“He Just Floored It!” Detroit Police SUV Filmed Plowing Through Protesters

“He Just Floored It!” Detroit Police SUV Filmed Plowing Through Protesters

Tyler Durden

Mon, 06/29/2020 – 15:26

A viral video from a chaotic standoff between police and Black Lives Matter protesters in a southwest Detroit neighborhood is stirring outrage among activists, though in more normal times it should be clear to anyone that things won’t end well if one jumps on the hood of a moving police vehicle.

That’s precisely what happened Sunday night: a crowd is seen attempting to block a Detroit police SUV at an intersection. As the group of “peaceful” protesters surrounds the vehicle while banging on it, multiple individuals are seen placing themselves on the hood in order to stop its movement. The SUV’s police lights are flashing, perhaps as a warning of what’s about to happen.

Instead of retreating, the police officer guns the accelerator, sending multiple protesters flying through the air.

A Detroit police statement later said the officer had to escape after the vehicle’s back window was busted out. Police also described the crowd as “agitators” and defended the actions of the cop.

“The officer tried to escape,” according to the Detroit police department statement.

One protester, 24-year old Jae Bass told the Detroit Free Press:

“He just floored it… He went super fast. Me and a couple of other organizers that were with me, just went flinging off. We went flying off. He ran over a couple people’s arms, feet.”

Screams are heard while people yell at the driver to stop. The officer actually stops and starts several times attempting to shake off the remaining couple of individuals still grasping onto the hood.

People are then seen scattered in the street as the police car speeds off, with the crowd giving chase and screaming.

Local television reporting also featured multiple videos that captured the shocking incident:

It’s clear from the video that the officer pressed the accelerator only after the crowd began trying to climb on the car. 

Subsequent local reports said multiple among the protesters ended up in the hospital.

Since mass BLM and anti-police brutality protests began nationwide, there’s been multiple such ‘ramming’ incidents involving mobs trying to thwart moving vehicles. Needless to say in most cases it hasn’t ended well for the protesters. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2NLtrFb Tyler Durden

The Rush Of Judgment: How Recent Stories On Barr Left The Relevant Facts And Law Behind

The Rush Of Judgment: How Recent Stories On Barr Left The Relevant Facts And Law Behind

Tyler Durden

Mon, 06/29/2020 – 15:08

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper that looks at three different stories attacking Attorney General Bill Barr as acting unethically and corruptly from the Flynn case to the Berman decision to the Cohen case.  I have not hesitated to criticize Barr on his policies or actions. However, these are based on long-standing differences over constitutional and legal issues.  It is the character attacks that I found notable in last week’s stories particularly in the absence of supporting evidence.

Here is the column:

I criticized President Trump two years ago for all his ruthless and endless attacks on former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Today Attorney General William Barr is being similarly attacked by critics of the administration, as some media shows the same kind of blind rage without reason.

While I have publicly criticized Barr for some of his policies and actions, he is someone I have known personally for years and even represented with other attorneys general during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. Piling on Barr has never been more popular today, but the basis for this criticism has never been weaker. Three stories last week seemed to entirely break free from factual or legal moorings, and no one seemed to care.

THE FLYNN CASE

The case of Michael Flynn has been in the media, including the hearing exploring the involvement of Barr. Of course, for Barr to be immoral, the case must be portrayed as virtually immaculate. The media coverage has steadfastly ignored disclosures about officials pushing unrelentingly for any criminal charge to use on Flynn, allegedly withholding exculpatory evidence, and giving misleading statements to the trial court.

Confirming the facts seems irrelevant to the criticism. My colleagues at George Washington University signed a letter denouncing him over the case despite new developments. The letter is written well and raises a number of legitimate issues. But some of us felt it reached conclusions before establishing any facts. It praised the work of retired Judge John Gleeson, an appointment by Judge Emmet Sullivan that some criticized. Gleeson argued against the dismissal of the case against Flynn. It noted that the brief by Gleeson showed “gross prosecutorial abuse.”

The faculty concluded that it was therefore established that “The Attorney General once again sought to do a favor for the President.” One day after the letter was signed, the D.C. Circuit issued a virtually unprecedented opinion ordering Sullivan to dismiss the case and specifically criticized the Gleeson brief as an example of Sullivan’s “irregular” course of conduct and “suggests anything but a circumscribed review.”  It noted that the brief was based on little more than “news stories, tweets, and other facts outside the record to contrast the government’s grounds for dismissal here with its rationales for prosecution in other cases.”

Two days later, new evidence further supported the Justice Department’s position that there was no legitimate investigation tied to the interview of Flynn, a key element for a prosecution. The Justice Department has long maintained that a false statement must be connected to such an investigation and not simply used to trap an individual. The notes from fired FBI Special Agent Peter Stryok reveal that former FBI Director James Comey told President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden that Flynn’s call with the Russian was viewed as “legit” from the start. Thus, not only had agents sought to end the investigation in December for a lack of evidence of any crime, but even Comey agreed that Flynn’s call with the Russian diplomats was legitimate.  Yet, they still continued to discuss a way to charge Flynn on any crime, including the Logan Act, a law that is widely viewed as unconstitutional.

