Racial Profiling
Righty: The function of law enforcement isn’t simply to round up criminals but to prevent them from acting. If statistics tell us that 55% of violent crime is committed by black males, for example, why shouldn’t police monitor that segment of the population more carefully than it does Asian females? If the black males who are stopped by police have nothing to hide, they won’t be arrested. They’re free to go. No harm done, no blots on their record. Simple as that. Profiling is even more urgent when it comes to stopping future terrorist attacks on the U.S. If young Muslim males are responsible for 95% of violent terrorist acts, why should the authorities waste their time (and ours) routinely strip-searching 70-year-old Irish-American nuns? It defies common sense. When we’re at war with Muslim terrorists, we can’t afford to let namby-pamby political correctness undermine our defenses. Which is more important: the lives of our people or the ruffled egos of a few indignant detainees?
Lefty: “Namby-pamby” political correctness? It’s so easy (isn’t it, Righty?) to dismiss the rights and feelings of an entire race or religion in a single flippant phrase. The freedom that so many right-wingers would die to defend evidently doesn’t include freedom from harassment on the basis of one’s creed or color. Here’s an example to sober you up. To date, all presidential assassins (and even failed assassins) have been white. Should the authorities make a point of screening all white people before allowing them to attend a personal appearance by the president? Our society must never cave in to the kind of quasi-fascist hysteria that places security above human rights. Our society must never condone the isolation of an entire group as the common enemy. We failed brutally in our relations with the original inhabitants of North America (and we dared call them savages!). We turned a blind eye as the Southern states trampled the rights of African Americans for an entire century after the Civil War. Even as recently as World War II, we allowed our hysteria to get the better of us as we interned loyal Japanese Americans in concentration camps. We simply can’t allow such malignant bigotry to prevail again if we are to consider ourselves a free and virtuous nation.
The New Moderate:
Both Righty and Lefty make valid and heartfelt points, but of course the solution lies in the middle. We can’t ignore the demographics of crime for the sake of political correctness: if poor urban blacks commit more street crime than whites, it makes sense for police to be more alert in poor urban black communities. Not middle class white communities. Not middle class black communities, either. In other words, police shouldn’t focus entirely on race as the identifying factor, and they should never stop drivers or pedestrians simply because they happen to be black.
The same holds true for the screening of potential terrorists. The vast majority of suicide bombers and other murderous fanatics are young Muslim men. That means you screen young Muslim men, not elderly Muslim grandmothers. It means you don’t screen Christian Arabs, either. Ethnic background shouldn’t be a primary focus at all, because fanatical Muslims can be black, white or Asian.
In short, you could say The New Moderate favors profiling, but not racial profiling. In treacherous times, we can’t afford to blind ourselves to the demographics of the people most likely to cause harm. But it should be clear that those demographics involve more than race or ethnicity, and that the individuals selected for profiling should never be treated as criminals or even as suspects until the police find incriminating evidence.
Frankly, I don’t mind when I’m pulled aside at airport security checkpoints. I look resolutely Middle Eastern, though I’m not Muslim or (alas) young. I’ve never been detained for more than half a minute; after a quick scan, I’m good to go. As long as I’m not taken into custody, I feel assured that the profiling system is working to keep us as safe as possible.
Summary: Racial profiling may be unjust, but demographic profiling is justified where certain identifiable groups commit a preponderance of the crime.
THE NEW MODERATE 
If all people from the country of Murder-istan (guess where that is…) dye themselves purple. Watch out for purple people. It’s not that simple, however, mabe their neighbors, in Free-lovia, also dye themselves purple, you might not want to tackle onsight. But when you ae profiled, understand that there could be a valid reason. Maybe, instead of complaining, you should try and help end the reasons for said profiling.
Another great post. The obsession of liberals with ‘feelings’ of people rather than practical matters is what disillusioned me from the movement and made me stop calling myself a liberal.
They never consider the ‘feelings’ of the white republicans and Christians they so routinely bash but when someone criticizes another group (say Muslims or Blacks) for the very same things (rabid conservatism, oppression of women & gay people, etc) there’s all the hoopla about ‘not a monolith’ ‘offending people’ ‘not their fault’ ‘racist!!’ I’m sick of the double standards. Identity politics is the worst kind of politics. I hate them in India, and I hate them in Europe and USA.
Just do what’s most practical and supported by statistics. It’s that simple.
The story of Philando Castile should never be forgotten. What a horrible tragedy. I am very glad the police officer is being prosecuted. Generally speaking, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement and not to suspects, but when cops get it wrong, either deliberate or accidentally, and someone ends up dead, there really needs to be a price to pay.
I like your commentary on racial profiling, but I wish you had a policy that can actually solve the problem of racial profiling. If you have any questions or comments email me I would love to start a dialogue with you
Here you seem to acknowledge the importance of other factors, such as income. If only you’d opened your mind in such a way in your “White People” article. You’re half-way there.
Roby, you stated ” Civil rights is an issue that my parents were deeply involved in, I have not much changed from my ideas that I held in my teens. I am sure I will take those ideals to the grave. ”
So I dont have any idea what decade you attended high school/college or formed your opinion on civil rights. So I not sure how you might be able to answer this because the decades before 1970 and those after 1970 were very different.
I was right in the middle of the civil rights movement while in college. In fact, I had a sociology class and the professor came in on Monday following the start of the Watts riots. His lecture that whole week was covering his PHD research. He was in Watts that Friday asking people if they would use violence in their quest for equality and most said no. That weekend proved different.
Anyway, I believe if MLK had lived, the results of civil rights would have been significantly different. I will hold off anything further except for asking one question.
How do you believe the social programs created by the federal government have affected the strong religious affiliation blacks held during the pre 70’s period and what impact have they had on the strong family structure that was present in the pre-70’s period?
The civil rights movement was co-opted by the leading marxist thinkers of the 60’s, transforming marxism from class struggle to greviance struggle.
That is what we see today.
The civil rights movement slowly morphed from a struggle for equal rights to one for preferential treatment. Democrats and the left bought into this to their own harm.
Rather than respecting the equality of minorities, they fixated on buying them with free things, and the result has been possibly more harmful to minorities than Jim Crow.
“How do you believe the social programs created by the federal government have affected the strong religious affiliation blacks held during the pre 70’s period and what impact have they had on the strong family structure that was present in the pre-70’s period?”
That is a Ph.D question for a topic I do not have a Ph.D in. I don’t know. The only thing I can say that is even tangentially germane is that I was quite in agreement with welfare reform, encouraging people to stay home and have babies for a living was a bad program.
I happened to accidentally find out last week while in the big city for a medical thing that there is a new movie about Apollo 11. With in half an hour I was sitting in a theater watching it.
The space program of the 60s-70s goes as deep with me as the music of Beatles. (as a tangent, just out of curiosity, what kind of music do you, or anyone here, listen to? I would be interested to know that).
One thing about this wonderful movie that slowly hit me over the head was that NASA was an entirely while male world. Not a minority anywhere in sight. Those white guys did a wonderful job, they did us proud, I can go so far as saying watching them gave me a feeling of pride in my people. But, what about the others? The civil war and reconstruction were long over, blacks had fought in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, did they not deserve a part of the pie?
