the last year talking up the fact that she’d be the first female president, but has made such pitches less explicit of late—particularly after a few of her surrogates sparked some noticeable backlash among liberal women earlier this year. And as the Associated Press reported earlier this week, EMILY's List, the pro-choice group devoted to putting more women in office, recently advised Clinton to tone things down. “They already know she’d be the first woman president, but we don’t get anything by reminding them,” the report said of highlighting gender to potential liberal donors.
The question of gender and politics in the 2016 race has a chicken-and-egg component. As the Post’s Janell Ross points out, the respondents in her paper’s survey broke down among some rather predictable lines: 46 percent of conservatives said Clinton was benefiting from a gender advantage, 41 percent of self-identified Republicans said the same, as did 38 percent of men and 34 percent of whites.* Meanwhile, 35 percent of liberals, 37 percent of self-identified Democrats, 36 percent of women, and 50 percent of blacks said Trump’s gender gave him the bigger edge. So it’s possible that some respondents are just giving their favored candidate the benefit of the doubt. It’s always easier for the competition, after all. But given what we know about gender equality in the real world—and what we’ve seen in this election already—it would be a mistake to dismiss this entirely as more partisan polarization. At the very least, it suggests Trump has found more fertile ground in his bid to rally skeptical supporters to his side in a contest against Hillary. Ultimately, it’s he who might be able to “play the gender card” to his advantage.
*Correction, May 25, 2016: This post originally misspelled Janell Ross’ first name.
Bernie Sanders Requests a Recanvass in Kentucky
Bernie Sanders will not go quietly:
According to the current state count, Hillary Clinton leads Sanders by about one-half of one percent of the total vote, or just shy of 2,000 votes out of the roughly 455,000 that were cast in the primary earlier this month. Given how tight the contest was, the Associated Press has not yet called an official winner. Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes—a Clinton supporter—though, declared Hillary the “unofficial” victor on primary night, which gave the Democratic front-runner a helpful narrative counterweight to Sanders’ double-digit win in Oregon that same night.
In a specific delegate sense, the request for a recanvass—which is a step short of a full recount—doesn’t really matter, since Democrats divvy their delegates up proportionally. Based on the existing vote totals, the AP projects Kentucky will split its 55 pledged delegates nearly down the middle. (The current estimate has each candidate winning 27, with one yet to be assigned.) Even if state officials find enough votes to give Bernie the statewide win, it could net him another delegate or two, but it won’t change the fact that the nomination is out of reach and has been for some time.
Still, in a larger since it does matter. It’s a not-so-subtle rebuke of the state Democratic establishment (and a Clinton ally), and yet another unmistakable sign that Sanders is serious about staying in this race to the very end of the primary season, and possibly beyond. This man will not go quietly.
Judge Orders Bill Cosby to Face Trial; New Details of Alleged Assaults Revealed
The first pretrial hearing for Bill Cosby’s aggravated indecent assault case in Pennsylvania included a flurry of new revelations about the incident, including an account from Cosby and one from his accuser Andrea Constand that were made public for the first time on Tuesday. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Elizabeth McHugh decided that there was enough evidence for the trial to go ahead.
The details as described by both parties in interviews with detectives more than a decade ago show that Constand visited Cosby’s home in 2004, he offered her pills and wine which she took, he fondled her, and offered her a muffin in the morning as she left. Where the two parties differ is that Cosby claims the encounter was consensual and Constand said she was unable to consent because she was drugged.
"I had no strength in my legs. They felt rubbery and like jelly," Constand told detectives in 2005 about her response to taking pills that Cosby has described as Benadryl. "I felt spacey. Everything was blurry or dizzy. I had no thought to call 911."
"I told him, 'I can't even talk, Mr. Cosby.' I started to panic," she said at the time.
Cosby’s version of events were that it was a mutual romantic encounter.
"We began to pet—touching, kissing with clothes on," he said in his own statement to investigators at the time. "I never intended to have sexual intercourse like naked bodies with Andrea. We were petting and I enjoyed it."
When he was asked whether he had ever had intercourse with Constand, Cosby told detectives: "Never asleep or awake." He also said that in a subsequent phone call with Constand's mother, he offered to pay for her grad school if she maintained a 3.0 grade point average.
The case is going forward more than a decade after the incident because the original prosecutors had decided not to try it saying they didn’t think they could prove the charges at trial, but new prosecutors have decided that additional information that has come to light in the years since made the case prosecutable.
Nearly 60 women have come forward with allegations of sexual abuse by Cosby, many of them telling similar stories of assault after druggings. Last year, the Associated Press revealed details of depositions from Constand’s civil trial against Cosby, which was ultimately settled. Many of those details coincide with what was revealed in court on Tuesday.