THE BERMAN MATTER

The next story appeared on Friday night, when Barr announced that Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman was “stepping down” to make way for the appointment of Jay Clayton, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Clayton wanted to return to New York and expressed an interest in the position. Barr told Berman that he and President Trump wanted the two men to swap positions, or Berman could take over the DOJ’s civil division. Berman said he wanted to think about it, but Barr went ahead and announced the change.

Barr told Berman that he and the President wanted the two men to swap positions or Berman could take over the civil division at the Justice Department. Berman said that he wanted to think about it, but Barr went ahead in announcing the change.

Berman issued a public statement with a final line that strongly suggested that his removal was an effort to influence pending investigations including those into Trump associates as Rudy Giuliani. The media exploded and various people called for Barr’s immediate impeachment.  In the meantime, serious journalists like Pete Williams at NBC were confirming sources as saying that the move had nothing to do with the investigations. Indeed, there has been no allegation that Barr has hampered those investigations since becoming Attorney General and he told attorneys to report any such interference to the Inspector General.

It may be true that Barr has a better relationship with Clayton. However, the substantive question is whether, as reported, he was trying to influence the Trump investigations.  There is no evidence (but much coverage) to support that proposition.

THE COHEN CASE

Finally, the attacks on Barr returned to the case of Michael Cohen. The Daily Beast derided the insistence of Barr that it is nothing but a “media narrative” to suggest he has been acting in the interests of the president. The Daily Beast refers to Cohen as a close confidant of Trump without any mention that, by the time Barr had raised questions about the case, the president despised Cohen and celebrated his conviction. The only person who would have been more upset with undermining the conviction of Cohen than the lead prosecutor would have been Trump.

This entire “scandal” is due to Barr reportedly asking whether aspects of the Cohen prosecution were based on flawed interpretations of the underlying federal law. He started an internal discussion about the scope of the interpretation. The United States attorneys’ manual reaffirms the control of Main Justice over such interpretative policies, even though Barr apparently let it drop. Readers were never told that Barr takes the position against an expansive reading of the criminal code on offenses like those with which Cohen was charged.  Indeed, in Barr’s confirmation hearing, I noted that Barr, as a private citizen, contacted the Justice Department to contest the charges against Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) on such broad interpretations. He had no connection to Menendez.  Was he also currying favor with Trump on the Menendez case when he was seeking to raise such issues before he became Attorney General?

Barr was confirmed on February 14, 2019.  Just a week later, Trump was denouncing Cohen as “lying in order to reduce his prison time.”  Barr was so slavishly trying to please Trump that he was questioning the prison time that Trump was celebrating and seeking “a legal memo casting doubt on the legitimacy of Cohen’s conviction.”

Legitimate objections can be raised about certain policies of Barr. I have criticized him for some of those, and we have disagreed for decades over constitutional law and the power of the executive branch. However, I have never known a more honest and direct individual in Washington. His real flaw is a lack of concern over the optics of his actions. Barr spends much time thinking about the right move to make but little time about how it is seen.

That is a fair criticism. However, last week’s stories show that, to take a line from King Lear, Barr remains “a man more sinned against than sinning.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Bp7VUa Tyler Durden

Fed’s Primary Corporate Credit Facility Is Now Operational

Fed’s Primary Corporate Credit Facility Is Now Operational

Tyler Durden

Mon, 06/29/2020 – 14:48

Now that the Fed is buying about a $1 billion in corporate bond ETFs weekly, and as of two weeks ago, starting buying individual corporate bonds out of a list which, as we disclosed yesterday bizarrely includes such perfectly solvent and stable foreign corporate titans as Toyota, Volkswagen and Daimler, not to mention such domestic names as Apple and Berkshire, the US central bank has shifted away from the secondary market where its market manipulation only affects asset prices instead of directly providing funding to corporations, and starting today the NY Fed announced that its Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) has also opened for business Monday, the last of its nine pandemic emergency lending programs to become operational, the one which will directly give money to corporations.

The program was first announced on March 23, the day the S&P hit its post crisis lows and the Fed implemented central planning in the form of Unlimited QE and corporate bond purchases in both the primary and secondary markets.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York today announced that the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) is operational and available for use beginning June 29. The New York Fed also released the relevant certification forms, other transaction documentation and related materials, and additional Frequently Asked Questions regarding access to this facility.

The PMCCF provides a funding backstop for corporate debt to eligible issuers and is available to (i) purchase qualifying bonds as the sole investor in a bond issuance and (ii) purchase portions (up to 25%) of syndicated bonds at issuance (“co-investor” transactions).

Thanks to trillions in Fed interventions, corporate credit spreads have since collapsed back to tall time lows, and companies have been able to borrow a record amount of debt in 2020 to take advantage of cheaper credit costs, while ensuring that the credit bubble that brought us here is even bigger next time around.

As part of the official launch of the PMCCF, the Fed said in its release that pricing will be issuer-specific and informed by market conditions. Prices will also be subject to minimum and maximum spreads over comparable maturity Treasury securities.

What we would like to know – now that we are aware that the Fed is buying corporate names which make up an index of 794 entities in the secondary market, is who at the Fed we need to call to sell $1BN in bonds to the Fed and give the proceeds to our shareholders.