Busing happened during my childhood, it was a huge bloody big controvertial deal. Government force etc.
By the next time I get a look into the space program during the shuttle years, it was an integrated world. Why?
What should government have done? Nothing? It got involved, there is now an actual black middle class, black engineers etc.
I say good.
I don’t mean that every program is good, and I know that there are many unintended consequences of social engineering but leaving the situation as is and waiting for private enterprise to fix it is not acceptable and also does not work other than glacially slowly, as we see by the conditions that blacks were in in 1969, more than 100 years after being freed.
I’ll be out all day, so I will continue tomorrow.
Well after your comment about welfare, I am happy to hear your position.
I also dont have the answer, but I have thoughts about the impact. And once again I will blame government for screwing up something good, ( like I usually do😛). I believe the Equal rights amendment was needed and provided the law to improve minority conditions. However, I truely believe programs like welfare that provided income to single women with children helped create the downfall of the family beginning in the 70’s. And further programs that gave preferencial treatment to minorities to make up for years of discrimination had unintended consequences. For many, that promoted discrimination because they lost out or knew people who lost out.
But one also needs to understand that in the 60’s and 70’s discrimination and hate took very different paths in different parts of the country. Just a couple of examples.
1. Schools in the south were not integrated
2. Most cooks in restaurants in the south were blacks
3. Many schools.in the west were integrated if a minority happened to live in that schools region.
4. Most whites would walk out of a restaurant in the west if a black was cooking. In fact, when I worked at Jack-In-The-Box in the mid 60’s, blacks were only in minority district restaurants.
5. Northerners were supportative of school desegregation but NIMBY. They went south to force southern desegregation, but had a holy cow when it came north to their schools.
And the early space program . Three blacks, Octavia Spencer, Taraji P. Henson, and Janelle Monáe were key in getting the crew of Apollo 13 home!
By Equal Rights amendment I presume you mean the 14th amendment ?
The reconstruction amendments including the 14th were specifically intended to correct the original sin of slavery in the US constitution.
But they were also EXPLICITLY intended to do more than that. They were explicitly intended to give teeth to the 9th amendment. They were also explicitly intended to further constrain the federal govenrment and to impose MOST of the same constraints on states with respect to individual rights as the constitution and bill of rights did to the federal govenrment.
The reconstruction amendment were a disasterous failure.
In the short run as soon as federal troops left the south they were completely ignored and the south actively sought to use state law to impose slavery through economic regulation.
Further SCOTUS completely ignored the reconstruction amendments for nearly 100 years.
Very few cases before the 50’s hinged on the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.
But the partial restoration of the meaning of the reconstruction amendments by the courts in the 50’s is possibly the single largest factor improving the lives of minorities – not the VRA and CRA which had negligable impact – beyond giving state and local govenrments more economic power using race as a pretext.
More recently the reconstruction amendments are the foundation of modern federalism.
The conception that we have a limited government of enumerated powers and limitless unenumerated rights – is in the text of the constitution, it is in the 9th and 10th amendment, it is in the federalist papers, it is in vast amounts of political discourse from the founding era.
But despite the words and sincerity of our founders – even they were not constrained by their own words and thoughts. SCOTUS from the start poo poo’d individual rights and favored government powers. The fight over slavery did not help.
But the reconstruction amendments were absolutely intended as a giant “No! Fuck You” as well as a deliberate effort to chain the states in the same way as the federal government regarding individual rights.
Nearly all the federalist and libertarian modern SCOTUS govenrment limiting victories – such as the resurgence of the 2nd amendment rest on the 14th amendment MORE than the 2nd amendment.
Several people here argue nonsense about the militia clause of the 2nd amendment.
The legislative history – the OVERT intention of the 14th amendment was to grant poor southern blacks the same right to own guns as whites throughout the country.
The 14th amendment WAS about many things, but one of those was GUNS, and it was long after the founding concept of militias had faded to dust.
No matter how you argue about the 2nd amendment the 14th was explicitly intended to allow southern blacks and individual right to own guns.
I misspoke. Civil right act of 1964.
Just to be clear – I do not beleive in segregation – absolutely the constitution and the 14th amendment require the govenrment to be blind to our differences.
At the same time “desegregation” has itself been a destructive force for minorities.
It is also proof that the quality of something has little to do with money spent – particularly in government.
Segregated schools as a matter of principle were abominable. They were dirt poor. The education system was two tiered.
BUT schools for blacks were controlled by blacks with very little attention being paid by the white community – and for all their other problems they provided black students of the time a better education than they received later.
The history of race from the civil war through to the early 60’s was a history of blacks improving their own conditions for themselves.
While from the 60’s forward it is about government.
The work done through the early 60’s BUILT black communities and institutions and families and THAT is what created the black MIDDLE CLASS that Robby refers to.
From the 60’s forward – government became more heavily involved, and the results were the destruction of black families and the black middle class.
While reality is not quite as black and white as that – with a few blips the trend has been toward improvement for all minorities in the US and that trend has NOTHING to do with government. But it is still a valid rule of thumb that even without resources blacks did more for themselves on their own, and that the increased involvement of govenrment was more destructive than beneficial.
“That is a Ph.D question for a topic I do not have a Ph.D in”
No it is not.
Ron asked a question of fact. With the caveat that the results are determined by statistical regression and therefore produce probabilities rather than certainties.
Regardless, to the extent it is not a question of fact, it is still a question of opinion regarding what you have observed.
We know or can know what programs were implimented and when.
We know or can know what changes occurred within the black family in the period after those programs.
Beyond the statistical correlation we can not “know” that there is a cause and effect relationship. But that is true of everything that we determine from statistical regressions on the real world rather than controlled experiment.
Much of science is established the same way.
Having an opinion on it is no more of an intellectual reach than having an opinion of the effects of PPACA or climate change or the impact of ARRA, or the effect of the minimum wage.
There are Phd’s that have worked in all these areas and they are at odds with each other – clearly having a Phd in something does not bring us closer to truth.
My tastes in music are eclectic and have gotten more varied over my life.
As a toddler my father drove a truck from my mother’s family business, and he would often take me. He would play classical music. Later he developed a taste for Opera.
These imprinted on me. I college I would play handle while doing design projects.
The first record I ever owned was Jesus Christ Superstar and I still think it is fantastic.
I love most everything from Gregorian Chant to Heavy Metal.
I do not like Disco. I mostly do not like Rap and most of its progeny – though there are exceptions.
I have a particular effection for Harry Chapin, Judy Collins, Larry Norman.
OK, this I will respond to, its innocent enough. Thanks for your answer. I also loved Jesus Christ superstar. Particularly the acoustic guitar on the song that starts once I met a man a galilean, a most amazing man… Opera I am limited mostly to Mozart Operas, the Magic flute especially. Classical music is generally good for the soul.
Heavy metal is not for me, but Hendrix is. Prog rock, early and middle Yes, Jazz Fusion, which was 70s music. Ha, the Dixie Dregs, a real band, After that it all ended pretty much for me, Obviously there is some good music after the 70s here and there but generally I would rather not hear most of it. Victor Wooten is an exception.
