The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit usually releases opinions on Tuesday and Fridays. Today, however, was Judge Thomas Griffith’s last day on the court before his retirement, so the court made an exception, releasing an en banc decision in which he participated, a divided panel opinion (in which he wrote the majority), and a revised panel opinion in which he participated.
The headline decision from the D.C. Circuit was the court’s en banc opinion in In re: Michael Flynn, overturning the panel opinion granting Flynn’s Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus ordering dismissal of the criminal charges against him. With ten judges participating, the court issued a per curiam opinion denying the petition and rejecting Flynn’s attempt to have the case assigned to a different district court judge.
The two judges in the majority for the panel decision—Judges Rao and Henderson—each wrote dissents (and joined each others dissents). Judge Rao, who wrote the initial panel decision, focused on the merits. Judge Henderson focused on the question of whether Judge Sullivan had disqualified himself and the case should be reassigned on remand.
Judge Griffith wrote a concurring opinion that is worth quoting.
In cases that attract public attention, it is common for pundits and politicians to frame their commentary in a way that reduces the judicial process to little more than a skirmish in a partisan battle. The party affiliation of the President who appoints a judge becomes an explanation for the judge’s real reason for the disposition, and the legal reasoning employed is seen as a cover for the exercise of raw political power. No doubt there will be some who will describe the court’s decision today in such terms, but they would be mistaken.
This proceeding is not about the merits of the prosecution of General Flynn or the Government’s decision to abandon that prosecution. Rather, this proceeding involves questions about the structure of the Judiciary and its relationship to the Executive Branch. There are two central problems in this case: defining the scope of the authority of the Judiciary to inquire into the exercise of a core function of the Executive and deciding how the relationship between the district court and our court shapes a challenge to that inquiry. Those questions are far removed from the partisan skirmishes of the day. The resolution of those questions in this case involves nothing more and nothing less than the application of neutral principles about which reasonable jurists on this court disagree. See Robert H. Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 IND. L.J. 1 (1971). And that principled disagreement revisits a long-running debate about the relative powers of the Executive and Judicial Branches. Today we reach the unexceptional yet important conclusion that a court of appeals should stay its hand and allow the district court to finish its work rather than hear a challenge to a decision not yet made. That is a policy the federal courts have followed since the beginning of the Republic, see Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 22, 1 Stat. 73, 84; 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we are aware of no case in which a court of appeals has ordered a district judge to decide a pending motion in a particular way.
Moreover, as its counsel repeatedly stated at oral argument, the district court may well grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn. In fact, it would be highly unusual if it did not, given the Executive’s constitutional prerogative to direct and control prosecutions and the district court’s limited discretion under Rule 48(a), especially when the defendant supports the Government’s motion. But if the court denies the motion, General Flynn has multiple avenues of relief that he can pursue. And because he does, mandamus is not appropriate in this case at this time.
Judge Griffith had the opinion for the court in Committee on the Judiciary v. Donald McGahn, II, in which the court concluded, 2-1, that the House of Representatives lacked a cause of action to sue to enforce a subpoena to former White House Counsel Don McGahn. This same panel had previously concluded that the House lacks standing to sue to enforce a subpoena, but that opinion was recently overturned by the full court, sitting en banc. Judge Henderson joined Judge Griffith’s opinion—his last majority opinion on the court. Judge Rogers dissented. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already announced the House will seek en banc review of this decision.
In a final action, the court issued a revised version panel decision in which Judge Griffith participated granting Hillary Clinton’s petition for a writ of mandamus in a lawsuit seeking the disclosure of her e-mails. I wrote about the initial opinion here.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QNvryd
via IFTTT
In 2017, the National Highway Transportation Safety Authority (NHTSA) delayed a scheduled increase in penalties imposed on automakers for failing to comply with Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Then, in 2019, NHTSA rolled back the penalties to their 1996 levels. Several blue states and environmental groups sued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As luck would have it, the case was assigned to three judges appointed by President Donald Trump: Richard Sullivan, Michael Park, and William Nardini. So the Trump Administration should have won, right? Not so fast.