In its statement, the Fed said that “by standing ready to provide credit to qualifying issuers of corporate bonds in periods of stress, the PMCCF serves as a funding backstop, supporting market liquidity and the availability of credit for large employers.“

In other words, if “large employers” – who at this point can sell junk bonds at about 4% yields – need a few hundred million in taxpayer-guaranteed funds, they just need to make a phone call to the NY Fed and the central bank will promptly wire them the funds, with its blessings. And what happens if the company suffers devastating losses and the loans are impaired? Why the Treasury ends up getting wiped out on its investment. And by Treasury we of course mean taxpayers.

In other words, the question for enterprising CFOs now is how companies game the system so they can directly sell bonds to the Fed then use the proceeds to fund stock buybacks, ensuring that the debt bubble is even greater when the next bailout comes but not before shareholders in these zombie companies makes out like bandits.

For those who missed it the first time, here is Fed’s PMCCF term sheet:

 

TL/DR: printer goes Brrrr

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31z2xJ7 Tyler Durden

Expelled Student’s Sex Discrimination Claim Against Oberlin College Can Go Forward

Student John Doe had been expelled by Oberlin College for sexual misconduct; he sued Oberlin for Title IX, claiming it had been biased against him because of his sex. In today’s decision in Doe v. Oberlin College, written by Judge Ray Kethledge and joined by Judge Chad Readler, the court allowed the case to go forward; here’s an excerpt (though there’s a good deal more to the decision as well):

Doe sued Oberlin under Title IX, which bars universities that receive federal funds “from discriminating against students on the basis of sex.” Doe asserts in particular an “erroneous outcome” claim, which is that a university reached “an erroneous outcome in a student’s disciplinary proceeding because of the student’s sex.” To state a  claim under that theory, “a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to (1) cast some articulable doubt on the accuracy of the disciplinary proceeding’s outcome, and (2) demonstrate a particularized causal connection” between the flawed outcome and sex discrimination.

Here, everyone agrees that Doe pled facts casting doubt on the accuracy of his proceeding’s outcome. The question, then, is whether he pled facts plausibly suggesting that outcome was caused by sex bias….

For any number of reasons, we hold that he did. We begin with the “clear procedural irregularities” in the College’s response to the “allegations of sexual misconduct,” which, as the Second Circuit has held, “will permit a plausible inference of sex discrimination.” The College’s own Policy states that usually its investigation will be completed in 20 days, and the matter as a whole will be resolved in 60. But here the investigation alone took 120 days; Doe was not even informed of the specific allegations against him for that same period; and the hearing panel did not reach a decision until about 240 days after the complaint, which was 180 days later than contemplated by the Policy.

That delay was compounded by the College’s failure to do what the Policy twice promised it would do, namely to notify the parties “of the reason(s) for the delay and the expected time frames.” Those omissions were especially strange given that those promises were included in the Policy precisely because, in 2012, a female student had understandably complained about the emotional harm caused by the College’s delay in resolving the proceeding in which she was involved.

And those omissions were stranger still given that Doe pleaded with [Title IX Coordinator Professor Meredith] Raimondo via email about the emotional devastation wrought by the delays in his proceeding—and received little or no response. Remarkable as well was advisor [Assistant Dean Adrian B.] Bautista’s performance, given that he did not even attend the entire hearing, even though his role was to assist Doe there. {Such an advisor, the College conceded at oral argument, is supposed to serve the best interests of the accused at the hearing.}

Likewise remarkable—in a proceeding in which the credibility of accuser and accused were paramount—was the failure of the hearing panel even to comment on the flat contradiction, expressly noted by Nolan at the hearing, between what Roe told him during his investigation and what she said during the hearing, regarding whether Doe “asked” for oral sex. And of a piece was the Appeals Officer’s failure even to acknowledge the importance of [proposed newly discovered witness] J.B.’s statement as impeachment evidence regarding Roe’s claims. Procedural irregularities provide strong support for Doe’s claim of bias here.

Doe’s claim also finds support from his allegation that—throughout the pendency of his disciplinary proceeding—the federal Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights was engaged in “a systemic investigation of the College’s policies, procedures, and practices with respect to its sexual harassment and sexual assault complaint process.” For “pressure from the government to combat vigorously sexual assault on college campuses and the severe potential punishment—loss of all federal funds—if [the College] failed to comply” can likewise yield “a reasonable inference” of sex discrimination. Oberlin contended  at oral argument that we should reject that inference here, because Raimondo “welcomed” the federal investigation. But on this record, suffice it to say, that fact could cut either way.

Doe’s complaint also cites Oberlin’s “Spring 2016 Campus Climate Report,” which stated that—during the very academic year in which Doe’s “responsibility” was determined—”every single case” that went to a hearing panel resulted in a decision that the accused was “responsible” (i.e., guilty) on at least one charge. That statistic likewise supports Doe’s claim. Oberlin responds that only 10 percent of sexual-assault complaints were resolved through a formal hearing that year. But Doe reads that same Report to mean that, in 80 percent of the cases, the complainant herself chose not to pursue the matter formally. In still other cases, the responding party had graduated or otherwise left the College. And in any event the 100 percent responsibility rate—in cases where most if not all the respondents were male—supports an inference regarding bias in the hearings themselves.

