freebeacon--2020-12-04--Pro-Lifers Say Pittsburgh Law Stifles Free Speech

Pro-life activists say a Pittsburgh ordinance that forbids protesting outside abortion clinics suppresses their free speech rights , and they 've asked the Supreme Court to take up their case .
The Pittsburgh law draws a 15-foot buffer zone around the entrance of medical facilities where protesting is forbidden .
The Third U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ordinance but dealt a partial victory to the pro-life activists by cautioning that the law can not cover `` peaceful one-on-one '' conversations .
The case poses an early test for Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the newly reinforced conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court 's docket without action since March , an unusually long interval and a likely sign of internal wrangling .
The High Court has upheld buffer zone laws against First Amendment challenges since 2000 .
Though the justices backtracked somewhat in a 2014 decision , Justice Antonin Scalia accused the Court of `` giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents . ''
The Third Circuit ruled that the ordinance `` as written does not prohibit the sidewalk counseling in which plaintiffs seek to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` congregating , patrolling , picketing , or demonstrating . ''
Lawyers for the plaintiffs—sidewalk counselors who encourage patients to consider alternatives to abortion—say the Third Circuit 's decision does n't actually protect their rights .
`` The Third Circuit 's narrowing construction is ineffective because city officials and state courts are not bound by it , and they can still hold sidewalk counselors criminally liable in spite of it , '' lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom wrote in the plaintiffs ' petition .
`` A non-binding , advisory opinion is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free-speech challenge . ''
The plaintiffs say the law intentionally targets pro-life speakers .
Though the ordinance technically protects any health care facility within the city , the only specifically demarcated buffer zones are outside Pittsburgh 's two abortion clinics .
And public officials were obviously thinking about abortion when the measure passed , the plaintiffs add , since one councilman said the city should protect women from `` unwanted communication '' and `` verbal assault . ''
Content-based speech restrictions are almost never permitted under the First Amendment .
Lawyers for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-lifers , say the ordinance is a carefully crafted response to a history of conflict around Pittsburgh 's abortion clinics .
Police sergeant William Hohos said in a deposition that a police detail was often on hand at a downtown Planned Parenthood to keep the peace between pro- and anti-abortion demonstrators .
Before the ordinance passed , Hohos said rival protesters would shove and shout at one another , while pro-life activists would lie down in the street or chain themselves to the clinic door to impede access to the facility .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upheld a clinic buffer zone statute in a 2000 case called Hill v. Colorado .
A six-justice majority said Colorado 's law fairly balanced First Amendment rights with the government 's interest in safety and the right of patients `` to be let alone . ''
Chief Justice John Roberts sought a middle way in a 2014 case , when he and four liberal justices struck down a Massachusetts buffer zone law because it swept up more speech than necessary to keep the peace .
That meant a narrowly tailored ordinance could pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors have many tools for policing clinic protesters , such as local laws that require the free flow of traffic on roads and driveways .
In a separate opinion , Scalia said state-drawn buffer zones are `` unconstitutional root and branch , '' and he urged the Court to overturn Hill .
A coalition of pro-life groups , including the American Center for Law and Justice and the Life Legal Defense Foundation , filed legal briefs urging the justices to take up the Pittsburgh case and use it as an opportunity for revisiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not directly ask the justices to take that step .
A coalition of congressional Republicans is likewise supporting the plaintiffs and urging the justices to hear their case .
Top House Republicans including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R. , Calif. ) , Minority Whip Steve Scalise ( R. , La . )
, and Rep. Tom Emmer ( R. , Minn. ) signed the briefs , as did Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R. , Ga. ) , who faces a runoff election in January .
The justices could decide whether to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
The case is No .
19-1184 Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh .

Pro-life activists say a Pittsburgh ordinance that forbids protesting outside abortion clinics suppresses their free speech rights, and they've asked the Supreme Court to take up their case.
The Pittsburgh law draws a 15-foot buffer zone around the entrance of medical facilities where protesting is forbidden. The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ordinance but dealt a partial victory to the pro-life activists by cautioning that the law cannot cover "peaceful one-on-one" conversations.
The case poses an early test for Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the newly reinforced conservative majority. The petition has lingered on the Court's docket without action since March, an unusually long interval and a likely sign of internal wrangling. The High Court has upheld buffer zone laws against First Amendment challenges since 2000. Though the justices backtracked somewhat in a 2014 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia accused the Court of "giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents."
The Third Circuit ruled that the ordinance "as written does not prohibit the sidewalk counseling in which plaintiffs seek to engage," since it only bans "congregating, patrolling, picketing, or demonstrating." Lawyers for the plaintiffs—sidewalk counselors who encourage patients to consider alternatives to abortion—say the Third Circuit's decision doesn't actually protect their rights.
"The Third Circuit's narrowing construction is ineffective because city officials and state courts are not bound by it, and they can still hold sidewalk counselors criminally liable in spite of it," lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom wrote in the plaintiffs' petition. "A non-binding, advisory opinion is no basis for rejecting the sidewalk counselors' free-speech challenge."
The plaintiffs say the law intentionally targets pro-life speakers. Though the ordinance technically protects any health care facility within the city, the only specifically demarcated buffer zones are outside Pittsburgh's two abortion clinics. And public officials were obviously thinking about abortion when the measure passed, the plaintiffs add, since one councilman said the city should protect women from "unwanted communication" and "verbal assault."
Content-based speech restrictions are almost never permitted under the First Amendment. Lawyers for the city, who deny the law targets pro-lifers, say the ordinance is a carefully crafted response to a history of conflict around Pittsburgh's abortion clinics.
Police sergeant William Hohos said in a deposition that a police detail was often on hand at a downtown Planned Parenthood to keep the peace between pro- and anti-abortion demonstrators. Before the ordinance passed, Hohos said rival protesters would shove and shout at one another, while pro-life activists would lie down in the street or chain themselves to the clinic door to impede access to the facility.
The Supreme Court cited such episodes when it upheld a clinic buffer zone statute in a 2000 case called Hill v. Colorado. A six-justice majority said Colorado's law fairly balanced First Amendment rights with the government's interest in safety and the right of patients "to be let alone."
Chief Justice John Roberts sought a middle way in a 2014 case, when he and four liberal justices struck down a Massachusetts buffer zone law because it swept up more speech than necessary to keep the peace. That meant a narrowly tailored ordinance could pass constitutional muster. Roberts also emphasized that prosecutors have many tools for policing clinic protesters, such as local laws that require the free flow of traffic on roads and driveways.
In a separate opinion, Scalia said state-drawn buffer zones are "unconstitutional root and branch," and he urged the Court to overturn Hill.
A coalition of pro-life groups, including the American Center for Law and Justice and the Life Legal Defense Foundation, filed legal briefs urging the justices to take up the Pittsburgh case and use it as an opportunity for revisiting Hill. The plaintiffs' petition does not directly ask the justices to take that step.
A coalition of congressional Republicans is likewise supporting the plaintiffs and urging the justices to hear their case. Top House Republicans including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.), Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R., La.), and Rep. Tom Emmer (R., Minn.) signed the briefs, as did Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R., Ga.), who faces a runoff election in January.
The justices could decide whether to hear the dispute by the end of the year. The case is No. 19-1184 Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh.


freebeacon--2020-12-04--Supreme Court Puts a Damper on Trump Election Challenge

Scheduling gamesmanship could smother a last-ditch appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans in the Supreme Court .
Allies of President Donald Trump asked the justices Thursday night to void the state 's certification of election results and bar the governor from transmitting the returns to Congress .
Justice Samuel Alito , who manages emergency matters from Pennsylvania , seems to have put the case on a path to peter out on its own .
Two deadlines loom over the dispute .
The first is the Dec. 8 `` safe harbor '' deadline .
The second is Dec. 14 , when electors will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dates are set in a federal law called the Electoral Count Act .
If a state has finalized its election results by the safe harbor deadline—as Pennsylvania has—the law says that determination `` shall be conclusive , and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes , '' meaning Congress must accept their slate of electors .
Alito asked Pennsylvania to file legal papers addressing Thursday 's request by 4:00 pm on Dec. 9 , one day after the safe harbor date .
It 's not clear that legal challenges to Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point .
The safe harbor came into play in Bush v. Gore .
The majority said the deadline , only hours away , made it impossible to set recount procedures that comply with the Constitution .
`` That date is upon us , and there is no recount procedure in place … that comports with minimal constitutional standards , '' the decision reads .
Republicans will file a final brief on Dec. 10 , at which point the full Court would be ready to review the case .
That 's just four days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes .
Four days is enough time for the justices to intervene if they are so inclined—and if they think the safe harbor deadline can be set aside .
But it is not unusual for emergency appeals to linger on the docket for days once legal papers are submitted .
Once the Electoral College casts its votes , the Trump legal team may be at a dead end .

