Sen. Bernie Sanders twice brought up his support for reforming the criminal justice system in the Democratic town hall Wednesday night, highlighting his position on an issue that he has said he believes will resonate with minority voters.

“There will be no president that will fight harder to end institutional racism than I will and we have to reform a very, very broken justice system,” Sanders said at the New Hampshire town hall, adding that he would also make police departments more accountable and require retraining in use of lethal force.

Sanders has long spoken against the folly of putting more people in prison while ignoring the social problems that cause crime. But the senator from Vermont voted for a bill that is now widely considered by criminal justice reform advocates to epitomize the “tough on crime” approach that led to the explosion of prison populations in the 1990s.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which later passed in a different form as the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994 (Sanders voted for both), expanded the death penalty and offered incentives to states to lengthen prison sentences. These “truth in sentencing” laws contributed to the era of mass incarceration that Sanders now says he deplores.

“The common wisdom was to lock them up and throw away the key,” said Inimai Chettiar, director of the justice program at the Brennan Center at New York University Law School. “Sanders’ evolution is similar to that of many mainstream politicians on both sides.”

That includes Sanders’ rival Hillary Clinton, who was also a supporter of the Crime Act as first lady. It was a legislative priority of her husband’s, during a time when Democrats and Republicans were hoping to win votes by addressing constituents’ concerns about the “epidemic” of crack cocaine and violent crime. (Bill Clinton recently apologized for his role in contributing to mass incarceration.)

But Clinton began rethinking her criminal justice reform platform long before Sanders appears to have done so.

“At the time, there were reasons why the Congress wanted to push through a certain set of penalties and increase prison construction, and there was a lot of support for that across a lot of communities,” Clinton said at the Black & Brown Forum in 2007 while on the campaign trail in Iowa. “It’s hard to remember now but the crime rate in the early 1990s was very high. But we’ve got to take stock now of the consequences, so that’s why I want to have a thorough review of all of the penalties, of all the kinds of sentencing, and more importantly, start having more diversion and having more second-chance programs.”

Sanders spoke eloquently about why he was conflicted about the crime bill before he voted for it in 1994.

“… It is also my view that, through the neglect of our government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime and violence,” Sanders said.

But he did vote for it, and as recently as 2006 touted this fact in a section of his website labeled “Bernie Sanders’ strong record of supporting tough on crime legislation.” The page also included his votes for funding for antidrug and other crime programs. In 1995, Sanders also voted against a bill whose aim was to “demilitarize” the police.

Sanders was slower than Clinton to release a criminal justice reform platform after he declared he was running for the Democratic nomination in April. The senator, like his rivals, was confronted over the summer by Black Lives Matter protesters, who were pushing the candidates to address police use of force and other racial justice issues. In August, Sanders met with Black Lives Matter representatives and a month later introduced legislation to ban private prisons, which have been accused of mistreating inmates. They incarcerate less than 10 percent of the nation’s prisoners.

Clinton laid out her criminal justice reform agenda in April, right before Sanders threw his hat in the ring.

“Hillary came out in favor of ending mass incarceration and giving a very strong speech on it early on in her campaign, and I think from the outside it seemed like Sanders didn’t start doing that until Black Lives Matter confronted him about it,” said Chettiar.

Both candidates did move away from the ’90s tough-on-crime era votes. Sanders and Clinton supported narrowing the gap between sentences for crack and powder cocaine, which disproportionately affected black offenders. And Sanders has said he believes his record on the issue will help attract minority voters, who in Iowa appeared to break significantly for Clinton.

“When the African-American community becomes familiar with my congressional record and with our agenda, and with our views on the economy, and criminal justice — just as the general population has become more supportive, so will the African-American community, so will the Latino community,” Sanders said in a debate last month.

The Sanders campaign did not return several requests for comment on how his views have evolved over the years and why he originally supported the 1994 bill.

