Elizabeth Warren Suggests She’d Repeal Biden’s 1994 Crime Bill

The senator had tough words for one of Joe Biden’s signature laws.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) suggested in an interview Tuesday evening that she would seek the repeal of the 1994 crime bill—a historic though highly controversial measure tied closely to one of her closest competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination. 

It “needs to be changed, needs to be rolled back, needs to be repealed.” Warren said of the law, which has become widely bemoaned by criminal justice reform advocates for its tough-on-crime measures, harsh sentencing guidelines, and general encouragement of the war on drugs.

The Massachusetts Democrat made the announcement during a candidate question-and-answer session with Maurice Mitchell, the national director of the left-wing Working Families Party, as part of its presidential endorsement process. 

Mitchell began his final question of the broadcast by noting that there are movement organizations seeking to repeal the ’94 crime bill. “And so,” he asked, “I’d like you to respond to that. Would you support a repeal of the ’94 crime bill? And what is your plan for tackling mass incarceration?”

“I think the devastation from the ’94 crime bill has now been well-documented,” Warren responded. “And there are huge parts of that that need to be swept away. It was just wrong. And it needs to be changed, needs to be rolled back, needs to be repealed. But that’s not enough. There is now a problem within our criminal justice system that runs from the front, what we declare to be illegal, through the system that is a justice system that treats blacks and whites, Latinx and whites differently through the system.”

Warren concluded: “My commitment is that we build a criminal-justice system that is at least closer to the four words above the United States Supreme Court: “equal justice under law.” That should be our guiding principle and that should mean we develop an America, we develop a criminal-justice system that is more in line with our values and that is fairer to everyone.”

Warren’s answer was vague enough to render it unclear as to whether she was calling for a full repeal of the ’94 crime bill or merely major components of it. Her campaign did not comment on the record for this story. 

But her response still positions her apart from two of her fellow frontrunners in the 2020 Democratic race: former Vice President Joe Biden, who authored the legislation but has introduced a plan meant to reverse many of its main provisions, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who voted for the bill despite being critical of it. 

Though the law has been the subject of intense criticism for accelerating the war on drugs and providing states with funds for the construction of prisons, some Democrats have called on their party to tone down their criticisms, noting that the bill also included money for community programs, an assault weapons ban, and the Violence Against Women Act. 

“I would encourage [Biden] to speak out about it and Bernie Sanders, too. Both of them ought to lean into this,” Jim Clyburn (D-SC), the third-ranking House Democrat, told The Daily Beast in May. 

Warren’s comments don’t address precisely how she’d tackle the law’s more progressive measures, which have become either standard Democratic policy or renewed policy pursuits. But at the end of 2018, the senator called attention to the expiration of the Violence Against Women Act due to the government shutdown (it was later reauthorized this year). And a reinstitution of the assault-weapons ban is part of a broader gun proposal that Warren recently unveiled. The senator voted for the First Step Act—the Trump era criminal justice reform measure that eased the ’94 bill’s infamous three-strikes rule. 

Warren’s larger approach to criminal justice reform mirrors the approaches of some of her primary competitors. She has called for ending mandatory minimum sentencing, advocated for eliminating private prisons, and called for legalizing marijuana and expunging records for marijuana crimes. 

This Is the Law That Could Take Down Trump

Bribery statutes apply to public officials. And Trump became one, says one federal prosecutor, when he became the GOP nominee. 

It’s all well and good for Paul Manafort to spend 15 years in prison for money laundering, and Rick Gates to plead guilty to cut a deal, and Alex Van Der Zwaan to miss the birth of his first child because he lied to the FBI.

But it would be an injustice if, once again, those around the president suffer and he is left unscathed. He was the beneficiary of the highly questionable Russian contacts his campaign made and desperately tried to keep secret leading up to the 2016 election, which speaks of collusion and much worse. Trump couldn’t have chosen two top advisers with more contacts with the Kremlin than campaign manager Manafort and national security adviser Michael Flynn. He could hardly have praised Russia President Valdimir Putin more. And he could have hardly benefitted more from Russian interference than to win.