In a unanimous opinion issued today, the panel ruled that NHTSA’s reconsideration and reduction of the penalty was untimely and unlawful. Here is the beginning of Judge Nardini’s opinion for the court explaining the opinion:
During the oil crisis of the 1970s, Congress created a system of fuel economy standards for automobiles to boost fuel efficiency and drive down American dependence on foreign energy supplies. To promote those Corporate Average Fuel Economy (“CAFE”) standards, Congress exposed automobile manufacturers to penalties if their annual fleets fell short of the mark. Congress first set the penalty at $5 for every tenth of a mile per gallon (“mpg”) below the standard, multiplied by the number of cars in a manufacturer’s fleet, subject to certain offsets.
Inflation, however, can take the bite out of fines. In recognition of this basic economic phenomenon, Congress enacted laws in 1990, 1996, and 2015 to identify civil monetary penalties that were losing ground to inflation and to periodically update them to catch up with the Consumer Price Index. After the first act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) and the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) identified the CAFE penalty as among those to be adjusted. Following the 1996 law, NHTSA engaged in rulemaking that increased the CAFE penalty rate from $5 to $5.50, and then, following the 2015 law, to $14.
NHTSA shifted gears, however, starting in 2017. First, it indefinitely delayed implementation of the increase to $14. Acting on a petition for review, this Court held that the delay violated NHTSA’s statutory authority and that the increase was therefore in effect for the 2019 model year. In 2019, following our decision, NHTSA issued a final rule that rolled back the penalty to $5.50 on the theory that the inflation-adjustment laws do not apply to the CAFE penalty in the first place, and that even if they did, an increase would be unwarranted as a matter of economic policy.
Following this latest move by NHTSA, we are presented with petitions for review that require us to answer two questions of statutory construction: (1) whether the penalty for violating the CAFE standards is a “civil monetary penalty” as defined in these inflation-adjustment laws; and, if so, (2) whether these laws authorized NHTSA to reconsider, in 2019, the 2016 catch-up inflation adjustment based on its economic effects. We hold that the CAFE penalty is a “civil monetary penalty” and that NHTSA’s reversal of the catch-up adjustment was untimely. Accordingly, we grant the petitions for review and vacate NHTSA’s final rule reversing the CAFE penalty increase.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3jtu9oD
via IFTTT
“I’ll just pull out my Glock/HK/Ruger and deal with those punks. Once they see their buddies drop, they’ll back off soon enough.”
“We could end this by just killing anyone who sets foot on our block.”
“All good Americans need to do is start mowing down protesters with their cars if the roads get blocked.”
Chances are, if you ever read the comments or visit any type of social media outlet online, you’ve read some comments pretty similar to the ones above. After all, this is America, land of the free, home of the brave. It’s up to all good patriots to defend our property and our country from scumbags with deadly force.
But not so fast…
Things are never as cut and dried as people with 3-second solutions like to make it seem in the comments.
You can’t escalate directly to lethal force in every situation.
Let’s take a look at the situation Terry Trahan wrote about the other day, where the lady was sitting in a restaurant having dinner when she got surrounded by an unruly mob who insisted she raise her fist in the air in support of a group of activists. The comments section is filled with people who are apparently ready to open fire on a city street into a crowd of people.
Is that really the appropriate response? While I absolutely agree that the behavior of that mob is horrible and that these things shouldn’t happen, is this a moment that requires the use of uncensored deadly force?
Have any of these folks stopped to think about what happens after they open fire?
Because I can tell you what is very likely to occur if you unload a magazine in a public space in the middle of downtown Washington DC. At best, you will be arrested and charged with brandishing a weapon or illegal discharge of a weapon. At worst, one of your bullets will go through its intended target and hit an innocent bystander – maybe a child – maybe even your own child who is making his way back from the bathroom. Or you’ll kill a member of the angry mob and someone will take the gun away and turn it on you and you’ll be dead. Or you’ll valiantly take down three attackers and find yourself awaiting trial for homicide, among other charges.
And you know what else? Every idiotic off-hand comment you ever made online about blowing people away will come back to haunt you in court. If you think you’re anonymous online, I assure you that you are not. Even when you use a VPN, your actual IP can be traced given enough resources and time.
Choosing how you escalate your response
We’ve all heard the saying, “When your only tool is a hammer, you treat everything like it’s a nail.” The same is true when your only tool is deadly force.