Roby, I am a classic rock fan, 60’s ans 70’s. Beatles, Doors, Chicago, Neal Diamond, and others in that type music. I am also a big band.music enthusiast. Jimmy Dorsey, Tommy Dorsey, Glenn Miller, etc.
I am now more country since the new.music is not appealing to me.
With you on Classic Rock.
But no big band music please.
Your knowledge of Music is deeper than mine.
I just know what I like and what I do not.
I do not like Disco. I do not like Rap, I do not like HipHop.
I sort of want to like them – and there are specific songs that occasionally get me,
but mostly I just do not like them.
I forgot that I do not like MOST Jazz, but I LOVE Blues.
Some others – yes, Hendrix, and Janice and Lenard Cohen,
Yes, to most of the 60’s and 70’s. Yes to U2.
I do not think modern Rock is bad, but I would rather listen to classic rock.
With few exceptions the newer the rock, the more it is just “me too” of stuff from the 70’s
Mostly my tastes are eclectic. some Iron Butterfly. Some Lead Zepplin.
I found Dolly Parton’s “stairway to heaven” amazing.
Arlo Guthrie.
I will look into Dixie Dreggs and Wooten.
I have liked the music clips you have posted.
The black middle class emerged BEFORE the social programs.
The Tuskegee Institute was created in the 19th Century by Booker T. Washington who was a wealthy black. There are numerous other preminent blacks from that era – including George Washington Carver – an engineer.
During WWII thousands of Blacks went to Tuskegee to become pilots – these were educated blacks, and at the end of the war many of them were the foundation for the civil rights movement.
The entire leadership of the black civil rights movement in the 50’s was middle class blacks.
WWII was a major driving factor – they had participated in freeing the rest of the world from tyranny and returned home expecting greater freedom for themselves.
Conversely many programs like Section 8 are even today DESTRUCTIVE of the black middle class. There are studies on Section 8 – I beleive the Atlantic did a story on one about a decade ago, that demonstrate that Section 8 functioned as a conveyor belt transporting poor black drug dealers and gang members from the inner cities into middle class black neighborhoods destroying them.
Regardless, we can have differences of oppinions on the impacts of various government programs but it is WRONG to assume there were some good results – just because you wish there were.
We have addressed the same thing on environmental and other safety regulation.
I have asked for statically evidence than any government regulation or agency ever has create a trend or favorably impacted an existing trend.
No one has ever shown me any instance where you can look at any trend line and say – there, at that point agency X was created or regulation Y was passed and you can see how afterwards some safety trend improved.
There are however plenty of examples where the creation of agencies and regulations bent trends negatively. the modern rapid rise in healthcare costs quite clearly started with Medicare as an example.
Regardless, if you beleive some government program had some beneficial effect – the burden is on you to prove that result. It is NOT sufficient to say something was worse before and is better now. That is nearly always true over time – regulation or not, and the correlation between rising standard of living and rising quality of life – such as reduced crime, improved health, improved safety of all kinds, improved environment is about as close as we get to statistical certainty and goes back centuries – long before government regulations.
I can cite strong evidence that most every improvement you credit government for – started before government took interest and continued to improve without change as regulations were imposed.
I can not prove that case – atleast not any more than anything can be proven statisically.
We do not have many controlled experiments in public policy – there are a few and the results are pretty damning.
But equally important – while I can show a strong correlation between all societal improvements and rising standard of living and free markets, you can not show any positive correlation between any government program and some benefit.
Asserting things you wish to be true is NOT enough.
You should have been required to prove a benefit BEFORE being permitted to use force.
You certainly should be required to show effectiveness afterwards.
“but leaving the situation as is and waiting for private enterprise to fix it is not acceptable and also does not work other than glacially slowly, as we see by the conditions that blacks were in in 1969, more than 100 years after being freed.”
Why do you assume without government change is glacially slow ?
The worst of racial problems in the US were in the south and were driven by Jim Crow – GOVERNMENT, They were overcome by the civil rights movement of the 50’s – not the 60’s.
Pretty much every HBCU in the US was founded in the 19th century.
As horribly offensive as “separate but equal” was, the education of blacks in the US has declined with forced integration. Not because integration is inherently a bad thing but because the degree of control blacks have had on the schools their children attended has declined.
The condictions of Blacks int he US in 1969 were horrid – compared to today.
But they were vastly improved over those 50 years before.
The civil rights movement – things such as Selma, the montgomery bus boycott, as well as many of the cases taken up by the NAACP and ACLU were extremely effective.
While the government programs and federal laws from the 60’s were not.
The duck has also landed, thanks Ron.
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-democrats-and-institutions-20190324-ecs2uqwbz5arzheitn3xh7oe4m-story.html
Mr. Beale’s conclusion is the most important – and it is the consequence that all those on the wrong side of this should fear. It is also a version of what I have been harping about recently.
When you level moral accusations at others, you MUST prove them.
If you fail to do so, it is YOUR integrity that is lost.
Are as Mr. Beale said
“As much as I’d like to close with a quick word of advice for the media, for the Democratic politicians who pushed the treason narrative, and for the Comeys, Brennans, and Clappers, et al. who engineered this debacle, I honestly have no advice to give. It’s over. There is no recovery from this.
The reckoning may not be televised, but it will be this: YOU WILL NO LONGER BE BELEIVED.”
http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/24/public-reckoning-russiagate-will-not-televised/
AG Barr’s letter to congress has been made public.
The summary:
There will be no further indictments.
There are no sealed indictments,
There are no unindicted parties.
There was absolutely no collusion between the Trump Campaign or any other americans in the 2016 election.
Mueller reports the same activities by Russia that we all already know.
In a bone to the left
Mueller examined and presents pro and con the arguments for and against obstruction by the president refusing to reach a conclusion, deferring that to Barr, who resolved that trivially,
you can not obstruct justice unless there is an underlying crime – which there is not,
and unless your actions are outside of your legitimate powers.
We have all heard all the claims regarding “obstruction” before. We need not rehash them.
Those of you who disagree may not have changed your mind.
But you are still attempting to argue that Trump interfered in an investigation that found him innocent.
Another excellent observation by Mr. Beale
“We will hear that Donald Trump brought this upon himself by acting so blasted suspiciously. How could we possibly have ignored those angry tweets and attempts to “undermine the investigation”? What else were we supposed to think?
They’ll fail to acknowledge that an innocent man knows on day one that no evidence will be uncovered. If that innocent man is the president of the United States, the charge is treason, and the investigation is about to enter its third year, one would expect that innocent man to have a fairly dynamic opinion as to the legitimacy of the investigation. Add that common behavioral expectation to Trump’s turbo-charged behavioral pattern, and you’ve got yourself two years of angry tweets.”
Most of us are not so politically crass as to seek to prosecute an innocent person for relentlously, vigorously asserting their own innocence.
For the country’s sake, I’m very glad that there is no conclusive proof of any “collusion” with Russia.
I’m not so glad that as far as obstruction, Trump is not “exonerated.
Doesn’t mean that I don’t think Trump is one of the sleaziest people ever in Washington and should be voted out ASAP, and that obstruction is a distinct charge that prosecutors probably think is too weak to lead to a conviction at this time.