Of course, there’s no law against Trump liking Putin; unseemly yes, illegal, no. But a veteran Washington former federal prosecutor who served during both the Clinton and Bush administrations believes there is a strategy that Mueller is quietly pursuing and that explains his actions so far.

Seth Waxman, now a partner specializing in white-collar crime in Dickinson Wright’s Washington office, has a theory of Mueller’s case, which requires no novel reading of existing law to find Trump broke it. It employs the main weapon any federal prosecutor uses to police public corruption. It is Title 18 United States Code, section 201 that specifically makes it a crime for a public official to take “anything of value,” a bribe, in exchange for government action, which can be prospective.

Note that above I wrote “public official.” That’s because the law is generally wielded against public officials. Problem: Mueller is investigating conduct before Trump became one. Enter Waxman. He points out that in 1962, Congress extended the bribery law to cover activity prior to the assumption of office. It did so, he says, in order to close a “loophole” afforded those “who assume public office under a corrupt commitment.” The upshot? Trump became covered by 18 USC not when he was sworn in but as of July 21, 2016 when he became his party’s nominee in Cleveland, Ohio.

What we know of Mueller’s strategy so far is consistent with leveling charges under the bribery statute. This is not to say Mueller is going to indict Trump. He would need an exception from a Justice Department rule, which advises against it. But neither is he likely to send a report laying out grounds for impeachment as former independent counsel Ken Starr did against Bill Clinton relying solely on perjury and obstruction of justice without a finding of an underlying crime.

“The upshot? Trump became covered by 18 USC not when he was sworn in but as of July 21, 2016 when he became his party’s nominee in Cleveland, Ohio.”

The bribery statute requires a finding of a quid pro quo, a this for a that. The quid is obviously Russian meddling in our election—a given to everyone but Trump himself—which worked to his everlasting benefit. Thus Mueller’s focus on the summer 2016 meeting at Trump Tower, the one Trump’s senior team of Donald Jr., Jared Kushner, and Manafort had with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a prominent Kremlin lawyer.  This was the meeting former chief White House strategist Steve Bannon called “treasonous.” When it became public, Trump was so concerned he got uncharacteristically involved in the details of defending it, drafting a statement, which said the meeting was simply about “adoptions.”

It wasn’t at all. It was an offer of “dirt” on Hillary Clinton which Don Jr. eagerly accepted, responding, “I love it.” The mere contact, Bannon said, should have prompted an immediate call to the FBI. But Trump was too soft on Putin to see the Russian contacts for what they were and thought he could hide behind the adoption excuse. In any event, Trump welcomed Russian involvement (“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing”) not to mention Trump’s hope that WikiLeaks would turn its attention to Democrats. He wasn’t joking.

One Thing All Liars Have in Common, Brace Yourself TruthFinde

I Typed in My Name and the Results Had Me Speechless

Have you ever googled yourself? A crush? Your neighbors? 57% of Americans admit to keeping an eye on their online reputation, and 46% admit to using the internet to look up someone from their past.

But Google is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding personal information. There’s a new website going around that users are calling "creepy," "scary," and "awesome."

Have you ever been issued a speeding ticket? Failed to stop at a stop sign? Do you know someone who’s had a run-in with the law? If you’re like most of us, the answer to at least one of those questions is "yes." Most of us have slipped up at least once or twice. In fact, one in four Americans has an arrest or a criminal record.

An innovative new website called Truthfinder is now revealing the full "scoop" on millions of Americans.

TruthFinder can search through hundreds of millions of public records in a matter of minutes. TruthFinder members can literally begin searching in seconds for sensitive data like criminal, traffic, and arrest records. Plus, they are able to check as many records as they want (think: friends, family, neighbors, enemies, etc. etc.).

Previously, if you needed to research somebody's arrest records, it involved a lot of work. First, you'd need to know where the arrest records were located. Then you'd have to travel to the appropriate county court office — in person! After filling out long and boring paperwork, you'd have to wait for the results.