Scheduling gamesmanship could smother a last-ditch appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans in the Supreme Court.
Allies of President Donald Trump asked the justices Thursday night to void the state's certification of election results and bar the governor from transmitting the returns to Congress. Justice Samuel Alito, who manages emergency matters from Pennsylvania, seems to have put the case on a path to peter out on its own.
Two deadlines loom over the dispute. The first is the Dec. 8 "safe harbor" deadline. The second is Dec. 14, when electors will meet to cast electoral votes. Those dates are set in a federal law called the Electoral Count Act.
If a state has finalized its election results by the safe harbor deadline—as Pennsylvania has—the law says that determination "shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes," meaning Congress must accept their slate of electors.
Alito asked Pennsylvania to file legal papers addressing Thursday's request by 4:00 pm on Dec. 9, one day after the safe harbor date. It's not clear that legal challenges to Pennsylvania's results will be viable at that point.
The safe harbor came into play in Bush v. Gore. The majority said the deadline, only hours away, made it impossible to set recount procedures that comply with the Constitution.
"That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place ... that comports with minimal constitutional standards," the decision reads.
Republicans will file a final brief on Dec. 10, at which point the full Court would be ready to review the case. That's just four days before the Electoral College will cast its votes. Four days is enough time for the justices to intervene if they are so inclined—and if they think the safe harbor deadline can be set aside. But it is not unusual for emergency appeals to linger on the docket for days once legal papers are submitted.
Once the Electoral College casts its votes, the Trump legal team may be at a dead end.
Kelly v. Pennsylvania emerg... by Washington Free Beacon


freebeacon--2020-12-05--Fact Checks, Combative Questions, and Other Journalism Quirks You’ll Miss When Trump’s Gone

As we prepare to enter the Joe Biden era of American politics , it 's worth reflecting on some of the things we 're going to miss about life under the Trump administration .
One industry in particular that was utterly transformed under Trump 's leadership—and will be similarly disrupted by a return to `` normalcy '' —is the professional journalism industry .
Political reporters and opinion columnists ( to the extent there is a difference ) developed a number of charming quirks over the course of Trump 's presidency that , for whatever reason , are unlikely to carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a few of the Trump-era journalism quirks you 're going to miss when he 's gone : CNN correspondent Jim Acosta rarely breaks news , but he frequently shouts questions at the president and other administration officials and once tussled with a White House intern who tried to take away his microphone .
Biden does n't really like or respect journalists , but he does n't hurt their feelings the way Trump does .
CNN will presumably keep Daniel Dale on staff as a full-time Donald Trump fact checker .
What else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all the other journalists hell bent on speaking truth to power , when it comes to fact-checking the Biden administration , their hearts just wo n't be in it , and it 'll show .
See : `` Investigative Reporting . ''
If you asked journalists who deserves credit for Jeffrey Epstein 's long-overdue demise , they 'd say it was journalists .
As usual , they 'd be wrong .
If anyone deserves credit for taking Epstein down , it is Donald Trump , whose nominee for labor secretary , Alex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Epstein in Florida .
Finding a Trump-related angle is what finally convinced ( a handful of local ) journalists to start investigating the Epstein case after more than a decade of indifference .
To name a few : • None The Enemy of the People : A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America by Jim Acosta ( CNN ) • None Hoax : Donald Trump , Fox News , and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth by Brian Stelter ( CNN ) • None Donald Trump v. The United States : Inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Schmidt ( New York Times ) • Front Row at The Trump Show by Jonathan Karl ( ABC News ) • None A Very Stable Genius : Donald J. Trump 's Testing of America by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig ( Washington Post ) • None True Crimes and Misdemeanors : The Investigation of Donald Trump by Jeffrey Toobin ( fired from the New Yorker for masturbating on Zoom call , still employed by CNN ) 5 .
Writing the same opinion column over and over again '' Trump is n't just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and racist ) , which is bad for America . ''
This single sentence summarizes more than 90 percent of the opinion columns published in major newspapers over the past four years .
If you thought Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot were irrelevant now , you wo n't believe how irrelevant they 're going to seem in six months .
In the past month alone , Esquire published an `` Oral History of CNN 's Election Week , '' and the following articles were published about CNN political correspondent Abby Phillip : • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Getting Some Rest '' ( InStyle ) • `` Why CNN 's Abby Phillip 's Election Coverage Cut Through the Noise '' ( Harper 's Bazaar ) • `` CNN Correspondent Abby Phillip On Her Skincare Routine And Surviving Election Week '' ( Elle ) • `` Everyone on Twitter Is Horny for Newscasters and Pollsters Like Steve Kornacki and Abby D. Phillip '' ( Glamour ) See : the title of Acosta 's book .
It 's easier to envision yourself as a hero when you 're shouting at a `` dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president is a nice old man and your job consists of retweeting memes about Kamala 's dangerously trendy footwear .
See : `` Combative Questioning . ''
Thanks to Trump , journalists started treating presidents the way they deserve to be treated .
That 's unlikely to continue with a Democrat in the White House .
The political media , for example , will persist in covering Kamala Harris like a celebrity fashion icon .
April Ryan , a radio reporter and CNN analyst , recently offered a glimpse into the future ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While interviewing former president Barack Obama about his latest memoir , Ryan praised his `` brilliance '' and called him `` one of my fondest memories . ''
The media 's transition from combative truth seekers to obsequious stargazers began immediately after Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election .
For example : See : All of the above .

As we prepare to enter the Joe Biden era of American politics, it's worth reflecting on some of the things we're going to miss about life under the Trump administration.
One industry in particular that was utterly transformed under Trump's leadership—and will be similarly disrupted by a return to "normalcy"—is the professional journalism industry.
Political reporters and opinion columnists (to the extent there is a difference) developed a number of charming quirks over the course of Trump's presidency that, for whatever reason, are unlikely to carry over into the Biden administration.
Here are a few of the Trump-era journalism quirks you're going to miss when he's gone:
1. Combative questioning
CNN correspondent Jim Acosta rarely breaks news, but he frequently shouts questions at the president and other administration officials and once tussled with a White House intern who tried to take away his microphone. Biden doesn't really like or respect journalists, but he doesn't hurt their feelings the way Trump does.
2. Fact checks!
CNN will presumably keep Daniel Dale on staff as a full-time Donald Trump fact checker. What else is he going to do? As for all the other journalists hell bent on speaking truth to power, when it comes to fact-checking the Biden administration, their hearts just won't be in it, and it'll show.
3. Exposing billionaire pedophiles
See: "Investigative Reporting." If you asked journalists who deserves credit for Jeffrey Epstein's long-overdue demise, they'd say it was journalists. As usual, they'd be wrong. If anyone deserves credit for taking Epstein down, it is Donald Trump, whose nominee for labor secretary, Alex Acosta, was previously involved in prosecuting Epstein in Florida. Finding a Trump-related angle is what finally convinced (a handful of local) journalists to start investigating the Epstein case after more than a decade of indifference.
4. Writing a bestselling book
To name a few:
The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America by Jim Acosta (CNN)
Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth by Brian Stelter (CNN)
Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President by Michael Schmidt (New York Times)
Front Row at The Trump Show by Jonathan Karl (ABC News)
A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig (Washington Post)
True Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Investigation of Donald Trump by Jeffrey Toobin (fired from the New Yorker for masturbating on Zoom call, still employed by CNN)
5. Writing the same opinion column over and over again
"Trump isn't just bad, he's historically bad (and racist), which is bad for America." This single sentence summarizes more than 90 percent of the opinion columns published in major newspapers over the past four years. If you thought Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot were irrelevant now, you won't believe how irrelevant they're going to seem in six months.
6. Writing fawning profiles of other journalists
In the past month alone, Esquire published an "Oral History of CNN's Election Week," and the following articles were published about CNN political correspondent Abby Phillip:
"CNN’s Abby Phillip Has Her Research Binder Ready" (Bustle)
"Abby Phillip is Next-Gen CNN" (New York Times)
"CNN's Abby Phillip Is Finally Getting Some Rest" (InStyle)
"Why CNN's Abby Phillip's Election Coverage Cut Through the Noise" (Harper's Bazaar)
"BIRTHDAY OF THE DAY: Abby Phillip, CNN political correspondent" (Politico)
"CNN Correspondent Abby Phillip On Her Skincare Routine And Surviving Election Week" (Elle)
"How Hair & Makeup Helped Abby Phillip Feel Powerful On Election Night" (Refinery29)
"Everyone on Twitter Is Horny for Newscasters and Pollsters Like Steve Kornacki and Abby D. Phillip" (Glamour)
7. Referring to journalists as "heroes"
See: the title of Acosta's book. It's easier to envision yourself as a hero when you're shouting at a "dangerous" president, less so when the president is a nice old man and your job consists of retweeting memes about Kamala's dangerously trendy footwear.
8. Treating politicians like politicians (not celebs)
See: "Combative Questioning." Thanks to Trump, journalists started treating presidents the way they deserve to be treated. That's unlikely to continue with a Democrat in the White House. The political media, for example, will persist in covering Kamala Harris like a celebrity fashion icon.
April Ryan, a radio reporter and CNN analyst, recently offered a glimpse into the future (and pre-Trump past) of political journalism. While interviewing former president Barack Obama about his latest memoir, Ryan praised his "brilliance" and called him "one of my fondest memories."
The media's transition from combative truth seekers to obsequious stargazers began immediately after Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election. For example:
Pet psychic Beth Lee-Crowther says Joe Biden’s dogs, Major and Champ, told her they are excited to live in the White House. They also say their master will be 'a great president."https://t.co/8avRWAjZRU — The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) November 28, 2020
9. Snarky chyrons
See: Below.
10. CNN
See: All of the above.