Anyway, I hope the Dems don’t form a circular firing squad going after a weak case that would further harden Trump’s support. They need to concentrate on winning, not whining, and put muzzles on loud mouth first term twerps revving up the old unicorn progressives.
Get real, push Biden to select a more experienced VP that is not defined by an “identity”, but brings chops to grab those battle field states this time.
“For the country’s sake,”
There is no such thing. The country is served best by vigorously prosecuting actual crimes.
But it is ALSO served best by not getting drug into witch hunts – which it has been and there need to be consequences for that. The very least of which being – those who propogated this farce should not ever be beleived again.
“I’m very glad that there is no conclusive proof of any “collusion” with Russia.”
That is not what Barr’s letter and purportedly Mueller’s report says.
This is not a case of some doubt remaining. There is no EVIDENCE of collusion.
The minimal standard necescary for a warrant or subpeona has not been met.
“I’m not so glad that as far as obstruction, Trump is not “exonerated.”
Actually he is.
The absence of any evidence of collusion makes charging obstruction very nearly impossible.
Barr’s letter separately and succinctly outlines the law – frankly I think he outlines a broader version of the law that is warranted, but still found that 3 separate elements ALL of which must be present for obstruction are ALL missing.
Mueller might have been too miffed at Trump for poking at him from start to finish, to actually apply the law, and be a big enough man to say – I think the president behaved offensively, but not illegally, but the law is NOT some set of pros and cons. You meet the required elements of a crime – and you charge and prosecute, or you do not.
Mueller did not.
“Doesn’t mean that I don’t think Trump is one of the sleaziest people ever in Washington and should be voted out ASAP”
You are free to think and vote that way, but investigations are about the law, not what you think.
“and that obstruction is a distinct charge that prosecutors probably think is too weak to lead to a conviction at this time.”
Too weak is weasel words for – there is no obstruction. You meet the required elements or you do not. As Barr notes, Mueller did not meet THREE required elements, you must have ALL of them, even having only one missing means there is no crime and you can not charge.
“Anyway, I hope the Dems don’t form a circular firing squad”
I have no idea what Dems are going to do.
If they are wise they will get off of all this. Figure out what they screwed up in 2016,
and stand for something beyond “Argh! Trump!” and falling off the left edge of the world.
Mueller has just given them a challenge and a gift.
If they are smart – which I doubt, they will realize this is over and focus on standing for something people want to vote for in 2020.
If not they can continue to go after Trump.
duck, if Democrats take your advice, I believe they will stand a fighting chance of winning in 2020. If they keep dragging people in front of their House committees, hoping to impeach Trump on some half-baked obstruction charge, they will not only harden Trump’s support, they’ll expand it.
Trump doesn’t support our troops.
“With Override Vote Coming, Congress Examines Military Cuts That Will Fund Wall”
“JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — The main road that connects a strip of tattoo parlors, pawn shops and restaurants to Camp Lejeune is still lined with broken trees bent by Hurricane Florence’s winds. Inside the gates, a new threat has arisen for the sprawling Marine Corps base as it contends with billions of dollars in hurricane damage and lingering effects of contaminated water: President Trump’s border wall.”
“The expansive list of Defense Department projects targeted for possible cuts — $12.9 billion in all — spans nearly all 50 states and more than two dozen countries where troops are stationed. Fire station repairs, new schools and training complexes are all slated for potential funding delays to fulfill Mr. Trump’s intent to take up to $3.6 billion in military construction funds for the wall. So are plans for Camp Lejeune’s new water treatment facility.”
dduck. I cant access NY Times and due to their far left reporting, I dont read when I can get to it. However, the attached is a good article that covers the subject.
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-03-26/congress-likely-to-question-use-of-military-funds-for-wall
I support wall funding, but I dont support shifting funding from the military because this is a massive loophole that past congresses have given the presidents that should never have happened. As noted in the article, the acting DOD secretary does not seem to support this either. His comment was he was following the commander in chiefs directives.
So I favor stopping Trump taking these funds, not because of what they are being used for, but because he should not have this power nor should any future president have authority to shift funds for any project he/she might favor. That goes for any funds, not just military funds.
Its time for congress to take back all powers not specifically authorized by the constitution (or discussed in the federalist papers that helped form the constitution). If they do that as a result of Trump robbing Peter to pay Paul, then that’s a good thing. I doubt they will do their job and take back powers other than on specific issues.
Just to be clear the only funds Trump is touching are funds Congress has already earmarked for emergency use, and more importation NOT earmarked for specific emergency use.
If Trump is using military funds that would otherwise be used for something else,
CONGRESS did NOT fund that other thing. If they did Trump can not touch the money.
Even with the current language of the NEA – which is a mistake. Trump can only take money’s that congress did not specifically allocate.
Of Course the Sec Def wants the money for something else – he, not congress decided what to use that money for and Trump overruled him.
I would be happy with a much narrower NEA and more specific budgets.
But no one here should pretend that is a magic bullet to eliminating the wall.
Trump “capitulated” on the wall funding – only because he could get what he wanted otherwise. If that were not the case – the shutdown would still be continuing.
Dave how do I find information on what Trump can and can not access from the military budget. These article makes it sound like Trump can use anything in the DOD base construction budget.
I do not know the specifics. They result from the intersection between two things – the LAW – in this case the NEA, which allows the president to declare national emergencies, and to use them as a means of reallocating resources to address those emergencies, and provides some constraints to what Trump can and can not re-allocate. And the BUDGET, which is where congress allocates the funding of the federal government.
Trump can NOT move funds in a way that deviates from the budget.
If as an example the Budget allocates $200M specifically for B2 Bombers – Trump can not touch that. But very little of the money congress budgets is that specific.
But even in broad terms – Trump can not violate the dictates of the budget.
The places Trump has taken funding from are ALL, areas of the budget that have something to do with national security and drugs. From DHS, from DOD, and from DEA.
But Trump can not just raid DOD, DHS, and DEA, he had to specifically find funds inside of those budgets that were not clearly allocated in a specific way – as an example Congress dictated that DEA could use Asset Forfeiture money for drug interdiction. The wall is a tool in drug interdiction. Congress could have been more specific about how asset forfeiture money was used – but it was not.
With respect to much of what is being pissed and moaned about here – DoD asked for some amount of money for “emergencies” without being particularly clear what those emergencies were. The Secretary of Defense determined that those funds would be used for the things that are being complained about – Congress did not, it merely gave the Sec Def the authority to spend those funds for emergencies.
Every single instance where Trump has diverted funds to the wall, congress has specified how those funds can be used with sufficient lattitude to allow Trump to use them for the wall.
Congress controls the purse – absolutely, and an emergency does not change that. But the president has some – but not unlimited freedom to move things arround so long he does not violate what Congress has specified.
But lets be clear – this is not about what congress INTENDED, it is about the budget as they passed it.
In a $4T budget – the 8B that Trump has found, is rounding error.
It is almost impossible for congress to pass a budget that is not an absolute straight jacket that prevents Trump from finding amounts of that scale to build the wall.