But Doe’s strongest evidence is perhaps the merits of the decision itself in his case. True, the first element of an erroneous-outcome claim—whether the facts of the case “cast some articulable doubt on the accuracy of the disciplinary proceeding’s outcome[]”—already takes into account the proceeding’s outcome to some extent. But when the degree of doubt passes from “articulable” to grave, the merits of the decision itself, as a matter of common sense, can support an inference of sex bias.

And on the merits here the panel’s decision was arguably inexplicable. Per the terms of Oberlin’s Policy, intoxication does not negate consent—only “incapacitation” does. The Policy rather precisely defines that term. And the record here provided no apparent basis for a finding that Roe “lack[ed] conscious knowledge of the nature of the act” of oral sex, or that she was “asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that sexual activity [was] occurring[,]” or that she “no longer underst[ood] who [she was] with or what [she was] doing.”

Nor was there any apparent reason for Doe to perceive that Roe was in such a state. To the contrary, Roe was conscious and aware enough to engage in a coherent exchange of texts, to make small talk, and to reason that, “[w]e were no longer clothed and I felt that if anything was to continue  happening, I wanted a condom.” Thus, on this record—and making all inferences in Doe’s favor at this stage of the litigation—one could regard this as nearly a test case regarding the College’s willingness ever to acquit a respondent sent to one of its hearing panels during the 2015-16 academic year. Doe has amply stated a claim for sex discrimination in violation of Title IX….

Continue reading “Expelled Student’s Sex Discrimination Claim Against Oberlin College Can Go Forward”

Supreme Court Rules Against Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Says Agency’s Format ‘Clashes With Constitutional Structure’

admphotostwo547681

When Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2010, it gave control of the agency to a single federal official. Although appointed by the president to a five-year term, the director of the CFPB does not technically answer to the executive branch and may only be fired for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” In other words, the president may not fire the director for political reasons.

Until today. Writing for a 5–4 majority in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Chief Justice John Roberts declared the CFPB’s single director structure unconstitutional. “The CFPB Director has no boss, peers, or voters to report to,” Roberts wrote. “Yet the Director wields vast rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory authority over a significant portion of the U. S. economy. The question before us is whether this arrangement violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.” Roberts held that it does.

To reach that conclusion, the chief justice had to first grapple with Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), a far-reaching New Deal–era case in which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that President Franklin Roosevelt lacked the authority to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over political differences.

The FTC “must, from the very nature of its duties, act with entire impartiality,” wrote Justice George Sutherland. “It is charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law.” Because it “cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or an eye of the executive,” Sutherland concluded, the agency “must be free from executive control.”

So what’s the difference between that case and the present one? Why did SCOTUS forbid the president from firing an FTC commissioner for political reasons yet allow the president to fire the CFPB director for political reasons?

The answer lies in part in the fact that the FTC is run by a panel of five commissioners and, according to federal law, “not more than three of the commissioners shall be members of the same political party.” The director of the CFPB, by contrast, does not share power with any such panel and is not subject to any such political constraints.

In other words, while Humphrey’s Executor did go far in terms of shielding certain federal officials, the Supreme Court said today that it did not go so far as to allow something like the current CFPB structure.

“While we need not and do not revisit our prior decisions allowing certain limitations on the President’s removal power,” Roberts wrote in Seila Law, “there are compelling reasons not to extend those precedents to the novel context of an independent agency led by a single Director. Such an agency lacks a foundation in historical practice and clashes with constitutional structure by concentrating power in a unilateral actor insulated from Presidential control.”

Here’s one potential real-world impact of today’s decision: If Joe Biden wins the presidency in November, he will be free to fire the bureau’s Donald Trump–appointed director for purely political reasons.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Bcs6VB
via IFTTT

Hong Kong Is in Trouble. Let Its People Escape China by Coming to America.

thumb 5

Hong Kong is a bastion of free expression, art, culture, and commerce. While mainland China was being ravaged by Mao’s Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, Hong Kong was still a British colony and home to a radical experiment in free market capitalism. By the time partial control was handed over to the Chinese government, creating the infamous one-country/two-systems model, per capita wealth here had eclipsed that of even the U.K.

That experiment may be coming to an abrupt end. China’s People’s Congress adopted a national security law that would allow the central government, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, to clamp down on civil liberties, destroying the political freedom that made this semi-autonomous city a desirable place to live.

The U.S. government has threatened to revoke Hong Kong’s special trading partner status and to levy targeted sanctions to oppose Beijing’s actions. But there’s another foreign policy lever the government could pull that’s nonviolent, humane, and beneficial to U.S. citizens: Make it easier for Hongkongers to leave by welcoming them into America.

“Not only would it be good for them, but it would also be good for the West,” says Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, a contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog, and the author of a new book, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom. He argues that the U.S. should have an open-door policy to Hongkongers, and eventually to mainland Chinese dissidents as well. The United Kingdom has already announced plans to extend visas for up to 3 million fleeing Hongkongers.

“They would make important contributions to our economies, just as previous Chinese and Hong Kong immigrants and others from that part of the world have done,” says Somin. “Second, this would be a very important victory in the war of ideas that is arising between the U.S. and the West and the one hand and the authoritarian government of China on the other.”