On Sunday, the AP published some additional details from those depositions and republished others. As previously revealed, Cosby said in his deposition that he told Constand’s mother that “digital penetration” occurred during the incident in question.
As also previously reported, Cosby admitted to using the sedative drug Quaaludes "for young women" he "wanted to have sex with." He also admitted in that deposition that he gave Constand three pills, which he again characterized as Benadryl.
Here’s more from Cosby’s deposition about the incident, which he described as occurring in “the area that is somewhere between permission and rejection”:
Q: So, you're not telling us that you verbally asked her for permission?
A: I didn't say it verbally, I said. The action is my hand on her midriff, which is skin. I'm not lifting any clothing up. This is, I don't remember fully what it is, but it's there and I can feel. I got her skin and it's just above the hand and it's just above where you can go under the pants.
The AP also revealed that he had given Quaaludes to 19-year-old Therese (Picking) Serignese in the 1970s before having sex with her and wasn’t sure whether the encounter was consensual or not:
Q: Did you give her quaaludes?
Q: What effect did the quaaludes have on her?
A: She became in those days what was called high.
Q: She said that she believes she was not in the position to consent to intercourse after you gave her the drug. Do you believe that is correct?
A: I don't know. ... How many years ago are we talking about? 197(6)? ... I meet Ms. Picking in Las Vegas. She meets me backstage. I give her quaaludes. We then have sex.
Constand's is the only accusation against Cosby that has actually resulted in criminal charges, with many of the accusations falling outside of statutes of limitations. The charges against Cosby carry the potential for five to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine if he’s convicted. He is currently out on $1 million bail.
Clinton Backs Out of Agreement to Hold One More Democratic Debate
While Hillary Clinton has effectively wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders is still conducting a somewhat contentious campaign against her. He's asked her to participate in a final primary-season debate in California ahead of that state's June 7 election; Fox News wants to host it, and it seems that Clinton's camp agreed to a May debate a few months ago. Here's a statement attributed to Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a February Politico piece:
The candidates have also agreed to participate in three newly scheduled DNC sanctioned debates to be held in addition to the February 11th PBS News Hour, and March 9th Univision debates already planned. The first of these new debates is confirmed to take place in Flint, Michigan on March 6th, with the remaining two taking place in April and May with times and locations to be determined.
There was a debate in Brooklyn in April, which according to Schultz's statement means that one more remains to be held. Clinton, however, now says she will not participate. Said a campaign spokeswoman:
We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.
So, there you go: Clinton is reneging on the agreement to hold the fourth debate because ... because she wants to do other things instead. Solid reasoning, I guess! She leads Sanders by 10 points in Real Clear Politics' California polling average.
TSA Fires Its Security Chief Because Somehow He Still Had His Job (And Got Bonuses!)
Things were looking bleaker than usual for travelers stuck waiting in the ever-lengthening security lines at America’s airports. With the summer travel season fast approaching, TSA appeared outmanned and overmatched by the onslaught that is your carryon luggage. When 450 travelers got stuck overnight in Chicago’s O’Hare airport because the security lines were so maddeningly slow that the passengers missed their flights, it appeared we had, at last, reached a breaking point. Something had to be done. On Monday, something was. The head of security operations at TSA was removed from his post.
I know what you’re thinking: Great, but how about some extra bag screening machines? I wish I could say that kind of progress was possible. Perhaps someday. Until then you’re going to have to find some solace in TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger announcing Kelly Hoggan, the head of security operations at TSA, will no longer be wreaking havoc on your travel plans. But long lines weren’t the only thing plaguing Hoggan; he faced a grilling from the House Oversight Committee earlier this month for receiving dodgy bonuses over a two-year period despite TSA generally failing both from a service perspective and, even more crucially, from a security perspective.
From NBC News:
Lawmakers accused the TSA of disguising the payment to Kelly Hoggan by doling it out in nine chunks of $10,000 instead of one lump sum — a strategy known as "smurfing." He received this bonus even as the screeners he supervised failed a test to detect mock explosives and banned weapons… TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger said Hoggan was awarded the bonus under his predecessor and that he's put in checks to make sure this doesn't happen again… Homeland Security Inspector John Roth, who appeared with Neffenger before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the payments to Hoggan were "clearly an attempt" to get around the $10,000 bonus limit. They were made over a 13-month period ending in November 2014.
Hoggan will be replaced by his deputy on an interim basis, but it’s hard to believe it will mean any relief for travelers in the short-term. The TSA is sorely understaffed and Congress doesn’t like spending money on the agency. Alas, TSA isn’t the glamour allocation it once was.