hotair--2020-06-19--Here we go: Portland protesters topple statue of George Washington

Let me quote , er , myself , two days ago : Some of the skepticism about removing Confederate tributes is due to southern cultural pride but I suspect most of it outside the south springs from the understandable fear that lefties who come after Robert E. Lee today will come after George Washington tomorrow .
A statue of Thomas Jefferson was toppled just a few days ago in Oregon , in fact .
If the left insists on bundling the Founding Fathers together with the Confederate leadership and making racism , including slaveholding , the disqualifying factor in honoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public will feel it has no choice but to protect that entire bundle .
We ’ re not giving up Washington and Jefferson , period .
But if treason against the United States is the disqualifying factor then the Confederates can be unbundled and discarded .
If these people can ’ t or won ’ t distinguish between a monument to someone *despite* their view of slavery and a monument to someone *because of* their view of slavery then the righteous cause of purging the country of tributes to degenerate traitors will derail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will never condone this : Andy Ngo surveyed the scene in the aftermath .
Note the “ 1619 ” graffiti : “ I can not believe the kind of gratuitous own goal this mindlessness represents , ” says writer Thomas Chatterton Williams : The video of the Washington statue toppling is the most effective Trump ad that will run all year .
But the scene in Portland wasn ’ t the most ominous gesture yesterday towards purging America ’ s Founders .
That came in New York .
We expect mobs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We expect legislators to be ( slightly ) better .
Not in NYC : A group of Big Apple local elected officials on Thursday formally asked Mayor Bill de Blasio to remove the statue of Thomas Jefferson from City Hall as the fallout from the George Floyd killing continued to mount .
“ His words are ‘ all men are created equal ’ but they were not matched by his action , which included the ability to sell , buy , mortgage and lease human beings , ” Councilwoman Debi Rose ( D-Staten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who authored the Declaration of Independence .
“ He believed black people to be racially inferior , said black Americans and white Americans could not live peacefully side by side and he fathered as many as six children with a woman he enslaved , ” added Rose , who along with Council Speaker Corey Johnson was one of five members to sign the demand .
The bad news is that even the Council speaker is onboard with this garbage effort .
The good news is that , collectively , the five signatories represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council .
And that body is almost entirely Democratic ; if this view were uniformly shared among Dem legislators , there should have been dozens of members endorsing the effort .
Instead , one Democratic member from Queens said he was “ appalled ” and “ ashamed ” to see Thomas Jefferson in the left ’ s crosshairs .
“ Yes , we have blemishes in our past , ” he said , “ and I can understand wanting to remove Confederate generals ’ statues .
But where does it end ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remedy here isn ’ t to demolish tributes to the Founding Fathers but to erect tributes to influential people who recognized their great flaw before others did .
We have too many statues of Confederates but not enough of Frederick Douglass and John Brown .
And Ben Shapiro ’ s right in the tweet below .
The project of recognizing black Americans as fully part of America ’ s heritage needs more addition and less subtraction .
Although subtracting traitors remains A-OK by me .

Let me quote, er, myself, two days ago:
Some of the skepticism about removing Confederate tributes is due to southern cultural pride but I suspect most of it outside the south springs from the understandable fear that lefties who come after Robert E. Lee today will come after George Washington tomorrow. A statue of Thomas Jefferson was toppled just a few days ago in Oregon, in fact. If the left insists on bundling the Founding Fathers together with the Confederate leadership and making racism, including slaveholding, the disqualifying factor in honoring influential Americans of the past then the public will feel it has no choice but to protect that entire bundle. We’re not giving up Washington and Jefferson, period. But if treason against the United States is the disqualifying factor then the Confederates can be unbundled and discarded.
If these people can’t or won’t distinguish between a monument to someone *despite* their view of slavery and a monument to someone *because of* their view of slavery then the righteous cause of purging the country of tributes to degenerate traitors will derail. Most Americans, me included, will never condone this:
Andy Ngo surveyed the scene in the aftermath. Note the “1619” graffiti:
Portland wakes up to see what antifa did overnight. A century old statue of George Washington was toppled & set on fire with an American flag. “White fragility,” “Damn white men” & other messages are written on the moment. On the ground nearby: “Defund white men.” pic.twitter.com/zjrsZHJC9o — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) June 19, 2020
“I cannot believe the kind of gratuitous own goal this mindlessness represents,” says writer Thomas Chatterton Williams:
People (on the left!) are doing something I did not think was possible a day ago––they are actually making Donald Trump look prescient and even like a sobering voice of moderation here: https://t.co/1AJvRwxOJC — Thomas Chatterton Williams 🌍 🎧 (@thomaschattwill) June 19, 2020
The video of the Washington statue toppling is the most effective Trump ad that will run all year. But the scene in Portland wasn’t the most ominous gesture yesterday towards purging America’s Founders. That came in New York. We expect mobs to be ignorant and to lash out recklessly. We expect legislators to be (slightly) better. Not in NYC:
A group of Big Apple local elected officials on Thursday formally asked Mayor Bill de Blasio to remove the statue of Thomas Jefferson from City Hall as the fallout from the George Floyd killing continued to mount. “His words are ‘all men are created equal’ but they were not matched by his action, which included the ability to sell, buy, mortgage and lease human beings,” Councilwoman Debi Rose (D-Staten Island) said of the Founding Father who authored the Declaration of Independence. “He believed black people to be racially inferior, said black Americans and white Americans could not live peacefully side by side and he fathered as many as six children with a woman he enslaved,” added Rose, who along with Council Speaker Corey Johnson was one of five members to sign the demand.
The bad news is that even the Council speaker is onboard with this garbage effort. The good news is that, collectively, the five signatories represent less than one-tenth of the entire City Council. And that body is almost entirely Democratic; if this view were uniformly shared among Dem legislators, there should have been dozens of members endorsing the effort. Instead, one Democratic member from Queens said he was “appalled” and “ashamed” to see Thomas Jefferson in the left’s crosshairs. “Yes, we have blemishes in our past,” he said, “and I can understand wanting to remove Confederate generals’ statues. But where does it end?”
Where does it end?
The proper remedy here isn’t to demolish tributes to the Founding Fathers but to erect tributes to influential people who recognized their great flaw before others did. We have too many statues of Confederates but not enough of Frederick Douglass and John Brown. And Ben Shapiro’s right in the tweet below. The project of recognizing black Americans as fully part of America’s heritage needs more addition and less subtraction. Although subtracting traitors remains A-OK by me.


hotair--2020-06-19--Pompeo: It's sad that Bolton chose to end his career as a lying traitor, or something