Those who could benefit most from such an escape hatch are critics of the Chinese Communist Party, such as Joshua Wong, secretary-general of the pro-democracy political party Demosisto. 

“I would summarize this national security law as a speech crime,” says Wong, who worries that calling for the resignation of Chinese President Xi Jinping would subject the speaker to arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment on the Chinese mainland.

Wong has already had a taste of what it’s like to lose your civil liberties. He was arrested in his home in 2019 in an effort to undermine a large protest planned for the following day. And he was barred from running for office because of his political party’s stated belief that Hongkongers should be allowed to determine the city’s sovereignty by democratic vote.

“After the national security law [passed], I’m [no longer] arrested by Hong Kong police…but by Beijing-appointed agent of the secret police….I might be imprisoned in Beijing,” says Wong. “So I think that’s a nightmare for activists in Hong Kong and also journalists who fight for freedom.”

What if, before that happens, Wong and other activists had the option to get out?

Even immigration hawks within the Trump administration, Somin argues, should appreciate that granting automatic entry to Hongkongers would be a politically savvy move against the Chinese state.

Horrified by the difficulties faced by displaced Jews during and after World War II, President Harry Truman launched America’s first refugee program, starting with a 1945 executive order followed by the Displaced Persons Act of 1948.

America granted similar status to refugees from the Soviet Union, starting in 1953, and communist Cuba, starting in 1966. Somin’s own parents left the USSR for America in 1979, when he was five.

“The U.S. government at the time recognized that part of the reason to do this was to help oppressed people for its own sake, but they also recognized that it was an important moral victory for the U.S. in the Cold War struggle against the Soviet Union,” says Somin.

Somin’s Jewish family was considered a persecuted ethnic minority, but he believes all Hongkongers faced with the loss of their freedoms should be given the opportunity to exit.

Another Hongkonger at risk is Sixtus Baggio Leung, whom voters elected in 2016 to the Hong Kong Legislative Council. He lost his position after showing up at his swearing-in ceremony draped in a banner that read, “Hong Kong is not a part of China.”

In 2018, the government sentenced Leung to four weeks in prison after convicting him of illegally trying to re-enter the legislature to re-take his oaths.

China’s new law unambiguously criminalizes Leung’s pro-independence views.

“If Hong Kong [remains] under the rule of [the Chinese Communist Party], we can never achieve universal suffrage, separation of powers, freedom of speech…all kinds of freedom,” says Leung.

Somin wants the U.S. to go farther than the U.K. by extending to Hongkongers, and eventually all Chinese dissidents, an offer of permanent residency, but he acknowledges it’s an uphill battle with an anti-immigration administration in power.

“There really is no [immigration] line right now. Trump has virtually shut down letting in virtually any refugees of any kind,” says Somin.

The Trump administration has been dismantling the refugee system, first by capping the number of people allowed in from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries, and then with his “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forces those applying for refugee status to wait outside the country. Most recently, he has suspended the issuance of high-skilled H1B visas.

Politico reports that a component of the GOP’s 2020 election strategy is to make an aggressive stance towards China a central issue and portray their opponents as “soft on China.” Somin says this presents an opportunity.

“If they’re real China hawks, then they should welcome this opportunity to both get some of China’s most talented people to come here, as opposed to stay in China, where they will be under the control of that government—and, at the same time, win an important moral and political victory,” says Somin. 

Wong, however, has no immediate plans to leave Hong Kong. He says he’s hanging around to resist the Communist Party’s takeover of his city for as long as he can.

“I have no hope towards the government, but I still have hope [for] the people and the global community to keep our momentum and let Beijing realize that we will never stop our fight,” says Wong. 

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Hong Kong footage by Edwin Lee. Graphics by Isaac Reese.

Music credits: “Corals Under the Sun,” by Sivan Talmor; “Spongy Hammer,” by Muted; “40 Years Ago,” by Muted. Licensed through Artlist. 

Photo credits: “Boris Johnson pointing,” by Jack Hill/The Times/ZUMA Press/Newscom; “Trump at the podium,” by Polaris/Newscom; “Trump at the border wall,” Everett Collection/Newscom; “Joshua Wong at the podium,” by STEPHEN SHAVER/Newscom; “Joshua Wong mural,” by Thierry Ehrmann; “Trump and Xi handshake,” by Kyodo/Newscom; “Xi smiles at Trump,” by Kyodo/Newscom; “Chinese police officers,” Imagine China/Newscom; “Xi at the podium,” by CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/Newscom; “Joshua Wong speaking to press,” by Studio Incendo; “Hong Kong Protests,” by Studio Incendo.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZiZT7j
via IFTTT

Hong Kong Is in Trouble. Let Its People Escape China by Coming to America.

thumb 5

Hong Kong is a bastion of free expression, art, culture, and commerce. While mainland China was being ravaged by Mao’s Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, Hong Kong was still a British colony and home to a radical experiment in free market capitalism. By the time partial control was handed over to the Chinese government, creating the infamous one-country/two-systems model, per capita wealth here had eclipsed that of even the U.K.