freebeacon--2020-12-05--This Week In Campus Insanity Vol. 22

This Week In Campus Insanity Vol. 22

Welcome back to Campus Insanity , a weekly roundup of the craziest developments at our nation 's 4,000-plus institutions of higher education .
Progressive student activists at Harvard Law School—many of whom have called for a total transformation of the American justice system—are upset that a right-wing professor is calling for the same .
5 .
University of California , Berkeley ‘ Unnamed ' Buildings Named After Former University Presidents | Daily Wire The University of California , Berkeley moved forward with `` unnaming '' two buildings on its campus because the persons the buildings were named after—former university presidents—held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UCLA Student Government Offends Native Americans with ‘ Inclusive ' Renaming of Steps | The College Fix UCLA 's student government passed a resolution to rename a supposedly problematic staircase , but the proposed renaming was after the `` Tongva '' tribe—a Native American tribe that has never existed .
3 .
Southern Methodist University Human Rights Group to Boycott Homecomings Unless They Become ‘ Gender Neutral ' | The College Fix Southern Methodist University 's Human Rights Council called to `` abolish '' the use of `` gendered language '' like `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' at the university 's dances , alleging the language is not inclusive enough .
2 .
A Catholic University Is Under Fire from Students for Espousing Catholic Views | Campus Reform Students , alumni , and faculty at Assumption University , a Catholic school in Massachusetts , wrote a petition attacking the school 's promotion of Catholic social teaching on marriage and abortion .
1 .
University of California , Berkeley Professor : ‘ Law and Order ' is a Racist Dog Whistle | Campus Reform Ian Haney López , a University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created a series of videos that explains why terms like `` law and order '' are racist `` dog whistles . ''
Want more Campus Insanity ?
Read Vol .
21 here .
If you have any suggestions for our Top 6 stories please email chrissy @ freebeacon.com & nester @ freebeacon.com .

Welcome back to Campus Insanity, a weekly roundup of the craziest developments at our nation's 4,000-plus institutions of higher education.
6. Harvard Leftists Accuse Law Professor of Illiberalism | Washington Free Beacon
Progressive student activists at Harvard Law School—many of whom have called for a total transformation of the American justice system—are upset that a right-wing professor is calling for the same.
5. University of California, Berkeley 'Unnamed' Buildings Named After Former University Presidents | Daily Wire
The University of California, Berkeley moved forward with "unnaming" two buildings on its campus because the persons the buildings were named after—former university presidents—held racist or colonialist beliefs.
4. UCLA Student Government Offends Native Americans with 'Inclusive' Renaming of Steps | The College Fix
UCLA's student government passed a resolution to rename a supposedly problematic staircase, but the proposed renaming was after the "Tongva" tribe—a Native American tribe that has never existed.
3. Southern Methodist University Human Rights Group to Boycott Homecomings Unless They Become 'Gender Neutral' | The College Fix
Southern Methodist University's Human Rights Council called to "abolish" the use of "gendered language" like "homecoming queen" and "homecoming king" at the university's dances, alleging the language is not inclusive enough.
2. A Catholic University Is Under Fire from Students for Espousing Catholic Views | Campus Reform
Students, alumni, and faculty at Assumption University, a Catholic school in Massachusetts, wrote a petition attacking the school's promotion of Catholic social teaching on marriage and abortion.
1. University of California, Berkeley Professor: 'Law and Order' is a Racist Dog Whistle | Campus Reform
Ian Haney López, a University of California, Berkeley law professor, created a series of videos that explains why terms like "law and order" are racist "dog whistles."
Want more Campus Insanity? Read Vol. 21 here.
If you have any suggestions for our Top 6 stories please email chrissy@freebeacon.com & nester@freebeacon.com.


freebeacon--2020-12-04--Biden Pledge to Rejoin U.N. Would Hurt U.S. Position Against China, Experts Say

President-elect Joe Biden 's pledge to reengage with the United Nations and other international organizations could weaken America 's position against China , according to foreign policy experts .
On the campaign trail , Biden criticized the Trump administration 's withdrawal writ large from multilateral institutions , saying that he will rejoin several organizations that the White House declared as hostile to American interests , such as the U.N. Human Rights Council , U.N. Population Fund , and the World Health Organization .
Some critics said returning to the table will end institutional hostility to U.S. interests .
American Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , spoke to the dangers of rejoining organizations like the U.N. Population Fund in a conversation with the Washington Free Beacon .
`` Funding the U.N. Population Fund carries significant risk for the United States , namely , being complicit in China 's coercive population control measures in Xinjiang , '' Sobolik said .
`` Cursory research reveals official links between China 's National Health Commission and Xinjiang 's health commission , the local government agency responsible for funding the sterilization and abortion of Uighur women and babies .
This connection , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policymakers , given [ the ] U.N. Population Fund 's work with Chinese family planning agencies . ''
China has used international organizations to promote its domestic interests , including the U.N. Population Fund .
Beijing leverages the organization to cooperate with Chinese population control measures in places like Xinjiang , where millions of Uighurs are currently detained .
China also manipulates international agencies through its economic and political power as a bully pulpit toward developing countries , according to Stewart M. Patrick of the Council on Foreign Relations .
`` Xi Jinping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and security and also development in Africa , and so obviously the Belt and Road Initiative holds some sway , '' Patrick said at a Thursday panel hosted by the American Enterprise Institute .
AEI senior fellow Danielle Pletka noted that the traditional use of multilateral institutions and agreements—often on display during the Obama administration—would not be effective in standing up to Beijing .
Pletka pointed to Biden 's promises to strengthen America 's U.N. presence and to re-sign the Paris climate accords .
`` Joining something is n't a win , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adherence , effectiveness , and doing something related to that actual signature is often left far behind .
… This is a farcical approach to international organizations that has governed us for way too long . ''
Biden has already made rejoining the U.N. and similar organizations a top agenda item for his administration .
The first round of his cabinet picks includes John Kerry as special presidential envoy for climate and Linda Thomas-Greenfield as ambassador to the U.N. , signaling to some the importance of those positions to Biden given how early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returning to government to get America back on track to address the biggest challenge of this generation and those that will follow , '' Kerry tweeted in November .
`` The climate crisis demands nothing less than all hands on deck . ''

President-elect Joe Biden's pledge to reengage with the United Nations and other international organizations could weaken America's position against China, according to foreign policy experts.
On the campaign trail, Biden criticized the Trump administration's withdrawal writ large from multilateral institutions, saying that he will rejoin several organizations that the White House declared as hostile to American interests, such as the U.N. Human Rights Council, U.N. Population Fund, and the World Health Organization. Some critics said returning to the table will end institutional hostility to U.S. interests. American Foreign Policy Council research fellow Michael Sobolik, however, spoke to the dangers of rejoining organizations like the U.N. Population Fund in a conversation with the Washington Free Beacon.
"Funding the U.N. Population Fund carries significant risk for the United States, namely, being complicit in China's coercive population control measures in Xinjiang," Sobolik said. "Cursory research reveals official links between China's National Health Commission and Xinjiang's health commission, the local government agency responsible for funding the sterilization and abortion of Uighur women and babies. This connection, while unsurprising, should deeply concern U.S. policymakers, given [the] U.N. Population Fund's work with Chinese family planning agencies."
China has used international organizations to promote its domestic interests, including the U.N. Population Fund. Beijing leverages the organization to cooperate with Chinese population control measures in places like Xinjiang, where millions of Uighurs are currently detained. China also manipulates international agencies through its economic and political power as a bully pulpit toward developing countries, according to Stewart M. Patrick of the Council on Foreign Relations.
"Xi Jinping has pledged lots of money for peace and security and also development in Africa, and so obviously the Belt and Road Initiative holds some sway," Patrick said at a Thursday panel hosted by the American Enterprise Institute.
AEI senior fellow Danielle Pletka noted that the traditional use of multilateral institutions and agreements—often on display during the Obama administration—would not be effective in standing up to Beijing. Pletka pointed to Biden's promises to strengthen America's U.N. presence and to re-sign the Paris climate accords.
"Joining something isn't a win," Pletka said. "Of course, adherence, effectiveness, and doing something related to that actual signature is often left far behind. ... This is a farcical approach to international organizations that has governed us for way too long."
Biden has already made rejoining the U.N. and similar organizations a top agenda item for his administration. The first round of his cabinet picks includes John Kerry as special presidential envoy for climate and Linda Thomas-Greenfield as ambassador to the U.N., signaling to some the importance of those positions to Biden given how early they were announced.
"I'm returning to government to get America back on track to address the biggest challenge of this generation and those that will follow," Kerry tweeted in November. "The climate crisis demands nothing less than all hands on deck."


freebeacon--2020-12-06--Felon Enfranchisement, National Election Overhaul Top Priority Bill if Dems Retake Senate

