Joining today's show are Mike Barnicle, Jon Meacham, Jim VandeHei, Mark Halperin, Michael Steele, Adam Goldman, Fmr. AG Michael Mukasey, Jonathan Capehart, Donny Deutsch, Robert Costa, Hallie Jackson, Peter Alexander, Cornell Belcher, Donald Trump, Bret Stephens, Alex Castellanos, Nancy Gibbs, Sara Eisen and more...First things first, we now must envision getting a hot oil massage from Chris Christie of all people?
Adam Goldman is on the show to discuss his article in the WAPO entitled, Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server.
As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.
The inquiry comes against a political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
So far, there is no indication that prosecutors have convened a grand jury in the email investigation to subpoena testimony or documents, which would require the participation of a U.S. attorney’s office.
Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano’s attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said: “As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Department of Justice’s security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed.”
He also said the campaign is “pleased” that Pagliano, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before a congressional panel in September, is now cooperating with prosecutors. The campaign had encouraged Pagliano to testify before Congress.
As part of the inquiry, law enforcement officials will look at the potential damage had the classified information in the emails been exposed. The Clinton campaign has described the probe as a security review. But current and former officials in the FBI and at the Justice Department have said investigators are trying to determine whether a crime was committed.
“There was wrongdoing,” said a former senior law enforcement official. “But was it criminal wrongdoing?”
[Hillary Clinton gains a new unlikely ally in email controversy: Colin Powell]
Clinton has since apologized for what happened: “Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.”
Any decision to charge someone would involve Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who told Congress when asked last month about the email inquiry: “That matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents, as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they’ll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate.”
She added, “We will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as how to best handle it.”
Current and former officials said the conviction of retired four-star general and CIA director David H. Petraeus for mishandling classified information is casting a shadow over the email investigation.
The officials said they think that Petraeus’s actions were more egregious than those of Clinton and her aides because he lied to the FBI, and classified information he shared with his biographer contained top secret code words, identities of covert officers, war strategy and intelligence capabilities. Prosecutors initially threatened to charge him with three felonies, including conspiracy, violating the Espionage Act and lying to the FBI. But after negotiations, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
He was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years of probation. FBI officials were angered by the deal and predicted it would affect the outcome of other cases involving classified information.
Petraeus “was handled so lightly for his offense there isn’t a whole lot you can do,” said a former U.S. law enforcement official who oversaw counterintelligence investigations and described the email controversy as “a lesser set of circumstances.”
The State Department has been analyzing the contents of Clinton’s correspondence, as it has prepared 52,000 pages of Clinton’s emails for public release in batches, a process that began in May and concluded Monday. The State Department has said 2,093 of Clinton’s released emails were redacted in all or part because they contained classified material, the vast majority of them rated “confidential,” the lowest level of sensitivity in the classification system.
Clinton and the State Department have said that none of the material was marked classified at the time it was sent. However, it is the responsibility of individual government officials to properly handle sensitive material.
The email investigation is being conducted by FBI counterintelligence agents and supervised by the Justice Department’s National Security Division.
In a letter filed last month in federal court as part of ongoing civil litigation over Clinton’s emails, the FBI confirmed that it was “working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.” The agency declined to publicly detail the investigation’s “specific focus, scope or potential targets.”
On Tuesday, FBI Director James B. Comey said he was “very close” to the investigation.
Former federal prosecutor Glen Kopp said it is not surprising that agents want to interview Clinton and her aides.
“They are within the zone of interest of the investigation,” he said.
A request to interview her would have to be reviewed by top level officials at both the FBI and the Justice Department, a former official said.
As part of those interviews, the FBI would also seek to establish that Clinton and her aides understood the policies and protocols for handling classified information, former officials said.
Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, declined to comment.
Kendall, who also has represented President Bill Clinton and Petraeus, has navigated similar issues in other cases. During the investigation of President Clinton by independent counsel Ken Starr, for instance, Kendall rebuffed several requests for interviews.
The president was then subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. In a deal brokered by Kendall, the subpoena was withdrawn and Clinton testified voluntarily in 1998.
Former prosecutors said investigators were probably feeling the pressure of time because of the election. Take action before the election, they said, and you risk being perceived as trying to influence the result. Take action after and face criticism for not letting voters know there was an issue with their preferred candidate.
“The timing is terrible whether you do it before or after,” Kopp said.
The issue of Clinton’s use of a private email server was referred to the FBI in July after the Office of the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community determined that some of the emails that traversed Clinton’s server contained classified material.
Emails that contain material now deemed classified were authored by Clinton but also by many of her top aides, including Jacob Sullivan, who was her director of policy planning and her deputy chief of staff. He is now advising Clinton’s campaign on foreign policy and is thought to be a likely candidate for national security adviser if she is elected president.
The State Department has said that, at the request of intelligence agencies, it has classified 22 Clinton emails as “top secret” and will not release those emails, even in redacted form. “Top secret” is the highest level of classification, reserved for material whose release could cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”
I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, has indicated that some of the material intelligence officials have reviewed contained information that was classified at the time it was sent; the State Department has indicated that it has not analyzed whether the material should have been marked classified when it was sent, only whether it requires classification before being released now. Rosalind S. Helderman, Julie Tate and Matt Zapotosky contributed to this report.
Can Mitt Romney stop Donald Trump? The one-time Republican nominee is trying to use whatever influence he has to blunt the Republican frontrunner. Romney will deliver a speech on Thursday in Utah, laying out his views on the "state of the 2016 presidential race," according to aides.
Romney is likely to repeat on Thursday what he and his closest allies have already indicated in a number of ways: the ex-Massachusetts governor is deeply concerned with the state of the race because Trump is winning. The former governor has already demanded Trump release his tax returns and suggested the real estate mogul is hiding potentially damaging information in having not already done so. The New York Times reported over the weekend that Romney has considered endorsing Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and has also contacted allies of Ohio Gov. John Kasich, urging him to leave the race so Republicans could consolidate around a single alternative to Kasich, likely Rubio.
Romney's former deputy campaign manager, Katie Packer Gage, is leading an independent group running ads against Trump.
Romney's top strategist in 2012, Stuart Stevens, has said he will not vote for Trump if the real estate mogul is the GOP nominee. And one of Romney's closest friends in politics, House Speaker Paul Ryan, this week blasted Trump for not condemning the KKK and David Duke.
What's unclear is what influence Romney truly has at this stage of the process. Trump has already won 11 of 15 states and accumulated a large delegate lead. The kind of voters who back Trump, particularly those without college degrees, are unlikely to be swayed by the Harvard-educated, elite Romney. It's not clear anti-Trump Republicans can get behind a single candidate with Rubio, Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz all in the race and with legitimate claims to remain and try to build their support.
Romney, according to sources, is unlikely to endorse a candidate on Thursday.
But having a major Republican figure demand the party organize against Trump could still be important.
The March 15 primaries are a key point in the campaign, a day on which Trump could win the Florida and Ohio primaries and get a huge lead in the delegates. Could Romney spur Jeb Bush to recover from his bruised feelings about Rubio finishing ahead of him in most primaries and endorse Rubio, his former protégé, before the March 15 race in the Sunshine State?
Can Romney help coordinate a sustained, multi-million dollar ad campaign to stop Trump? Does Romney have some new argument about the real estate mogul that can cause his poll numbers to dip?
Billed as a major speech by the 2012 nominee, Romney's appearance in Utah comes on the day that Trump and his three remaining rivals, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, share a debate stage in Detroit.
The 9 p.m. EST (0200 GMT Friday) debate, hosted by Fox News, will be the candidates' first face-to-face gathering since Super Tuesday nominating contests this week that gave extra momentum to Trump but did not knock out his rivals.
Mainstream figures in the party are seeking a strategy to halt the real estate mogul's march to the nomination for the Nov. 8 election to succeed Democratic President Barack Obama.
Some party leaders and donors are critical of Trump's positions on trade and immigration, including his calls to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, deport 11 million illegal immigrants and temporarily bar Muslims from entering the country.
At the debate, Trump, 69, will be questioned for the first time since last year by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, who angered him with her questioning at the Republicans' first debate on Aug. 6, prompting him to cancel participation in a debate in Iowa in January, a move that appeared to cost him some votes.
Romney, 68, has kept a low profile since losing to Obama in 2012. He flirted with a 2016 campaign but ultimately decided the country needed fresh leaders.
Sources familiar with his thinking said Romney, in private conservations with friends and allies, had become increasingly disturbed at the prospect of Trump becoming the party's nominee.
They said he would specifically cite Trump's refusal to release his tax returns and his initial reluctance to disavow an endorsement from a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan white supremacist group.
Romney has been leaning toward endorsing Rubio, said two sources close to the former Massachusetts governor. Sources said he was not expected to endorse anyone in his speech.
One senior Republican source familiar with his thinking said Romney had debated privately whether his endorsement would help, since pro-Romney voters had already gotten behind Rubio, 44, a U.S. senator from Florida.
In his speech at 10:30 a.m. MST (1730 GMT) in Salt Lake City, Romney is expected to single out for praise both Rubio, and Cruz, 45, a U.S. senator from Texas, and possibly Kasich, 63, the Ohio governor.