That experiment may be coming to an abrupt end. China’s People’s Congress adopted a national security law that would allow the central government, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, to clamp down on civil liberties, destroying the political freedom that made this semi-autonomous city a desirable place to live.

The U.S. government has threatened to revoke Hong Kong’s special trading partner status and to levy targeted sanctions to oppose Beijing’s actions. But there’s another foreign policy lever the government could pull that’s nonviolent, humane, and beneficial to U.S. citizens: Make it easier for Hongkongers to leave by welcoming them into America.

“Not only would it be good for them, but it would also be good for the West,” says Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, a contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog, and the author of a new book, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom. He argues that the U.S. should have an open-door policy to Hongkongers, and eventually to mainland Chinese dissidents as well. The United Kingdom has already announced plans to extend visas for up to 3 million fleeing Hongkongers.

“They would make important contributions to our economies, just as previous Chinese and Hong Kong immigrants and others from that part of the world have done,” says Somin. “Second, this would be a very important victory in the war of ideas that is arising between the U.S. and the West and the one hand and the authoritarian government of China on the other.”

Those who could benefit most from such an escape hatch are critics of the Chinese Communist Party, such as Joshua Wong, secretary-general of the pro-democracy political party Demosisto. 

“I would summarize this national security law as a speech crime,” says Wong, who worries that calling for the resignation of Chinese President Xi Jinping would subject the speaker to arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment on the Chinese mainland.

Wong has already had a taste of what it’s like to lose your civil liberties. He was arrested in his home in 2019 in an effort to undermine a large protest planned for the following day. And he was barred from running for office because of his political party’s stated belief that Hongkongers should be allowed to determine the city’s sovereignty by democratic vote.

“After the national security law [passed], I’m [no longer] arrested by Hong Kong police…but by Beijing-appointed agent of the secret police….I might be imprisoned in Beijing,” says Wong. “So I think that’s a nightmare for activists in Hong Kong and also journalists who fight for freedom.”

What if, before that happens, Wong and other activists had the option to get out?

Even immigration hawks within the Trump administration, Somin argues, should appreciate that granting automatic entry to Hongkongers would be a politically savvy move against the Chinese state.

Horrified by the difficulties faced by displaced Jews during and after World War II, President Harry Truman launched America’s first refugee program, starting with a 1945 executive order followed by the Displaced Persons Act of 1948.

America granted similar status to refugees from the Soviet Union, starting in 1953, and communist Cuba, starting in 1966. Somin’s own parents left the USSR for America in 1979, when he was five.

“The U.S. government at the time recognized that part of the reason to do this was to help oppressed people for its own sake, but they also recognized that it was an important moral victory for the U.S. in the Cold War struggle against the Soviet Union,” says Somin.

Somin’s Jewish family was considered a persecuted ethnic minority, but he believes all Hongkongers faced with the loss of their freedoms should be given the opportunity to exit.

Another Hongkonger at risk is Sixtus Baggio Leung, whom voters elected in 2016 to the Hong Kong Legislative Council. He lost his position after showing up at his swearing-in ceremony draped in a banner that read, “Hong Kong is not a part of China.”

In 2018, the government sentenced Leung to four weeks in prison after convicting him of illegally trying to re-enter the legislature to re-take his oaths.

China’s new law unambiguously criminalizes Leung’s pro-independence views.

“If Hong Kong [remains] under the rule of [the Chinese Communist Party], we can never achieve universal suffrage, separation of powers, freedom of speech…all kinds of freedom,” says Leung.

Somin wants the U.S. to go farther than the U.K. by extending to Hongkongers, and eventually all Chinese dissidents, an offer of permanent residency, but he acknowledges it’s an uphill battle with an anti-immigration administration in power.

“There really is no [immigration] line right now. Trump has virtually shut down letting in virtually any refugees of any kind,” says Somin.

The Trump administration has been dismantling the refugee system, first by capping the number of people allowed in from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries, and then with his “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forces those applying for refugee status to wait outside the country. Most recently, he has suspended the issuance of high-skilled H1B visas.

Politico reports that a component of the GOP’s 2020 election strategy is to make an aggressive stance towards China a central issue and portray their opponents as “soft on China.” Somin says this presents an opportunity.

“If they’re real China hawks, then they should welcome this opportunity to both get some of China’s most talented people to come here, as opposed to stay in China, where they will be under the control of that government—and, at the same time, win an important moral and political victory,” says Somin. 

Wong, however, has no immediate plans to leave Hong Kong. He says he’s hanging around to resist the Communist Party’s takeover of his city for as long as he can.

“I have no hope towards the government, but I still have hope [for] the people and the global community to keep our momentum and let Beijing realize that we will never stop our fight,” says Wong. 

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Hong Kong footage by Edwin Lee. Graphics by Isaac Reese.

Music credits: “Corals Under the Sun,” by Sivan Talmor; “Spongy Hammer,” by Muted; “40 Years Ago,” by Muted. Licensed through Artlist. 