The best Congress could do would be to pass a law that explicitly prohibited Trump from spending money on the Wall – and that could well fail in court – as though Congress as not funded the Wall, they have actually AUTHORIZED it – several times since the 80’s.
If the democrats challenge this in court, and if Trump has actually exceeded the budget and emergency discretion they have given him – then Trump will lose.
From the legal analysis I have heard – that is not likely to happen.
Further Trump is actually being very careful about this – he has prioritized the spending. He is STARTING with the funds that are the least controversial and as he runs out of each moving to the next more controlversial catagory.
Further he is NOT spending as much as he could. Treasury found about $27B that they thought was inside of Trump’s power to redirect to the wall, he is only using the $8B least controversial of that.
Just to be clear – I OPPOSE what Trump is doing. I think he should have veto’d the budget deal and continued the shutdown. I think he would have ultimately won – the budget deal had $1.37B for the wall the democrats had already caved. But it does not matter whether he would have won or not, that was the more appropriate way to address this.
While I OPPOSE what he is doing, it IS currently legal. Congress can fix this by changing the law.
I would further note – this is just kicking the can down the road. This fight is going to occur AGAIN.
Though Trump has just put the Democrats into a budget bind. They can attempt to constrain Trump’s ability to continue spending on the Wall but more narrowly allocating funds in the budget. But to do so they must PASS a budget. It has been decades since a democratic house has passed a budget. One of the big deals of the first two years of the Trump administration is that Republicans actually passed a budget – and nearly all of it “on time”.
Democrats have used Continuing resolutions to fund government.
If Pelosi and Schumer use CR’s in the future – Trump continues to be able to spend $8B/year on the wall. A CR extends the past budget into the future unaltered.
One of the big deals of the Emergency Wall Funding is that The democrats have only a few ways of thwarting it in the LONG RUN.
Pass a budget that is specific enough to preclude emergency spending on the wall.
That is going to be really really difficult to do.
Win in Court – highly unlikely once this gets passed the 9th circuit and because of the way Trump is spending the funds – the 9th circuit can only stop the use of funds that Trump is not going to get to for 9 months or so. So Trump can continue to build while fighting in court, even if the 9th issues a TRO.
Change the NEA or pass a law deauthorizing the Wall.
The former would only apply moving FORWARD.
I would further note that alot of republicans voted against Trump’s emergency declaration because it was a CLEAR effort to circumvent congress.
My guess is that if the NEA was changed to give Congress a more clear last word, that the measure would not have passed the Senate.
So in other words, the article takes a few bits of information, massages this information and reports in a manner that the military will be severely damaged in its ability to fulfill its mission. The article presents a false narrative concerning the issue and is presented to fill the minds of the “ignorant and lazy” who do not know nor are they inclined to ask questions so they can understand the facts.
If the funds are not specifically designated, then how can the reallocation impact anything. Had he not reallocated, what would they finally decide to spend it on? Would they have spent all of it? ( Wait, yes, end of year shopping spree to clear the accounts)
“So in other words, the article takes a few bits of information, massages this information and reports in a manner that the military will be severely damaged in its ability to fulfill its mission. The article presents a false narrative concerning the issue and is presented to fill the minds of the “ignorant and lazy” who do not know nor are they inclined to ask questions so they can understand the facts.”
That might be true – but it is NOT what I said.
All I am claiming is that the money Trump is redirecting was NOT allocated by law – that is what a budget is, a law, to these projects. Each re-allocation is a bit different, but generally, this is all from funds that congress gave the administration sufficient latitude in spending that Trump CAN redirect that spending to “the wall”.
In most or all cases, someone in the administration – NOT congress, decided what these funds would be spent for.
Whether redirecting them would be harmful is a different question.
“If the funds are not specifically designated, then how can the reallocation impact anything. Had he not reallocated, what would they finally decide to spend it on? Would they have spent all of it? ( Wait, yes, end of year shopping spree to clear the accounts)”
Of course it will impact something.
At the same time it is likely the impact will be small.
If the decision about how to spend the money was not sufficiently important for the administration to specifically ask for it, or congress to specifically budget for it, then the argument that this is a big problem is difficult to make.
I think that there should be constraints on it. But I think that the president should be given broad authority to CUT spending.
I would change the NEA – and I would craft broad legislation that was similar.
I would change NEA to give congress 30 days after a declaration of emergency to vote up or down – and simple majority both chambers, no veto.
I would BTW do much the same for ALL federal regulations – and pretty much all executive actions.
I would separately BY LAW empower the president to unilaterally reduce spending below amounts allocated by congress anywhere that he is able. BUT I would again subject those spending cuts to a legislative veto.
That essentially gives the president a “line item veto” but with a simple congressional override, and I think that would past constitutional muster. The final word would be with congress.
Yep thats what I said!
Congress is free to fund everything you think Trump is interfering with, and it can do so in a fashion that Trump can not stop.
Alternately Congress could have appropriated enough money in the budget for the wall.
Or it could have written the NEA such that Trump did not have so much unilateral power, or as several have proposed, it could write the NEA to require a positive confirmation by congress in 30 days.
BTW I will completely support revising the NEA to preclude using an emergency declaration to get arround congress.
But the current NEA permits that. The problem is with Congress NOT Trump.
Ron, glad you support the troops. some don’t.
There is no “support the troops” issue here.
I “support the troops” and I would slash the defense budget in half.
Paying for some thing that the Sec Def has chosen is NOT supporting or not supporting the troops. –
What did Mueller and DOJ and FBI know – and when did they know it ?
MacCarthy is another of the many republican voices – more than democrats calling for the expeditious release of the Mueller investigation material.
Based on Mueller actions through 2017, 2018 and 2019, what is apparent is that as soon a Mueller took over the Trump Russia investigation, he was able to fairly quickly conclude there was no criminal collusion with Russia. Something that DOJ/FBI were aware of before this started.
So Why didn’t Mueller report that earlier ?
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-how-long-has-mueller-known-there-was-no-trump-russia-collusion
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435700-trump-russia-collusion-did-affect-an-american-election-the-one-in-2018
Former ranking National Intelligence agent at the FBI on the corruption of Comey.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/435675-mueller-has-exposed-james-comey
The political spectrum.
Two axis are better than one, but ultimately insufficient.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2019/03/26/giving_the_libertarians_a_space_in_the_political_spectrum_103673.html
More sleazy Trump appointees:
“Interior Nominee Intervened to Block Report on Endangered Species”
“Their analysis found that two of the pesticides, malathion and chlorpyrifos, were so toxic that they “jeopardize the continued existence” of more than 1,200 endangered birds, fish and other animals and plants, a conclusion that could lead to tighter restrictions on use of the chemicals.
But just before the team planned to make its findings public in November 2017, something unexpected happened: Top political appointees of the Interior Department, which oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, blocked the release and set in motion a new process intended to apply a much narrower standard to determine the risks from the pesticides.”
“Before he joined the Trump administration, Mr. Bernhardt worked as a lawyer and lobbyist representing clients including the oil and gas industry. He was frequently paid to challenge endangered species-related matters, including one involving a tiny silvery blue fish called the delta smelt whose protection by the federal government has resulted in limits on water use by California farmers.”