Sadness abounds in this story , perhaps even more than Mike Pompeo recognizes .
The publication of John Bolton ’ s memoirs has the White House furious from Donald Trump on down , so much so that at times it seems they ’ re determined not just to rebut Bolton ’ s claims but almost promote them .
And , at the same time , Bolton ’ s stories — while salacious — end up saying less than either side credits .
At any rate , there ’ s no doubt that Pompeo ’ s fully on board with Operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an official State Department press release calling Bolton a “ traitor , ” he tweeted it out along with the definition of traitor .
The State Department pushed it out to media on e-mail again this morning , too : Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday accused former national security adviser John Bolton of being a “ traitor ” in a forceful rebuke of Bolton ’ s new book .
“ I ’ ve not read the book , but from the excerpts I ’ ve seen published , John Bolton is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half-truths , and outright falsehoods , ” Pompeo said in a statement .
“ It is both sad and dangerous that John Bolton ’ s final public role is that of a traitor who damaged America by violating his sacred trust with its people.
” “ To our friends around the world : you know that President Trump ’ s America is a force for good in the world , ” he continued .
This went out on Pompeo ’ s official State Department Twitter account , too , along with this on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the picture , Secretary Pompeo .
It ’ s still hyperbole , perhaps even reckless hyperbole , to call a political opponent or former ally a “ traitor ” for criticizing the president , even if the criticism is dishonestly based .
Pompeo understands how freighted the word “ traitor ” is in a political context , or at least he should .
That ’ s not to say that Bolton ’ s faultless in this .
For many decades , tradition held that former admin officials kept quiet ( in book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they served until after their terms ended .
That started fraying during the George W. Bush administration , but that tradition has all but disappeared in the Trump era .
The timing of this book makes it look less-than-honorable , too , coming right before Trump ’ s re-election bid .
However , for that Trump himself is largely to blame .
That old tradition also included reciprocity , with presidents holding their tongues when appointees left .
Publicly , they received praise — sometimes faint — but nothing else .
Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointees even sometimes while they still work for him .
( Right , Jeff Sessions ? )
Trump tore into Bolton almost as soon as the White House canceled his access card , and has publicly ridiculed him repeatedly since .
Bolton ’ s book is nothing more than a strategic rebuttal calculated to inflict more damage than Trump is dishing out .
In this environment , James Mattis ’ adherence to tradition is all the more remarkable .
For that reason , though , it ’ s tough to take Bolton all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s not known for dishonesty , but his perspective is clearly impacted by his personal feud with Trump .
If Bolton really had the goods on Trump , he would have testified to Congress about it rather than play along with the White House on the appropriateness of subpoenas .
That remains enough of a sore spot with the Left that it ’ s hampering Bolton ’ s effectiveness on this media tour as well .
That sin might never be forgiven , especially since the Left detests Bolton almost as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reason , don ’ t expect Bolton ’ s commercial testimony to have much impact .
To reverse the classic line from The Godfather , it ’ s not business , sonny — it ’ s personal .
That includes Pompeo now , whose diplomatic skills seem to have taken a break here .
Politically , the generally tough line Trump actually took on China , Russia , and Iran — the latter definitely in the direction Bolton desired most — is what matters in the end .
That ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of these men had to work together longer and accomplish key foreign-policy goals .

Sadness abounds in this story, perhaps even more than Mike Pompeo recognizes. The publication of John Bolton’s memoirs has the White House furious from Donald Trump on down, so much so that at times it seems they’re determined not just to rebut Bolton’s claims but almost promote them. And, at the same time, Bolton’s stories — while salacious — end up saying less than either side credits.
At any rate, there’s no doubt that Pompeo’s fully on board with Operation Bolton. Not only did Pompeo issue an official State Department press release calling Bolton a “traitor,” he tweeted it out along with the definition of traitor. The State Department pushed it out to media on e-mail again this morning, too:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday accused former national security adviser John Bolton of being a “traitor” in a forceful rebuke of Bolton’s new book. “I’ve not read the book, but from the excerpts I’ve seen published, John Bolton is spreading a number of lies, fully-spun half-truths, and outright falsehoods,” Pompeo said in a statement. “It is both sad and dangerous that John Bolton’s final public role is that of a traitor who damaged America by violating his sacred trust with its people.” “To our friends around the world: you know that President Trump’s America is a force for good in the world,” he continued.
This went out on Pompeo’s official State Department Twitter account, too, along with this on his personal account:
I think we get the picture, Secretary Pompeo. It’s still hyperbole, perhaps even reckless hyperbole, to call a political opponent or former ally a “traitor” for criticizing the president, even if the criticism is dishonestly based. Pompeo understands how freighted the word “traitor” is in a political context, or at least he should.
That’s not to say that Bolton’s faultless in this. For many decades, tradition held that former admin officials kept quiet (in book form, anyway) about the presidents they served until after their terms ended. That started fraying during the George W. Bush administration, but that tradition has all but disappeared in the Trump era. The timing of this book makes it look less-than-honorable, too, coming right before Trump’s re-election bid.
However, for that Trump himself is largely to blame. That old tradition also included reciprocity, with presidents holding their tongues when appointees left. Publicly, they received praise — sometimes faint — but nothing else. Trump, however, likes to publicly shred his appointees even sometimes while they still work for him. (Right, Jeff Sessions?) Trump tore into Bolton almost as soon as the White House canceled his access card, and has publicly ridiculed him repeatedly since. Bolton’s book is nothing more than a strategic rebuttal calculated to inflict more damage than Trump is dishing out. In this environment, James Mattis’ adherence to tradition is all the more remarkable.
For that reason, though, it’s tough to take Bolton all that seriously in this media tour. He’s not known for dishonesty, but his perspective is clearly impacted by his personal feud with Trump. If Bolton really had the goods on Trump, he would have testified to Congress about it rather than play along with the White House on the appropriateness of subpoenas. That remains enough of a sore spot with the Left that it’s hampering Bolton’s effectiveness on this media tour as well. That sin might never be forgiven, especially since the Left detests Bolton almost as much as they do Trump.
For that reason, don’t expect Bolton’s commercial testimony to have much impact. To reverse the classic line from The Godfather, it’s not business, sonny — it’s personal. That includes Pompeo now, whose diplomatic skills seem to have taken a break here. Politically, the generally tough line Trump actually took on China, Russia, and Iran — the latter definitely in the direction Bolton desired most — is what matters in the end. That’s the saddest part of all … the potential all of these men had to work together longer and accomplish key foreign-policy goals.


hotair--2020-06-19--After finally getting A-Klo's scalp, BLM takes aim at ... Val Demings?

After four months of pounding from progressives and African-American activists in the party , Amy Klobuchar has bowed to the inevitable and finally exited the 2020 cycle .
After achieving a short-lived bounce out of New Hampshire , Black Lives Matter advocates reamed Klobuchar for not getting tough with police officers in use-of-force cases .
BLM managed to make the Myon Burrell case in particular so toxic that they forced the end of a Klobuchar rally in Minnesota by taking over the stage to protest his conviction .
So who does that leave on Joe Biden ’ s list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s exit puts even more pressure on Biden to choose a woman of color , but his options there might be getting limited .
And Black Lives Matter has once again complicated the issue by making a woman of color its next target — Rep. Val Demings , who for four years was Chief of Police Val Demings : But as Demings ’ s star rises , some Black Lives Matter ( BLM ) and other progressive activists are taking aim at her tenure as Orlando ’ s first female police chief , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are questioning whether someone who spent a decades-long career in law enforcement is right for this moment .
“ While she was chief of police , I felt like public policies and changes to address community policing should have been done .
It was not , ” said Lawanna Gelzer , president of the National Action Network ’ s Central Florida chapter .
“ We ’ ve had a problem here for years.
” “ I will go vote , but I will not vote for her if she ’ s on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Biden needs to listen to the people of Orlando , and of Florida and elsewhere — not law enforcement at this time.
” One BLM activist questioned Demings ’ identity as a black woman on the basis of her resumé : Similarly , some BLM activists told The Hill that Demings , or anyone else who wore a police uniform , is a non-starter for them as a vice presidential candidate .
“ She ’ s a cop .
She was a top cop at an extremely brutal police department .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by police , ” said Hawk Newsome , who co-founded BLM ’ s Greater New York chapter with his sister , congressional candidate Chivona Newsome .
“ We are working to abolish police .
We are working to defund police , ” Hawk said in a phone interview .
“ When you are a police officer , you are not black anymore .
You are blue.
” Yikes .
Just ten days ago , The Hill ran an op-ed piece from former congressman Jason Altmire calling Demings Biden ’ s perfect choice for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times change , and how quickly too .
That overreaction suggests that other women of color on the supposed shortlist might not pass muster , either .
For instance , Kamala Harris would seem to fit the bill as a Biden running mate , but she has her own prosecutorial issues when she was California ’ s AG .
Those emerged last year in the middle of her fight with Biden over busing , when the LA Times pointedly noted that Harris had refused to investigate several controversial police shootings of black men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Who else ?
Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms might have looked good until this week , when her police department revolted over the obviously political decision to charge a cop with felony murder before investigators concluded a probe .
Besides , who runs the Atlanta PD if not the mayor of the city ?
If the Atlanta PD suffers from “ systemic racism , ” whose fault is that but the officeholders that have responsibility for law enforcement in the city ?
At some point , Stacey Abrams might look like the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden might call a 72-year-old Carol Mosely Braun out of retirement , an option that Politico raises obliquely with a lengthy profile today of their long relationship together .
That would make the Democratic ticket the oldest combined age in history , but at least it wouldn ’ t cross BLM .
Today , anyway .