Photo credits: “Boris Johnson pointing,” by Jack Hill/The Times/ZUMA Press/Newscom; “Trump at the podium,” by Polaris/Newscom; “Trump at the border wall,” Everett Collection/Newscom; “Joshua Wong at the podium,” by STEPHEN SHAVER/Newscom; “Joshua Wong mural,” by Thierry Ehrmann; “Trump and Xi handshake,” by Kyodo/Newscom; “Xi smiles at Trump,” by Kyodo/Newscom; “Chinese police officers,” Imagine China/Newscom; “Xi at the podium,” by CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/Newscom; “Joshua Wong speaking to press,” by Studio Incendo; “Hong Kong Protests,” by Studio Incendo.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZiZT7j
via IFTTT

Reddit Bans Largest Pro-Trump Forum As Election Season Heats Up

Reddit Bans Largest Pro-Trump Forum As Election Season Heats Up

Tyler Durden

Mon, 06/29/2020 – 14:28

Having been convinced by the latest batch of national polls that Trump can’t possibly win in November, dozens of major companies are joining a Facebook advertising “boycott” intended to punish the company for refusing to censor conservative views, opinions and even facts that contradict the official far-left narrative. And now, more social media organizations are turning their own virtue-signaling dials up to “11”, with Reddit shutting down one of the most popular pro-Trump subreddits.

Reddit’s “r/The_Donald” subreddit garnered plenty of media attention during the 2016 primary, and later during the campaign, as a popular online gathering place for Trump’s most fanatical supporters. According to a recently archived copy of the site, the subreddit had nearly 800k subscribers, making it one of the most popular conservative-focused subreddits on the site.

Reddit CEO Steve Huffman told reporters – according to Axios – that the company “tried everything” to avoid outright banning “The_Donald”, including approaching users in good faith, but they continued to break Reddit’s rules, including by upvoting more prohibited content and antagonizing other communities.

“It was becoming clear that the company’s values and the way discourse was playing out on the platform was one of the main things we wanted to fix in our content policy update,” Huffman said.

But in a transparent attempt to “play fair”, Reddit also banned the subreddit dedicated to the popular left-wing podcast “Chapo Trap House”, known as “r/ChapoTrapHouse”.

Both subreddits were among the most popular political platforms still on Reddit, which has seen its usage rates decline sharply over the past decade. Notably, both r/Chapo and r/The_Donald have hosted plenty of criticism of Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who is a frequent object of hatred from ‘democratic socialists’ who listen to Chapo.

But Reddit isn’t the only social media platform to take a swipe at conservatives on Monday: Popular video-game streaming service Twitch has temporarily banned Trump’s account for its airing of “hateful conduct”.

Twitch claimed the offending content was the now-infamous Trump campaign kickoff rally, where he accused Mexicans of being “rapists” and bringing drugs into the US. Twitch also flagged “racist” comments from his rally in Tulsa.

Differing slightly from a policy articulated by Facebook, the Amazon-owned Twitch explained that “like anyone else, politicians on Twitch must adhere to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. We do not make exceptions for political or newsworthy content, and will take action on content reported to us that violates our rules.”

Twitch’s crackdown has included banning one of the most popular channels on the platform “Dr. Disrespect”. The user has claimed he wasn’t informed why the account was taken down, and Twitch has refused to elaborate. Is this all a ruse to allow Amazon to weaponize Twitch in its ongoing cold war with the president? Or is this simply an example of two more companies kowtowing to the woke mob?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2NCrMSz Tyler Durden

We Digitized The Mob, And There’s No Place To Hide

We Digitized The Mob, And There’s No Place To Hide

Tyler Durden

Mon, 06/29/2020 – 14:05

Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics.com,

Why can’t our leaders bring themselves to condemn anti-social violence?

The most shocking aspect of the wave of rioting and destruction that has been unleashed on many of our American cities in the wake of George Floyd’s death is not that there is an underlying discontent with the rate of progress in racial equality. That is understandable. What is not is the way that mayors, governors and members of Congress have not just tolerated, but endorsed, mob violence as an acceptable weapon of social change.

Growing up in the turbulent 1960s, I was given a very specific warning by my mother: If you ever get caught up in a mob, get out of it as soon as possible because a mob has no brain. It just has emotion — and whether that emotion is anger, hatred or even joyful exuberance, it cannot be controlled.

We saw that in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd while in police custody. People with a brain were outraged by what they saw. They wanted to protest, to speak out, and to demand justice. But when they came together in the streets, they discovered how quickly protest can transform into riot, and how demands for justice can be used to justify injustice. The basic premise of justice, after all, is recompense, making sure that wrongdoers pay a price for their crime. Yet there was no recompense in burning the businesses of innocent bystanders. There was no justice in stealing TVs and PlayStations. This was just brainless mob violence. It was shameful and it should have been easily condemned by the politicians, news media and celebrities who were not part of the mob.

That’s what would have happened in the 1960s. When Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered, leading to riots across America in 1968, Bobby Kennedy appealed for peace amidst “this mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.”

The parallel is exact. A black man is unjustly murdered. The nation is outraged. Riots ensue. The only part that is missing today is a respected grown-up like Kennedy who would condemn the violence and recognize that “[i]t is not the concern of any one race.”

As Kennedy said,

“The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one — no matter where he lives or what he does — can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on. Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? … No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. … [A]n uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people.”