“The pesticides, particularly chlorpyrifos and malathion, are “high toxicity” for all animals, and their effect on endangered species would be both direct and indirect, via contamination of food sources, for example, the staff concluded. The E.P.A. has separately considered banning chlorpyrifos because of potential harm to humans.”
We Do Not live in a police state ?
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/dont-shoot-the-dogs/
So after two p!us years, unlimited resources, hundreds of hours of investigation, Mueller did not have all the information needed to know what Schiff knows after a few hours of hearing in the House.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/14/adam-schiff-there-ample-evidence-collusion-between-trump-campaign-russians/336786002/
Adam Schiff = OJ Simpson
Schiff still searching for the real connection to Trump collusion.
OJ still searching for the real killer of Nicole.
You’re misunderstanding the prosecutorial significance of the word ‘evidence.’
Barr says Mueller didn’t find evidence ‘sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice’ indictment.
Barr isn’t claiming there was no evidence, only that IN HIS JUDGEMENT the evidence wasn’t sufficient enough to insure a ‘conviction.’ If prosecutors believes there IS evidence a crime was committed, but feel the evidence is not strong enough to convict on the charges, they will not indict. And Barr, from his own writings and interviews, was already predisposed against the obstruction charge.
Again I refer you to your own criticism of the Clinton email ‘evidence’ dismissal for the FBI not recommending indicting her.
Jay,
Actually YOU are making the exact error you are claiming Ron is making.
“Insufficient evidence” is NOT the same as “it is still possible, but I can not prove it”.
If a crime as 5 elements, and the accused absolutely met the requirements of 4 and absolutely does not meet the 5th – they are ABSOLUTELY innocent, AND there is “insufficient evidence”.
Mueller improperly abdicated his responsibilty kicking it up to Barr.
He did not do so because he was not clear regarding the legal requirements.
He did so because he knew damn well he could not assert that a crime was committed when ALL the required elements of that crime were not present.
Mueller was PO’d at Trump for ragging on him for two years.
If Trump was Roger Stone – Mueller would have manufactured an indictment
But Trump is the president, the conduct was done completely in public so there are no doubts and no reason to defer to Mueller, put simply a claim that Trump had obstructed justice would have made Mueller responsible for manufacturing a constitutional crisis that even he knows is false, Mueller is used to operating in the shadows. He is not one for the spot light. And his conduct looks bad in the spot light.
So Mueller got in his last jab by pretending he could not make up his mind on things that were legally trivial to decide. And Barr dispatched them quickly.
Derschowitz has been addressing specifically this from the start of the Mueller investigation.
You can not “obstruct justice” by constitutionally authorized actions.
You can not convert an act that would not be a crime but for your guess as to the intent of the actor.
We can not have a government where the same act is legitimate or criminal depending on which president acted.
With respect to Clinton – read the law.
I keep talking about “the elements of a crime”.
18 usc 15xx provides 20 different crimes that are all considered obstruction of justice.
Each of these has specific elements – the requirements necescary for an act to violate that law.
An act that violates 3 elements of 18 usc 1501 and 2 of 18 usc 1519 is NOT a crime.
To be a crime the act must meet ALL the elements of a specific 15xx section.
There is no Obstruction crime under 18 usc 15xx that an act of Trump’s matches all the elements. Therefore the crime can not be charged.
It is that simple.
This is not a question of sufficient evidence.
If there is indesputable evidence of 4 of 5 elements, and none for the 5th – it can not be charged. If there is some for the 5th but it is weak – then there is a question of “sufficient evidence” an in our system juries get to decide.
The determination Mueller was supposed to make that he abdicated to Bar was NOT, was the evidence strong or weak. It was not even was there enough to prove some element beyond a reasonable doubt, or even beyond “the preponderance of evidence”.
It was did every single required element have SOME evidence
It does not matter how strong the other elements are, if even one element has no element, or worse can be proven to be unmet.
The relevant statute regarding Clinton is 18 cfr 793.
That statue defines 6 different crimes – 793(a-f) each of decreasing
That statute defines the elements for violations of each section a-f.
Before Comey spoke, in fact almost before the investigation started, every element necescary to prosecute 18cfr793(f) was already present.
During the course of the investigation it became clear that 18cfr793(e) had its required elements met also.
From the start of Comey’s public remarks, through to just before the last paragraph, Comey listed all the required elements of 18cfr793(f) and asserted affirmatively that not only were each met, but that the evidence was compelling for each.
Up until his last few sentences nearly anyone with a modicum of understanding of the law expected Comey to indict.
All the required elements were present.
In fact Comey never should have made that speach.
As several people have noted – prosecutors are NOT supposed to make their case in the press. They speak through indictments and prosecutions.
Comey failed to follow the law.
All the required elements were met.
Any claim that there is some parity here is a false equivalence.
Though both cases are examples of justice run awry.
In the one politics dictated that an act that met all the requirements to be a violation of the law was not to be prosecuted as the law requires.
In the other an investigation was conducted absent sufficient basis again driven by politics,
Jay, you have information I dont have. Could you provide me with that so I can compare what was found about Russian collusion with that provided about Clinton. After reviewing, then I may agree that an indictment should follow if that is the legal track that is applied to the president.
And if Schiff has evidence that Mueller did not have, then I want the House to start impeachment hearings to get everything out on the table.
Right now we still have the right saying the witch hunt provided nothing and the left saying there is collusion, but the evidence is weak and its questionable that a conviction will follow. He is guity, but he was extremely careful to cover his tracks.
Comey said Clinton broke the law. Mueller did not say that Trump colluded with the Russians, but the evidence is weak. A quote directly from the report I have copied says “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
So please provide the information you have from the report that indicates otherwise. Not MSNBC, not NY Times, not something Barr said, but an exact quote like I have provided from this article. (See third paragragh under letters main points.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/verify/verify-what-the-mueller-report-summary-really-says/507-1d7b58ce-1c0c-4787-938d-b3108ebbd4cf
I may agree with you after seeing what you have.
“He is guity, but he was extremely careful to cover his tracks.”
So for a couple of million in crappy FB adds, Trump manages an incredibly tightly controlled and secret arrangement with Putin, that to this day not a single journalist in the planet, nor any law enforcement agency has ever found anything but rumors ?
If Trump is that good – then he DOES know more than the CIA and the NSA and the Generals.
And all this ignores the fact that Mueller Turned Cohen – and STILL Cohen gave him NOTHING. Cohen now say Trump is a bad dude, but he remains adamant that he is a bad dude that did not collude with Russia.
From Barr’s synopsis: ““Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.”
From Trump’s lips, after meeting with Putin: “Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn’t do that.’ And I believe — I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, ‘I didn’t do that.’ I think he’s very insulted by it, if you want to know the truth. Don’t forget, all he said is he never did that, he didn’t do that. I think he’s very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country.”
What are the odds Trump continues to equivocate if asked the question now, 99-1?
Can we quit making the mistake of presuming that Barr summarizing Mueller is the same as Barr endorsing Mueller ?
With respect to your assertion regarding the DNC hacking – absolutely Mueller attributes that to Russia. It is even possible he is correct.