Trump has consistently targeted Romney for criticism throughout his run, saying he should have defeated Obama in 2012 but that Romney made mistakes that killed his chances.
SPARKS COULD FLY
The Detroit debate will be one more opportunity for Rubio and Cruz to try to slow Trump's momentum. They are the last two anti-Trump candidates standing in what has been a bruising nomination battle. Kasich has largely steered clear of the anti-Trump effort and tried to remain above the fray.
Rubio went on the attack against Trump at the last debate on Feb. 25 and has attempted to establish himself as the main Trump alternative by labeling him as a "con artist" who has escaped serious vetting by a news media fixated on his star power and brash rhetoric.
Veteran Republican foreign policy strategist Richard Grenell said the debate at Detroit's Fox Theater could be a lively one.
"Since Trump is clearly on a roll, he needs to pivot and start uniting the Republican Party and alleviate the concerns that he can't act presidential," Grenell said. "Rubio and Cruz are going to need to take each other out in order to whittle down the field."
Trump's campaign on Monday reached out to House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, the country's top elected Republican, after days of criticism of Trump from Ryan. At a news conference on Tuesday, Trump said Ryan could either get along with him or "pay a price."
"We have heard from the campaign, but the two have not yet spoken," said Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck. "We expect the speaker to be in touch with all the remaining candidates soon to discuss our efforts to build a bold conservative policy agenda for 2017."
Meet the Republicans Speaking Out Against Trump. Donald Trump's march to the Republican nomination has forced a crisis in the party, as a growing list of GOP elected officials and top strategists are stepping forward to declare their opposition to Trump's candidacy. Some are even threatening to vote for his Democratic rival instead come November. On Twitter, #NeverTrump has become a way for party stalwarts to voice their dissatisfaction.
Opposition to the billionaire front-runner had been boiling under the surface for weeks before bursting open in recent days after Trump initially refused to denounce former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke in an interview with CNN.
"If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a press conference Tuesday. While Ryan has stopped short of saying he would refuse to support Trump in the general election, other Republicans have shown no such hesitation.
Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has arguably been the loudest voice against Trump. After warning of a potential "bombshell" in Trump's tax records, Romney tweeted "#WhatIsHeHiding" to press Trump to disclose his summaries. Romney took an even more forceful tone after Trump said he had no knowledge about former KKK leader David Duke, who, along with other white supremacists, are publicly supporting Trump's campaign. Romney called Trump's response "disqualifying" and said that "his coddling of repugnant bigotry is not in the character of America."
Romney is expected to further criticize Trump in a speech Thursday on the state of the 2016 race.
So far, more than 30 Republican lawmakers, strategists and commentators — who have had some strongly worded statements against Trump — have joined the resistance. MSNBC will continue to update the list.
1. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
Sasse was the first Republican in Congress to announce he will never vote for Trump. On Facebook Sunday, he wrote, "My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option."
2. Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.)
Rigell, who plans retire at the end of his current term representing Virginia, sent a letter to his supporters Monday night urging them to vote for any candidate besides Trump.
"My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgement, temperament and character needed to be our nation's commander in chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee," Rigell wrote.
3. Former Gov. Christie Todd Whitman (R-NJ)"
"While I certainly don't want four more years of another Clinton administration or more years of the Obama administration, I would take that over the kind of damage I think Donald Trump could do to this country, to its reputation, to the people of this country," Whitman said Monday on Bloomberg's "With All Due Respect."
When asked if Whitman would explicitly support Clinton over Trump, she said that it's likely. "I will probably vote for her," Whitman said. "I don't want to. I can do a write-in. But I think that's where I'd go if those are my choices."
4. Tim Miller, former spokesman for Jeb Bush, part of anti-Trump super PAC
After Chris Christie, who ended his 2016 presidential campaign following disappointing results in New Hampshire, announced his support for Trump on Friday, Miller took to Twitter trashing the pair.
Beck has spoken out against Trump on the charge that the front-runner lacks true conservative bona fides. In a piece for The National Review titled "Conservatives against Trump," published in January, Beck wrote, "Sure, Trump's potential primary victory would provide Hillary Clinton with the easiest imaginable path to the White House. But it's far worse than that. If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, there will once again be no opposition to an ever-expanding government. This is a crisis for conservatism. And, once again, this crisis will not go to waste."
8. Peter Wehner, GOP strategist
"Beginning with Ronald Reagan, I have voted Republican in every presidential election since I first became eligible to vote in 1980. I worked in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and in the White House for George W. Bush as a speechwriter and adviser," Wehner wrote January 14 in an op-ed for The New York Times. "Despite this history, and in important ways because of it, I will not vote for Donald Trump if he wins the Republican nomination."
9. Liz Mair, GOP strategist
"I have repeatedly stated that if he is the GOP nominee, I will either vote third party or do a write-in, potentially of myself," Mair wrote in a statement about Trump to The New Yorker published Friday. "At least if I do the latter thing, I know I'm voting for someone I 100 percent agree with for once."
10. Eliot Cohen, counselor of the Department of State during President George W. Bush's administration
We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:
His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.
He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.
David Adesnik
Michael Auslin
Robert D. Blackwill
Daniel A. Blumenthal
Max Boot
Michael Chertoff
Patrick Chovanec
Eliot A. Cohen
Carrie Cordero
Patrick M. Cronin
Seth Cropsey
Tom Donnelly
Daniel Drezner
Colin Dueck
Eric Edelman
Richard A. Falkenrath
Peter D. Feaver
Aaron Friedberg
Jeffrey Gedmin
Christopher J. Griffin
Mary R. Habeck
Rebeccah Heinrichs
William C. Inboden
Jamil N. Jaffer
Robert G. Joseph
Robert Kagan
David Kramer
Matthew Kroenig
Frank Lavin
Philip I. Levy
The statement above was coordinated by Dr. Eliot A. Cohen, former Counselor of the Department of State (2007–8) and Bryan McGrath, Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group, a defense consultancy. They encourage other members of the Republican foreign policy and national security communities wishing to sign the declaration to contact them.
In world news today and in other news today, Europe Stocks Lower, Asia Higher After Mixed US Data.
European stock markets started weaker following gains on Asian markets on Thursday as investors awaited jobs data from the U.S. and the start of China's annual legislative session, where leaders of the world's second-largest economy will likely downgrade their growth forecast.
KEEPING SCORE: Britain's FTSE 100 was up 0.1 percent to 6,150.98 and Germany's DAX fell 0.1 percent to 9,764.71. France's CAC 40 declined 0.3 percent to 4,411.52. Futures augured a tepid start for Wall Street. Dow futures and S&P futures both stayed nearly unchanged.
ANALYST'S TAKE: "While this rally will inevitably have a pullback at some point, the forthcoming U.S. non-farms payroll, China's National Party Congress, ECB and BOJ meetings could all help support this rally in the near term," Angus Nicholson of IG said in a commentary. "Of course, the markets currently look like they are pricing good news in from all of them, so an upset from any one could throw the rally off."
CHINA: Chinese leaders were expected to lower their growth target during the upcoming gathering of the National People's Congress this week as China seeks more flexibility for structural reforms for the slowing, state-dominated economy. The growth target due to be announced on Saturday is expected to be a range of 6.5 to 7 percent, down from 2015's goal of about 7 percent.
ASIA'S DAY: Asian markets closed mostly higher after solid U.S. jobs survey. Japan's Nikkei 225 rose 1.3 percent to 16,960.16 and South Korea's Kospi gained 0.6 percent to 1,958.17. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index underperformed other benchmarks in the region, falling 0.3 percent to 19,941.76, while the Shanghai Composite Index added 0.4 percent to 2,859.76. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 gained 1.2 percent to 5,081.10 and stocks in Taiwan and Southeast Asia also were higher.
OIL: Benchmark U.S. crude lost 9 cents at $34.57 per barrel in New York. The contract rose 26 cents to close at $34.66 a barrel on Wednesday. Brent crude fell 20 cents at $36.73 a barrel in London.
CURRENCIES: The euro weakened to $1.0868 from $1.0870 and the dollar rose to 113.96 yen from 113.61 yen.
North Korea fires 6 'short-range projectiles,' South Korea says. North Korea on Thursday fired six "short-range projectiles" that flew 100 to 150 kilometers (about 62 to 93 miles) off the Korean Peninsula, according to a press release from the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The objects traveled off the peninsula's east coast and the South Korean military is analyzing the situation, an official from the South Korean Defense Ministry said.
The news came one day after the United Nations Security Council voted to impose a broad array of sanctions against North Korea because of that nation's recent nuclear test and missile launch -- both of which defied current international sanctions.
The U.N. resolution that brought about the sanctions aims to cripple the economic factors that fuel North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
According to Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the sanctions will:
-- Require that all North Korean planes and ships carrying cargo be inspected. Previously, nations only inspected planes and ships when they had "reasonable grounds."
-- Ban Pyongyang from exporting most of the country's natural resources.
-- Prohibit nations from providing training to North Korean nationals in fields that could advance the nation's missile and nuclear programs.
-- Ban member states from allowing North Korea to charter foreign vessels or aircraft and ban all nations from operating any vessels that use North Korean flags.
-- Prohibit the supply of aviation fuel, including rocket fuel, and the sale of small arms to North Korea.