Obviously there are life and death situations in which deadly force is the only possible response if you want to live. When someone bursts into your home waving a gun screaming that they’re going to kill you, when someone in a mask is trying to drag you into a van with dark-tinted windows, when someone is clearly intent on beating the crap out of you until you’re dead – all of these things are situations in which your use of a lethal response is entirely justified.
But… a lot of situations require more finesse unless you want to risk a) spending the rest of your life in prison and praying you don’t drop the soap or b) vengeance from your adversary’s friends or family or c) criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits forever and ever until you die.
You need to have an understanding of the appropriate escalation of force.
A book I read last year has a place on everyone’s shelf during these times in which a conflict can arise for just about anyone, just about anywhere. That book is Scaling Force: Dynamic Decision Making Under Threat of Violence and it’s by Rory Miller. If you’ve been around here for a while, you may have seen my review of another of Miller’s books, and you may have seen Toby Cowern and Terry Trahan reference him as well. That’s because, in my opinion, nobody knows more about the science of violence than Miller. As well, he spent years working in law enforcement settings, so he knows a lot about what happens after the violence takes place.
Identify what the threat actually is.
If you are in a situation in which you may have to defend yourself, it’s important that you understand what the threat really is.
Are you just being yelled at or mocked?
Are people just trying to intimidate or embarrass you?
Are they trying to have an actual discussion or just shout over you?
Are you outnumbered?
Are they threatening to physically attack you?
Are they capable of physically attacking you?
Are they armed with firearms, items that could be used as bludgeons, or knives?
While all of these things may make you angry, if you are not in physical danger, you have to temper your response accordingly.
Part of the book is a detailed description of pre-assault indicators that can help you identify a potentially violent encounter before it happens. This goes a long way toward reducing the likelihood of you being injured, killed, or imprisoned due to your response.
Here are some key steps to take during a potentially violent encounter.
In Miller’s book – which I strongly recommend – he suggests a pattern that begins with simply leaving the situation, to verbal de-escalation when you are not in imminent danger, with other steps all the way up to and including lethal force. He discusses in detail how to rapidly assess your situation to see where you should start. You can find these steps on the internet but they’re not detailed. You should truly read the book to get a deep understanding of them – and you need that now more than ever.
This is my personal take on what he wrote. Any mistakes or misinterpretations are mine alone.
Presence: The encounter requires your presence and there are two components to this. First, is, don’t be there. Any time you ask Selco and Toby what you should do in a dangerous situation, their immediate response is “don’t be there.” And that is true of many of the things happening right now. Going to a protest, for example, is automatically putting you at high risk of being involved in a violent encounter.
Your second option is to leave the situation. If you find yourself in a scenario in which you could be embroiled in a violent encounter, leave. This is like “don’t be there” but in action form. If you see a crowd gathering up ahead chanting and raising their fists in the air, turn around and go a different way. If you are in a setting in which someone makes you feel uncomfortable, trust your instincts and leave. Don’t talk yourself out of listening to your gut. You’re not being silly. (This is especially true for women.)
Use your voice.First, you can try to de-escalate the situation. If you can’t avoid it and you can’t leave, verbal de-escalation is your next best bet. This depends heavily upon your understanding of psychology. You want to calm the situation down and one of the best ways to do that is setting up what Miller refers to as a “face-saving exit.” If you are dealing with one member of a crowd, that person will have a lot of personal investment in not being embarrassed in front of his or her friends. You’ll want to think of a way to defuse things while sparing the person from that humiliation. This, of course, sucks, because we all want to kick the butts of someone who is treating us unreasonably. However, your goal is to get away from this encounter without being hurt or killed. If you are alive and uninjured, you’ve won.
Your other voice option is a sharp command if you seem like the kind of person who can back this up. Take me, for example, a middle-aged mama. A command from me is unlikely to have a huge effect on an angry group. However, a command from me backed up by a gun in my hand would be a lot more convincing. (This is something that has actually happened to me – you can read about it here.)
Touch. In some situations, touch can be used to de-escalate a conflict. Touch can be soothing, it can help to distract someone fixated on potentially hurting you, and it can help to defuse situations that haven’t gone too far. If you are not stronger than your potential opponent, this should be used very cautiously, as touching them puts you within their reach as well. For many women, this is not going to be a viable option.