After four months of pounding from progressives and African-American activists in the party, Amy Klobuchar has bowed to the inevitable and finally exited the 2020 cycle. After achieving a short-lived bounce out of New Hampshire, Black Lives Matter advocates reamed Klobuchar for not getting tough with police officers in use-of-force cases. BLM managed to make the Myon Burrell case in particular so toxic that they forced the end of a Klobuchar rally in Minnesota by taking over the stage to protest his conviction.
So who does that leave on Joe Biden’s list of options as running mate? Klobuchar’s exit puts even more pressure on Biden to choose a woman of color, but his options there might be getting limited. And Black Lives Matter has once again complicated the issue by making a woman of color its next target — Rep. Val Demings, who for four years was Chief of Police Val Demings:
But as Demings’s star rises, some Black Lives Matter (BLM) and other progressive activists are taking aim at her tenure as Orlando’s first female police chief, which spanned 2007 to 2011, and they are questioning whether someone who spent a decades-long career in law enforcement is right for this moment. “While she was chief of police, I felt like public policies and changes to address community policing should have been done. It was not,” said Lawanna Gelzer, president of the National Action Network’s Central Florida chapter. “We’ve had a problem here for years.” “I will go vote, but I will not vote for her if she’s on that ticket,” Gelzer added. “Biden needs to listen to the people of Orlando, and of Florida and elsewhere — not law enforcement at this time.”
One BLM activist questioned Demings’ identity as a black woman on the basis of her resumé:
Similarly, some BLM activists told The Hill that Demings, or anyone else who wore a police uniform, is a non-starter for them as a vice presidential candidate. “She’s a cop. She was a top cop at an extremely brutal police department. She was a vocal supporter of brutal actions by police,” said Hawk Newsome, who co-founded BLM’s Greater New York chapter with his sister, congressional candidate Chivona Newsome. “We are working to abolish police. We are working to defund police,” Hawk said in a phone interview. “When you are a police officer, you are not black anymore. You are blue.”
Yikes. Just ten days ago, The Hill ran an op-ed piece from former congressman Jason Altmire calling Demings Biden’s perfect choice for the VP slot. My, how times change, and how quickly too.
That overreaction suggests that other women of color on the supposed shortlist might not pass muster, either. For instance, Kamala Harris would seem to fit the bill as a Biden running mate, but she has her own prosecutorial issues when she was California’s AG. Those emerged last year in the middle of her fight with Biden over busing, when the LA Times pointedly noted that Harris had refused to investigate several controversial police shootings of black men in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Who else? Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms might have looked good until this week, when her police department revolted over the obviously political decision to charge a cop with felony murder before investigators concluded a probe. Besides, who runs the Atlanta PD if not the mayor of the city? If the Atlanta PD suffers from “systemic racism,” whose fault is that but the officeholders that have responsibility for law enforcement in the city?
At some point, Stacey Abrams might look like the only possible option. Either that, or Biden might call a 72-year-old Carol Mosely Braun out of retirement, an option that Politico raises obliquely with a lengthy profile today of their long relationship together. That would make the Democratic ticket the oldest combined age in history, but at least it wouldn’t cross BLM. Today, anyway.


hotair--2020-06-19--ABC/Ipsos Juneteenth poll: Ban chokeholds, but don't rename bases or pay reparations?

Plus ça change , plus c ’ est la même chose .
Just how much has the needle moved on racial issues in the weeks of unrest since the police killing of George Floyd ?
Perhaps not as much as one would guess , although the killing itself has boosted efforts to eliminate chokeholds for good in American policing .
Today ’ s poll from ABC/Ipsos contains some good news for House Democrats pushing their version of police reform .
More than six in ten Americans want a federal ban on chokeholds , including a majority of Republicans and majorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to other demands in terms of racial reconciliation , however , the nation remains pretty much where it was at before the Floyd killing : As the country grapples with a widespread reckoning over the prevalence of racism , majorities of Americans are resistant to renaming U.S. military bases that carry the names of Confederate leaders , and are voicing particular opposition to providing descendants of slaves with reparations , according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday .
While 56 % are opposed to changing U.S. military bases named for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminder of the nation ’ s complicated history with race , 42 % of Americans support the move .
Nearly three-fourths of Americans believe that the federal government should not provide payments to black Americans whose ancestors were slaves to compensate for the toll of slavery .
Only 26 % of Americans are in favor of reparations .
As ABC points out , that ’ s barely any different than when they began asking that question twenty-three years ago : Although we have seen large changes in opinion on a wide variety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there has been only a slight change in attitudes about reparations over the last 20 years .
An ABC News/Washington Post poll from June 1997 found that only 19 % of Americans backed providing black Americans whose ancestors were slaves with payments , while 77 % opposed it .
In 1997 , 65 % of blacks and a meager 10 % of whites supported reparations , a split that is about the same as this week ’ s poll .
Why might that be ?
Perhaps in part it ’ s because chokeholds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can do something about it .
Slavery took place lifetimes ago and can ’ t be erased with cash ( nor should it be ) .
Banning chokeholds might save some lives in the present and future , but paying reparations won ’ t change anything about the past or present .
Does anyone think the issues of slavery and race would magically evaporate after reparations ?
Of course not , and that ’ s even apart from the issue that reparations would be a wealth transfer from people who never owned a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose ancestors came to the US after slavery ended .
The idea of reparations is a persistent mythology with no legal or political basis at all .
If reparations are a dead end , politically and socially , it ’ s not the only mythology that can be described as such .
The results on the renaming of Confederate bases and removing Confederate statues might be a little more surprising after the last couple of weeks .
Ipsos notes the breakdowns on those questions : “ Less supportive ” in this context means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Frankly , this one surprises me , because no one has ever made an argument for why we honor generals who took up arms against the US and betrayed the country , other than we ’ ve done it for decades or some sort of need for ongoing reconciliation with the South .
It ’ s as foolish as the reparations question in that sense , if at least less expensive ; who ’ s still around with whom we need to reconcile ?
Instead of naming bases for a series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should at least consider naming those US military bases after the Union mediocrities that actually defended the United States .
That ’ s not so much the point of this poll , however .
These results show significant splits between African-Americans and everyone else on these two issues , without much movement at all .
It ’ s another sign that both sides are talking past each other , and probably will as long as both sides cling to their mythologies .