Discussions about new sanctions started after North Korea claimed to have successfully tested a hydrogen bomb in January -- its fourth nuclear test.
Then, in February, Pyongyang said it had successfully launched an Earth satellite into orbit via the long-range Kwangmyongsong carrier rocket.
The nuclear test and missile launch outraged the Security Council and worried neighboring nations.
South Korean President Park Geun-hye released a statement Thursday about the new sanctions, thanking the international community for its efforts.
"I sincerely hope that the North will abandon its nuclear development program and embark on a path of change, and I will make further efforts for peace and unification of the Korean Peninsula," the President said.
Japan's chief cabinet secretary said Thursday his government does not believe there is a threat to Japanese security in relation to the incident.
And China called for calm.
"The current situation on the Korean peninsula is complicated and sensitive," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Thursday. "We hope the relevant parties can keep cool heads and not take any actions that will escalate tensions." CNN's Richard Roth, Serena Dong, Holly Yan and Ralph Ellis contributed to this report.
Supreme Court closely divided on abortion case. The Supreme Court appeared deeply divided Wednesday over the most far-reaching abortion rights case it has considered in a generation, with the fate of abortion restrictions in many states on the line.
The court's four liberal justices left little doubt they would vote to strike down a Texas law imposing tight regulations on abortion clinics and doctors, so the eight-member court — depleted by the death last month of Justice Antonin Scalia — almost certainly cannot issue a decision establishing a national precedent that would set tougher standards for abortion clinics coast to coast.
But it seemed possible that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who likely holds the deciding vote, would seek to have the case returned to Texas for additional fact-finding, delaying any decision until next year at the earliest. That could include whether the law's restrictions were responsible for shuttering up to 20 clinics and whether the few that remain open can handle the statewide demand for abortions.
If the case is not sent back but is decided on its merits, it seemed more likely that Kennedy would join the liberals in ruling that the law places an undue burden on abortion access without serving a legitimate medical purpose. Such a sweeping decision, which likely would be issued in late June, could impact states with similar laws.
The Texas case is the most significant to reach the high court since 1992, and it brought forth a huge demonstration by abortion rights proponents outside the court. More than 1,000 people, mostly women, urged the justices to strike town the Texas restrictions and, by extension, those in other states.
Inside the hushed courtroom, where Chief Justice John Roberts allowed the usual hour-long oral argument to stretch for 85 minutes, White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett was among those listening intently as U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli labeled the law "the definition of an undue burden." That was a reference to the court's standard for the type of restrictions that should not be allowed in its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Kennedy acknowledged the state would face a "capacity problem" if only 10 clinics survive, as the law's challengers claim would happen if a federal appeals court decision since blocked by the Supreme Court is allowed to go into effect. He also noted that the law has led to an increase in surgical abortions and a decrease in those induced by medication, the opposite of national trends. "This may not be medically wise," he said.
Early on, the court's conservatives expressed skepticism that the law had caused so many Texas clinics to close. Adopted by the state Legislature in 2013, it set tougher operating standards for clinics and required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Since its passage, more than 40 abortion facilities in the state have dwindled to 18, with more closures threatened.
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito told Stephanie Toti, the lawyer representing the abortion clinics, that scant evidence was offered to show the law triggered the closings. They also said the challengers failed to prove that the remaining clinics could not handle roughly 70,000 abortions a year — though Roberts admitted evidence of insufficient capacity was a "statistically significant showing."
When Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller stood to make the state's case, the liberal justices pounced. They argued that Texas legislators singled out abortion for tough medical standards not required for riskier procedures, such as colonoscopies and liposuction. They said the two restrictions serve no purpose and have not made abortions safer. And they said more clinic closures would leave the state unable to handle 5.4 million women of reproductive age.
"This is among the most safe, the least-risk procedures, an early-stage abortion," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who arrived at the court the year after Casey said states could impose restrictions that do not represent an undue burden on women seeking abortions. "So what was the problem that the Legislature was responding to?"
"Increasing the standard of care is valid," Keller said later, to which Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded: "It's valid only if it's taking care of a real problem."
Without Scalia, the state probably can do no better than a 4-4 vote upholding last year's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. That would apply to Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, but no further.
If Kennedy and the court's liberal justices strike down any part of the law, on the other hand, the 5-3 decision could implicate similar abortion restrictions imposed by conservative legislatures in other states. Such a ruling could be the biggest victory for supporters of abortion rights since two prior landmark decisions: Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973, and Casey, which set the current rules for restrictions in 1992.
"This isn't just about Texas," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said on the eve of the Supreme Court showdown, noting some 250 restrictions have been imposed across the country in the past five years. Those restrictions range from 24-hour waiting periods and parental notification laws, mostly upheld by lower courts, to bans on abortion after six or 12 weeks, which courts have blocked.
Abortion rights advocates say the burden is clear from the hundreds of miles women outside Texas' major cities have to drive to reach a clinic and the days, even weeks they have to wait before getting an abortion. But state officials and abortion opponents say the clinics that are not threatened will provide superior treatment and can adequately serve the state. Their argument was supported in part by Alito, who said, "There's no evidence of the actual capacity of these clinics."
Among about 80 briefs submitted to the court are several in which women recounted their own abortion experiences — successful lawyers and professionals defending the decisions they made early in life as well as others who say they came to regret the procedures.
The last case involving the medical procedure was decided in 2007, when the justices upheld a federal law banning late-term — so-called "partial birth" — abortions. Kennedy wrote the 5-4 opinion, famously asserting that "some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained."
The Texas case focuses on the day-to-day hardships endured by women — many of them poor or Hispanic — who face difficulties obtaining abortions because of widespread clinic closures.
If the law is allowed to stand, the 10 remaining clinics will be centered in four metropolitan areas — Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio. One additional clinic near the Mexican border in McAllen will be allowed to stay open, but with new restrictions that could leave only one 75-year-old retired doctor -- Sotomayor called him an "endentured slave" -- able to perform abortions.
The only clinics in El Paso would close, which could send more women across the border into New Mexico. That angered Ginsburg, who noted New Mexico lacks the restrictions for clinics and doctors that Texas says are necessary to protect women's health.
Keller's response was simple: "Texas obviously can't tell New Mexico how to regulate."
Marriott Ownership Rep Accused Of Playing Erin Andrews Peephole Video For Friends. A representative for the ownership group of the Marriott Nashville at Vanderbilt admitted that the Erin Andrews peephole video at the center of her lawsuit was played at his dinner table Tuesday night, but denied being the one who played it.
WSMV reported, citing a restaurant employee, that BetaWest senior vice president Neal Peskind, who’s representing West End Hotel Partners in the ongoing civil trial between Andrews and the Nashville hotel, played the video on his phone while at a Nashville restaurant with his two friends.
When asked about it today, Peskind said that the claim of him showing the video was “incorrect”:
Later, Peskind said in a statement that his friends played the video, and he asked them to stop. Via WSMV:
I was at a private dinner meeting with friends. They brought up the allegations and they started viewing the video. I asked them to stop, and while they did so, it was not as quickly as I had hoped. This incident has been blown into something it was not. I would never disrespect Ms. Andrews and what she has been through. This is a very unfortunate situation that should not be a reflection on West End Hotel Partners or to our commitment to the issues in this case surrounding what happened to her. I sincerely apologize for my participation in what happened.
On Monday, Peskind testified that his ownership group should not be liable for the Marriott giving out Andrews’s room number and putting her stalker in an adjacent room because the hotel employees were hired by an independent contractor.
Ben Carson doesn't see 'a political path forward'. He will not participate in tonight's GOP debate in Michigan.
Republicans gather for their eleventh debate on Thursday amid growing consternation from those in the GOP establishment that Donald Trump is unstoppable.
In the hours since Trump’s Super Tuesday romp, Republicans have intensified their push to defeat him, with GOP groups digging into their bank accounts for an air assault in Florida. Top operatives are laying groundwork for primaries on March 15, perhaps the last chance to defeat the billionaire mogul. And Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, under growing duress, are getting ready to deliver harsh attacks on the front-runner in Thursday’s primetime debate in Detroit.
The flurry of activity underscores what many concede is a central reality: The window for halting Trump may soon be closed for good.
“Trump is the presumptive nominee,” said Christian Ferry, who served as Lindsey Graham’s campaign manager. “I think anyone who cannot see that today needs to start working through the stages of grief.”
Anti-Trump groups are setting the stage for a major push in the run-up to March 15, a day of critical primaries when delegates are awarded on a winner-take-all basis.
The biggest focus is on Florida. Club for Growth, an anti-tax group that has been hammering Trump on the airwaves, has purchased $1.5 million in TV advertising in the state. Another conservative outfit that has been targeting the New York billionaire, American Future Fund, has reserved $1.75 million of commercial time. A third anti-Trump group, Our Principles PAC, is considering advertising there too.
Together, the three groups have formed an informal alliance and are communicating with one another – and urgently seeking additional sources of funding.
On Tuesday evening, Our Principles PAC held a conference call with a number of the Republican Party’s biggest contributors - including Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, Chicago Cubs co-owner Todd Ricketts, and New York hedge fund manager Paul Singer – and made an appeal for cash.