But the actual evidence DOES NOT lead to that conclusion conclusively, and absent evidence we DO NOT have, CAN NOT lead to that conclusion conclusively.
As noted before John Brennan – who was a major voice of “the intelligence community” has been found to be WRONG, and has publicly confirmed that he was wrong about Trump Russia Collusion.
The intelligence community has not been vindicated, it has been chastized.
I place far more trust in those either directly involved – such as Assange, who would face very serious consequences both with respect to credibility and criminality if his claim that the DNC emails came from a leak, rather than a hack.
BTW there is no doubt that DNC was hacked – several times over the course of several years, and possibibly by multiple different bad actors.
The fundimental questions are were those hacks the source of the DNC emails that wikileaks published, and what was the russian governments role.
You can not determine the source of a hack today using computer forensics. There is no forensic computer process that can not be faked – especially when powerful actors such as world super powers are involved, But the state of the art is such that a Pakistani Script Kiddie can create a false flag hack with a very high probabilty of never being caught.
Lawyers and FBI agents and journalists pretending that is not so does not change that it is.
Even probability does not factor in as when absolutely all evidence can be faked and even minor actors can appear to successfully attribute blame to superpowers, and where what appears to be a fatal mistake can not be distinguished from a deliberate effort to misdirect there is virtually no means short of a confession of establishing the source of a hack.
VPS – which is a well respected group of former NSA analysts, These are the people who “got it right” about 9/11 and were ignored, determined that the probability of a hack being the source of the leaked DNC emails is less than 50%, that it is more probable that the emails were leaked and that they were copied to a USB device and the copy was made in the US, likely directly off the DNC server. VPS’s analysis is not conclusive – it is possible to make a hack look like a leak or a leak look like a hack, but the evidence suggest the latter is more probable than the former.
Regardless, I choose to trust VPS and Asange more than Mueller.
The former have a real cost to pay if they are wrong. the latter does not.
Further I suspect ultimately We will get confirmation for Wikileaks that the emails were leaked.
I am not obligated to beleive that an analytic conclusion – rather than an actual established fact that Mueller has reached is correct.
And what will you do if it is ever established for certain that the Russian’s did not do it ?
What is Asange decides tomorow, to identify his source, and he does so in a way that is verifiable ?
Are you going to apologize the Trump and Putin ?
And why is it that we are supposed to beleive the FBI and Mueller ? They did not examine the servers or the DNC network. Their only source is CloudStrike, who has been discredited before, and is the only Cyber Security firm that is dishbonest enough to claim they can identify the source of an attack.
I could be wrong, it is possible Russia hacked the DNC – I grasp that I could be wrong.
You do not. You are certain you know what happened. Why ?
Because you looked at the data ? Nope.
Because you are relying on a source with a reputation for integrity and accuracy ?
Nope.
The reason you and so many buy Russia – is because it is what you want to believe.
I am hard pressed to think of an instance EVER where Russia was actually caught hacking anyone. But this time, when a disreputable security firm concludes what no one else in the industry believes is possible – you believe ?
I have some WMD’s in Iraq to sell you.
In the end it does not actually matter much.
I have little doubt that Russia WOULD hack the DNC – and probably the RNC too.
But the question is not what Russia WOULD do, it is what they did do.
And the probability that we are correct in that assessment.
You still do not seem to know what equivocate means.
An opinion is not false because someone else claims otherwise.
Mueller concluded the Russian’s did it. He did not prove they did.
You can not lie by disagreeing with someone else’s conclusion.
You remain unable to distinguish the difference between
True and False as opposed to good and evil.
Does lying about your net worth prepare you for the presidency?
“NEW: How did @realDonaldTrump inflate his net worth to lenders?
–Added 10 stories to Trump Tower.
–Added 800 acres to his winery.
–Added 24 ready-to-sell lots to his property in CA.”
-From Washington Post
It obviously does. Lying makes the vorld go round, the vorld go round, and he will keep doing it..
You think this is a good moment for you to be doubling down on the “Trump Lies” nonsense ?
Question: should egregiously Lying politicians of any party be made to resign?
Can we develop a fair scale to judge egregious lying?
Only if we make it effective sometime in the future. If you made it effective now, the wholevdamn government would be gone. We would have ” Designated Survivor” situation. And Kiefer Sutherland would jot be qualifued, he is Canadian
There is no “made to resign”.
Resignation is a choice.
When you are removed against your wishes it is called FIRED.
People with integrity resign when they make serious mistakes.
But people with integrity do not lie.
So your question is self contradictory.
If as an example you are asking should someone who has made claims regarding Trump and Russia that not only were false but that he new were false be a member of the “gang of 8”, the Chair of the House Intelligence committee. I think that answers itself – but expecting a resignation is a bit rich.
“Can we develop a fair scale to judge egregious lying?”
I can – and I do not need your help to do so.
An actual lie, is a deliberately false statement of a fact that is provably at odds with that statement.
A difference of oppinion is NOT a lie,
A disageement over the probability of the truth of something that can not be established with certainty is not a lie.
When you preface lie with egregious – you are now qualifying the lie – it must not only meet the criteria above, but it must also be consequential,
Exagerating the size of your penis would be a lie, but it would not be egregious unless you were a porn start and it was a job requirement.
Trump exagerates alot, He over simplifies alot. It is unlikely that any of that would meet “egregious”.
Trump also holds many opinions that I beleive are wrong.
This appears to be news to you – but a difference of oppinion is not a lie.
Beliving Putin over the US IC would not be a lie even if the US was ultimately proven to be right. It is certainly not
Being wrong is not lying,
Holding an oppinion you do not like is not lying.
Accusing someone of lying is substantially more significant that accusing them of being wrong. Making a factual error comes at the expense of your credibility.
Making a false moral judgement comes at the expense of your own integrity.
Priscilla – I hear:
“Yes! Trump is Bananas!
More and more Bananas each day!”
Does anyone disagree that the frequency with which Trump and his associates interacted with Russians during the campaign was UnAmerican?
Please provide info. I cant answer that as I dont keep up with that.
I am not aware of a single instance during the campaign in which Trump, or his actual campaign had actual interaction with anyone who was part of the Russian government in anyway.
Nearly all the steele dossier allegations are NOT interactions with the Russian govenrment, they were purportedly interactions with private russians with ties to the Russian government.
Trump Jr. Communicated with a Russian Pop Star – is that the kind of thing you mean ?
If So John Podesta is on the board of a Russia company, and has tens of millions invested in it.
Trump Jr. Kushner and Manafort met for about 15 minutes with two russians. One purported to have ties to the kremlin – Trump Trumps HOPED she did. The evidence sugest that is unlikely. Regardless, Natalia has much Stronger ties to Glenn Simpson.
You can not make Claims regarding Trump and Natalia without doubly ensnaring Clinton.
Papadoulis THOUGH he was meeting with russians, But he never actually did, and most likely was meeting with MI6 operatives.
Page who is an energy consultant spoke publicly at an energy conference in Russia with russians also in the energy industry. He notified the FBI of the trip and was debriefed before and after.