Searching arrest records could take days, weeks, or even months. And what if somebody was hiding an arrest in an unknown county? You might never find it.

But with websites like TruthFinder, a background check is simple and easy. With just a few clicks of your mouse, you can find detailed and explicit information not readily available through a standard search engine.

I decided to test it out for myself and discover what information TruthFinder might expose about me. The search was easy, and after a few minutes, I found myself staring at my background report — and it wasn’t pretty!

There was that mortifying blog that I'd started in high school, still up for all the world to see! My report even included embarrassing photographs of myself that I'd totally forgotten about. I couldn't believe that TruthFinder even found my secret social media profiles that I'd created under an alias. The sheer volume of data about me was definitely scary. I feel like a perfect stranger could look me up on TruthFinder and find out my entire life story.

After conducting just one search, I was totally hooked. I just couldn't believe that it was legal to have this many personal details online! One of my friends from back home has pretty much dropped off the map entirely for the past three years. I've been kind of worried about him, and nobody seemed to know where he had gone. So, I typed his name into TruthFinder and was absolutely devastated by the search results.

My "friend" had gone to jail. TruthFinder had every single detail on the case, from the date he was arrested to which prison he was currently in. But the gruesome description of his offence made me realize that I probably needed to reevaluate who my friends were. This guy’s records listed charge after charge for battery, assault, and child abuse. His criminal record read like an infinite scroll of total depravity. I just couldn’t believe it.

From now on, I'm looking up everybody — no matter how normal they seem. Luckily for me, TruthFinder offers unlimited searches, so I'll never be fooled again.

Although TruthFinder can show deeply shocking criminal records, I've really been surprised by just how practical it is as an everyday tool. I've used it to look up addresses, phone numbers, birthdates, estimated income levels, assets — heck, I've even found Amazon wishlists on TruthFinder. One time I looked up Todd Kohlhepp, the scary serial killer from South Carolina who confessed to seven murders. Well, guess what? His Amazon profile came up in his background report, and let me tell you, it was downright chilling. He literally left reviews on knives and shovels, discussing how he used them in the murders. It was one of the creepiest things I've ever found online.

My own report came back with an interactive map of local sex offenders in my neighborhood, complete with mugshots and explicit details of their crimes. I was seriously grossed out to learn that my last apartment building was absolutely infested with perverts, rapists, and total scumbags.

It isn't all scary — After reading more about TruthFinder, I've heard lots of positive stories, too. Apparently, people have reunited because of this website. Estranged families have used public records to contact long-lost family members to get back in touch. Military friends have reunited after years of lost contact because they found the right phone number or email address on their report.

All in all, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend TruthFinder to my friends and family. In today's world, you need to take precautions to keep yourself and your family safe. But if you're going to look up someone that you know using TruthFinder, I have to warn you: the information you might find could forever change how you feel about someone. Make sure that you're emotionally prepared for the consequences if you find something you don't want to see. To get started with your search,

Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris seeks campaign jolt in pivotal Iowa

Armed with fresh endorsements from two of the state’s most sought after political influencers early on Saturday, the U.S. Senator from California got an enthusiastic welcome from over 500 people at a Des Moines area high school.

For the first time during her tour that started on Thursday, the crowd began chanting Harris’ new slogan about Republican Donald Trump’s presidency: “Dude gotta go!”

The country needs a leader who can “prosecute the case against Donald Trump” and “it will take a prosecutor to do it,” Harris, California’s former top prosecutor and a former district attorney of San Francisco, told the audience. “And we’ve got quite the rap sheet.”

Harris, 54, is among two dozen Democrats vying for the party nomination to take on Trump in the November 2020 election.

Months after entering the presidential race as a relatively fresh face on the national stage, Harris, who is of Jamaican and south Asian descent, has ranked fourth in most national opinion polls, behind former Vice President Joe Biden and liberal U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Her surge in support after the first Democratic presidential debate in June in Miami, where she successfully challenged Biden’s record on race, had dissipated by the second debate in July in Detroit, where she was attacked by lesser-known rivals.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken Aug. 1-5 showed that Biden remained in first place with 22% support, relatively unchanged from the month before. Harris was in fourth, dropping 4 points to 5.7% support over the same time period.