But even as the anti-Trump groups begin to coordinate, some Republicans are throwing their hands in the air, convinced that a TV advertising campaign won’t succeed; Trump is already carrying a double-digit lead over Rubio in Florida, where thousands of voters will have cast absentee ballots before election day.
“The ‘Stop Trump’ campaign is now officially a fantasy, about as real as ‘the campaign to stop yesterday,’” said Alex Castellanos, a veteran Republican strategist who tried unsuccessfully to launch an anti-Trump group.
And if the money spent against Trump doesn’t move the numbers – and it hasn’t so far – then it will fall to the three candidates still standing to damage the real estate developer on the stump and in the final debates. Rubio, who has won only one state so far, might be under the most pressure at Thursday night’s forum; Ted Cruz is carrying more delegates into the debate and most Republicans don’t see John Kasich with a viable path anyway.
Rubio’s advisers said they expect him to attack Trump aggressively. One source close to the senator said the goal would be to “unmask” the front-runner, and suggested there may be attacks on Trump’s oversight of Trump University, an online school that Rubio has called a scam.
Kasich has embraced a non-combative approach onstage but is now under pressure to adjust. After getting shut-out in the first nominating contests, the Ohio governor is urgently trying to fend off Trump in his home state, which with Florida votes on March 15.
Kasich has tapped Matt Borges, his hand-picked state party chairman, to help oversee his efforts in Ohio and awards its delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Kasich’s team is pulling out all the stops to ensure that he wins his home state, going so far as to reach out to labor groups whom the moderate governor has worked with. (In Ohio, Democrats are allowed to vote in the Republican presidential primary.)
At the same time, a pro Kasich super PAC, New Day for America, is reserving more than $1 in TV ad time in Ohio..
The stakes are particularly high at the debate because it precedes a series of primaries, such as Michigan’s on March 8, where Trump wins will add to his growing sense of inevitability.
“I think they are going to be super aggressive,” said Brett O’Donnell, a veteran Republican debate coach who advised Mitt Romney in 2012. “There’s nothing to indicate the discourse is going to get better.”
But as Trump’s critics seek out last-ditch ways to derail him, some say it’s time to reach a state of acceptance.
“What usually happens when we have a presumptive nominee is the party rallies behind him, but that is a process that is going to have to work itself out,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential bid. “Some Republicans say they will never support him.”
On Wednesday, as Republicans examined Trump’s strength in upcoming states, an unaligned group provided just-completed polling data showing Trump with double the support of his nearest rival, Rubio, in Michigan. The results are particularly disappointing for Kasich, who has made the state a centerpiece of his campaign; he sits in last place according to that data.
Rubio’s aides would not divulge the senator’s campaign schedule, but said he would spend much of the next two weeks campaigning in Florida. Hoping to solidify his standing there, Rubio has also been seeking out the endorsement from his former rival, ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. In recent days, the two have been in contact by phone, aides to the two men said.
“If Mr. Rubio cannot win Florida it's hard to see a path for him moving forward after that,” said Al Cardenas, a former Florida Republican Party chairman, who advised the senator to spend the next two weeks campaigning in his home state and nowhere else. “It's either Florida or out.”
Joe Scarborough plays with his band tonight at Prohibition in NYC at 503 Columbus Ave in New York, NY.
Regardless of it all happening during this ridiculous week, please stay in touch!
Adam Goldman is on the show to discuss his article in the WAPO entitled, Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server.
As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.
The inquiry comes against a political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
So far, there is no indication that prosecutors have convened a grand jury in the email investigation to subpoena testimony or documents, which would require the participation of a U.S. attorney’s office.
Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano’s attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said: “As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Department of Justice’s security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed.”
He also said the campaign is “pleased” that Pagliano, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before a congressional panel in September, is now cooperating with prosecutors. The campaign had encouraged Pagliano to testify before Congress.
As part of the inquiry, law enforcement officials will look at the potential damage had the classified information in the emails been exposed. The Clinton campaign has described the probe as a security review. But current and former officials in the FBI and at the Justice Department have said investigators are trying to determine whether a crime was committed.
“There was wrongdoing,” said a former senior law enforcement official. “But was it criminal wrongdoing?”
[Hillary Clinton gains a new unlikely ally in email controversy: Colin Powell]
Clinton has since apologized for what happened: “Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.”
Any decision to charge someone would involve Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who told Congress when asked last month about the email inquiry: “That matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents, as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they’ll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate.”
She added, “We will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as how to best handle it.”
Current and former officials said the conviction of retired four-star general and CIA director David H. Petraeus for mishandling classified information is casting a shadow over the email investigation.
The officials said they think that Petraeus’s actions were more egregious than those of Clinton and her aides because he lied to the FBI, and classified information he shared with his biographer contained top secret code words, identities of covert officers, war strategy and intelligence capabilities. Prosecutors initially threatened to charge him with three felonies, including conspiracy, violating the Espionage Act and lying to the FBI. But after negotiations, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
He was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years of probation. FBI officials were angered by the deal and predicted it would affect the outcome of other cases involving classified information.
Petraeus “was handled so lightly for his offense there isn’t a whole lot you can do,” said a former U.S. law enforcement official who oversaw counterintelligence investigations and described the email controversy as “a lesser set of circumstances.”
The State Department has been analyzing the contents of Clinton’s correspondence, as it has prepared 52,000 pages of Clinton’s emails for public release in batches, a process that began in May and concluded Monday. The State Department has said 2,093 of Clinton’s released emails were redacted in all or part because they contained classified material, the vast majority of them rated “confidential,” the lowest level of sensitivity in the classification system.
Clinton and the State Department have said that none of the material was marked classified at the time it was sent. However, it is the responsibility of individual government officials to properly handle sensitive material.
The email investigation is being conducted by FBI counterintelligence agents and supervised by the Justice Department’s National Security Division.
In a letter filed last month in federal court as part of ongoing civil litigation over Clinton’s emails, the FBI confirmed that it was “working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.” The agency declined to publicly detail the investigation’s “specific focus, scope or potential targets.”
On Tuesday, FBI Director James B. Comey said he was “very close” to the investigation.
Former federal prosecutor Glen Kopp said it is not surprising that agents want to interview Clinton and her aides.
“They are within the zone of interest of the investigation,” he said.
A request to interview her would have to be reviewed by top level officials at both the FBI and the Justice Department, a former official said.
As part of those interviews, the FBI would also seek to establish that Clinton and her aides understood the policies and protocols for handling classified information, former officials said.
Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, declined to comment.
Kendall, who also has represented President Bill Clinton and Petraeus, has navigated similar issues in other cases. During the investigation of President Clinton by independent counsel Ken Starr, for instance, Kendall rebuffed several requests for interviews.
The president was then subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. In a deal brokered by Kendall, the subpoena was withdrawn and Clinton testified voluntarily in 1998.
Former prosecutors said investigators were probably feeling the pressure of time because of the election. Take action before the election, they said, and you risk being perceived as trying to influence the result. Take action after and face criticism for not letting voters know there was an issue with their preferred candidate.
“The timing is terrible whether you do it before or after,” Kopp said.
The issue of Clinton’s use of a private email server was referred to the FBI in July after the Office of the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community determined that some of the emails that traversed Clinton’s server contained classified material.
Emails that contain material now deemed classified were authored by Clinton but also by many of her top aides, including Jacob Sullivan, who was her director of policy planning and her deputy chief of staff. He is now advising Clinton’s campaign on foreign policy and is thought to be a likely candidate for national security adviser if she is elected president.
The State Department has said that, at the request of intelligence agencies, it has classified 22 Clinton emails as “top secret” and will not release those emails, even in redacted form. “Top secret” is the highest level of classification, reserved for material whose release could cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”
I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, has indicated that some of the material intelligence officials have reviewed contained information that was classified at the time it was sent; the State Department has indicated that it has not analyzed whether the material should have been marked classified when it was sent, only whether it requires classification before being released now. Rosalind S. Helderman, Julie Tate and Matt Zapotosky contributed to this report.
Can Mitt Romney stop Donald Trump? The one-time Republican nominee is trying to use whatever influence he has to blunt the Republican frontrunner. Romney will deliver a speech on Thursday in Utah, laying out his views on the "state of the 2016 presidential race," according to aides.
Romney is likely to repeat on Thursday what he and his closest allies have already indicated in a number of ways: the ex-Massachusetts governor is deeply concerned with the state of the race because Trump is winning. The former governor has already demanded Trump release his tax returns and suggested the real estate mogul is hiding potentially damaging information in having not already done so. The New York Times reported over the weekend that Romney has considered endorsing Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and has also contacted allies of Ohio Gov. John Kasich, urging him to leave the race so Republicans could consolidate around a single alternative to Kasich, likely Rubio.
Romney's former deputy campaign manager, Katie Packer Gage, is leading an independent group running ads against Trump.
Romney's top strategist in 2012, Stuart Stevens, has said he will not vote for Trump if the real estate mogul is the GOP nominee. And one of Romney's closest friends in politics, House Speaker Paul Ryan, this week blasted Trump for not condemning the KKK and David Duke.
What's unclear is what influence Romney truly has at this stage of the process. Trump has already won 11 of 15 states and accumulated a large delegate lead. The kind of voters who back Trump, particularly those without college degrees, are unlikely to be swayed by the Harvard-educated, elite Romney. It's not clear anti-Trump Republicans can get behind a single candidate with Rubio, Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz all in the race and with legitimate claims to remain and try to build their support.