Physical control. This is another thing that won’t work for everyone. But if it is within your wheelhouse, you might be able to prevent the violence from escalating by physically controlling the attacker. This prevents them from harming you or anyone else around you. At this point, you’re beginning to get into territory that could have legal consequences. This is also another thing that may not be particularly viable for women against a male assailant.
Use less than lethal force.The next step up the ladder is less than lethal force. This might mean pepper spray, a taser, or a physical blow, to name a few options. This can be a defensive preventative that will work in some cases. If you are able to stun your attacker, it can be the thing that allows you to move back down the ladder to step one – not being there. Physically overpowering an assailant and injuring them to the extent they can no longer hurt you is an option but, again, you’ll very likely face legal consequences unless it is well-witnessed or provable that you had no less violent options.
Use lethal force.The final solution in this hierarchy is lethal force. This should not be your first choice unless your life is in imminent danger. You can’t just shoot someone because you decide they “deserve” it or because you feel they’re inflicting an injustice upon you. Well, you can, but you can also expect a trial that will empty out your bank accounts and cause your family to potentially lose their home and any other assets while you finance your defense. Then, if you win, you get to start all over again economically. If you lose, you spend five years to the rest of your life in prison. Lethal force must be legally justified and even then, you can end up suffering immensely for having used it.
Again – I strongly recommend you read Rory Miller’s book on this topic, as it is far more detailed than I can be in a quick article and filled with personal anecdotes that make it a very interesting read. You really do have far more options than just killing someone and most of the time, the other options will be better for your future as well as the future of your family.
How do you plan to respond to the threat of violence?
We’re living in a world where unruly groups of people are spending their evenings out trying to intimidate people who they feel “deserve” it, without actually knowing anything about their targets. Any of us could become a target.
Understand that I sincerely believe in the right to armed self-defense. It is our basic human right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. But I urge you to use temperance when making rapid decisions that could have long-term consequences. These aren’t problems with three-second solutions, and to look at them that way is both ignorant and short-sighted.
It’s good to think these things through ahead of time and consider what your own options are. You’ll need to weigh your personal abilities and limitations against these steps. Remember that your response to potential violence can affect the rest of your life and make your decisions with this in mind.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31HvjH0 Tyler Durden
Michael Moore: Trump Could Beat Biden In Yet Another “Reality Check” For Democrats Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/31/2020 – 22:05
Michael Moore seems to be one of the very few liberals that understands that widespread looting and rioting, currently being enabled by left-wing politicians, may not be the best look for his party heading into November.
In fact, the liberal filmmaker seems to have made peace with the idea that President Trump could once again win election in 2020.
Citing “enthusiasm for the President”, Moore warned that he has “momentum in some battleground states” and that a “reality check” could once again be incoming for those who think Trump could lose the election. Moore was famously one of the very few to predict that Trump would win in 2016, the Guardian notes.
Moore posted on his Facebook page late last week: “Are you ready for a Trump victory? Are you mentally prepared to be outsmarted by Trump again? Do you find comfort in your certainty that there is no way Trump can win? Are you content with the trust you’ve placed in the DNC [Democratic National Committee] to pull this off?”
He continued: “The Biden campaign just announced he’ll be visiting a number of states – but not Michigan. Sound familiar?”
“I’m warning you almost 10 weeks in advance. The enthusiasm level for the 60 million in Trump’s base is OFF THE CHARTS! For Joe, not so much,” Moore said. “Don’t leave it to the Democrats to get rid of Trump. YOU have to get rid of Trump. WE have to wake up every day for the next 67 days and make sure each of us are going to get a hundred people out to vote. ACT NOW!”
Someone needs to pull the fire alarm NOW. Where are the stories about Trump gaining on Biden? Below’s a poll from Fri in Michigan. Last week Trump pulled within 4 pts of Biden. Now in one poll Trump is AHEAD of Biden in MI 47-45. Yet so many Dems convinced Trump’ll lose. DANGER! pic.twitter.com/UegNM5KxH2
Moore also pointed to recent polls that show Trump closing the gap on Biden, stating that the two candidates were in a “virtual tie” in some battleground states.
Moore, who supported Bernie Sanders in 2016, said in October 2016: “Trump’s election is going to be the biggest ‘f*** you’ ever recorded in human history – and it will feel good. Whether Trump means it or not is kind of irrelevant because he’s saying the things to people who are hurting, and that’s why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump.”