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Just how much has the needle moved on racial issues in the weeks of unrest since the police killing of George Floyd? Perhaps not as much as one would guess, although the killing itself has boosted efforts to eliminate chokeholds for good in American policing.
Today’s poll from ABC/Ipsos contains some good news for House Democrats pushing their version of police reform. More than six in ten Americans want a federal ban on chokeholds, including a majority of Republicans and majorities in every ethnic demographic. When it comes to other demands in terms of racial reconciliation, however, the nation remains pretty much where it was at before the Floyd killing:
As the country grapples with a widespread reckoning over the prevalence of racism, majorities of Americans are resistant to renaming U.S. military bases that carry the names of Confederate leaders, and are voicing particular opposition to providing descendants of slaves with reparations, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday. While 56% are opposed to changing U.S. military bases named for Confederate leaders, which stand as a reminder of the nation’s complicated history with race, 42% of Americans support the move. Nearly three-fourths of Americans believe that the federal government should not provide payments to black Americans whose ancestors were slaves to compensate for the toll of slavery. Only 26% of Americans are in favor of reparations.
As ABC points out, that’s barely any different than when they began asking that question twenty-three years ago:
Although we have seen large changes in opinion on a wide variety of issues revolving around race in America, there has been only a slight change in attitudes about reparations over the last 20 years. An ABC News/Washington Post poll from June 1997 found that only 19% of Americans backed providing black Americans whose ancestors were slaves with payments, while 77% opposed it. In 1997, 65% of blacks and a meager 10% of whites supported reparations, a split that is about the same as this week’s poll.
Why might that be? Perhaps in part it’s because chokeholds happen in real time, where people can do something about it. Slavery took place lifetimes ago and can’t be erased with cash (nor should it be). Banning chokeholds might save some lives in the present and future, but paying reparations won’t change anything about the past or present. Does anyone think the issues of slavery and race would magically evaporate after reparations? Of course not, and that’s even apart from the issue that reparations would be a wealth transfer from people who never owned a slave in their life, many of whose ancestors came to the US after slavery ended. The idea of reparations is a persistent mythology with no legal or political basis at all.
If reparations are a dead end, politically and socially, it’s not the only mythology that can be described as such. The results on the renaming of Confederate bases and removing Confederate statues might be a little more surprising after the last couple of weeks. Ipsos notes the breakdowns on those questions:
A majority of Americans (56%) oppose ‘changing the names of U.S. military bases that are named after Confederate leaders’. Independents, who are split on removing statues, are more opposed to renaming bases (59%) than supportive (40%). African Americans are also less supportive (67%) of renaming bases.
“Less supportive” in this context means in contrast to the question of reparations. Frankly, this one surprises me, because no one has ever made an argument for why we honor generals who took up arms against the US and betrayed the country, other than we’ve done it for decades or some sort of need for ongoing reconciliation with the South. It’s as foolish as the reparations question in that sense, if at least less expensive; who’s still around with whom we need to reconcile? Instead of naming bases for a series of Confederate mediocrities that defended slavery, we should at least consider naming those US military bases after the Union mediocrities that actually defended the United States.
That’s not so much the point of this poll, however. These results show significant splits between African-Americans and everyone else on these two issues, without much movement at all. It’s another sign that both sides are talking past each other, and probably will as long as both sides cling to their mythologies.


hotair--2020-06-19--Cuomo: I may start quarantining people from Florida

Florida is one of the states currently experiencing an increase in confirmed COVID-19 cases as the state begins to reopen .
During his daily briefing yesterday , New York Governor Andrew Cuomo suggested that he may soon be issuing a mandatory 14-day quarantine for any travelers coming to the Empire State from Florida , presumably to stave off another outbreak in the Big Apple .
But wait… wouldn ’ t that amount to something approaching a “ travel ban ” on Floridians ?
I ’ m almost positive that somebody once told me that travel bans are bad .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday that he ’ s considering imposing a quarantine on travelers arriving to New York from states like Florida where coronavirus cases have spiked .
“ I haven ’ t made a decision yet , but I have had experts advise me of that .
It is a real concern , ” Cuomo said when asked about whether he ’ d consider imposing some sort of quarantine measure or taking health precautions at airports where travel has increased .
“ It could happen , and it ’ s something I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not hard to understand how Cuomo might lean toward a reflexive move to try to shut down any new cases coming in from the Sunshine State .
He ’ s essentially locked his governorship and political legacy to his handling of the pandemic outbreak in New York .
And after his disastrous decisions regarding nursing homes arguably made the situation far worse rather than better , that legacy isn ’ t looking very good at the moment .
Another massive surge in the city will only serve to further sink him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that said , an executive order along those lines would probably turn out to be rather toothless .
First of all , how does he plan to identify everyone coming from Florida and force them into quarantine ?
Not everyone flying in arrives at one of the three major airports in New York City .
A lot of people come in from Newark and Cuomo has no authority there .
And that doesn ’ t even scratch the surface of the number of people who drive and may have made multiple stops along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somehow generate a daily list of new arrivals from Florida , who is going to be checking up on them to make sure they ’ re staying in quarantine ?
In case he hasn ’ t noticed , the NYPD sort of has their hands full these days , what with all of the rioting and whatnot taking place in the streets .
( Sorry… I meant to say “ peaceful protesting.
” ) We ’ re talking about a massive number of people and that suspect population would be in flux every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to self-quarantine upon arrival from Florida , but that ’ s about it .
And when you look at the number of folks who were out there in the streets every night after a curfew order was in place , you get the idea that New Yorkers aren ’ t so great at following either orders or suggestions .
The only other angle I see in this story is the possibility that there might be some sort of tit-for-tat going on here .
Back when New York City was in the grips of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor Ron DeSantis ( R ) issued a similar order for New Yorkers to self-quarantine for two weeks .
That reportedly had Cuomo a bit hot under the collar .
The same was true when the Governor of Rhode Island was “ hunting down ” New Yorkers trying to flee the outbreak to her state .
Now that the victim count in New York is finally leveling out near a minimum , perhaps Cuomo thinks that turnabout might be fair play ?
In any event , such an order is impractical in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this , it will be an obvious bit of window dressing intended to show that he ’ s still on top of things while not really accomplishing much of substance .

Florida is one of the states currently experiencing an increase in confirmed COVID-19 cases as the state begins to reopen. During his daily briefing yesterday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo suggested that he may soon be issuing a mandatory 14-day quarantine for any travelers coming to the Empire State from Florida, presumably to stave off another outbreak in the Big Apple. But wait… wouldn’t that amount to something approaching a “travel ban” on Floridians? I’m almost positive that somebody once told me that travel bans are bad. (CNBC)
Gov. Andrew Cuomo said on Thursday that he’s considering imposing a quarantine on travelers arriving to New York from states like Florida where coronavirus cases have spiked. “I haven’t made a decision yet, but I have had experts advise me of that. It is a real concern,” Cuomo said when asked about whether he’d consider imposing some sort of quarantine measure or taking health precautions at airports where travel has increased. “It could happen, and it’s something I’m considering,” he said.
It’s not hard to understand how Cuomo might lean toward a reflexive move to try to shut down any new cases coming in from the Sunshine State. He’s essentially locked his governorship and political legacy to his handling of the pandemic outbreak in New York. And after his disastrous decisions regarding nursing homes arguably made the situation far worse rather than better, that legacy isn’t looking very good at the moment. Another massive surge in the city will only serve to further sink him in the history books.
But with that said, an executive order along those lines would probably turn out to be rather toothless. First of all, how does he plan to identify everyone coming from Florida and force them into quarantine? Not everyone flying in arrives at one of the three major airports in New York City. A lot of people come in from Newark and Cuomo has no authority there. And that doesn’t even scratch the surface of the number of people who drive and may have made multiple stops along the way.
Even if he could somehow generate a daily list of new arrivals from Florida, who is going to be checking up on them to make sure they’re staying in quarantine? In case he hasn’t noticed, the NYPD sort of has their hands full these days, what with all of the rioting and whatnot taking place in the streets. (Sorry… I meant to say “peaceful protesting.”) We’re talking about a massive number of people and that suspect population would be in flux every day. The Governor could ask people to self-quarantine upon arrival from Florida, but that’s about it. And when you look at the number of folks who were out there in the streets every night after a curfew order was in place, you get the idea that New Yorkers aren’t so great at following either orders or suggestions.
The only other angle I see in this story is the possibility that there might be some sort of tit-for-tat going on here. Back when New York City was in the grips of its massive surge in cases, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) issued a similar order for New Yorkers to self-quarantine for two weeks. That reportedly had Cuomo a bit hot under the collar. The same was true when the Governor of Rhode Island was “hunting down” New Yorkers trying to flee the outbreak to her state. Now that the victim count in New York is finally leveling out near a minimum, perhaps Cuomo thinks that turnabout might be fair play?
In any event, such an order is impractical in the extreme. If Andrew Cuomo goes through with this, it will be an obvious bit of window dressing intended to show that he’s still on top of things while not really accomplishing much of substance.


hotair--2020-06-20--1619 Project author: 'It would be an honor' to call these the 1619 riots

