| Media Search: |
Ted Cruz thinks Hillary Clinton would beat Jeb Bush
Ted Cruz thinks Hillary Clinton would beat Jeb Bush Sen. Ted Cruz is taking a direct swing at Jeb Bush and in the process exposing the radicalism that the GO...
By: NEWS
View original post here:
Ted Cruz thinks Hillary Clinton would beat Jeb Bush - Video
Editor's note: The following column originally appeared on NewsBusters.com.
One might be able to excuse Democratic spin before the election returns came in. But former Newsweek reporter Andrew Romano offered a real beaut the morning after at Yahoo News, titled How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms."
Many of the candidates that the Clintons backed in this cycle went down to defeat. While Romano isnt denying 2014 was a good year for Republicans, he could not wait to start shaking the pom-poms for how Hillarys path is greased for the White House. This is the article that liberals will want to read after they put their handkerchiefs down:
But heres the thing: In politics, the easy answer isnt always the only answer, and the winner of an election isnt always the one who benefits most. Take a closer look at demography, geography and the road ahead for the parties, and its clear that the long-term winner of the 2014 midterms wasnt the GOP at all. The long-term winner, in fact, wasnt even on the ballot this year.
Her name is Hillary Clinton.
Of course the GOP is celebrating right now, as it should. Any election that ends up putting Republicans into the governors mansions in Illinois and Maryland is worth getting worked up about. But under the surface, almost everything about last nights midterm results and the map, the math and the legislative morass that lies ahead in the run-up to 2016 suggests that the former first lady and secretary of state will have a better next two years than the party currently guzzling champagne.
Which is not to say that Clinton herself will necessarily be an unbeatable candidate. She spent the past two months holding 45 campaign events in 18 hard-fought states, but almost all the big candidates she stumped for lost, from Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky to Bruce Braley in Iowa. Many will say her campaign skills are still rusty and she certainly wont be heading into 2016 with many chits to cash in. But that doesnt change one simple fact: Even a huge GOP victory shows how much catching up the Republican have to do if they want to defeat Hillary in 2016....
In other words, for every Senate seat that Republicans flipped in 2014, theres one or more thats likely to flip back to the Democrats in 2016. The chances that the GOP will still control the upper chamber of Congress after 2016 are slim.
How does this help Clinton? By giving her an added boost on an electoral playing field that already favors a Democratic presidential nominee. In the last six elections, 18 states (plus Washington, D.C.) have voted for the Democratic candidate every single time.
This means that Clinton, assuming shes the nominee, will start out with 242 electoral votes in 2016; shell need only 28 of the remaining 183 tossups to win the election. To defeat her, the Republican candidate will basically have to run the table in the purple states not a game plan with a high probability of success, according to Republican pollsters Glen Bolger and Neil Newhouse. Making matters worse is the fact that Republican senators will already be playing defense in several of these states, attracting additional Democratic attention and resources that will ultimately bolster the candidate at the top of the ticket as well.
Read more:
Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms? That's what Yahoo ...
Hillary Clinton's campaign is quietly beginning to take shape.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Washington (CNN) -- Hillary Clinton has spent the final moments of the midterm campaign season publicly deflecting the flurry of questions about her likely run for president.
But behind the scenes, her campaign machine is quietly whirring to life.
Clinton insiders have begun to approach Washington-based Democratic operatives who may play a role in a potential campaign and are soliciting their recommendations on other possible staffers, according to Democrats familiar with the conversations.
A number Clinton associates are compiling staffing lists, according to multiple Democratic sources. Michael Whouley and Minyon Moore of the Democratic communications and consulting firm Dewey Square Group are one conduit to Clinton's inner circle and among the primary compilers of the campaign universe that will surround Clinton, should she run.
The firm is led by veteran players in Clinton world. Whouley was an adviser to Vice President Al Gore and a Clinton campaign aide while Moore is a longtime Clinton confidante.
Ginny Terzano, head of communications for Dewey Square, said the characterization is "incorrect."
"DSG officials have no role" in a potential Clinton campaign, she said.
Operatives at the firm are reviewing possible Clinton staffers "under the guise of spitballing ideas," as one Democratic source put it.
See the original post here:
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign quietly begins to ...
Is taking the fifth amendment a bad idea?