President Trump noted Moore’s prognostication in an early Sunday morning Tweet:
Six professors at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School – President Donald Trump’s alma mater – asked for the administration to investigate claims that Trump cheated on his SAT exam.
The Daily Pennsylvanian obtained the letter, as well as Penn’s rejection of the professors’ request. All six professors teach in Wharton’s Legal Studies & Business Ethics Department. The letter cites a claim in Too Much and Never Enough — a recently published book written by President Donald Trump’s niece, Mary Trump — that President Trump paid someone to take the SAT on his behalf.
“Failing to investigate an allegation of fraud at such a level broadcasts to prospective students and the world at large that the playing field is not equal,” wrote the professors.
They cited the university’s policy on revoking degrees, which states that Penn degrees can be revoked due to alleged fraud.
However, the authors admit that there is “no conclusive evidence of the allegation made in Mary Trump’s book” and they stated that they recognize the accusations occur in the context of a family feud. Yet, citing a report by the Washington Post, they alleged that “President Trump has provided substantial evidence that he is not above lying and cheating in other contexts.”
Although “it is true that the truth of an event that occurred more than fifty years ago may be difficult to establish,” the professors nevertheless called for an investigation.
University Provost Wendell Pritchett denied the professors’ request on behalf of Penn President Amy Gutmann.
Although the administration shared the professors’ concerns “about these allegations and the integrity of our admissions process,” they “have determined that this situation occurred too far in the past to make a useful or probative factual inquiry possible.”
However, if new evidence emerges, the university will be open to starting an investigation.
Professor Eric Orts was not pleased with the decision.
“In my personal opinion, Donald Trump is the worst admissions mistake that the Wharton School has ever made,” he told the Daily Pennsylvanian.
“Now it turns out that we may not have made a mistake after all: we may well have been just another victim among many who have had their reputations besmirched by his lifelong pattern of deception and fraud.”
Wharton Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics Julian Jonker, who was one of the six professors who signed the letter, told Campus Reform that he views the matter as one “for internal deliberation about application of the University’s code, and not a matter for partisan debate in the media.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34MOkK9 Tyler Durden
In 2017, the National Highway Transportation Safety Authority (NHTSA) delayed a scheduled increase in penalties imposed on automakers for failing to comply with Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Then, in 2019, NHTSA rolled back the penalties to their 1996 levels. Several blue states and environmental groups sued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As luck would have it, the case was assigned to three judges appointed by President Donald Trump: Richard Sullivan, Michael Park, and William Nardini. So the Trump Administration should have won, right? Not so fast.
In a unanimous opinion issued today, the panel ruled that NHTSA’s reconsideration and reduction of the penalty was untimely and unlawful. Here is the beginning of Judge Nardini’s opinion for the court explaining the opinion:
During the oil crisis of the 1970s, Congress created a system of fuel economy standards for automobiles to boost fuel efficiency and drive down American dependence on foreign energy supplies. To promote those Corporate Average Fuel Economy (“CAFE”) standards, Congress exposed automobile manufacturers to penalties if their annual fleets fell short of the mark. Congress first set the penalty at $5 for every tenth of a mile per gallon (“mpg”) below the standard, multiplied by the number of cars in a
manufacturer’s fleet, subject to certain offsets.
Inflation, however, can take the bite out of fines. In recognition of this basic economic phenomenon, Congress enacted laws in 1990, 1996, and 2015 to identify civil monetary penalties that were losing ground to inflation and to periodically update them to catch up with the Consumer Price Index. After the first act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) and the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) identified the CAFE penalty as among those to be adjusted. Following the 1996 law, NHTSA engaged in rulemaking that increased the CAFE penalty rate from $5 to $5.50, and then, following the 2015 law, to $14.
NHTSA shifted gears, however, starting in 2017. First, it indefinitely delayed implementation of the increase to $14. Acting on a petition for review, this Court held that the delay violated NHTSA’s statutory authority and that the increase was therefore in effect for the 2019 model year. In 2019, following our decision, NHTSA issued a final rule that rolled back the penalty to $5.50 on the theory that the inflation-adjustment laws do not apply to the CAFE penalty in the first place, and that even if they did, an
increase would be unwarranted as a matter of economic policy.