Federal Democrats have put an overhaul of American voting front and center on their agenda if they attain unified government , with a ready-to-go proposal that could give them a durable advantage in future elections .
The party passed legislation aimed at dramatic changes to the American electoral system after it reclaimed the House in 2018 .
That bill , H.R .
1 , was taken as a sign of their main priorities if Democrats retook the White House and the Senate , control of which now comes down to two still-undecided races in Georgia .
President-elect Joe Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For the People Act—which Democrats and their allies have presented as an antidote to a hopelessly corrupt and unfair electoral system .
The bill would address Democrats ' concerns via a `` breathtaking attempt at federal control of national elections , '' Cato Institute constitutional studies director Ilya Shapiro told the Washington Free Beacon , many components of which are `` constitutionally dubious . ''
Provisions of the bill have even raised the hackles of the American Civil Liberties Union , normally a staunch ally to congressional Democrats .
It would also take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including extending voting rights to millions of currently disenfranchised felons and overhauling the Federal Election Commission to ensure partisan control .
Democrats have framed those changes and others as necessary to democracy , but they would also likely give the party a leg up in future elections .
Such interests likely undergird Democrats ' agitation about the possibility of seizing Congress 's upper chamber in the January Georgia runoff .
Those races have seen unprecedented interest from Democratic politicians and donors , including prominent members of the party 's left wing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ilhan Omar ( Minn. ) .
Running over 700 pages , the For the People Act contains provisions relating to almost every feature of the way America chooses its leaders .
The overall approach , Shapiro said , is to `` strip states of their longstanding responsibility as electoral gatekeepers by imposing one-size-fits-all rules , '' withdrawing discretion on issues like the shape of congressional districts or the composition of voter rolls .
Much of that focus is on increasing total voter registration , including through mandatory nationwide automatic voter registration at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bill would also federally guarantee released felons the immediate right to vote , invalidating laws in 33 states that impose restrictions of any sort on those just out of jail .
And it would prohibit the practice of confirming that voters are residents at their current addresses and removing them if they 're not , called `` voter caging '' —an election integrity measure that Democrats charge unduly disenfranchises voters .
Such measures would have the added effect of boosting turnout , particularly among young people and the disproportionately minority felon population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a boon to Democrats , although this claim is disputed .
Most recently , record turnout helped President Donald Trump win again in red states like Texas and helped hand a wave of House seats to Republicans .
H.R .
1 also contains an exhaustive list of `` ethics reforms , '' many motivated by Democrats ' criticisms of the Trump White House , but which could also benefit them .
A provision of the bill would cut the Federal Election Commission to five members , two from each party and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shapiro noted , could be someone like Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) , and the incoming Democratic administration could effectively seize control of the commission for six years starting in 2022 .
The bill also authorizes a task force to consider extending statehood to non-state territories and explicitly endorses statehood for Washington , D.C.—a change that would likely add two solidly Democratic votes to the Senate .
Beyond partisan concerns , many of those proposals—which include new donor disclosure requirements for PACs and limits on lobbying employment—run afoul of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the ACLU to the House in advance of the bill 's passage .
Shapiro noted other constitutional concerns , including imposing ethics rules on Supreme Court justices— '' most scholars think Congress ca n't regulate the Supreme Court in that way , '' he said .
Such constitutional concerns are unlikely to constrain Democratic enthusiasm for the bill .
Instead , H.R .
1 offers a picture of the kind of sweeping change a unified Democratic government would pursue , changes that could entrench that same government for years to follow .

Federal Democrats have put an overhaul of American voting front and center on their agenda if they attain unified government, with a ready-to-go proposal that could give them a durable advantage in future elections.
The party passed legislation aimed at dramatic changes to the American electoral system after it reclaimed the House in 2018. That bill, H.R. 1, was taken as a sign of their main priorities if Democrats retook the White House and the Senate, control of which now comes down to two still-undecided races in Georgia. President-elect Joe Biden has indicated that he would sign the bill—the For the People Act—which Democrats and their allies have presented as an antidote to a hopelessly corrupt and unfair electoral system.
The bill would address Democrats' concerns via a "breathtaking attempt at federal control of national elections," Cato Institute constitutional studies director Ilya Shapiro told the Washington Free Beacon, many components of which are "constitutionally dubious." Provisions of the bill have even raised the hackles of the American Civil Liberties Union, normally a staunch ally to congressional Democrats.
It would also take a number of dramatic and controversial steps, including extending voting rights to millions of currently disenfranchised felons and overhauling the Federal Election Commission to ensure partisan control. Democrats have framed those changes and others as necessary to democracy, but they would also likely give the party a leg up in future elections.
Such interests likely undergird Democrats' agitation about the possibility of seizing Congress's upper chamber in the January Georgia runoff. Those races have seen unprecedented interest from Democratic politicians and donors, including prominent members of the party's left wing, like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.).
Running over 700 pages, the For the People Act contains provisions relating to almost every feature of the way America chooses its leaders. The overall approach, Shapiro said, is to "strip states of their longstanding responsibility as electoral gatekeepers by imposing one-size-fits-all rules," withdrawing discretion on issues like the shape of congressional districts or the composition of voter rolls.
Much of that focus is on increasing total voter registration, including through mandatory nationwide automatic voter registration at the DMV and preregistration of 16-year-olds. The bill would also federally guarantee released felons the immediate right to vote, invalidating laws in 33 states that impose restrictions of any sort on those just out of jail. And it would prohibit the practice of confirming that voters are residents at their current addresses and removing them if they're not, called "voter caging"—an election integrity measure that Democrats charge unduly disenfranchises voters.
Such measures would have the added effect of boosting turnout, particularly among young people and the disproportionately minority felon population. Increased turnout in general is thought to be a boon to Democrats, although this claim is disputed. Most recently, record turnout helped President Donald Trump win again in red states like Texas and helped hand a wave of House seats to Republicans.
H.R. 1 also contains an exhaustive list of "ethics reforms," many motivated by Democrats' criticisms of the Trump White House, but which could also benefit them. A provision of the bill would cut the Federal Election Commission to five members, two from each party and one independent. But that independent, Shapiro noted, could be someone like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), and the incoming Democratic administration could effectively seize control of the commission for six years starting in 2022.
The bill also authorizes a task force to consider extending statehood to non-state territories and explicitly endorses statehood for Washington, D.C.—a change that would likely add two solidly Democratic votes to the Senate.
Beyond partisan concerns, many of those proposals—which include new donor disclosure requirements for PACs and limits on lobbying employment—run afoul of the First Amendment, according to a letter from the ACLU to the House in advance of the bill's passage. Shapiro noted other constitutional concerns, including imposing ethics rules on Supreme Court justices—"most scholars think Congress can't regulate the Supreme Court in that way," he said.
Such constitutional concerns are unlikely to constrain Democratic enthusiasm for the bill. Instead, H.R. 1 offers a picture of the kind of sweeping change a unified Democratic government would pursue, changes that could entrench that same government for years to follow.


freebeacon--2020-12-06--Trump Urges ‘Georgia Patriots’ to Turn Out in Senate Runoffs

VALDOSTA , Ga.—President Donald Trump held his first Georgia runoff campaign rally with Republican senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler on Saturday , calling on `` Georgia patriots '' to `` show up and vote for these two incredible people . ''
`` The voters of Georgia will determine which party runs every committee , writes every piece of legislation , controls every single taxpayer dollar , '' Trump said Saturday night in Valdosta .
`` Very simply , you will decide whether your children will grow up in a socialist country or whether they will grow up in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the rally to dispel recent calls to boycott the election from pro-Trump attorneys Lin Wood and Sidney Powell .
While Trump disputed the November election results , he rejected Wood and Powell 's efforts to keep Republican voters away from the polls in January , asking voters to `` do just the opposite . ''
`` That 's what Nancy Pelosi and [ Chuck ] Schumer want you to do—stay at home , '' Trump said .
`` If you want to do something … to the Democrats , you show up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leon Manley of Eatonton , a self-described `` red-blooded patriot American , '' told the Washington Free Beacon that he is concerned about `` Democratic corruption '' but plans to vote in the runoff and will `` encourage people to vote . ''
`` That 's the most important right you have as an American citizen—your right to vote , '' Manley said .
`` When you lose that , it 's over . ''
He added that his friends and family will `` certainly '' vote for Perdue and Loeffler in January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challengers Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock , saying the pair will be `` pawns of Chuck Schumer . ''
A Republican loss in January would hand Schumer a de facto Senate majority , with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris serving as the tiebreaker in a 50-50 upper chamber .
Trump 's visit came one day after Vice President Mike Pence made his second runoff campaign stop with Perdue and Loeffler .
A who 's who of national Republicans have campaigned with the incumbent senators in recent weeks—Perdue took the stage Saturday after holding four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Texas ) as part of his `` Win Georgia , Save America '' bus tour .
The runoff is set to take place Jan. 5 , and in-person early voting in the state begins on Dec. 14 .