Nikole Hannah Jones , Pulitzer Prize winning author of the lead editorial of the NY Times ’ 1619 Project , has been responding to people on Twitter this morning and some of the responses are interesting .
Let ’ s start with this NY Times column by Jamelle Bouie which opens : Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the Republican Party freed the slaves .
They helped set freedom in motion and eventually codified it into law with the 13th Amendment , but they were not themselves responsible for the end of slavery .
They were not the ones who brought about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slaves ?
The slaves freed the slaves… Emancipation wasn ’ t a gift bestowed on the slaves ; it was something they took for themselves , the culmination of their long struggle for freedom , which began as soon as chattel slavery was established in the 17th century , and gained even greater steam with the Revolution and the birth of a country committed , at least rhetorically , to freedom and equality .
Andrew Sullivan pointed out that this seems to downplay rather significantly the Union ’ s contribution to defeating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hannah-Jones responded with this : Nothing Sullivan said suggests he is offended by black agency .
I ’ m not offended by this evidence of black agency either .
It ’ s a fact that nearly 200,000 black people fought for the Union .
It seems right to honor that contribution to history and to respect the agency behind it .
No argument here .
It ’ s also a fact that the total number of people who joined the Union Army over the course of the war was about 2.1 million .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ white farmers .
Shouldn ’ t we also honor their contribution and the agency behind it ?
Last night , the NY Post published a piece titled “ Call them the 1619 riots.
” The piece is capped by a photo whose caption reads , “ A Thomas Jefferson statue toppled outside Jefferson High School in Portland , Oregon.
” Here ’ s Hannah-Jones response : Clearly she ’ s not upset about tearing down a statue of Jefferson .
But that wasn ’ t the only statue torn down last night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people toppled a statue of Ulysses S. Grant , the man to whom Gen. Lee surrendered .
Politico ’ s Marc Caputo said the people doing this were crazy .
Hannah-Jones took offense to the wording of one of his tweets : A little push back and she went right to Hitler .
Is there a Pulitzer for proving Godwin ’ s law ?
There are also some significant problems with her argument .
While a modern person in some ways , OBL seemed to yearn for a much older time , circa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the phrase “ man of his time ” doesn ’ t suit him at all .
Hitler wasn ’ t just an ordinary person going along with then-current assumptions about race and racism .
The reason he comes up in arguments like this is because he wasn ’ t just a man of his time , he was a world-historic monster .
Maybe you ’ re wondering like I am where Hannah-Jones draws the line on vandalism as progress .
She gave us a hint ( since deleted ) : To sum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tearing down statues of Jefferson but says she won ’ t call for doing the same to statues of Grant and Lincoln .
However , when a statue of Grant is torn down , she won ’ t comment or object .
In fact , if she objects to having that vandalism associated with her project , she doesn ’ t say so .
So I guess the question that remains is : If rioters take jackhammers to the Lincoln Memorial will she still feel honored to call this the 1619 riots ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great loss or a sign of progress for which they are partly responsible ?
I said this jokingly yesterday but you can bet there are some people who ’ d really like to see it happen .
Where do the 1619 riots end ?

Nikole Hannah Jones, Pulitzer Prize winning author of the lead editorial of the NY Times’ 1619 Project, has been responding to people on Twitter this morning and some of the responses are interesting. Let’s start with this NY Times column by Jamelle Bouie which opens:
Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the Republican Party freed the slaves. They helped set freedom in motion and eventually codified it into law with the 13th Amendment, but they were not themselves responsible for the end of slavery. They were not the ones who brought about its final destruction. Who freed the slaves? The slaves freed the slaves… Emancipation wasn’t a gift bestowed on the slaves; it was something they took for themselves, the culmination of their long struggle for freedom, which began as soon as chattel slavery was established in the 17th century, and gained even greater steam with the Revolution and the birth of a country committed, at least rhetorically, to freedom and equality.
Andrew Sullivan pointed out that this seems to downplay rather significantly the Union’s contribution to defeating the South and ending slavery.
Lincoln, and the hundreds of thousands of war dead in the Union, did not free the slaves. In fact, the Union dead barely feature in this version of history. https://t.co/useFYbgbWS — Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) June 19, 2020
And Nikole Hannah-Jones responded with this:
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1274174767948496898
Nothing Sullivan said suggests he is offended by black agency. I’m not offended by this evidence of black agency either. It’s a fact that nearly 200,000 black people fought for the Union. It seems right to honor that contribution to history and to respect the agency behind it. No argument here.
It’s also a fact that the total number of people who joined the Union Army over the course of the war was about 2.1 million. Most of them were relatively young, white farmers. Shouldn’t we also honor their contribution and the agency behind it?
Last night, the NY Post published a piece titled “Call them the 1619 riots.” The piece is capped by a photo whose caption reads, “A Thomas Jefferson statue toppled outside Jefferson High School in Portland, Oregon.” Here’s Hannah-Jones response:
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1274351225492967424
Clearly she’s not upset about tearing down a statue of Jefferson. But that wasn’t the only statue torn down last night. In San Francisco, a group of people toppled a statue of Ulysses S. Grant, the man to whom Gen. Lee surrendered. Politico’s Marc Caputo said the people doing this were crazy.
Lost Cause meet Crazy Cause: using Juneteenth to tear down of the San Fran. statue of Ulysses S. Grant —who won the Civil War that led to emancipation, long before had freed the 1 slave he had been given & who was later eulogized by Frederick Douglasspic.twitter.com/SjArCUYlQR — Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) June 20, 2020
Grant’s presidency had big trouble, but got the 15th Amend passed, he crushed the 1st iteration of the KKK & he tried reforming U.S. Indian policy Later, when Prussia’s leader told him he had had to save the Union,
Grant said: “Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery” — Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) June 20, 2020
Hannah-Jones took offense to the wording of one of his tweets:
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1274377882828255238
A little push back and she went right to Hitler. Is there a Pulitzer for proving Godwin’s law?
There are also some significant problems with her argument. While a modern person in some ways, OBL seemed to yearn for a much older time, circa the 7th Century. As for Hitler, the phrase “man of his time” doesn’t suit him at all. Hitler wasn’t just an ordinary person going along with then-current assumptions about race and racism. The reason he comes up in arguments like this is because he wasn’t just a man of his time, he was a world-historic monster.
Maybe you’re wondering like I am where Hannah-Jones draws the line on vandalism as progress. She gave us a hint (since deleted):
To sum up, Hannah-Jones seems to approve of tearing down statues of Jefferson but says she won’t call for doing the same to statues of Grant and Lincoln. However, when a statue of Grant is torn down, she won’t comment or object. In fact, if she objects to having that vandalism associated with her project, she doesn’t say so.
So I guess the question that remains is: If rioters take jackhammers to the Lincoln Memorial will she still feel honored to call this the 1619 riots? Would the NY Times cover that as a great loss or a sign of progress for which they are partly responsible? I said this jokingly yesterday but you can bet there are some people who’d really like to see it happen. Where do the 1619 riots end?
Well, glad I saw this before it gets dynamited. pic.twitter.com/a4bcHXr3rl — John Sexton (@verumserum) June 19, 2020
Update: Looks like Nikole Hannah-Jones has deleted her account. I wonder if someone at the NY Times had a conversation with her about endorsing riots. But actually, looking at this, she appears to have been part of two other controversies since then. The first is her endorsement of a conspiracy theory involving setting off fireworks. Apparently this isn’t bored kids, this is a plot to destabilize Black Lives Matter.
This is incredibly irresponsible on every level. pic.twitter.com/hFSmxe8HtA — Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) June 21, 2020
This is of course, complete nonsense:
3/ FWIW, from an acquaintance in BK pic.twitter.com/xKAMtrZIba — Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) June 21, 2020
Honestly, this claim is about as solid as the idea that the Revolutionary War was about protecting slavery. She also seems to have offended some Native Americans with a claim about the Trail of Tears:
So, take your pick. She decided for some reason it was time to close her account. And, hey, congrats to the Pulitzer committee for honoring this riot-endorsing, conspiracy-monger with the highest prize in journalism. Great job.
Update: Her account was definitely down for a few hours but now it’s back.