Following this latest move by NHTSA, we are presented with petitions for review that require us to answer two questions of statutory construction: (1) whether the penalty for violating the CAFE standards is a “civil monetary penalty” as defined in these inflation-adjustment laws; and, if so, (2) whether these laws authorized NHTSA to reconsider, in 2019, the 2016 catch-up inflation adjustment based on its economic effects. We hold that the CAFE penalty is a “civil monetary penalty” and that NHTSA’s
reversal of the catch-up adjustment was untimely. Accordingly, we grant the petitions for review and vacate NHTSA’s final rule reversing the CAFE penalty increase.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3jtu9oD
via IFTTT
NPR Is Openly Promoting A Book That Celebrates And Encourages Looting Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/31/2020 – 21:25
In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action is a book by Philadelphia-based Vicky Osterweil that currently sits atop of the Amazon new release charts. The book encourages and makes excuses for property destruction and riots that are currently taking place across the country.
And for that, it was featured and promoted in an NPR article out last week called “One Author’s Argument ‘In Defense Of Looting'”.
But as the Post Millennial puts it: “This book promoting riots is a number one new release on Amazon, a mega-corporation that benefits every time a local shop gets torched.”
The book celebrates rioting and looting at a time in the United States where many business owners have seen their life’s work go up in flames and innocent civilians have been assaulted or mortally wounded defending their property.
Osterweil, who looks as though she is barely twenty-something, was interviewed on NPR last week to make her point that looting is actually “a redistribution of wealth” and not theft. She argues that property damage is the same: just a “way to reapportion assets which she deems necessary in an unequal society.”
Citing a socialist macro view and the goal of some type of ridiculous property re-distribution, she calls the riots a “mass expropriation of property, mass shoplifting during a moment of upheaval or riot.”
Osterweil, who is white, argues: “Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness and of the police. It gets to the very root of the way those three things are interconnected.” She calls looting “basically nonviolent” and claims that it provides for “poor people who want to live a better life.”
“Most stores are insured; it’s just hurting insurance companies on some level. It’s just money. It’s just property. It’s not actually hurting any people,” she argues.
But as many – other than Vicky – seem to notice, the looting and riots have real world consequences:
I spoke with Scott and his mother Linda. Their furniture store was set on fire last night during the Kenosha riots. Linda cried at the sight of the wreckage.
Oregon State Police Are Back In Portland – And This Time They Will Be Sticking Around Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/31/2020 – 21:05
While progressives, anarchists, socialists, agitators and their ‘woke’ enablers in the mainstream press blame right-wing – or ‘white supremacist’ – groups like ‘Patriot Prayer’ for the murder of one of the group’s own members, the reality is that Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler left an opening for violence to escalate when they pulled out the state police.
Regular readers may remember that President Trump and Department of Homeland Security acting Secretary Chad Wolf finally withdrew federal troops from Portland after reaching a deal for the State Police to protect a federal courthouse in the city. Soon after, Oregon’s leading Democrats pulled the reinforcements. But now that a man has been killed, they’re realizing the downside of pandering to unstable anarchists.
So – in accordance with the plan released by Brown Sunday night – Oregon’s State Police are returning to Portland on Monday, and this time, it looks like they’ll be there for a while. At least until the protests, which have endured for 3.5 months, quiet down.
In order to try and make it seem like the police surge is intended to fight crime in the community, rather than serving as a ‘dangerous occupying force’ (as progressive critics will inevitably label it), Brown has secured “additional resources” from the FBI and the US Attorney’s office.
Governor Kate Brown, a Democrat, released a plan Sunday night in response to violence that she said was stoked by an armed right-wing group called Patriot Prayer. In addition to bringing in state police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney would commit more resources to prosecuting criminal offenders.
“Every Oregonian has the right to freely express their views without fear of deadly violence. I will not allow Patriot Prayer and armed white supremacists to bring more bloodshed to our streets,” Brown said in a statement.
The locals – and the professional agitators from out of town – gave the state troopers a hero’s welcome Monday night by pelting the with eggs and other projectiles. Police said 29 people were arrested at the “unlawful gathering” in northeastern Portland. Two of those arrested had loaded handguns on their persons. Others had knives, and rocks.