What a refreshing expression of common sense, and what a contrast it offers to the bleating appeasers from the Democratic Party today who have bent a knee in obeisance to the mob, to the rioters, to the monument defacers, to the statue topplers.

But it’s not just the Democrats who have bowed to the “voice of madness.” Most Republicans are right there with them. So too are corporate entities such as Intel and Amazon, and sporting organizations such as the NFL and NASCAR. For their part, news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC are promoting the riots and the cleansing of American history that is being pushed by Black Lives Matter.

The question is why?

It is easy to understand why someone surrounded by the mob surrenders to its power, but those corporate boardrooms are far from the fray and well-protected from the torches and Molotov cocktails. So why have they turned their backs on law and order and embraced the mob? What has changed since the 1960s that makes it so much harder for leaders in government, business and culture to condemn violence and lawlessness?

The answer will not surprise you, but it should scare you. Somewhere along the way, we digitized the mob. The few dozen people surrounding a statue are not the problem. The few hundred people confronting police are not the problem. The few thousand people looting stores and throwing rocks are not the problem. The mob on the street is not the problem. The mob on the street is the symptom.

The millions of people acting without moral restraint, without reason and without fear of consequences on the Internet are the problem. Indeed, the digital mob is the unintended consequence of the Internet itself. Connecting the world via technology was supposed to encourage communication, understanding and a breaking down of barriers. Instead it has resulted in a world divided into silos, special interests, identity groups. We tend to seek out those we have the most in common with and to block, ban or troll those who are unlike us. We feel safety in numbers, and from that safety is often bred outright contempt for those who think differently. Though we must live side by side with people in our families, our workplaces and our schools who have diverse points of view, we are under no such obligation online, where unfriending is much easier than “un-neighboring.”

That has emboldened people to be the loudest, harshest, most vulgar voice in their group. Such uncivil behavior can bring fame and money. And yes, praise. Target and shame those who violate your group’s ideological dogma, and you will be echoed, retweeted, and revered. But if you dare to defend the person or institution under attack, if you ask for forbearance or forgiveness, you will be the next target. The phenomenon was well-described by a former Internet mobster in an anonymous confession published by Quillette in 2018 titled “I Was the Mob Until the Mob Came for Me”:

“Every time I would call someone racist or sexist, I would get a rush. That rush would then be reaffirmed and sustained by the stars, hearts, and thumbs-up that constitute the nickels and dimes of social media validation. The people giving me these stars, hearts, and thumbs-up were engaging in their own cynical game: A fear of being targeted by the mob induces us to signal publicly that we are part of it.”

It is that last part that seems to be what is motivating companies to donate millions of dollars to Black Lives Matter, a movement that has more in common with the Marxist revolutionary goals of the Weather Underground than with the nonviolent calls for social justice of MLK. Rather than risk being targeted by the mob, corporations such as Home Depot, Walmart and others have opened their wallets. In essence, they are paying protection money in order to avoid having their metaphorical windows smashed by the Internet mob.

It is also why almost all of our elected leaders, many of whom took an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic, are silent about the assault on our history, our economy and our future. Can you blame them? When they come for you on Twitter, there is no place to hide.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38dMiSX Tyler Durden

Meet The Man Who Just Raised $12 Million To Build Out The World’s First “Robot Lawyer”

Meet The Man Who Just Raised $12 Million To Build Out The World’s First “Robot Lawyer”

Tyler Durden

Mon, 06/29/2020 – 13:50

When Josh Browder, barely a high school graduate, started coding and developing an automated program to help people contest parking tickets back in 2015, he likely had no clue how big his idea was about to get. He programmed the software to help himself out with a “respectable collection of fines” he had assembled, according to Forbes. 

Some weeks later, he had a program called “DoNotPay” which he shared with friends and touted online. After it became popular on Reddit, it went from having 10 users to over 50,000 users.

Today, Browder has parlayed that early success into raising a $12 million Series A round at an $80 million valuation from Coatue, Andreessen Horowitz, Founders Fund and Felicis Ventures. He had previously raised $4.6 million in a seed round. 

 

Browder calls “DoNotPay” the “world’s first robot lawyer” and the software has moved on from just parking tickets to helping people with over 100 areas of consumer rights. The company offers legal help with customer service disputes like airline flight compensation or cancelling subscriptions (KaaS = Karen As A Service?). 

It also helps suing companies in small claims courts, jumping customer service phone queues and analyzing bank accounts for various types of fees. When 24 Hour Fitness filed for bankruptcy due to Covid-19, more than 1,000 users sent a subscription cancellation request through “DoNotPay”. 

Browder said: “In the crisis times that we live in, lots of big companies are using consumers as a lifeline. You see this with airlines as they refuse to refund people and instead they issue them a travel credit, just because they know they can get away with it.”

 

The software hit its “millionth case filed” last month and it has a “high five figure” number of subscribers in the U.S. now. The company is break even with an eye on turning a profit. It charges $3 per month for its services and has no ad selling or data selling component to its business. 

The American Bar Association even honored the software with its Brown Award for its “commitment to increasing legal services to those of modest means.”  

“What we try to do is give the ordinary people the same power in the legal system as large companies,” Browder concluded. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZncFBM Tyler Durden