By: Jeffrey Weiner
Read the original:
Is taking the fifth amendment a bad idea? - Video
Last week, there was a lot of press coverage about a Virginia court ruling on how the Fifth Amendment applies to bypassing a smart phone passcode. The ruling hasnt been available before today, but here it is: Commonwealth v. Baust, via Marcia Hofmann. Its a short opinion, just five pages, so its a quick read. Unfortunately, though, the opinion doesnt address the really important issue raised by compelled decryption: Whether the government can force the defendant to enter in the passcode. Its not the courts fault that the opinion didnt reach that, to be clear. The government never asked for an order compelling the defendant to do that, so the court didnt decide it. Heres a quick rundown of the facts, the law, and my reaction.
The defendant has been charged with assaulting a woman. There is reason to believe that the defendant videotaped the assault and that there is a copy of the video on the defendants passcode-protected smart phone. The state wants the defendant to be ordered either to disclose his passcode so the police can enter in the passcode to unlock the phone themselves, or else to give up his fingerprint to unlock the phone directly using the phones fingerprint sensor.
The court reaches a split ruling. First, there is no Fifth Amendment problem with forcing the defendant to provide his fingerprint. Second, the defendant cannot be forced to tell the government his passcode because that would be forcing the defendant to disclose the contents of his own mind. Most importantly, the court rules that the foregone conclusion doctrine doesnt apply because the police dont know the passcode:
Contrary to the Commonwealths assertion, the password is not a foregone conclusion because it is not known outside of Defendants mind. Unlike a document or tangible thing, such as an unencrypted copy of the footage itself, if the password was a foregone conclusion, the Commonwealth would not need to compel Defendant to produce it because they would already know it.
In dicta, the Court adds that the defendant could not be compelled to hand over a decrypted version of the video believed to be on his phone. Thats true because it is not a foregone conclusion that the video exists or is on the phone. The defendant cant be forced to effectively testify as to that by producing a decrypted version of the video.
This is just a state court trial ruling, not an appellate decision. So its interesting more for its reasoning than its precedential value. With that said, here are some thoughts on the reasoning of the case.
First, the courts ruling on divulging a fingerprint is easy. Theres obviously no Fifth Amendment problem with that. On the governments request for the passcode, the opinion is frustrating because the governments request was poorly framed. In this case, the government doesnt need to know the defendants passcode. It only needs to bypass the passcode gate, either through the fingerprint or by having the passcode entered in by the defendant. If the government couldnt get into the phone with the fingerprint, then, the sensible request would be for an order to have the defendant enter in the code rather than an order disclosing it to the government. But the government didnt ask for that: Instead it asked for an order that the defendant tell them his passcode.
Whats the difference? Having the defendant enter in his passcode would minimize the Fifth Amendment implications of the compelled compliance, as it would not involve disclosing the potentially incriminating evidence of the passcode itself. The passcode itself could be independently incriminating, at least in some cases. Imagine a conspiracy case in which members of the conspiracy use a common passcode. Proof that a suspect used that exact passcode on his own phone would be incriminating evidence, as it could help to show membership in the conspiracy.
Because the passcode itself could be incriminating, the smart way to limit the Fifth Amendment problem is for the government to ask for an order compelling the target to enter in the passcode rather than to divulge it to the police. That way, the government gets the unlocked phone but never gets the passcode. If the defendant has to enter in the passcode rather than tell it to the police, the testimonial aspect of complying would only be admitting knowledge of the passcode, which would very likely be a foregone conclusion in a case where the phone is used heavily by that person. But the government didnt ask for that here, so the court didnt consider how the Fifth Amendment would apply in such circumstances.
Notably, the court does address in dicta whether it would be incriminating for the defendant to hand over the unencrypted video believed to be on the phone. But forcing the defendant to hand over the unencrypted video is quite different from having him enter in the passcode to unlock the phone. Being forced to enter in the passcode to unlock the phone amounts to being forced to say, I know the passcode for this phone. On the other hand, as the court recognized, being forced to produce the unencrypted video amounts to being forced to say much more, such as I admit that the video exists; I admit that this is the video; I know where that video is; and I admit that I know what video youre talking about. Being forced to produce the video raises a host of Fifth Amendment issues that merely entering in the passcode does not.
Originally posted here:
Virginia state trial court ruling on the Fifth Amendment ...