Romney, according to sources, is unlikely to endorse a candidate on Thursday.
But having a major Republican figure demand the party organize against Trump could still be important.
The March 15 primaries are a key point in the campaign, a day on which Trump could win the Florida and Ohio primaries and get a huge lead in the delegates. Could Romney spur Jeb Bush to recover from his bruised feelings about Rubio finishing ahead of him in most primaries and endorse Rubio, his former protégé, before the March 15 race in the Sunshine State?
Can Romney help coordinate a sustained, multi-million dollar ad campaign to stop Trump? Does Romney have some new argument about the real estate mogul that can cause his poll numbers to dip?
Donald Trump Releases Attack Video Against Mitt Romney. Donald Trump is going after Mitt Romney once again after the former Republican presidential nominee announced plans to speak on the “state of the 2016 presidential race” Thursday in Utah. Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney plans to deliver a rebuke of 2016 party front-runner Donald Trump on Thursday in a high-profile display of establishment Republican unease with the incendiary New York billionaire.
The 9 p.m. EST (0200 GMT Friday) debate, hosted by Fox News, will be the candidates' first face-to-face gathering since Super Tuesday nominating contests this week that gave extra momentum to Trump but did not knock out his rivals.
Mainstream figures in the party are seeking a strategy to halt the real estate mogul's march to the nomination for the Nov. 8 election to succeed Democratic President Barack Obama.
Some party leaders and donors are critical of Trump's positions on trade and immigration, including his calls to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, deport 11 million illegal immigrants and temporarily bar Muslims from entering the country.
At the debate, Trump, 69, will be questioned for the first time since last year by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, who angered him with her questioning at the Republicans' first debate on Aug. 6, prompting him to cancel participation in a debate in Iowa in January, a move that appeared to cost him some votes.
Romney, 68, has kept a low profile since losing to Obama in 2012. He flirted with a 2016 campaign but ultimately decided the country needed fresh leaders.
Sources familiar with his thinking said Romney, in private conservations with friends and allies, had become increasingly disturbed at the prospect of Trump becoming the party's nominee.
They said he would specifically cite Trump's refusal to release his tax returns and his initial reluctance to disavow an endorsement from a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan white supremacist group.
Romney has been leaning toward endorsing Rubio, said two sources close to the former Massachusetts governor. Sources said he was not expected to endorse anyone in his speech.
One senior Republican source familiar with his thinking said Romney had debated privately whether his endorsement would help, since pro-Romney voters had already gotten behind Rubio, 44, a U.S. senator from Florida.
In his speech at 10:30 a.m. MST (1730 GMT) in Salt Lake City, Romney is expected to single out for praise both Rubio, and Cruz, 45, a U.S. senator from Texas, and possibly Kasich, 63, the Ohio governor.
Trump has consistently targeted Romney for criticism throughout his run, saying he should have defeated Obama in 2012 but that Romney made mistakes that killed his chances.
SPARKS COULD FLY
The Detroit debate will be one more opportunity for Rubio and Cruz to try to slow Trump's momentum. They are the last two anti-Trump candidates standing in what has been a bruising nomination battle. Kasich has largely steered clear of the anti-Trump effort and tried to remain above the fray.
Rubio went on the attack against Trump at the last debate on Feb. 25 and has attempted to establish himself as the main Trump alternative by labeling him as a "con artist" who has escaped serious vetting by a news media fixated on his star power and brash rhetoric.
Veteran Republican foreign policy strategist Richard Grenell said the debate at Detroit's Fox Theater could be a lively one.
"Since Trump is clearly on a roll, he needs to pivot and start uniting the Republican Party and alleviate the concerns that he can't act presidential," Grenell said. "Rubio and Cruz are going to need to take each other out in order to whittle down the field."
Trump's campaign on Monday reached out to House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, the country's top elected Republican, after days of criticism of Trump from Ryan. At a news conference on Tuesday, Trump said Ryan could either get along with him or "pay a price."
"We have heard from the campaign, but the two have not yet spoken," said Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck. "We expect the speaker to be in touch with all the remaining candidates soon to discuss our efforts to build a bold conservative policy agenda for 2017."
Meet the Republicans Speaking Out Against Trump. Donald Trump's march to the Republican nomination has forced a crisis in the party, as a growing list of GOP elected officials and top strategists are stepping forward to declare their opposition to Trump's candidacy. Some are even threatening to vote for his Democratic rival instead come November. On Twitter, #NeverTrump has become a way for party stalwarts to voice their dissatisfaction.
Opposition to the billionaire front-runner had been boiling under the surface for weeks before bursting open in recent days after Trump initially refused to denounce former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke in an interview with CNN.
"If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a press conference Tuesday. While Ryan has stopped short of saying he would refuse to support Trump in the general election, other Republicans have shown no such hesitation.
Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has arguably been the loudest voice against Trump. After warning of a potential "bombshell" in Trump's tax records, Romney tweeted "#WhatIsHeHiding" to press Trump to disclose his summaries. Romney took an even more forceful tone after Trump said he had no knowledge about former KKK leader David Duke, who, along with other white supremacists, are publicly supporting Trump's campaign. Romney called Trump's response "disqualifying" and said that "his coddling of repugnant bigotry is not in the character of America."
Romney is expected to further criticize Trump in a speech Thursday on the state of the 2016 race.
So far, more than 30 Republican lawmakers, strategists and commentators — who have had some strongly worded statements against Trump — have joined the resistance. MSNBC will continue to update the list.
1. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
Sasse was the first Republican in Congress to announce he will never vote for Trump. On Facebook Sunday, he wrote, "My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option."
2. Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.)
Rigell, who plans retire at the end of his current term representing Virginia, sent a letter to his supporters Monday night urging them to vote for any candidate besides Trump.
"My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgement, temperament and character needed to be our nation's commander in chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee," Rigell wrote.
3. Former Gov. Christie Todd Whitman (R-NJ)"
"While I certainly don't want four more years of another Clinton administration or more years of the Obama administration, I would take that over the kind of damage I think Donald Trump could do to this country, to its reputation, to the people of this country," Whitman said Monday on Bloomberg's "With All Due Respect."
When asked if Whitman would explicitly support Clinton over Trump, she said that it's likely. "I will probably vote for her," Whitman said. "I don't want to. I can do a write-in. But I think that's where I'd go if those are my choices."
4. Tim Miller, former spokesman for Jeb Bush, part of anti-Trump super PAC
After Chris Christie, who ended his 2016 presidential campaign following disappointing results in New Hampshire, announced his support for Trump on Friday, Miller took to Twitter trashing the pair.
Like Trump, Chris Christie is a pathetic, corrupt man with a tiny ego. I'm sure they bonded discussing their insecurities over a big meal.
Miller also posted to Facebook on Super Tuesday, begging his followers to "please for the love of God go vote in the Republican primary against Trump," and pledged to stop Trump while speaking to MSNBC's Chris Jansing Wednesday. "He's not looking out for the little guy, he's selling them out for his own benefit," Miller said. "He's not a conservative. This is a person who's flip-flopped on every major issue, and there is still time to stop him… I would never vote for Donald Trump." 5. Mark Salter, former aide and speechwriter for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) In a January Esquire piece titled "We Deserve Better Than Donald Trump," Salter wrote about his distaste for the front-runner. "Are we in such dire straits that we must dispense with civility, kindness, tolerance and normal decency to put a mean-spirited, lying jerk in the White House?" Salter wrote. "Of course, were Trump to succumb to a rare bout of honesty, he would confess he thinks we're all just suckers. I hope we're both proved wrong. I really do. Because right now that a**hole is making us all look bad." Salter reiterated his stance in a Facebook post Sunday: "I will vote for Marco Rubio in the VA primary Tuesday, and, of course, I will proudly and with enormous relief vote for him again if he's our nominee. I will vote for Hillary Clinton without hesitation if the Fascist quoting, friend of the Klan, Donald Trump is the GOP nominee." 6. Meg Whitman, Hewlett-Packard CEO and former national finance co-chair of Chris Christie's campaign Two days after Christie surprised the Republican establishment by endorsing Trump during a press conference in Texas, Whitman strongly condemned both the man she formerly supported and Trump in a statement. "Donald Trump is unfit to be president," she wrote. "The governor is mistaken if he believes he can now count on my support, and I call on Christie's donors and supporters to reject the governor and Donald Trump outright. I believe they will. For some of us, principle and country still matter." 7. Glenn Beck, conservative commentator On Sunday, Beck tweeted a photo next to Republican candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx) while simultaneously denouncing Trump..