While Brown, Wheeler and other Democrats continue to focus their rhetoric on dangerous “white supremacist” groups, the man identified as the shooter in Saturday’s fatal shooting described himself as “100% Antifa” during a recent interview.
Gov. Brown underscored her kinder, gentler approach to policing Portland by confirming a new superintendent of the Oregon State Police.
Her name is Terri Davie, and she’s a 24-year veteran of law enforcement in the state, according to the Oregonian.
“Terri brings a wealth of law enforcement experience to this role and a strong record of leading by example,” Brown said during a statement. “She brings a focus on inclusivity and is dedicated to listening to community voices – including Oregon’s Black, Indigenous, People of Color, and Tribal communities – as we work towards a more fair and just law enforcement system in Oregon.”
Meanwhile, as backlash to the shooting crystallizes national opposition to the professional protester class, a large group of agitators who have been heavily trading on their first amendment right to peaceably assemble, Eric Weinstein responded to a clip of one agitator gloating over the killing of the man on Saturday.
“I am not sad that a fuckin’ fascist died tonight.”
I’m sorry that the world didn’t give you the love you deserved. I could say something nasty to make myself feel better. But honestly, what I see is grown kids in our streets playing games of life & death w/ no parents anywhere. https://t.co/PIYXxNYCQQ
Kamala Harris Helped Bail Out Two Murder Suspects And Twice-Convicted Sex Offender Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/31/2020 – 20:45
Three months ago, Kamala Harris asked her 3.7 million Twitter followers (now 5.4 million) to contribute to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, whose mission is to ‘help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.’
Yet, as Fox 9 News in Minneapolis notes, the MFF has bailed out violent criminals who were rioting in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd, a black man who had a ‘fatal level‘ of fentanyl in his system when he died in police custody, after a police officer knelt on his neck for over eight minutes during a stop.
Among those bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) is a suspect who shot at police, a woman accused of killing a friend, and a twice convicted sex offender, according to court records reviewed by the FOX 9 Investigators.
According to attempted murder charges, Jaleel Stallings shot at members of a SWAT Team during the riots in May. Police recovered a modified pistol that looks like an AK-47. MFF paid $75,000 in cash to get Stallings out of jail.
Darnika Floyd is charged with second degree murder, for stabbing a friend to death. MFF paid $100,000 cash for her release.
Christopher Boswell, a twice convicted rapist, is currently charged with kidnapping, assault, and sexual assault in two separate cases. MFF paid $350,00 [sic] in cash for his release.
If Harris ends up as Vice President (or as some speculate, President) of the United States, will she promote initiatives with a similar lack of oversight – or even worse, which are actively working to put violent offenders back on the streets? The Federalist‘s David Marcus sums it up as follows:
Harris was so eager to be on the rioters’ team that she literally raised money for them in the hopes that they could be released and foster further mayhem.
That on its own would be bad enough. But the fact that she is now attempting to pretend she was against all of this violence, and looting, and arson, and destruction from the get go is an insulting joke. Did Harris really think that peaceful protesters obeying the rules were the ones arrested in Minneapolis? Of course she didn’t. She just assumed that justifying the unrest would help Democrats’ political chances. Now that this has been shown to be false, she is trying to change her position. It’s way too late for that.
Now, Harris has to own this – which is the first thing Vice President Pence should ask her about when they debate.
For months we’ve been told that President Trump has trailed Democrat Joe Biden in the opinion polls. His odds of winning were vanishingly small.
From the moment the George Floyd protests turned into violent riots, Trump refused the call of conservative pundits to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1878 in Minneapolis.
They were wrong to jump the gun. Trump was being goaded into acting like a dictator which the Democrats would have pounced on him for. It was too early in the cycle.
He had to, politically, take a punch in the mouth and allow things to get out of hand. There was no good decision for him back in May.
The people were still fighting with the shock of the Coronapocalypse, stimulus checks were being mailed out and unemployment offices around the country were so overwhelmed they couldn’t process the claims quickly enough to make the weekly report even close to accurate.
Trump, rightly, prioritized that while making his opposition to the looting and rioting plain for everyone to see on his Twitter feed, while allowing the local officials the leeway to deal with the problems as they saw fit.
During two major concomitant crises Donald Trump acted as a President we’re supposed to have, one that governs via the principles of Federalism as laid out in the Constitution, rather than as a dictator.