VALDOSTA, Ga.—President Donald Trump held his first Georgia runoff campaign rally with Republican senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler on Saturday, calling on "Georgia patriots" to "show up and vote for these two incredible people."
"The voters of Georgia will determine which party runs every committee, writes every piece of legislation, controls every single taxpayer dollar," Trump said Saturday night in Valdosta. "Very simply, you will decide whether your children will grow up in a socialist country or whether they will grow up in a free country."
Republicans are banking on the rally to dispel recent calls to boycott the election from pro-Trump attorneys Lin Wood and Sidney Powell. While Trump disputed the November election results, he rejected Wood and Powell's efforts to keep Republican voters away from the polls in January, asking voters to "do just the opposite."
"That's what Nancy Pelosi and [Chuck] Schumer want you to do—stay at home," Trump said. "If you want to do something … to the Democrats, you show up and vote in record numbers."
Leon Manley of Eatonton, a self-described "red-blooded patriot American," told the Washington Free Beacon that he is concerned about "Democratic corruption" but plans to vote in the runoff and will "encourage people to vote."
"That's the most important right you have as an American citizen—your right to vote," Manley said. "When you lose that, it's over." He added that his friends and family will "certainly" vote for Perdue and Loeffler in January.
Trump also railed against Georgia Democratic challengers Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, saying the pair will be "pawns of Chuck Schumer." A Republican loss in January would hand Schumer a de facto Senate majority, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris serving as the tiebreaker in a 50-50 upper chamber.
Trump's visit came one day after Vice President Mike Pence made his second runoff campaign stop with Perdue and Loeffler. A who's who of national Republicans have campaigned with the incumbent senators in recent weeks—Perdue took the stage Saturday after holding four events with Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R., Texas) as part of his "Win Georgia, Save America" bus tour.
The runoff is set to take place Jan. 5, and in-person early voting in the state begins on Dec. 14.


freebeacon--2020-12-06--Bass Defends Dems Who Flouted Own COVID Restrictions

Rep. Karen Bass ( D. , Calif. ) , a frontrunner to replace Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in the Senate , said her state 's elected officials have n't sent a `` mixed message '' by violating their own coronavirus guidelines .
`` Those were unfortunate mistakes and each of those elected officials have held themselves accountable and apologized , '' Bass said Sunday on CNN 's State of the Union .
`` But I do n't think that is sufficient in terms of a mixed message . ''
California Democratic officials , including Gov .
Gavin Newsom , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials , have defied their own coronavirus guidelines .
Newsom , who attended a large dinner party last month at the French Laundry in Napa Valley , defended his actions , saying he `` followed public health guidelines . ''
The governor later walked back his statement in an apology , saying , `` We all fall short sometimes . ''
San Francisco mayor London Breed , who also attended a dinner party at the same restaurant last month , said she should hold herself to a `` higher standard '' but insisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines .
Breed 's dinner party , however , would have violated her city 's coronavirus restrictions .
The brazen acts have infuriated small business owners as the state shuts down businesses to combat a spike in cases .
The state 's department of public health forced new lockdowns that will shutter businesses and ban gatherings outside households for three weeks .

Rep. Karen Bass (D., Calif.), a frontrunner to replace Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in the Senate, said her state's elected officials haven't sent a "mixed message" by violating their own coronavirus guidelines.
"Those were unfortunate mistakes and each of those elected officials have held themselves accountable and apologized," Bass said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union. "But I don't think that is sufficient in terms of a mixed message."
California Democratic officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, the mayors of major cities, and county officials, have defied their own coronavirus guidelines. Newsom, who attended a large dinner party last month at the French Laundry in Napa Valley, defended his actions, saying he "followed public health guidelines." The governor later walked back his statement in an apology, saying, "We all fall short sometimes."
San Francisco mayor London Breed, who also attended a dinner party at the same restaurant last month, said she should hold herself to a "higher standard" but insisted she didn't violate local public health guidelines. Breed's dinner party, however, would have violated her city's coronavirus restrictions.
The brazen acts have infuriated small business owners as the state shuts down businesses to combat a spike in cases. The state's department of public health forced new lockdowns that will shutter businesses and ban gatherings outside households for three weeks.


freebeacon--2020-12-06--California Sheriff’s Departments Reject Newsom’s Lockdown Order

Two California counties are refusing to enforce Gov .
Gavin Newsom 's ( D. ) new lockdown orders , which one county sheriff said are `` disastrous . ''
`` While the governor 's office and the state [ have ] threatened action against violators , the Riverside County Sheriff 's Department will not be blackmailed , bullied , or used as muscle against Riverside County residents in the enforcement of the governor 's orders , '' Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said Friday .
Bianco criticized Newsom 's `` dictatorial attitude '' toward Californians , requiring police to arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of violators , lest counties be punished with funding cuts .
The sheriff also accused Newsom of attempting to distract from his own hypocrisy and irresponsibility , since the governor has dined out , kept his own winery open , and sent his children to private school .
`` It appears part of the new goal is to shift attention away from his and others ' personal behavior with a ‘ do as I say , not as I do ' attitude by turning public opinion against California sheriffs , '' Bianco said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also rejected Newsom 's order .
Sheriff Don Barnes on Saturday said compliance with the lockdown is a `` matter of personal responsibility and not a matter of law enforcement '' and said his deputies will not respond to calls about face coverings , social gatherings , or stay-at-home orders .
`` To put the onus on law enforcement to enforce these orders against law-abiding citizens who are already struggling through difficult circumstances , while at the same time criticizing law enforcement and taking away tools to do our jobs , is both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement .
The California lockdown was announced on Thursday , weeks after Newsom was caught dining with at least 12 individuals at the French Laundry , a high-priced Napa Valley restaurant .
The governor claimed he and his wife had followed social-distancing guidelines , but photos released following his initial statement show him violating numerous rules by talking maskless and in close proximity to people from various households , including California Medical Association officials .
The sheriffs ' statements come two weeks after several county sheriffs told Newsom they would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernardino County officials announced they are planning a lawsuit against the governor 's `` one-size-fits-all '' restrictions .
Update 12/6/2020 2:00 p.m. : This piece was updated to include a statement from the Orange County Sheriff 's Department .

Two California counties are refusing to enforce Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D.) new lockdown orders, which one county sheriff said are "disastrous."
"While the governor's office and the state [have] threatened action against violators, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department will not be blackmailed, bullied, or used as muscle against Riverside County residents in the enforcement of the governor's orders," Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said Friday.
Bianco criticized Newsom's "dictatorial attitude" toward Californians, requiring police to arrest, ticket, or close the businesses of violators, lest counties be punished with funding cuts. The sheriff also accused Newsom of attempting to distract from his own hypocrisy and irresponsibility, since the governor has dined out, kept his own winery open, and sent his children to private school.
"It appears part of the new goal is to shift attention away from his and others' personal behavior with a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude by turning public opinion against California sheriffs," Bianco said.
The Orange County Sheriff's Department also rejected Newsom's order. Sheriff Don Barnes on Saturday said compliance with the lockdown is a "matter of personal responsibility and not a matter of law enforcement" and said his deputies will not respond to calls about face coverings, social gatherings, or stay-at-home orders.
"To put the onus on law enforcement to enforce these orders against law-abiding citizens who are already struggling through difficult circumstances, while at the same time criticizing law enforcement and taking away tools to do our jobs, is both contradictory and disingenuous," Barnes said in a statement.
The California lockdown was announced on Thursday, weeks after Newsom was caught dining with at least 12 individuals at the French Laundry, a high-priced Napa Valley restaurant. The governor claimed he and his wife had followed social-distancing guidelines, but photos released following his initial statement show him violating numerous rules by talking maskless and in close proximity to people from various households, including California Medical Association officials.
The sheriffs' statements come two weeks after several county sheriffs told Newsom they would not enforce his curfew order, while San Bernardino County officials announced they are planning a lawsuit against the governor's "one-size-fits-all" restrictions.
Update 12/6/2020 2:00 p.m.: This piece was updated to include a statement from the Orange County Sheriff's Department.


freebeacon--2020-12-07--Gun Lawsuits Flood in After Barrett Supreme Court Confirmation