“While the 1994 crime bill may have been aimed at dealing with soaring crime rates and a vicious crack epidemic that was destroying communities, Hillary Clinton has acknowledged its overly harsh and racially disproportionate impacts for years and, as a senator worked for real reform, like ending racial profiling, eliminating the crack-cocaine sentencing disparity and addressing felony disenfranchisement,” Clinton spokeswoman Karen Finney said in an email.

Sanders frequently criticizes Clinton for flip-flopping on issues, including the Keystone pipeline. “I have been fairly consistent my entire political life. Some people say I’m kind of boring because I have been saying the same thing for 30 years,” he said on MSNBC last month.

He may have been saying it, but he wasn’t always voting it.

Donald Trump might have captured the imaginations of millions of Americans, but it turns out that authors are a tougher sell for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

More than 600 American writers, including Stephen King, Junot Diaz, Cheryl Strayed and Dave Eggers, have signed an "open letter to the American people" pledging their opposition to Trump's candidacy.

The letter, posted on the website Literary Hub and credited to authors Andrew Altschul and Mark Slouka, states in no uncertain terms that Trump "deliberately appeals to the basest and most violent elements in society" and "denigrates women and minorities."

See the most-read stories in Entertainment this hour >>
The writers lay out a long list of reasons they're opposed to Trump, including "because the history of dictatorship is the history of manipulation and division, demagoguery and lies" and "because neither wealth nor celebrity qualifies anyone to speak for the United States,to lead its military, to maintain its alliances, or to represent its people."

It concludes, "for all these reasons, we, the undersigned, as a matter of conscience, oppose, unequivocally, the candidacy of Donald J. Trump for the presidency of the United States."

I know what you’re thinking. 600 writers? So what? Trump won’t care and neither will the people who support him.

And you’d be right. These writers mean nothing to him. It’s clear in Trumpland that smart people are the enemy. The evil intelligentsia, perennially demonized. It never fails.

But seriously. Donald Trump? Have any of those people in the GOP given the slightest thought to what that means?

Why not Kim Kardashian? Both are media moguls. Both have spun an illusion about themselves aided solely by the passive voyeurism of television.

Really, GOP—why not just nominate Kim Kardashian for President? Or Ted Nugent? Or Bill O’Reilly? Sean Hannity, maybe? The guy who owns Papa John’s Pizza? Any one of your right-wing self-promoting yahoos would be good enough, it seems to me. What made you settle on this particular idiot, is what I simply don’t understand. It seems like he was just there at the right place, at the right time, and could have been anyone, really. When “qualifications” or any history of public service are no longer concerns, the field really opens up.

But it just happens to be a reality-TV no-class bottom feeder like Donald Trump. No one with any more real talent than a talent for shallow, crass self-promotion and bilking people out of their money. This is the best you can do. I understand. Okay.

When it comes to fact-checking Donald’s gutter politics, CNN’s Jake Tapper shows his media peers how it’s done.

There are two ways you can respond to Donald’s filth:

Give him an open platform to fling it.
Call the filth what it is.
Jake Tapper shows exactly how to do the latter:

The Lead

Presidential candidate Donald Trump mentioned a debunked conspiracy theory about the death of Vince Foster in an interview with The Washington Post. CNN's Jake Tapper reports.Source: CNN

Washington state already awarded all of its democratic primary delegates two months ago when it held its caucus voting, with most of those delegates going to Bernie Sanders amid low turnout. But tonight the same state held a democratic primary with no delegates attached, whose sole purpose seems to have been to test the waters for whether the primary format would work better. Two clear results: voter turnout was much higher for the primary, and Hillary Clinton won easily.

The symbolic victory won’t put Hillary Clinton any closer mathematically to clinching the democratic nomination, which will instead occur in Puerto Rico on June 5th or more likely when the polls close in New Jersey on June 7th. But turnout for the Washington democratic primary was nearly three times as high as it had been for the earlier Washington democratic caucus, driving home the point that the primary format is more conducive to allowing citizens to vote, and that conversely, the caucus format is a de facto form of voter suppression.