He may have publicly upbraided New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for his mishandling of the COVID-19 outbreak, but he didn’t usurp Cuomo’s authority.
New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio may have purposefully allowed parts of his city to burn and undermine the authority and legitimacy of his police force, but Trump didn’t send in Federal troops to quell the situation.
Rather he let DeBlasio and Cuomo hang themselves. Cuomo is done as he is now revealed to be a “Grandma Killer” for political reasons and under Dept. of Justice investigation for his actions.
DeBlasio is now finished, revealed as a hyper-sympathizer with BLM who has now left Manhattan out to dry, sparking a mass exodus out of the city which was already underway thanks to Trump’s SALT deduction removal under the tax cut from 2017 and the new normal of people working from home thanks to the official story that COVID-19 will kill us all.
The same thing happened in Minneapolis with the George Floyd riots and now Trump, according to the latest polling is up 5 points in Minnesota and six mayors of major cities there openly endorsed Trump’s re-election.
This segment from Tim Pool is really good, going over the dramatic shift in the polling (polling stuff begins at 4:16).
This map is far closer to what the truth was back in July if the polls were anything close to accurate, which they most certainly are not. Between Democrat over-sampling, bad pools of potential respondents and clear suppression of voter preference for fear of reprisal, most of these polls are still skewed between 3 and 5 points in Biden’s favor.
Look, it’s bad for the media’s business if the election narrative is a blow out for either candidate. So the polls are primarily used to shape public opinion rather than reflect it to keep the story relevant.
The last thing the Democrats and their allies in the media actually want is for people to accept as fait accompli that Trump will win.
But with the abject panic on the faces of every major political operative in league with or campaigning as a Democrat, it’s clear this story is one they can’t create out of whole cloth and staged events.
He’s already lost those states to the angry mob he sat back and encouraged. Trapped by his own incompetence, shrinking mental faculties and bad advice Biden is now facing the same problem that Hillary Clinton faced in 2016.
He’s having to play clean up in states he thought he had won rather rather than attack states he needs to win. Biden going to Pennsylvania ensures Florida goes for Trump.
Trump, like he did in 2016, campaigning in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, can now go into supposed Blue Wall states and really force the issue there.
If the DNC has to spend one dollar in places like New Jersey, Oregon or New York, it’s a net win for Trump to go after those places, even if all he does is tweet a bit and show up for an event or two.
Meanwhile, New Mexico comes back into play because Dopey Weed Guy, Gary Johnson, isn’t pulling big numbers away from Trump there.
Sometimes the best thing a leader can do is nothing at all. It flies against modern political doctrine that a leader needs to be seen as pro active and engaged all the time.
By keeping his head in the crisis at hand while staying it in local affairs Trump gained political points with people who were betrayed by the people they voted for.
Remember, all politics is local. Political strategists removed from the scene tend to forget this. They think nationally, as Tim Pool pointed out in the video linked above. They forget that people in Portland Oregon voted for Ted Wheeler. People in New York voted for Bill DeBlasio and Andrew Cuomo.
And voting for someone is a psychological barrier. People vote first for the person they most identify with or aspire to have in their lives. Upper middle class, midwit (H/T Michael Malice), Democrats hate Donald Trump because he is vulgar to them. Their votes won’t change, but at the same time, they also won’t abide someone failing to protect them from looting and rioting.
And there is nothing worse than a voter scorned, especially a female voter scorned. This has been the real dynamic at play here. Trump doesn’t have to turn those folks to his side to win this fight, he just has to allow voters to feel betrayed by their people.
Many of them will stay home, or vote third party. Those less committed will pull the lever for Trump and refuse to vote Democrat locally ever again.
And it was clear that a few of Trump’s advisers understood what was really happening far better than the Twitterati who only play at being strategic thinkers.
Jumping into the fray early, betraying the Constitution and undermining the authority of local officials was the advice of panicky losers, not those with a Gorilla Mindset.
It takes a hard heart to let cities burn and people’s lives be destroyed in the short term to gain a strategic advantage in the longer term. Both sides thought they were doing this. Only one of them would be right about the outcome.
The stage is set, now all that is left is to shore up how the votes are counted to put this insurrection to bed properly, peacefully.