Gun-rights activists have filed a slew of new cases in hopes Justice Amy Coney Barrett 's confirmation to the Supreme Court will lead to an expansion of gun protections .
Groups like the Second Amendment Foundation , Firearms Policy Coalition , and National Rifle Association have filed numerous federal cases against restrictive gun laws across the country with the intention of taking as many as possible to the Supreme Court .
They hope to not only strike down restrictive laws in places like Massachusetts , California , and New Jersey but also further clarify the reach of the Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could change American gun laws forever by forcing judges in lower courts to a formal standard of review in Second Amendment cases .
`` We started this process and planning as soon as Trump nominated [ Barrett ] , '' Alan Gottlieb , founder of the Second Amendment Foundation , which has already filed half a dozen new cases in recent weeks , told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` And , of course , as soon as she was confirmed , we started ramping it up to make it happen . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a long-term strategic litigation , '' Adam Kraut , director of legal strategy for the Firearms Policy Coalition , told the Free Beacon of the group 's recent surge in suits .
`` The confirmation of Justice Barrett , who seemingly would provide a fair analysis , is something that was part of the analysis that went into the timing of it . ''
The Supreme Court has been reluctant to take on gun-rights cases since striking down local and state gun restrictions in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2010 ) decisions .
Justices have only ruled on one Second Amendment case in the past decade and declined a slate of new suits in June .
The confirmation of Barrett , who experts view as friendly toward broadening Second Amendment protections , has given activists hope .
The NRA filed Mazahreh v. Grewal on Tuesday to challenge a restrictive New Jersey gun-carry law that allows officials to deny permit applications to the vast majority of residents .
Legal analysts said the strategy of flooding the Court with new lawsuits could pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a University of California Los Angeles professor specializing in gun policy and the Supreme Court , said President Trump 's appointments throughout the federal bench have created a friendly environment for such cases .
`` You ca n't imagine a more favorable judicial environment than what we have right now , '' Winkler said .
`` You have the lower courts that feature a large number of Trump-appointed judges .
Many of those judges seem likely to support strong gun rights and weaken gun control .
And the Supreme Court 's conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coney Barrett , in particular , has taken a strong stand on Second Amendment issues as a lower court judge . ''
Eric Ruben , an assistant law professor who teaches a Second Amendment seminar at Southern Methodist University , said Barrett replacing liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg unquestionably `` shifted [ the Court ] in a more gun-friendly direction . ''
`` There are plenty of open questions , from the constitutionality of public carry restrictions to large-capacity magazines to prohibitions on gun possession by felons or the mentally ill , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Liberty & Law Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University , told the Free Beacon the new Court majority may feel a responsibility to clear up those questions after such a long delay between major cases .
`` Since McDonald , the Supreme Court has studiously avoided clarifying the scope of the individual right to keep and bear arms , '' Bernstein said in an email .
`` This led to a fair amount of confusion/inconsistency in the lower courts , but also in some courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their facts ( i.e.
, virtually absolute bans on private ownership ) , which seems to me unjustified . ''
Bernstein also noted the legal playing field is likely to get less friendly as President-elect Joe Biden takes office .
`` Biden will soon be picking judges , '' he said .
`` So , for a while , they are n't going to have more sympathetic lower federal courts than they have right now . ''
The Second Amendment Foundation alone has 40 cases in the courts as of Friday .
Gottlieb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with `` a cafeteria plate of cases '' to increase the likelihood at least one issue gets through .
He and Kraut of the Firearms Policy Coalition both said they want to win each case on the merits but are also hoping to get the Court to establish precedents on the legal standard lower courts should use to examine future gun cases .
Winkler said the ultimate goal for gun-rights groups is `` not just to strike down one or two laws but to establish a framework that makes it harder to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new raft of cases will end up becoming landmark rulings .
He thinks the new Court majority , which is already considering whether to accept one new gun-related case this term , may decide on a Second Amendment case even before the lawsuits filed since Barrett 's confirmation have a chance to make their way to the justices .
`` I think the Supreme Court is going to issue those landmark rulings before these new cases ever come to Court , '' Winkler said .

Gun-rights activists have filed a slew of new cases in hopes Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court will lead to an expansion of gun protections.
Groups like the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and National Rifle Association have filed numerous federal cases against restrictive gun laws across the country with the intention of taking as many as possible to the Supreme Court. They hope to not only strike down restrictive laws in places like Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey but also further clarify the reach of the Second Amendment. New rulings, they believe, could change American gun laws forever by forcing judges in lower courts to a formal standard of review in Second Amendment cases.
"We started this process and planning as soon as Trump nominated [Barrett]," Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which has already filed half a dozen new cases in recent weeks, told the Washington Free Beacon. "And, of course, as soon as she was confirmed, we started ramping it up to make it happen."
"The lawsuits you're seeing are part of a long-term strategic litigation," Adam Kraut, director of legal strategy for the Firearms Policy Coalition, told the Free Beacon of the group's recent surge in suits. "The confirmation of Justice Barrett, who seemingly would provide a fair analysis, is something that was part of the analysis that went into the timing of it."
The Supreme Court has been reluctant to take on gun-rights cases since striking down local and state gun restrictions in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) decisions. Justices have only ruled on one Second Amendment case in the past decade and declined a slate of new suits in June. The confirmation of Barrett, who experts view as friendly toward broadening Second Amendment protections, has given activists hope. The NRA filed Mazahreh v. Grewal on Tuesday to challenge a restrictive New Jersey gun-carry law that allows officials to deny permit applications to the vast majority of residents.
Legal analysts said the strategy of flooding the Court with new lawsuits could pay dividends for gun-rights groups. Adam Winkler, a University of California Los Angeles professor specializing in gun policy and the Supreme Court, said President Trump's appointments throughout the federal bench have created a friendly environment for such cases.
"You can't imagine a more favorable judicial environment than what we have right now," Winkler said. "You have the lower courts that feature a large number of Trump-appointed judges. Many of those judges seem likely to support strong gun rights and weaken gun control. And the Supreme Court's conservative majority has been strengthened. And Amy Coney Barrett, in particular, has taken a strong stand on Second Amendment issues as a lower court judge."
Eric Ruben, an assistant law professor who teaches a Second Amendment seminar at Southern Methodist University, said Barrett replacing liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg unquestionably "shifted [the Court] in a more gun-friendly direction."
"There are plenty of open questions, from the constitutionality of public carry restrictions to large-capacity magazines to prohibitions on gun possession by felons or the mentally ill," Ruben said.
David Bernstein, executive director of the Liberty & Law Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, told the Free Beacon the new Court majority may feel a responsibility to clear up those questions after such a long delay between major cases.
"Since McDonald, the Supreme Court has studiously avoided clarifying the scope of the individual right to keep and bear arms," Bernstein said in an email. "This led to a fair amount of confusion/inconsistency in the lower courts, but also in some courts basically limiting McDonald and Heller strictly to their facts (i.e., virtually absolute bans on private ownership), which seems to me unjustified."
Bernstein also noted the legal playing field is likely to get less friendly as President-elect Joe Biden takes office. "Biden will soon be picking judges," he said. "So, for a while, they aren't going to have more sympathetic lower federal courts than they have right now."
The Second Amendment Foundation alone has 40 cases in the courts as of Friday. Gottlieb said he wants to present the Court with "a cafeteria plate of cases" to increase the likelihood at least one issue gets through. He and Kraut of the Firearms Policy Coalition both said they want to win each case on the merits but are also hoping to get the Court to establish precedents on the legal standard lower courts should use to examine future gun cases.
Winkler said the ultimate goal for gun-rights groups is "not just to strike down one or two laws but to establish a framework that makes it harder to support gun control." He is skeptical the new raft of cases will end up becoming landmark rulings. He thinks the new Court majority, which is already considering whether to accept one new gun-related case this term, may decide on a Second Amendment case even before the lawsuits filed since Barrett's confirmation have a chance to make their way to the justices.
"I think the Supreme Court is going to issue those landmark rulings before these new cases ever come to Court," Winkler said.


freebeacon--2020-12-07--Columbia Failed to Disclose $1 Million in CCP Funding

Columbia University failed to disclose at least $ 1 million in Chinese government funding that went toward hosting a Confucius Institute , which the State Department has described as a part of Beijing 's propaganda effort targeting U.S. students .
The New York-based university is the only Ivy League institution to host a Confucius Institute , a controversial Chinese government-funded program that at its height operated in more than 100 U.S. colleges .
Hanban , the Beijing-controlled entity that manages the Confucius Institute , pledged at least $ 1 million in donations to Columbia University , according to a Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ records show that Columbia never disclosed any such donations to the federal government .
At least part of the Chinese government money went toward bringing on Prof. Wei Dedong , an adviser to the Chinese regime 's propaganda department , to serve as the director of Columbia 's Confucius Institute starting in 2016 .
Wei , who is an associate professor at Renmin University in Beijing , gave several lectures and organized events at Columbia , including a seminar on `` China 's regulation of religious affairs '' in Tibet .
He also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and grant programs for Columbia students .
The outsized role of a Chinese government adviser in an Ivy League school is in line with widespread concerns about the Confucius Institute , which critics say is a propaganda apparatus that hopes to influence how young Americans think about China .
The controversial program has prompted bipartisan concern in Congress .
Government scrutiny has convinced dozens of schools to drop Confucius Institute partnerships , making Columbia University one of the last remaining high-profile universities with a Confucius Institute program .
The Columbia venture appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , which sent Hanban 's director-general and the president of Renmin University to attend the 2013 official opening ceremony for the institute .
The two Chinese representatives lavished Columbia president Lee Bollinger with numerous gifts .
`` Okay , no more gifts , '' Bollinger jokingly said after the sixth one .
The gifts kept coming .
The Chinese government pledged to pay $ 1 million to subsidize the Confucius Institute at Columbia between 2010 and 2015 .
But the university has never disclosed that $ 1 million donation or any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After the Department of Education cracked down on incomplete foreign-donation disclosures across the country , Columbia disclosed $ 350,000 in donations allocated for `` centers/institute '' in spring 2020 .
The university did not respond to a request for comment on whether the money was for the Confucius Institute .
It is unclear whether Columbia broke the law by failing to disclose the donations—universities are only required to disclose donations that exceed $ 250,000 in one year .
Rachelle Peterson , the director of policy at the National Association of Scholars , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take advantage of the lax disclosure requirements to avoid reporting their foreign donations .
`` Unfortunately Columbia is really par for the course , '' Peterson told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` For many years , colleges and universities have been either completely negligent or willfully out of compliance of the law .
They have fought transparency at every step of the way . ''
The Chinese government donations went toward bringing on Wei , the Renmin University professor , to head the Confucius Institute .
According to Renmin 's website , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the religious-affairs division of the United Front Work Department ( UFWD ) , the Chinese government 's premier influence and propaganda-pedaling operation .
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission , a bipartisan congressional body , concluded that the UFWD `` conduct [ s ] influence operations targeting foreign actors and states '' to sway them toward China .
It is unclear whether Wei still serves at Columbia University .
His LinkedIn profile still lists him as director of Columbia 's Confucius Institute , and a 2019 Renmin University press release identified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Columbia 's Confucius Institute page , however , no longer lists him as director .
The Confucius Institute did not return a request for comment .