hotair--2020-06-20--Georgia House takes first step to abolish police department after Arbery shooting

The Georgia House of Representatives voted in favor of an effort that would dissolve the Glynn County Police Department in response to its handling of the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery .
The move is being touted as the first step in passing legislation that allows a county police department to be dissolved and move the authority to a county sheriff ’ s department .
The vote was taken on Friday .
The vote ( 152-3 ) allows voters to decide the fate of their local county police department .
Some counties in Georgia have county police departments , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – Cobb , DeKalb , Fulton , and Gwinnett counties .
In counties with two agencies , the county police handle the enforcement of state and local laws while the sheriff ’ s office manages the jail .
This move was taken after the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery near Brunswick .
Though the legislation isn ’ t specifically about Arbery , officially speaking , in reality it is because of Arbery ’ s case .
The Glynn County Police Department has been exposed for having a history of problems and the Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation to address the problems .
This is not the first attempt at such legislation .
In January , before Arbery was killed in February , a version of this bill was introduced in the Georgia Senate .
The bill , Senate Bill 38 , was in response to the years of problems coming from the Glynn County Police Department .
The Senate bill didn ’ t go anywhere at the time but after the Arbery shooting , it was revived .
This is why I say that though Arbery ’ s name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the motivation came as a result of his shooting .
The legislation moving forward now applies statewide but clearly targets the Glynn County Police Department .
State Sen. William Ligon is putting forward legislation in that body of the legislature .
The House bill that passed Friday will be a companion bill to Ligon ’ s legislation , Senate Bill 317 .
( State Rep. Don Hogan put forth the House bill . )
Hogan said earlier this week that the House bill was coming up for a vote this week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a two-step process to get legislation through the General Assembly .
There is a regular bill and a local bill that allows county residents to vote on the legislation on a ballot .
“ This is not a constitutional amendment , which requires a two-thirds vote , ” Ligon said .
“ This is general legislation , which requires a majority vote of the House and Senate.
” If the bill gets through General Assembly , legislators would follow up with a piece of local legislation to put the matter to a public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the vote .
If it doesn ’ t pass , a local bill specifically to ask Glynn County citizens whether or not they wanted to dissolve the police department would not be proper , Ligon said , as no mechanism would exist to allow the state to dissolve local law enforcement agencies .
The House bill will also include a sunset clause , Hogan said .
It will cease to be effective on July 1 , 2021 , as currently written .
In other words , after county voters have approved a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be dissolved through a local act of the General Assembly or a resolution of the governing authority of that county .
This allows county residents to streamline two agencies into one law enforcement agency .
State Rep. Jeff Jones isn ’ t convinced this legislation is the answer .
He ’ s not convinced that the state should have the power to take such actions .
Last September , a grand jury heard a presentation from ( Brunswick Judicial Circuit ) District Attorney which Jones says was one-sided .
Neither the chief of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to participate in the investigation into the allegations of impropriety between county officers and informants .
The grand jury recommended giving voters the chance to decide whether or not to dissolve the police department .
“ Our cities and our counties do not want to open the door to letting the General Assembly begin interfering and dictating what are clearly home-rule responsibility , ” Jones said .
“ To do so creates a dangerous , open-ended precedent that we would not be able to retreat from.
” “ I am concerned about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I felt it was important to get a legal opinion about this legislation that is proposed by Rep. Hogan and Sen. Ligon , ” Jones said .
“ I believe we are entering into potentially dangerous territory when we start putting items or areas of community responsibility that are clearly outlined and dictated by the Georgia Constitution up for a public popularity poll.
” Some county commissioners are resisting the idea of combining city and county government , which they fear would continue to happen if the law enforcement agencies were turned into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the current county sheriff but warned that this could turn out to be a slippery slope .
The authors of the House and Senate bills are Republicans .
“ One word in the legislation needs to be changed to do the same thing to the city police department if this passes with the county , ” Booker said .
“ It ’ s a power play for folks who want all law enforcement under the sheriff .
While I think Neal Jump is a good person , and I told him this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forever I would support this .
But he ’ s not going to live forever.
” None of the commissioners had anything bad to say about Glynn County Sheriff Neal Jump , but they , like Booker , feared what might happen under another sheriff .
“ Whether it ’ s put under Sheriff Jump is irrelevant , ” Brunson said .
“ I have no issues with Neal Jump , but tell me who ’ s going to be the sheriff next year ?
Who ’ s going to be the sheriff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are rarely defeated by challengers in a public vote , but that county commissioners can take direct action to hold a police chief accountable .
“ If they ’ re happy with the way something ’ s run , vote us out of office and elect people that you agree with , ” Brunson said .
“ If we do away with home rule then we ’ ve got a real problem.
” The legislation isn ’ t so simple after all , is it ?
The next move is for the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for further consideration .

The Georgia House of Representatives voted in favor of an effort that would dissolve the Glynn County Police Department in response to its handling of the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery. The move is being touted as the first step in passing legislation that allows a county police department to be dissolved and move the authority to a county sheriff’s department.
The vote was taken on Friday. The vote (152-3) allows voters to decide the fate of their local county police department. Some counties in Georgia have county police departments, including the large counties in the Atlanta area – Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett counties. In counties with two agencies, the county police handle the enforcement of state and local laws while the sheriff’s office manages the jail.
This move was taken after the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery near Brunswick. Though the legislation isn’t specifically about Arbery, officially speaking, in reality it is because of Arbery’s case. The Glynn County Police Department has been exposed for having a history of problems and the Georgia legislature is ready to do something through legislation to address the problems.
“There have been too many missteps over there,” said state Rep. Al Williams, a Democrat from Midway. “It’s time to be going in a different direction.”
This is not the first attempt at such legislation. In January, before Arbery was killed in February, a version of this bill was introduced in the Georgia Senate. The bill, Senate Bill 38, was in response to the years of problems coming from the Glynn County Police Department. The Senate bill didn’t go anywhere at the time but after the Arbery shooting, it was revived. This is why I say that though Arbery’s name isn’t on the House bill, the motivation came as a result of his shooting. The legislation moving forward now applies statewide but clearly targets the Glynn County Police Department.
State Sen. William Ligon is putting forward legislation in that body of the legislature. The House bill that passed Friday will be a companion bill to Ligon’s legislation, Senate Bill 317. (State Rep. Don Hogan put forth the House bill.) Hogan said earlier this week that the House bill was coming up for a vote this week.
“The law is that you can allow voters to, through local legislation, put in a police department, but not that you can allow voters to abolish one,” Hogan said. “I got a house bill that’s just about finished. I’m going to try to pick it up this afternoon and get some signatures on it and drop it (Thursday).”
State Senator Ligon explains that this is a two-step process to get legislation through the General Assembly. There is a regular bill and a local bill that allows county residents to vote on the legislation on a ballot.
“This is not a constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote,” Ligon said. “This is general legislation, which requires a majority vote of the House and Senate.” If the bill gets through General Assembly, legislators would follow up with a piece of local legislation to put the matter to a public vote and then to enact the result of the vote. If it doesn’t pass, a local bill specifically to ask Glynn County citizens whether or not they wanted to dissolve the police department would not be proper, Ligon said, as no mechanism would exist to allow the state to dissolve local law enforcement agencies. The House bill will also include a sunset clause, Hogan said. It will cease to be effective on July 1, 2021, as currently written.
In other words, after county voters have approved a referendum, a county police department can be dissolved through a local act of the General Assembly or a resolution of the governing authority of that county. This allows county residents to streamline two agencies into one law enforcement agency.
If the voters approved a referendum and the county government or General Assembly then passed their respective resolution or act, the county police department would have to cease operations within 180 days, at such time all property, documents and the like would go to the county sheriff.
State Rep. Jeff Jones isn’t convinced this legislation is the answer. He’s not convinced that the state should have the power to take such actions. Last September, a grand jury heard a presentation from (Brunswick Judicial Circuit) District Attorney which Jones says was one-sided. Neither the chief of police nor the county commissioners were asked to participate in the investigation into the allegations of impropriety between county officers and informants. The grand jury recommended giving voters the chance to decide whether or not to dissolve the police department.
“Our cities and our counties do not want to open the door to letting the General Assembly begin interfering and dictating what are clearly home-rule responsibility,” Jones said. “To do so creates a dangerous, open-ended precedent that we would not be able to retreat from.” “I am concerned about the way this is moving forward, and I felt it was important to get a legal opinion about this legislation that is proposed by Rep. Hogan and Sen. Ligon,” Jones said. “I believe we are entering into potentially dangerous territory when we start putting items or areas of community responsibility that are clearly outlined and dictated by the Georgia Constitution up for a public popularity poll.”
Some county commissioners are resisting the idea of combining city and county government, which they fear would continue to happen if the law enforcement agencies were turned into one agency. One Democrat voiced support for the current county sheriff but warned that this could turn out to be a slippery slope. The authors of the House and Senate bills are Republicans.
“One word in the legislation needs to be changed to do the same thing to the city police department if this passes with the county,” Booker said. “It’s a power play for folks who want all law enforcement under the sheriff. While I think Neal Jump is a good person, and I told him this, if he was going to live forever I would support this. But he’s not going to live forever.” None of the commissioners had anything bad to say about Glynn County Sheriff Neal Jump, but they, like Booker, feared what might happen under another sheriff. “Whether it’s put under Sheriff Jump is irrelevant,” Brunson said. “I have no issues with Neal Jump, but tell me who’s going to be the sheriff next year? Who’s going to be the sheriff in 2025?” He said sheriffs are rarely defeated by challengers in a public vote, but that county commissioners can take direct action to hold a police chief accountable. “If they’re happy with the way something’s run, vote us out of office and elect people that you agree with,” Brunson said. “If we do away with home rule then we’ve got a real problem.”
The legislation isn’t so simple after all, is it? The next move is for the House bill to move to the state Senate for further consideration.