Flynn attended a public Gala in Russia – along with Jill Stein.
Manafort had a ukrainian aide who was LIKELY unbenownced to him a Russian Spy.
Stone and Corsi were both approached by a fake russian who is a known FBI agent.
Then Sen. Sessions attended a washington party at which Amb. Kislyak was present and publicly exchanged small talk with him and a Marine Col. for a few minutes.
I do not beleive there is another documented contact between the Trump Campaign and and even a fake russian during the Campaign.
The above is DWARFED by the contacts of the Clintons with Russia, and there is pretty clear evidence that Clinton reqceived campaign assistance from the Ukraine.
Here is legislation that seems reasonable to me. It will end up in SCOTUS for final approval as to it being constitutional or not.
If it is approved by SCOTUS, then In my opimion it will not be long before the democrats come up with a more stricter law somewhere else that may not.identify people with mental issue, it will identify those which they target as wanting guns removed. SCOTUS will have to approve that one also.
This one may be the one that cracks the door.
And DAVE, dont give me a lecture on SCOTUS and the way I used “approved”. I know they dont “approve”, but with every leg of government being political,to ME, they approve of legislation or not. Before they became political, they decided or issued opinions.
I have ZERO problems with people losing rights where they have engaged in CONDUCT that demonstrates they are likely to abuse those rights.
Any “constitutional” issue regarding this law would have to do with the details of the law.
And my guess – reinforced by what little is in the article is that this is BAD law.
One of the reasons for subjecting all rights to strict scrutiny (the 2nd amendment is NOT), is that many many laws like this red flag law that have little problem passing muster as a Good Idea – even a “constitutional” idea. Not only fail in practice – by PREDICTABLY fail in practice.
I have asserted – and actual evidence shows, that there is no a priori regulation that has ever accomplished its stated goal.
Using this Red Flag law as an example, passing it will result in guns being confiscated from some people. It will likely result in jailing some people for failing to obey.
But there will be no observable change in the trends of mass shootings or homicides.
There is a reason for this:
It is a logical error to blame inanimate objects for human conduct.
You can not make humans into better people by regulating objects.
Why do you beleive otherwise ?
That is not a constitutional flaw, that is just a real world factual flaw.
So you will get all the negatives – all the increased govenrment power that will inevitably be used wrongly or corruptly atleast some of the time. And you will not get the hoped for benefit.
BTW, this problem is unchanged whether we are talking about sugary drinks or loose cigarettes, or guns.
I do not know about Colorado, but in PA, you are barred from possessing a gun if a Protection From Abuse order is filed against you.
That seems very similar to the Colorado Red Flag law.
The standard to get a PFA is VERY LOW – and I have no problem with that EXCEPT when it is used to deprive someone of other rights.
I have zero problem with someone going to court and saying – this person will not leave me alone, bar them from my PRIVATE life. Again – details matter and how things should work for two people who dated twice, vs, two people who are living together vs. two people who have been married for decades and have children together are different, and quite frequently the system completely botches this.
But there is nothing wrong with the concept, if the details are often wrong.
But extending PFA’s to AUTOMATICALLY bar someone from possession of guns has resulted in massively magnified messes.
On one side people have ended up jailed – because they did not understand that a PFA filed against them made it a crime for them to continue to possess weapons.
On the other there are myriads of instances of police confiscating and selling for personal gain weapons they have taken from “persons not to posses”.
I will absolutely guarantee you that this Red Flag law will result in significant abuse of power by those in government, and likely even increase the crime committed by those in law enforcement.
I am personally far more concerned about the dangers of overly powerful government than the small probability of being killed by someone who would have been red flagged regarding guns.
“You can not make humans into better people by regulating objects.
Why do you beleive otherwise ?”
STOP making statements you know nothing about nor understand when you read what some posts.
Where did I say this would make better people by regulating guns? I DID NOT SAY THAT!
I said because these individuals have been ID’ed as a threat to themselves or others that I did not have a problem with the law. I did not say one way or the other if I thought it would work. But I also said this law will make it easier in the future for the control gods of the democrat party to get stricter bans on guns that might be an infringement on rights.
How many times have youbseen cooments about us being the crabs in the comfortable pot of warm water ignoring the threat that looms in the future? That is what this law, as well as others do.
Anyone wonder in 2000 if the Venezuelans felt the water warming?
““You can not make humans into better people by regulating objects.
Why do you beleive otherwise ?”
STOP making statements you know nothing about nor understand when you read what some posts.
Where did I say this would make better people by regulating guns? I DID NOT SAY THAT!”
Why do you presume that every argument I make is a personal attack ?
The question I asked was rhetorical – or supposed to be
“A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer. Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message.”
“I said because these individuals have been ID’ed as a threat to themselves or others that I did not have a problem with the law. I did not say one way or the other if I thought it would work.”
1). I do not give a rats ass if someone is a threat to themselves – that is not a justification for using force against them. That is a ludicrously stupid argument.
“because you might harm yourself, I am going to harm you first ?”
Should the police shoot people attempting suicide ?
2). With respect to “ID’d as a threat to others” – the details matter.
My father was deprived of his right to die in his home surrounded by his family and friends because of two false allegations made by people who did not know what they were talking about.
I constantly use the words CONDUCT or ACTS, because “ID’ed as a threat to others” is horribly vague. It is license to use force driven solely by fear, and we already have lots of that.
3). Any law that does not work IS A PROBLEM.
It is possible to get my agreement to a “red flag” law. As I noted, it is not inherently unconstitutional. But that alone is NOT the only criteria.
I would presume that laws that have more negative than positive consequences would be unacceptable to you – even if they were constitutional ?
I would presume that laws that do not acheive their purposes would be unacceptable to you ?
I am not opposed to gun laws merely because they infringe on peoples rights.
We have the right to kill others, but laws that restrict our right to murder others are not inherently unconstitutional or ever wrong.
SOME of the criteria a restriction of liberty must meet to be justified are:
Necescity, effectivness, and scope.
Gun control laws fail ALL of those – even ones that are constitutional.
Bring me one that meets all the requirements to be justified, and I will support it.
Just to be clear. I think it is a near certainty that SCOTUS would find this constitutional – and in fact already has found similar laws constitutional.
It is even theoretically possible that such a law could pass “strict scrutiny” – though I doubt this law would, but that would depend on details.
Or to put this differently, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, applying MY purportedly extreme understanding of the constitution, as a general concept a “red flag” law – a law that barred possession of weapons based on past bad conduct, would be constitutional.
There would still be TWO large problems. A concept, or idea is not an actual law, and even if the concept of a red flag law was constitutional, that would not make all red flag laws constitutional. That would depend on the specifics of the law itself.
It is not constitutional to infringe on a right, based on your fear. Depriving someone of a right must be based on conduct sufficiently egregious to justify that action.
The larger problem which I noted in another post is that I do not beleive that Red Flag laws will work.
The burden of proving that a law that infringes on rights will have significantly more positive benefit than negative rests with those seeking to infringe on rights.
It is irrelevant how good an idea sounds – if it does not work.
Comment left on Ricks illegal illegal immigrant tab if anyone is interested. Its about immigrants, that is why I used it.