Columbia University failed to disclose at least $1 million in Chinese government funding that went toward hosting a Confucius Institute, which the State Department has described as a part of Beijing's propaganda effort targeting U.S. students.
The New York-based university is the only Ivy League institution to host a Confucius Institute, a controversial Chinese government-funded program that at its height operated in more than 100 U.S. colleges. Hanban, the Beijing-controlled entity that manages the Confucius Institute, pledged at least $1 million in donations to Columbia University, according to a Chinese state media report. Department of Education records show that Columbia never disclosed any such donations to the federal government.
At least part of the Chinese government money went toward bringing on Prof. Wei Dedong, an adviser to the Chinese regime's propaganda department, to serve as the director of Columbia's Confucius Institute starting in 2016. Wei, who is an associate professor at Renmin University in Beijing, gave several lectures and organized events at Columbia, including a seminar on "China's regulation of religious affairs" in Tibet. He also oversaw the Confucius Institute's Mandarin instruction and grant programs for Columbia students.
The outsized role of a Chinese government adviser in an Ivy League school is in line with widespread concerns about the Confucius Institute, which critics say is a propaganda apparatus that hopes to influence how young Americans think about China. The controversial program has prompted bipartisan concern in Congress. Government scrutiny has convinced dozens of schools to drop Confucius Institute partnerships, making Columbia University one of the last remaining high-profile universities with a Confucius Institute program.
The Columbia venture appears to have been a priority for the Chinese government, which sent Hanban's director-general and the president of Renmin University to attend the 2013 official opening ceremony for the institute. The two Chinese representatives lavished Columbia president Lee Bollinger with numerous gifts.
"Okay, no more gifts," Bollinger jokingly said after the sixth one.
The gifts kept coming. The Chinese government pledged to pay $1 million to subsidize the Confucius Institute at Columbia between 2010 and 2015. But the university has never disclosed that $1 million donation or any other Confucius Institute-related funding in public disclosures. After the Department of Education cracked down on incomplete foreign-donation disclosures across the country, Columbia disclosed $350,000 in donations allocated for "centers/institute" in spring 2020. The university did not respond to a request for comment on whether the money was for the Confucius Institute.
It is unclear whether Columbia broke the law by failing to disclose the donations—universities are only required to disclose donations that exceed $250,000 in one year. Rachelle Peterson, the director of policy at the National Association of Scholars, an education watchdog, said that many colleges take advantage of the lax disclosure requirements to avoid reporting their foreign donations.
"Unfortunately Columbia is really par for the course," Peterson told the Washington Free Beacon. "For many years, colleges and universities have been either completely negligent or willfully out of compliance of the law. They have fought transparency at every step of the way."
The Chinese government donations went toward bringing on Wei, the Renmin University professor, to head the Confucius Institute. According to Renmin's website, Wei also serves as a special adviser to the religious-affairs division of the United Front Work Department (UFWD), the Chinese government's premier influence and propaganda-pedaling operation. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan congressional body, concluded that the UFWD "conduct[s] influence operations targeting foreign actors and states" to sway them toward China.
It is unclear whether Wei still serves at Columbia University. His LinkedIn profile still lists him as director of Columbia's Confucius Institute, and a 2019 Renmin University press release identified him in that position as well. Columbia's Confucius Institute page, however, no longer lists him as director.
The Confucius Institute did not return a request for comment.


freebeacon--2020-12-07--Warnock Silent on Court Packing, Marxism in Heated Debate

Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock dodged questions about packing the Supreme Court and declined to condemn Marxism in a debate Sunday night against Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler .
The two candidates sparred over economics and coronavirus policy during the hour-long debate , with Warnock accusing his opponent of using her office for personal gain and Loeffler repeatedly describing her Democratic challenger as a `` radical liberal . ''
Progressive activists have advocated for adding seats to the Supreme Court to tilt the political balance to the left , a proposal opposed by most Americans .
Warnock has so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter during the race and took another pass in Sunday ’ s debate .
`` People [ in Georgia ] are n't asking me about the courts and whether we should expand the courts , '' said Warnock .
`` I know that 's an interesting question for people inside the Beltway to discuss .
But [ voters are ] wondering when in the world are they going to get some covid relief ? ''
Pressed for an answer , Warnock demurred , saying `` I 'm really not focused on it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is likely the final debate before their runoff election on Jan. 5 .
The high-stakes race in Georgia is one of two in the state that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate next year .
The flood of cash into the campaigns is expected to break records—with advertising spending alone exceeding $ 300 million .
During a segment of the debate in which the candidates were allowed to ask each other questions , Warnock was evasive when asked if he would renounce socialism and Marxism .
`` In your writings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praised Marxism and the redistribution of income , '' said Loeffler .
`` Can you here now for all Georgians renounce socialism and Marxism ? ''
Warnock responded that he believes `` in our free enterprise system , '' but stopped short of renouncing the ideologies .
`` Listen , I believe in our free enterprise system .
My dad was a small business owner , '' he said .
`` During the great recession , you know what I was doing ?
I was leading my church to build a community center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial literacy center . ''
Warnock took aim at Loeffler ’ s wealth—she is the richest member of the Senate—and accused her of using her office for personal profit .
`` When you received the private briefing regarding the coronavirus pandemic , you dropped millions of dollars of stock in order to protect your own investments , '' said Warnock .
Loeffler shot back that she had been `` completely exonerated '' on the issue and called his comments `` lies perpetrated by the left-wing media and Democrats to distract from their radical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponent as `` radical liberal Raphael Warnock , '' noting that he had praised an anti-American sermon by Rev .
Jeremiah Wright as a `` very fine homily , '' claimed in a speech that `` nobody can serve God and the military '' in America , and argued that `` America needs to repent for its worship of whiteness . ''
She also blasted Warnock for his association with the New Georgia Project , a voter registration group that is under investigation by the Georgia secretary of state for sending registration applications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO of the group until earlier this year .

Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock dodged questions about packing the Supreme Court and declined to condemn Marxism in a debate Sunday night against Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler.
The two candidates sparred over economics and coronavirus policy during the hour-long debate, with Warnock accusing his opponent of using her office for personal gain and Loeffler repeatedly describing her Democratic challenger as a "radical liberal."
Progressive activists have advocated for adding seats to the Supreme Court to tilt the political balance to the left, a proposal opposed by most Americans. Warnock has so far declined to state his views on the matter during the race and took another pass in Sunday’s debate.
"People [in Georgia] aren't asking me about the courts and whether we should expand the courts," said Warnock. "I know that's an interesting question for people inside the Beltway to discuss. But [voters are] wondering when in the world are they going to get some COVID relief?"
Pressed for an answer, Warnock demurred, saying "I'm really not focused on it."
Warnock and Loeffler faced off in what is likely the final debate before their runoff election on Jan. 5. The high-stakes race in Georgia is one of two in the state that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate next year. The flood of cash into the campaigns is expected to break records—with advertising spending alone exceeding $300 million.
During a segment of the debate in which the candidates were allowed to ask each other questions, Warnock was evasive when asked if he would renounce socialism and Marxism.
"In your writings and your teachings you’ve repeatedly praised Marxism and the redistribution of income," said Loeffler. "Can you here now for all Georgians renounce socialism and Marxism?"
Warnock responded that he believes "in our free enterprise system," but stopped short of renouncing the ideologies.
"Listen, I believe in our free enterprise system. My dad was a small business owner," he said. "During the great recession, you know what I was doing? I was leading my church to build a community center where among other things we had a financial literacy center."
Warnock took aim at Loeffler’s wealth—she is the richest member of the Senate—and accused her of using her office for personal profit.
"When you received the private briefing regarding the coronavirus pandemic, you dropped millions of dollars of stock in order to protect your own investments," said Warnock.
Loeffler shot back that she had been "completely exonerated" on the issue and called his comments "lies perpetrated by the left-wing media and Democrats to distract from their radical agenda."
Loeffler repeatedly described her opponent as "radical liberal Raphael Warnock," noting that he had praised an anti-American sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a "very fine homily," claimed in a speech that "nobody can serve God and the military" in America, and argued that "America needs to repent for its worship of whiteness."
She also blasted Warnock for his association with the New Georgia Project, a voter registration group that is under investigation by the Georgia secretary of state for sending registration applications to out-of-state residents. Warnock served as CEO of the group until earlier this year.


freebeacon--2020-12-07--Police Reports Shed Light on Warnock’s 2002 Arrest for Obstruction: ‘Extremely Uncooperative and Dis

Police Reports Shed Light on Warnock’s 2002 Arrest for Obstruction: ‘Extremely Uncooperative and Disruptive’

Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock repeatedly disrupted a 2002 police investigation into child abuse at a church-affiliated summer camp , interfering with interviews and discouraging counselors from speaking with investigators , according to two Maryland State Police reports obtained by the Washington Free Beacon .
The records indicate that Warnock , who was at the time senior pastor of the church that operated the camp , insisted that the camp 's attorneys be present .
While police said the counselors themselves were free to request an attorney , Warnock could not do so on their behalf .
Warnock went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31 , 2002 : `` This investigator informed [ camp administrators ] that if the counselors requested that an attorney be present that was their right , however , no one else could [ invoke ] their rights to an attorney on their behalf , '' the report reads .
While the names in the documents are blacked out , the reports track closely with contemporaneous newspaper articles about the incident , which led to Warnock 's arrest .
The charges were ultimately dropped by the state attorney .
The Baltimore Sun reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warnock and a colleague were `` accused in court documents of trying to prevent a state trooper of interviewing counselors at Camp Farthest Out '' and that the ministers `` interrupted a police interview of a counselor . ''
Warnock told the paper that he was `` only asserting that lawyers should be present when the camp counselors were interviewed . ''
Warnock said in Sunday ’ s debate that law enforcement officers `` actually later thanked me for my cooperation and for helping them , '' and the deputy state attorney told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November of 2002 .
But the police report paints a more complicated picture of the events .
Filed by state troopers after Warnock and another reverend were arrested for `` hindering and obstructing '' police , the records indicate that investigators repeatedly warned Warnock to stop interfering with the investigation before he was arrested .
Warnock is locked in a tight race against Republican Kelly Loefller , who has worked to paint him as a radical out of step with Georgia voters .
Loeffler has seized on Warnock 's anti-police rhetoric , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his efforts to portray himself as an ally of law enforcement .
The Warnock campaign did not respond to a request for comment .
Maryland State Police and Child Protective Services investigators responded to allegations of child abuse taking place at Camp Farthest Out , a Maryland summer camp run by the Douglas Memorial Community Church .
Warnock served as the senior pastor at the time , and sources told the Washington Free Beacon that the case pertained to allegations of physical abuse at the camp .
She said the men entered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanded to sit in on interviews despite police admonitions that the participation of third parties was not permitted and ultimately directed potential witnesses not to cooperate with police .
Investigators had scheduled interviews with several counselors around 10 a.m. on July 31 , according to the arresting officer .
Although Warnock and camp administrators initially agreed to cooperate when investigators arrived , they soon expressed concerns about `` legal ramifications from the alleged abuse case '' and demanded that the camp ’ s attorney be present for any interviews with counselors or campers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veteran investigator with the Maryland State Police ’ s child abuse division , wrote in her July 31 , 2002 , report that Warnock and another church official named Rev .
Mark Andre Wainwright `` interfered with a criminal investigation by interrupting interviews and directing people not to talk to investigators . ''
As investigators were conducting their first scheduled interview with a counselor in a private camp office , Warnock and Wainwright entered the room and `` demanded that [ they ] be present for the interview , '' according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` not permitted to join the interview . ''
The reverends argued they should be allowed in the room because the subject was only 17 years old , according to the report , and Barry warned them that they were `` hindering and obstructing the investigation . ''
Warnock then told investigators that they could no longer use the camp office for interviews .
The reverends told Barry that they `` did not like how things were progressing and therefore ‘ they ’ would not be cooperating in the case further . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wainwright not to disrupt or interfere with the case .
`` This investigator explained to the reverends that what they were doing was committing a crime for which they could be arrested , '' the report says .
Investigators moved to an outside picnic area to continue to conduct their scheduled meetings .
A few minutes into an interview with another subject , Warnock and Wainwright `` approached these investigators and the subject being interviewed '' and again demanded to sit in on the interview , according to the report .
`` This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was surprised to see them in light of the recent conversation , '' wrote Barry .
She said she was forced to cut the interview short due to their interference .
Shortly after , investigators were approached by a camper who tried to give them the location of another potential subject to interview .
At that point , one of the reverends walked over and `` grabbed the camper by the arm and directed him away from these investigators '' and `` told the camper that he was not to talk to these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Barry said she then contacted the deputy state attorney about the interference , and a decision was made to arrest Revs .
Warnock and Wainwright .
Sgt .
Jim DeWees , who was Barry ’ s supervisor at the time , arrived at the police barracks to transport Warnock to the central booking unit until after the arrest .
He noted in a subsequent police report that the reverend was `` very cooperative '' while being transported .
DeWees also wrote that Barry advised him that Warnock and Wainwright were `` extremely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` entered a room while she was speaking to a witness '' and `` interfered by telling campers and counselors that they were not to speak with the police . ''
The run-off election is scheduled for Jan. 5 .

Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock repeatedly disrupted a 2002 police investigation into child abuse at a church-affiliated summer camp, interfering with interviews and discouraging counselors from speaking with investigators, according to two Maryland State Police reports obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The records indicate that Warnock, who was at the time senior pastor of the church that operated the camp, insisted that the camp's attorneys be present. While police said the counselors themselves were free to request an attorney, Warnock could not do so on their behalf.
Warnock went on to disrupt the interviews on July 31, 2002: "This investigator informed [camp administrators] that if the counselors requested that an attorney be present that was their right, however, no one else could [invoke] their rights to an attorney on their behalf," the report reads.
While the names in the documents are blacked out, the reports track closely with contemporaneous newspaper articles about the incident, which led to Warnock's arrest. The charges were ultimately dropped by the state attorney. The Baltimore Sun reported on Aug. 3, 2002, that Warnock and a colleague were "accused in court documents of trying to prevent a state trooper of interviewing counselors at Camp Farthest Out" and that the ministers "interrupted a police interview of a counselor." Warnock told the paper that he was "only asserting that lawyers should be present when the camp counselors were interviewed."
Warnock said in Sunday’s debate that law enforcement officers "actually later thanked me for my cooperation and for helping them," and the deputy state attorney told the Baltimore Sun the same thing in November of 2002.
But the police report paints a more complicated picture of the events. Filed by state troopers after Warnock and another reverend were arrested for "hindering and obstructing" police, the records indicate that investigators repeatedly warned Warnock to stop interfering with the investigation before he was arrested.
Warnock is locked in a tight race against Republican Kelly Loefller, who has worked to paint him as a radical out of step with Georgia voters. Loeffler has seized on Warnock's anti-police rhetoric, and the newly unearthed records threaten to complicate his efforts to portray himself as an ally of law enforcement.
The Warnock campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Maryland State Police and Child Protective Services investigators responded to allegations of child abuse taking place at Camp Farthest Out, a Maryland summer camp run by the Douglas Memorial Community Church. Warnock served as the senior pastor at the time, and sources told the Washington Free Beacon that the case pertained to allegations of physical abuse at the camp.
She said the men entered the room while investigators were interviewing counselors, demanded to sit in on interviews despite police admonitions that the participation of third parties was not permitted and ultimately directed potential witnesses not to cooperate with police.
Investigators had scheduled interviews with several counselors around 10 a.m. on July 31, according to the arresting officer. Although Warnock and camp administrators initially agreed to cooperate when investigators arrived, they soon expressed concerns about "legal ramifications from the alleged abuse case" and demanded that the camp’s attorney be present for any interviews with counselors or campers.
Tfc. Danielle Barry, a veteran investigator with the Maryland State Police’s child abuse division, wrote in her July 31, 2002, report that Warnock and another church official named Rev. Mark Andre Wainwright "interfered with a criminal investigation by interrupting interviews and directing people not to talk to investigators."
As investigators were conducting their first scheduled interview with a counselor in a private camp office, Warnock and Wainwright entered the room and "demanded that [they] be present for the interview," according to the report. Barry told them they were "not permitted to join the interview."
The reverends argued they should be allowed in the room because the subject was only 17 years old, according to the report, and Barry warned them that they were "hindering and obstructing the investigation."
Warnock then told investigators that they could no longer use the camp office for interviews. The reverends told Barry that they "did not like how things were progressing and therefore ‘they’ would not be cooperating in the case further." Barry said she again warned Warnock and Wainwright not to disrupt or interfere with the case.
"This investigator explained to the reverends that what they were doing was committing a crime for which they could be arrested," the report says.
Investigators moved to an outside picnic area to continue to conduct their scheduled meetings. A few minutes into an interview with another subject, Warnock and Wainwright "approached these investigators and the subject being interviewed" and again demanded to sit in on the interview, according to the report.
"This investigator commented to the reverends that she was surprised to see them in light of the recent conversation," wrote Barry. She said she was forced to cut the interview short due to their interference.
Shortly after, investigators were approached by a camper who tried to give them the location of another potential subject to interview. At that point, one of the reverends walked over and "grabbed the camper by the arm and directed him away from these investigators" and "told the camper that he was not to talk to these people," according to the report.
Barry said she then contacted the deputy state attorney about the interference, and a decision was made to arrest Revs. Warnock and Wainwright.
Sgt. Jim DeWees, who was Barry’s supervisor at the time, arrived at the police barracks to transport Warnock to the central booking unit until after the arrest. He noted in a subsequent police report that the reverend was "very cooperative" while being transported.
DeWees also wrote that Barry advised him that Warnock and Wainwright were "extremely uncooperative and disruptive," that they "entered a room while she was speaking to a witness" and "interfered by telling campers and counselors that they were not to speak with the police."
The run-off election is scheduled for Jan. 5.