hotair--2020-06-20--Style guide update: Capitalize the "B" in "Black" when referring to people

We ’ re going to go down a bit of a linguistic rabbit hole today , but it ’ s an issue that deserves a bit more attention than it will probably receive in the press .
There ’ s been yet another update to the Associated Press Style Guide and for once it doesn ’ t have to do with obliterating the English language in the name of social justice warfare .
( Though it does touch on issues of race as we ’ ll see in a moment . )
The decision has been made to use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though not when simply referring to the color black , obviously .
The AP has the details of their own story .
The Associated Press changed its writing style guide Friday to capitalize the “ b ” in the term Black when referring to people in a racial , ethnic or cultural context , weighing in on a hotly debated issue .
The change conveys “ an essential and shared sense of history , identity and community among people who identify as Black , including those in the African diaspora and within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s vice president of standards , said in a blog post Friday .
“ The lowercase black is a color , not a person.
” The news organization will also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place .
As you can see in the excerpt above , they are also now capitalizing “ Indigenous ” when referring to a specific group of people native to a particular region .
I ’ m not as sure about that one because it ’ s more of a basic adjective or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As far as capitalizing Black people goes , I actually started doing that over the winter following a discussion of the subject with a liberal friend of mine on Twitter .
Some of you actually noticed already and I got a few , though not many , “ interesting ” emails in response .
When this was first brought to my attention , I found myself somewhat surprised that it had never even occurred to me before .
I ’ m talking about the raw mechanics of the English language here , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion of racial issues in our culture .
We already capitalize Asian-American and Hispanic as well as Native American .
We also already capitalize African-American , but the fact is that there are other groups of Black people who do not trace their roots directly to ancestors from the African continent .
( Examples include people from some Caribbean islands others from certain regions of India . )
The word “ Black ” ( as a reference to people ) has evolved quite a bit just over the course of my own lifetime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was seen as a pejorative , but that ’ s really changed since the early days of the civil rights era .
There ’ s probably also a certain amount of confusion in some corners because of the fact that we ’ re talking about the only recognized race regularly referred to by color except for whites .
( More on that below . )
There was a time when Asians were mockingly referred to as “ yellow ” and Indigenous Americans as “ red ” but neither was ever accepted as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brown ” to refer to a variety of other racial groups , including Hispanic people ( “ Black and brown people ” is now in common media use ) still seems to be in flux .
But in the end , we ’ re really just talking about standardized conventions that likely won ’ t amount to a pile of figs for anyone who doesn ’ t make their living committing acts of wordsmithing .
If you find yourself objecting to the capitalizing Black people , what is the basis for your objection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are somehow inherently less worthy of the same level of recognition as any other racial group , I ’ m hard pressed to think of a reason why you would be bothered by it .
In closing , allow me to address the one subject that I absolutely know will be coming up in response to this topic .
What about white people ?
Why aren ’ t we capitalizing white ?
Well , you ’ ve got me there .
I honestly don ’ t have an answer for you .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s commonly accepted as a reference to people .
We capitalize European and Caucasian , but that really doesn ’ t encapsulate the full expanse of white people on the planet at this point But this is also just not an issue that I find myself being bothered over .
If you want to capitalize White people , go for it .
If the style guides start moving in that direction , I ’ ll adopt it as well .
But it ’ s not one of the logophile hills I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

We’re going to go down a bit of a linguistic rabbit hole today, but it’s an issue that deserves a bit more attention than it will probably receive in the press. There’s been yet another update to the Associated Press Style Guide and for once it doesn’t have to do with obliterating the English language in the name of social justice warfare. (Though it does touch on issues of race as we’ll see in a moment.) The decision has been made to use the upper-case B when referring to Black people, though not when simply referring to the color black, obviously. The AP has the details of their own story.
The Associated Press changed its writing style guide Friday to capitalize the “b” in the term Black when referring to people in a racial, ethnic or cultural context, weighing in on a hotly debated issue. The change conveys “an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa,” John Daniszewski, AP’s vice president of standards, said in a blog post Friday. “The lowercase black is a color, not a person.” The news organization will also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place.
As you can see in the excerpt above, they are also now capitalizing “Indigenous” when referring to a specific group of people native to a particular region. I’m not as sure about that one because it’s more of a basic adjective or descriptor than a specific racial reference.
As far as capitalizing Black people goes, I actually started doing that over the winter following a discussion of the subject with a liberal friend of mine on Twitter. Some of you actually noticed already and I got a few, though not many, “interesting” emails in response.
When this was first brought to my attention, I found myself somewhat surprised that it had never even occurred to me before. I’m talking about the raw mechanics of the English language here, by the way, rather than some overarching discussion of racial issues in our culture. We already capitalize Asian-American and Hispanic as well as Native American. We also already capitalize African-American, but the fact is that there are other groups of Black people who do not trace their roots directly to ancestors from the African continent. (Examples include people from some Caribbean islands others from certain regions of India.)
The word “Black” (as a reference to people) has evolved quite a bit just over the course of my own lifetime. There was a time when it was seen as a pejorative, but that’s really changed since the early days of the civil rights era. There’s probably also a certain amount of confusion in some corners because of the fact that we’re talking about the only recognized race regularly referred to by color except for whites. (More on that below.) There was a time when Asians were mockingly referred to as “yellow” and Indigenous Americans as “red” but neither was ever accepted as a non-pejorative term. The use of “brown” to refer to a variety of other racial groups, including Hispanic people (“Black and brown people” is now in common media use) still seems to be in flux.
But in the end, we’re really just talking about standardized conventions that likely won’t amount to a pile of figs for anyone who doesn’t make their living committing acts of wordsmithing. If you find yourself objecting to the capitalizing Black people, what is the basis for your objection? Unless you actually think that Black people are somehow inherently less worthy of the same level of recognition as any other racial group, I’m hard pressed to think of a reason why you would be bothered by it.
In closing, allow me to address the one subject that I absolutely know will be coming up in response to this topic. What about white people? Why aren’t we capitalizing white? Well, you’ve got me there. I honestly don’t have an answer for you. White is the other color that’s commonly accepted as a reference to people. We capitalize European and Caucasian, but that really doesn’t encapsulate the full expanse of white people on the planet at this point But this is also just not an issue that I find myself being bothered over. If you want to capitalize White people, go for it. If the style guides start moving in that direction, I’ll adopt it as well. But it’s not one of the logophile hills I’m interested in dying on at the moment.


hotair--2020-06-20--Lindsey Graham blocks Trump and Barr: Your nominee to replace the Manhattan U.S. Attorney has to go

Lindsey Graham blocks Trump and Barr: Your nominee to replace the Manhattan U.S. Attorney has to go through New York Dems first; Update: Trump fires Berman; Update: Or did he?