Miller also posted to Facebook on Super Tuesday, begging his followers to "please for the love of God go vote in the Republican primary against Trump," and pledged to stop Trump while speaking to MSNBC's Chris Jansing Wednesday. "He's not looking out for the little guy, he's selling them out for his own benefit," Miller said. "He's not a conservative. This is a person who's flip-flopped on every major issue, and there is still time to stop him… I would never vote for Donald Trump." 5. Mark Salter, former aide and speechwriter for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) In a January Esquire piece titled "We Deserve Better Than Donald Trump," Salter wrote about his distaste for the front-runner. "Are we in such dire straits that we must dispense with civility, kindness, tolerance and normal decency to put a mean-spirited, lying jerk in the White House?" Salter wrote. "Of course, were Trump to succumb to a rare bout of honesty, he would confess he thinks we're all just suckers. I hope we're both proved wrong. I really do. Because right now that a**hole is making us all look bad." Salter reiterated his stance in a Facebook post Sunday: "I will vote for Marco Rubio in the VA primary Tuesday, and, of course, I will proudly and with enormous relief vote for him again if he's our nominee. I will vote for Hillary Clinton without hesitation if the Fascist quoting, friend of the Klan, Donald Trump is the GOP nominee." 6. Meg Whitman, Hewlett-Packard CEO and former national finance co-chair of Chris Christie's campaign Two days after Christie surprised the Republican establishment by endorsing Trump during a press conference in Texas, Whitman strongly condemned both the man she formerly supported and Trump in a statement. "Donald Trump is unfit to be president," she wrote. "The governor is mistaken if he believes he can now count on my support, and I call on Christie's donors and supporters to reject the governor and Donald Trump outright. I believe they will. For some of us, principle and country still matter." 7. Glenn Beck, conservative commentator On Sunday, Beck tweeted a photo next to Republican candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx) while simultaneously denouncing Trump..
Praying for this great country. Praying for a true constitutionalist! God bless 
#NeverTrump #CruzCrew @tedcruz
#NeverTrump #CruzCrew @tedcruz 
8. Peter Wehner, GOP strategist
"Beginning with Ronald Reagan, I have voted Republican in every presidential election since I first became eligible to vote in 1980. I worked in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and in the White House for George W. Bush as a speechwriter and adviser," Wehner wrote January 14 in an op-ed for The New York Times. "Despite this history, and in important ways because of it, I will not vote for Donald Trump if he wins the Republican nomination."
9. Liz Mair, GOP strategist
"I have repeatedly stated that if he is the GOP nominee, I will either vote third party or do a write-in, potentially of myself," Mair wrote in a statement about Trump to The New Yorker published Friday. "At least if I do the latter thing, I know I'm voting for someone I 100 percent agree with for once."
10. Eliot Cohen, counselor of the Department of State during President George W. Bush's administration
Bryan, I will oppose Trump as nominee. Won't support & won't work for him for more reasons than a Tweet can bear
Cohen clarified that he would vote for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton over Trump if those were his only options. He also organized a response via open letter that was signed by 60 members of the Republican national security community "united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency."
Cohen clarified that he would vote for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton over Trump if those were his only options. He also organized a response via open letter that was signed by 60 members of the Republican national security community "united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency."
Open letter from Republican foreign & national security policy leaders on Trump, organized by me and Bryan McGrath. http://bit.ly/218OSNW
"Mr. Trump's own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world," the letter reads. "Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States."
11. Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard
"Couldn't vote for Trump, couldn't vote for Hillary," Kristol told The Daily Caller in an email published December 1. Kristol later told The New Yorker on Friday that he would like to see another conservative candidate run against Trump if he becomes the nominee. "I've been Sherman-esque—and more!," he wrote to The New Yorker in an email, "since I've said I would try to recruit a real conservative to run as a fourth (Bloomberg being the third) party candidate."
12. Erick Erickson, conservative commentator, former editor of RedState, founder of The Resurgent
Erickson first criticized Trump last August after the businessman remarked that Fox News' Megyn Kelly"had blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever" when she questioned him during a debate about his treatment of women. Erickson, saying he was drawing a distinction between Trump's war on "political correctness" and "common decency," has not changed his opinion —if anything, it has hardened.
"I have become convinced that Donald Trump's pro-life conversion is a conversion of convenience. Life is the foremost cause in how I vote. Therefore I will not be voting for Donald Trump at all. Ever," Erickson wrote in a post on The Resurgent last month. "Frankly, if Trump is able to get the nomination, the Republican Party will cease to be the party in which I served as an elected official."
13. Steve Deace, conservative commentator and radio talk show host
"On national television Sunday morning, the current front-runner for the Republican Party's presidential nomination refused to disavow being publicly supported by racists not once, not twice, but three times,"Deace wrote Monday in a post for the Conservative Review. "Just another in a multitude of reasons why I will #NeverTrump - even if he is the Republican nominee."
14. Susana Martinez, New Mexico governor
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez won't commit to voting for Donald Trump if he is the Republican presidential nominee. But the chair of the Republican Governors Association and the nation's only Latina governor said Tuesday she's "definitely not" voting for Democratic hopefuls Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
15. Rick Wilson, Republican operative
Put bluntly in his own words: "I will never vote for Donald Trump, not even if he's the Republican nominee. I will never vote for Donald Trump, not even if Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley rise from the grave and beg me to support him. I will never vote for Donald Trump, not even if it means he forms a third party and runs as the narcissist sociopath he truly is."
16. Stuart Stevens, top strategist, Romney 2012
He wondered about a "support group" for "those not threatened by thuggish trust funder" Donald Trump. "Getting to be a small group," he tweeted.
17. Kevin Madden, former Mitt Romney communications director
Madden, like some of his peers, said he could never vote for Trump. If Trump is the nominee, he said, "I'm prepared to write somebody in so that I have a clear conscience."
18. Ken Cuccinelli, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund
The 2013 Senate candidate said Trump's embrace of rhetoric by fascist dictator Benito Mussolini led him to oppose Trump. When NBC's Chuck Todd asked Trump why he had re-tweeted the quote, Trumpresponded, "What difference does it make whether it's Mussolini or somebody else?"
Cuccinelli expressed his distaste for the re-tweets to the Wall Street Journal. "When you've got a guy favorably quoting Mussolini, I don't care what party you're in, I'm not voting for that guy," Cuccinelli said. "Donald Trump, it's like he's trying to make it difficult for anyone… to support him."
19. Karl Rove, Republican operative
Rove, a longtime skeptic of Trump, has downplayed his dominance in the polls and likened him to GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin in a July 2015 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. "Mr. Trump could become the 2016 version of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, who tarnished the GOP brand in 2012 with an offensive statement about rape," Rove wrote. "Republican leaders from Mitt Romney on down immediately condemned his words, but swing voters were persuaded that every Republican believed what Mr. Akin said."
Rove has continued to opine about the best ways to beat Trump in the Wall Street Journal.
20. David McIntosh, president of Club for Growth
The president of the conservative political advocacy group attacked Trump as "the worst kind of politician"and questioned his Republican credentials. "He's playing them for chumps," McIntosh said. "They'll believe anything he says, when in fact the record shows he's done just the opposite. He believes just the opposite."
McIntosh's Club for Growth has ramped up its anti-Trump advertising with million dollar buys in key states like Florida.
21. John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary
On Bloomberg's "With All Due Respect," Podhoretz said it was not possible for Trump to be a good or great president, and citing Trump's defense of Vladimir Putin and trade policies, Podhoretz added that "a man of his extraordinarily flawed character, and lack of principle and scruple… would be nothing less than a disaster" as commander-in-chief.
22. Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution
The libertarian economist referred to Trump as a "glib egomaniac" in a National Review issue that made the ideological case against Trump's nomination. Citing the stakes of the election, Sowell maintained that a "shoot-from-the-hip, belligerent show-off is the last thing we need or can afford."
23. L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center
The conservative activist said of Trump on Fox News, "God helps this country if this man were president." He also labeled the businessman a "shameless self-promoter" and "huckster" before saying that conservative icon William F. Buckley would "never support his candidacy."
24. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.)
The Florida congressman said he would back a write-in or third-party candidate rather than Trump. "This man does things and says things that I teach my six- and three-year-olds not to say," Curbelo said in an interview. "I could never look them in the eye and tell them that I support someone so crass and insulting and offensive to lead the greatest nation in the world."
25. Former Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.)
Martinez did not hold back when criticizing the GOP front-runner. "I would not vote for Trump, clearly" he said, according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal. "If there is any, any, any other choice, a living, breathing person with a pulse, I would be there."
26. Ken Mehlman, former Republican National Committee chairman
Mehlman, who ran Pres. George W. Bush's re-election campaign, tweeted his scorn for Trump on Monday. "Leaders don't need to do research to reject Klan support #NeverTrump," he posted, linking to a New York Times article in which Pres. Ronald Reagan spurned the KKK.
27. Former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.)
The former Oklahoma congressman predicted "a tremendous setback for the party" if Trump wins. Watts also had harsh words for some of Trump's rivals. "All these guys who are beating him up now, if he asks them to be his running mate, they'll jump in in a New York minute," Watts said, according to the Wall Street Journal.
28. Gov. Charlie Baker (R-Mass.)
The GOP governor of Massachusetts toldBoston Globe reporters Wednesday that he did not vote for Trump on Super Tuesday and "I'm not going to vote for him in November." When journalists asked if Baker hoped that a worthy third-party candidate would rise to face Trump, Baker responded, "I'm not willing to concede that the Republican nomination is over and, frankly, you know, you guys shouldn't either."
Listen to Baker explain his views on Trump here.
29. Sarah Isgur Flores, former deputy campaign manager at Carly for President
The former RNC deputy communications director floated the idea of a convention showdown to MSNBC's Chris Jansing. "I will certainly hope for a contested convention, and if not I hope that someone will offer an alternative," she said.
30. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), former 2016 presidential candidate
Graham continually voiced his opposition to Trump throughout his since-suspended presidential bid, and then offered his support to Jeb Bush before he dropped out. The senator has grim predictions for Trump's rise, insisting that the GOP is "gonna lose to Hillary Clinton" if he prevails in the primary. At the Congressional Dinner on February 26, Graham took his assessment of Trump's success even further: "My party has gone bats**t crazy."
OPEN LETTER ON DONALD TRUMP FROM GOP NATIONAL SECURITY LEADERS
His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.
He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.
David Adesnik
Michael Auslin
Robert D. Blackwill
Daniel A. Blumenthal
Max Boot
Michael Chertoff
Patrick Chovanec
Eliot A. Cohen
Carrie Cordero
Patrick M. Cronin
Seth Cropsey
Tom Donnelly
Daniel Drezner
Colin Dueck
Eric Edelman
Richard A. Falkenrath
Peter D. Feaver
Aaron Friedberg
Jeffrey Gedmin
Christopher J. Griffin
Mary R. Habeck
Rebeccah Heinrichs
William C. Inboden
Jamil N. Jaffer
Robert G. Joseph
Robert Kagan
David Kramer
Matthew Kroenig
Frank Lavin
Philip I. Levy
Mary Beth Long
Matthew McCabe
Bryan McGrath
Paul D. Miller
Lester Munson
Andrew S. Natsios
Michael Noonan
John Noonan
Roger F. Noriega
Robert T. Osterhaler
Everett Pyatt
Martha T. Rainville
Stephen Rodriguez
Daniel F. Runde
Richard L. Russell
Kori Schake
Randy Scheunemann
Gary J. Schmitt
Kalev I. Sepp
David R. Shedd
Kristen Silverberg
Michael Singh
Ray Takeyh
William H. Tobey
Frances F. Townsend
Jan Van Tol
Dov S. Zakheim
Roger Zakheim
Philip Zelikow
Robert B. Zoellick
Matthew McCabe
Bryan McGrath
Paul D. Miller
Lester Munson
Andrew S. Natsios
Michael Noonan
John Noonan
Roger F. Noriega
Robert T. Osterhaler
Everett Pyatt
Martha T. Rainville
Stephen Rodriguez
Daniel F. Runde
Richard L. Russell
Kori Schake
Randy Scheunemann
Gary J. Schmitt
Kalev I. Sepp
David R. Shedd
Kristen Silverberg
Michael Singh
Ray Takeyh
William H. Tobey
Frances F. Townsend
Jan Van Tol
Dov S. Zakheim
Roger Zakheim
Philip Zelikow
Robert B. Zoellick
The statement above was coordinated by Dr. Eliot A. Cohen, former Counselor of the Department of State (2007–8) and Bryan McGrath, Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group, a defense consultancy. They encourage other members of the Republican foreign policy and national security communities wishing to sign the declaration to contact them.
In world news today and in other news today, Europe Stocks Lower, Asia Higher After Mixed US Data.
European stock markets started weaker following gains on Asian markets on Thursday as investors awaited jobs data from the U.S. and the start of China's annual legislative session, where leaders of the world's second-largest economy will likely downgrade their growth forecast.
KEEPING SCORE: Britain's FTSE 100 was up 0.1 percent to 6,150.98 and Germany's DAX fell 0.1 percent to 9,764.71. France's CAC 40 declined 0.3 percent to 4,411.52. Futures augured a tepid start for Wall Street. Dow futures and S&P futures both stayed nearly unchanged.
ANALYST'S TAKE: "While this rally will inevitably have a pullback at some point, the forthcoming U.S. non-farms payroll, China's National Party Congress, ECB and BOJ meetings could all help support this rally in the near term," Angus Nicholson of IG said in a commentary. "Of course, the markets currently look like they are pricing good news in from all of them, so an upset from any one could throw the rally off."
CHINA: Chinese leaders were expected to lower their growth target during the upcoming gathering of the National People's Congress this week as China seeks more flexibility for structural reforms for the slowing, state-dominated economy. The growth target due to be announced on Saturday is expected to be a range of 6.5 to 7 percent, down from 2015's goal of about 7 percent.
ASIA'S DAY: Asian markets closed mostly higher after solid U.S. jobs survey. Japan's Nikkei 225 rose 1.3 percent to 16,960.16 and South Korea's Kospi gained 0.6 percent to 1,958.17. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index underperformed other benchmarks in the region, falling 0.3 percent to 19,941.76, while the Shanghai Composite Index added 0.4 percent to 2,859.76. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 gained 1.2 percent to 5,081.10 and stocks in Taiwan and Southeast Asia also were higher.
OIL: Benchmark U.S. crude lost 9 cents at $34.57 per barrel in New York. The contract rose 26 cents to close at $34.66 a barrel on Wednesday. Brent crude fell 20 cents at $36.73 a barrel in London.
CURRENCIES: The euro weakened to $1.0868 from $1.0870 and the dollar rose to 113.96 yen from 113.61 yen.
North Korea fires 6 'short-range projectiles,' South Korea says. North Korea on Thursday fired six "short-range projectiles" that flew 100 to 150 kilometers (about 62 to 93 miles) off the Korean Peninsula, according to a press release from the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The objects traveled off the peninsula's east coast and the South Korean military is analyzing the situation, an official from the South Korean Defense Ministry said.
The news came one day after the United Nations Security Council voted to impose a broad array of sanctions against North Korea because of that nation's recent nuclear test and missile launch -- both of which defied current international sanctions.
The U.N. resolution that brought about the sanctions aims to cripple the economic factors that fuel North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
According to Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the sanctions will:
-- Require that all North Korean planes and ships carrying cargo be inspected. Previously, nations only inspected planes and ships when they had "reasonable grounds."
-- Ban Pyongyang from exporting most of the country's natural resources.
-- Prohibit nations from providing training to North Korean nationals in fields that could advance the nation's missile and nuclear programs.
-- Ban member states from allowing North Korea to charter foreign vessels or aircraft and ban all nations from operating any vessels that use North Korean flags.
-- Prohibit the supply of aviation fuel, including rocket fuel, and the sale of small arms to North Korea.
Discussions about new sanctions started after North Korea claimed to have successfully tested a hydrogen bomb in January -- its fourth nuclear test.
Then, in February, Pyongyang said it had successfully launched an Earth satellite into orbit via the long-range Kwangmyongsong carrier rocket.
The nuclear test and missile launch outraged the Security Council and worried neighboring nations.
South Korean President Park Geun-hye released a statement Thursday about the new sanctions, thanking the international community for its efforts.
"I sincerely hope that the North will abandon its nuclear development program and embark on a path of change, and I will make further efforts for peace and unification of the Korean Peninsula," the President said.
Japan's chief cabinet secretary said Thursday his government does not believe there is a threat to Japanese security in relation to the incident.
And China called for calm.
"The current situation on the Korean peninsula is complicated and sensitive," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Thursday. "We hope the relevant parties can keep cool heads and not take any actions that will escalate tensions." CNN's Richard Roth, Serena Dong, Holly Yan and Ralph Ellis contributed to this report.
Supreme Court closely divided on abortion case. The Supreme Court appeared deeply divided Wednesday over the most far-reaching abortion rights case it has considered in a generation, with the fate of abortion restrictions in many states on the line.
The court's four liberal justices left little doubt they would vote to strike down a Texas law imposing tight regulations on abortion clinics and doctors, so the eight-member court — depleted by the death last month of Justice Antonin Scalia — almost certainly cannot issue a decision establishing a national precedent that would set tougher standards for abortion clinics coast to coast.
But it seemed possible that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who likely holds the deciding vote, would seek to have the case returned to Texas for additional fact-finding, delaying any decision until next year at the earliest. That could include whether the law's restrictions were responsible for shuttering up to 20 clinics and whether the few that remain open can handle the statewide demand for abortions.
If the case is not sent back but is decided on its merits, it seemed more likely that Kennedy would join the liberals in ruling that the law places an undue burden on abortion access without serving a legitimate medical purpose. Such a sweeping decision, which likely would be issued in late June, could impact states with similar laws.
The Texas case is the most significant to reach the high court since 1992, and it brought forth a huge demonstration by abortion rights proponents outside the court. More than 1,000 people, mostly women, urged the justices to strike town the Texas restrictions and, by extension, those in other states.
Inside the hushed courtroom, where Chief Justice John Roberts allowed the usual hour-long oral argument to stretch for 85 minutes, White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett was among those listening intently as U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli labeled the law "the definition of an undue burden." That was a reference to the court's standard for the type of restrictions that should not be allowed in its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Kennedy acknowledged the state would face a "capacity problem" if only 10 clinics survive, as the law's challengers claim would happen if a federal appeals court decision since blocked by the Supreme Court is allowed to go into effect. He also noted that the law has led to an increase in surgical abortions and a decrease in those induced by medication, the opposite of national trends. "This may not be medically wise," he said.
Early on, the court's conservatives expressed skepticism that the law had caused so many Texas clinics to close. Adopted by the state Legislature in 2013, it set tougher operating standards for clinics and required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Since its passage, more than 40 abortion facilities in the state have dwindled to 18, with more closures threatened.