\But in Iowa, there are signs that her campaign could be gaining traction. A Monmouth University poll released Aug. 8 showed Harris third in the state, with 11% support, behind Biden and Warren.

And on Saturday, her campaign announced major endorsements from Iowa power couple Sue and Bob Dvorsky, a former state party chairwoman and a former state senator, who supported former President Barack Obama in 2008 in his surprise upset over Hillary Clinton, then Clinton in 2016 when she eked out a win over Sanders.

The winner of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses has gone on to be the party’s nominee for the last six election cycles and Obama’s victory there in 2008 catapulted him from little-known junior U.S. senator to the White House.

In an interview with Reuters on Sunday, Harris said she felt that her performance in the second debate did not match her stand-out performance in Miami. But she shrugged off concerns about her momentum stalling.

“You know I’m a frontrunner and that became clear on the second debate in a way that it was not on the first. You’ve got to be prepared to take the hits when you’re a frontrunner and that’s what happened,” Harris told Reuters aboard a bus with “Kamala” written on it in large, capital letters.

“I honestly don’t pay attention to polls,” Harris said. “I hear about them but that’s not my North Star because if I had listened to the polls I would have never run for any office I’ve run for.”

During her Iowa campaign stops, Harris said repeatedly that she is in the race to win it.

Her five-day trip across the state has been a departure from the early months of her candidacy, when she courted key constituencies in urban centers and held private events while rivals relied on the traditional barnstorm politicking.

How Pete Buttigieg made his money before he was a presidential hopeful

In a wealthy 2020 Democratic presidential field, Pete Buttigieg lags behind the pack.

The South Bend, Indiana, mayor makes a comfortable living. He and his husband, Chasten, earned $152,643 last year, according to tax returns.

Even so, Buttigieg made the least in 2018 out of the 13 Democratic presidential candidates who have released their tax returns. Former Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, led the field by raking in $4.5 million, according to tax returns. Sen. Kamala Harris of California and her husband, Douglas Emhoff, followed with $1.9 million.

[CNBC is looking at how top 2020 presidential candidates accumulated their wealth. Read more about how Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris made their money.]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and her husband, Bruce Mann, took in $846,394. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and his wife, Jane, made $561,293.

Aside from the money Buttigieg earns as mayor and what his husband makes as a middle school teacher, the presidential hopeful has taken in extra cash from his book, “Shortest Way Home.” From the start of 2018 to May 2019, he took in $45,000 in advance and royalties payments for the book, which came out in February.

In a primary race focused on middle class issues, Buttigieg’s lack of wealth relative to his rivals could insulate him from some of the criticism they have faced for their millionaire status.

Arnon Mishkin: Hatred for Trump is what truly unites 2020 Democrats – But they're playing a dangerous 000000000game

Just two weeks ago Democratic presidential hopefuls seemed to be taking turns laying the foundation for potentially very effective anti-Democratic ads – seemingly playing into President Trump’s characterizations of them as supporting socialized medicine, accepting open borders and appearing to embrace the “squad” of four very progressive Democratic congresswomen.

Now, a little more than a week later, in response to the horrible massacres of predominantly Hispanic customers at an El Paso Walmart, and predominantly African Americans in Dayton, the Democratic candidates have decided to be more explicit than ever in accusing Trump of being a “white nationalist” seeking to blame him for the two attacks.

A number of fairly sophisticated political observers, including in the Wall Street Journal, have suggested that this move by Democrats is shortsighted.

CNN backs Chris Cuomo after his rant over "Fredo" insult goes viral

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo unloaded a string of obscenities at a heckler who called him "Fredo," an insult Cuomo said was like the N-word for Italians. CNN said Cuomo had the right to defend himself. CBSN's Anne-Marie Green has the story.