The state of Washington website is reporting that more than 650,000 votes have been cast in the democratic primary, a remarkable number for a contest which carried no more impact than a straw poll, particularly in contrast to the mere 230,000 voters who had turned out in the same state for the results-actually-mattered caucus. Supporters of Hillary Clinton have pointed to the fact that she’s done well in primary states, which had consistently high turnout, and her opponent Sanders has mostly only done well in caucus states, which had consistently poor turnout. In any case, Clinton is ahead by more than three million votes nationwide.

I’m not interested in what his supporters did or didn’t do. All aspects of their behavior — other than whether and to what extent they, like other Democrats, will be supporting the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton — are irrelevant.

I’m not interested in his views on super delegates, or any other inside baseball elements of the nominating contest. The contest is over. He presented compelling ideas, but did not emerge victorious. I am as interested in his views about super delegates as I am about Jim Webb’s views on convention speech slots.

I’m not interested in national Trump vs. Sanders polling. Many people who will not be on the ballot this fall might perform well against Mr. Trump in hypothetical polling match-ups today, including George Clooney, Justin Trudeau, Maya Angelou, LeBron James, Geordie LaForge, and, yes, Bernie Sanders. This has zero bearing on the actual contest that will take place between Trump and Hillary Clinton.

I’m not interested in the results of the final states that have yet to vote in the Democratic primary. The last states to conduct their votes always have the least to do with the final result. Of course these voters’ votes are still counted, and of course their views are still valid. But if they want to alter the real trajectory of the contest, they should discuss voting earlier with the DNC. If they can’t bother to hold contests until June, when Iowa was back on February 1, I’m not obligated to care.

I’m not interested in Senator Sanders’ criticisms of Senator Clinton, any more than I am of any other political opponent of hers (and she has many). It is almost June. Anyone not working for Democrat Hillary Clinton as she enters the general election is working against her, and will be treated as such.

I’m not interested in furthering any nuanced discussion of the policy differences, voting records, philosophical leanings, gotcha statements, etc., between Senator Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Of the many topics discussed during the long Democratic nomination process, 99% have been about things we already knew; very little new information has been brought to light. Instead, the process has been about wooing supporters, rallying the party faithful, and articulating a compelling vision for the future that can translate into votes at the ballot box. On this score, Senator Clinton has won.

I’m not interested in any discussion of the numbers of people at rallies held by Senator Sanders. Fully 18,203 people attended the NBA playoff game between the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Golden State Warriors last night. But neither Steph Curry nor Kevin Durant will be our next President — just like Bernie Sanders.

I’m not interested in hearing about what acrobatics Hillary Clinton will have to execute to “attract” Sanders’ supporters. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat — she will appoint SCOTUS nominees friendly to Democratic ideals, advance an agenda aligned with Democratic values, and prosecute events much as past Democrats have done, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. If that’s not enough reason for you to vote for her over End Times candidate Donald Trump, you are not a Democrat in any way, shape, or form — nor a fair-minded independent — and I have no time for you.

Finally, I’m not interested in any more discussion of the kind of President Bernie Sanders will be. Because he will not be the President. Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the President, and between them, my preference is for Hillary

Reporter: Sanders wants say over Clinton cabinet picks
The Lead

Jonathan Martin, National Political Correspondent for the New York Times, says the DNC offering platform committee spots to the Sanders campaign won't be enough.Source: CNN

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Bernie Sanders says the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia could be "messy" but that "democracy is not always nice and quiet and gentle."

Sanders said in an interview with The Associated Press Monday that his supporters hope to see a platform at the July convention that reflects the needs of working families, the poor and young people.

He said he will "condemn any and all forms of violence" but his presidential campaign is bringing new people into the process who have never gone to a political convention before. He said he hopes "their voices will be heard."

Asked if the convention could be messy, Sanders said, "So what. Democracy is messy."