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito told Stephanie Toti, the lawyer representing the abortion clinics, that scant evidence was offered to show the law triggered the closings. They also said the challengers failed to prove that the remaining clinics could not handle roughly 70,000 abortions a year — though Roberts admitted evidence of insufficient capacity was a "statistically significant showing."
When Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller stood to make the state's case, the liberal justices pounced. They argued that Texas legislators singled out abortion for tough medical standards not required for riskier procedures, such as colonoscopies and liposuction. They said the two restrictions serve no purpose and have not made abortions safer. And they said more clinic closures would leave the state unable to handle 5.4 million women of reproductive age.
"This is among the most safe, the least-risk procedures, an early-stage abortion," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who arrived at the court the year after Casey said states could impose restrictions that do not represent an undue burden on women seeking abortions. "So what was the problem that the Legislature was responding to?"
"Increasing the standard of care is valid," Keller said later, to which Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded: "It's valid only if it's taking care of a real problem."
Without Scalia, the state probably can do no better than a 4-4 vote upholding last year's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. That would apply to Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, but no further.
If Kennedy and the court's liberal justices strike down any part of the law, on the other hand, the 5-3 decision could implicate similar abortion restrictions imposed by conservative legislatures in other states. Such a ruling could be the biggest victory for supporters of abortion rights since two prior landmark decisions: Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973, and Casey, which set the current rules for restrictions in 1992.
"This isn't just about Texas," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said on the eve of the Supreme Court showdown, noting some 250 restrictions have been imposed across the country in the past five years. Those restrictions range from 24-hour waiting periods and parental notification laws, mostly upheld by lower courts, to bans on abortion after six or 12 weeks, which courts have blocked.
Abortion rights advocates say the burden is clear from the hundreds of miles women outside Texas' major cities have to drive to reach a clinic and the days, even weeks they have to wait before getting an abortion. But state officials and abortion opponents say the clinics that are not threatened will provide superior treatment and can adequately serve the state. Their argument was supported in part by Alito, who said, "There's no evidence of the actual capacity of these clinics."
Among about 80 briefs submitted to the court are several in which women recounted their own abortion experiences — successful lawyers and professionals defending the decisions they made early in life as well as others who say they came to regret the procedures.
The last case involving the medical procedure was decided in 2007, when the justices upheld a federal law banning late-term — so-called "partial birth" — abortions. Kennedy wrote the 5-4 opinion, famously asserting that "some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained."
The Texas case focuses on the day-to-day hardships endured by women — many of them poor or Hispanic — who face difficulties obtaining abortions because of widespread clinic closures.
If the law is allowed to stand, the 10 remaining clinics will be centered in four metropolitan areas — Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio. One additional clinic near the Mexican border in McAllen will be allowed to stay open, but with new restrictions that could leave only one 75-year-old retired doctor -- Sotomayor called him an "endentured slave" -- able to perform abortions.
The only clinics in El Paso would close, which could send more women across the border into New Mexico. That angered Ginsburg, who noted New Mexico lacks the restrictions for clinics and doctors that Texas says are necessary to protect women's health.
Keller's response was simple: "Texas obviously can't tell New Mexico how to regulate."
Marriott Ownership Rep Accused Of Playing Erin Andrews Peephole Video For Friends. A representative for the ownership group of the Marriott Nashville at Vanderbilt admitted that the Erin Andrews peephole video at the center of her lawsuit was played at his dinner table Tuesday night, but denied being the one who played it.
WSMV reported, citing a restaurant employee, that BetaWest senior vice president Neal Peskind, who’s representing West End Hotel Partners in the ongoing civil trial between Andrews and the Nashville hotel, played the video on his phone while at a Nashville restaurant with his two friends.
When asked about it today, Peskind said that the claim of him showing the video was “incorrect”:
Neal Peskind denies showing #ErinAndrews video to couple at restaurant last night
I was at a private dinner meeting with friends. They brought up the allegations and they started viewing the video. I asked them to stop, and while they did so, it was not as quickly as I had hoped. This incident has been blown into something it was not. I would never disrespect Ms. Andrews and what she has been through. This is a very unfortunate situation that should not be a reflection on West End Hotel Partners or to our commitment to the issues in this case surrounding what happened to her. I sincerely apologize for my participation in what happened.
On Monday, Peskind testified that his ownership group should not be liable for the Marriott giving out Andrews’s room number and putting her stalker in an adjacent room because the hotel employees were hired by an independent contractor.
Ben Carson doesn't see 'a political path forward'. He will not participate in tonight's GOP debate in Michigan.
Republicans gather for their eleventh debate on Thursday amid growing consternation from those in the GOP establishment that Donald Trump is unstoppable.
In the hours since Trump’s Super Tuesday romp, Republicans have intensified their push to defeat him, with GOP groups digging into their bank accounts for an air assault in Florida. Top operatives are laying groundwork for primaries on March 15, perhaps the last chance to defeat the billionaire mogul. And Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, under growing duress, are getting ready to deliver harsh attacks on the front-runner in Thursday’s primetime debate in Detroit.
The flurry of activity underscores what many concede is a central reality: The window for halting Trump may soon be closed for good.
“Trump is the presumptive nominee,” said Christian Ferry, who served as Lindsey Graham’s campaign manager. “I think anyone who cannot see that today needs to start working through the stages of grief.”
Anti-Trump groups are setting the stage for a major push in the run-up to March 15, a day of critical primaries when delegates are awarded on a winner-take-all basis.
The biggest focus is on Florida. Club for Growth, an anti-tax group that has been hammering Trump on the airwaves, has purchased $1.5 million in TV advertising in the state. Another conservative outfit that has been targeting the New York billionaire, American Future Fund, has reserved $1.75 million of commercial time. A third anti-Trump group, Our Principles PAC, is considering advertising there too.
Together, the three groups have formed an informal alliance and are communicating with one another – and urgently seeking additional sources of funding.
On Tuesday evening, Our Principles PAC held a conference call with a number of the Republican Party’s biggest contributors - including Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, Chicago Cubs co-owner Todd Ricketts, and New York hedge fund manager Paul Singer – and made an appeal for cash.
But even as the anti-Trump groups begin to coordinate, some Republicans are throwing their hands in the air, convinced that a TV advertising campaign won’t succeed; Trump is already carrying a double-digit lead over Rubio in Florida, where thousands of voters will have cast absentee ballots before election day.
“The ‘Stop Trump’ campaign is now officially a fantasy, about as real as ‘the campaign to stop yesterday,’” said Alex Castellanos, a veteran Republican strategist who tried unsuccessfully to launch an anti-Trump group.
And if the money spent against Trump doesn’t move the numbers – and it hasn’t so far – then it will fall to the three candidates still standing to damage the real estate developer on the stump and in the final debates. Rubio, who has won only one state so far, might be under the most pressure at Thursday night’s forum; Ted Cruz is carrying more delegates into the debate and most Republicans don’t see John Kasich with a viable path anyway.
Rubio’s advisers said they expect him to attack Trump aggressively. One source close to the senator said the goal would be to “unmask” the front-runner, and suggested there may be attacks on Trump’s oversight of Trump University, an online school that Rubio has called a scam.
Kasich has embraced a non-combative approach onstage but is now under pressure to adjust. After getting shut-out in the first nominating contests, the Ohio governor is urgently trying to fend off Trump in his home state, which with Florida votes on March 15.
Kasich has tapped Matt Borges, his hand-picked state party chairman, to help oversee his efforts in Ohio and awards its delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Kasich’s team is pulling out all the stops to ensure that he wins his home state, going so far as to reach out to labor groups whom the moderate governor has worked with. (In Ohio, Democrats are allowed to vote in the Republican presidential primary.)
At the same time, a pro Kasich super PAC, New Day for America, is reserving more than $1 in TV ad time in Ohio..
The stakes are particularly high at the debate because it precedes a series of primaries, such as Michigan’s on March 8, where Trump wins will add to his growing sense of inevitability.
“I think they are going to be super aggressive,” said Brett O’Donnell, a veteran Republican debate coach who advised Mitt Romney in 2012. “There’s nothing to indicate the discourse is going to get better.”
But as Trump’s critics seek out last-ditch ways to derail him, some say it’s time to reach a state of acceptance.
“What usually happens when we have a presumptive nominee is the party rallies behind him, but that is a process that is going to have to work itself out,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential bid. “Some Republicans say they will never support him.”
On Wednesday, as Republicans examined Trump’s strength in upcoming states, an unaligned group provided just-completed polling data showing Trump with double the support of his nearest rival, Rubio, in Michigan. The results are particularly disappointing for Kasich, who has made the state a centerpiece of his campaign; he sits in last place according to that data.
Rubio’s aides would not divulge the senator’s campaign schedule, but said he would spend much of the next two weeks campaigning in Florida. Hoping to solidify his standing there, Rubio has also been seeking out the endorsement from his former rival, ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. In recent days, the two have been in contact by phone, aides to the two men said.
“If Mr. Rubio cannot win Florida it's hard to see a path for him moving forward after that,” said Al Cardenas, a former Florida Republican Party chairman, who advised the senator to spend the next two weeks campaigning in his home state and nowhere else. “It's either Florida or out.”
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