If you missed Jazz ’ s post this morning about the attempted firing of Geoffrey Berman , the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York , read it now .
Even with everything else going on , it ’ s apt to be one of the biggest stories of the coming week .
And maybe for weeks thereafter .
Let ’ s start with the latest , a surprising show of spine from Trump ally Lindsey Graham at an inopportune moment .
Graham is up for reelection in four months .
He doesn ’ t want Trump or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Blue slips ” are a Senate custom in which the senators who represent a state in which a vacancy is being filled are given some degree of power over whether the nomination should proceed .
Not necessarily veto power ; blue slips have lost some of their authority over the last few decades .
But it sounds from Graham ’ s statement like he *is* prepared to let Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand exercise effective veto power over Berman ’ s replacement .
And needless to say , that veto power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s back up .
Why is Berman ’ s attempted firing a big deal , and why does Schumer ’ s veto place Barr and Trump in an unusual pickle ?
First , it ’ s a big deal because Berman ’ s office is the one that ’ s created the most legal headaches for Trump cronies : And not just domestic cronies .
According to John Bolton , when Erdogan asked Trump for help with the DOJ ’ s investigation of the Turkish bank Halkbank , Trump “ told Erdogan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explaining that the [ New York ] southern district prosecutors were not his people but were Obama people , a problem that would be fixed when they were replaced by his people.
” Berman isn ’ t an “ Obama person ” — he took office under Trump — but if he ’ s resisting political pressure from the top to do favors from the president then Trump might very well view him as a political enemy .
Which gets to last night ’ s central mystery : Why did the attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SDNY four months out from an election , late on a Friday ?
And why did he lie about it , insisting that Berman was “ stepping down ” when Berman was doing no such thing ?
I almost can ’ t process how insane it is for one of the country ’ s top federal prosecutors to call out the attorney general for lying about the circumstances of his dismissal , never mind doing it in an official statement from the SDNY .
But come back to the key question : Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why now , and why in such an apparently underhanded manner ?
Normally one might speculate that scandal was swirling around Berman and the DOJ was trying to nudge him out gracefully without the details surfacing .
But Barr reportedly offered to make Berman head of the DOJ ’ s Civil Division as a lure to get him to “ step down ” from the SDNY , so it can ’ t be scandal .
What is it , then ?
Is Berman maybe investigating something that Trump and Barr don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Department has looked so shady this year in trying to back off on sentences for Trump cronies like Mike Flynn and Roger Stone that the suspicion inevitably arises here that he was trying to do the same thing for Giuliani or the inaugural committee or Halkbank/Erdogan — or for some other politically connected target of an investigation that we don ’ t even know about yet .
Note the line in Berman ’ s statement about moving forward with investigations “ without delay or interruption.
” Is that boilerplate , or is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is firing him in order to short-circuit some ongoing probe for political reasons ?
Don ’ t forget either that before the DOJ gave Stone and Flynn their sweetheart sentencing deals Barr removed Jessie Liu , the U.S. Attorney in D.C. who ’ d supervised those cases , and replaced her with one of his own close advisors , Timothy Shea .
Maybe that was the plan with Berman too .
Maybe Barr wanted to intervene in some politically charged case in the SDNY , thought Berman might resist , and needed him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questionable orders .
There ’ s another reason why trying to fire Berman is a big deal , though .
Normally U.S .
Attorneys are appointed the same way other top federal officials are .
The president nominates them , the Senate confirms them , and then they serve until the president or the relevant cabinet officer fires them .
In this case that ’ s Barr , which means Berman is fired even if Schumer and Gillibrand decide not to allow his position to be filled , right ?
Actually , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Attorney for the SDNY after he fired Obama holdover Preet Bharara from the position .
Then-AG Jeff Sessions appointed Berman to the vacancy for 120 days ; eventually the federal district court for the SDNY made Berman ’ s appointment indefinite under a federal law that gives them the power to do so .
Why is that important ?
Because it probably means that Barr can ’ t fire him .
Can Trump fire Berman ?
Uh … probably .
It would be strange and likely a violation of separation of powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t fire an employee at the Department of Justice .
( We went through this with Mueller , remember . )
The fact that Berman was appointed by a federal court , not the president , adds a wrinkle , though .
And federal law adds another wrinkle about how , exactly , a court-appointed U.S. Attorney is to be replaced : If Trump wants Berman out , the solution is simple — in theory .
Just nominate someone new to be U.S. Attorney for the SDNY , which he and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of SEC Commissioner Jay Clayton , and let the Senate confirm that person .
Berman will be out and Clayton will be in .
…except that , per Lindsey Graham ’ s statement , the Judiciary Committee won ’ t consider the nomination in this case unless Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand allow it , which they won ’ t .
That means Trump is effectively blocked from removing Berman by nominating a replacement .
His only option for getting rid of him is to fire him personally and then win the inevitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to do that in the case of a U.S. Attorney who was appointed by a federal court .
To boil all of that down : Despite the Attorney General ’ s attempt to fire him , Berman ’ s still on the job today , investigating God knows what that Trump and Barr don ’ t want him to investigate , and there ’ s probably nothing Barr can do about it and *maybe* nothing Trump can do about it .
Although , realistically , no court is going to allow that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be accountable to someone ; if he ’ s not accountable to Barr then certainly he ’ s accountable to Trump .
One somewhat elegant way out of this would be for the federal district court in the SDNY to simply replace Berman themselves with Clayton as a courtesy to the president .
But maybe the court doesn ’ t want to do that , fearing that Trump and Barr really are up to some sort of chicanery involving obstruction of justice , with Berman standing in their way .
In which case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Mueller doomsday scenario in which Trump fires a prosecutor who ’ s giving him and his friends trouble and the only remedy is for the House to decide whether to impeach .
Again .
Exit question : Why would Lindsey Graham be a stickler about following the blue-slip policy in this case , knowing that it might make Berman effectively impossible to replace ?
He ’ s been criticized persistently by TrumpWorld for not using his power in the Judiciary Committee to serve the president ’ s interests , such as by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to be criticized again if he lets Schumer basically guarantee Berman ’ s job against Trump ’ s wishes .
Maybe Lindsey ’ s worried that he ’ s seen as too close to Trump back home and wants to make a little show of independence ?
Hard to believe that might be true in a state as red as South Carolina , though .
Conceivably he ’ s trying to protect Berman on the merits , because he ’ s rightly alarmed by this entire situation and what Barr and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s giving Graham an awful lot of credit after three and a half years of obsequiousness .
Update : Apparently recognizing that he doesn ’ t have the legal power to fire Berman , Barr has gotten Trump to do it .
Berman ’ s out — probably .
Notice that the deputy U.S. Attorney , not Jay Clayton , is currently in charge .
Two mysteries remain , one old and new .
The old : Why did Barr ( and Trump ) want Berman out in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that required him to be cashiered four months out from an election ?
And the new : Is Berman going to challenge Trump ’ s power to dismiss him ?
He ’ ll almost certainly lose that case , but note that there ’ s no Supreme Court precedent squarely on this point .
Barr ’ s citations in the excerpt above are to a federal district court and a circuit court in another part of the country .
What would John Roberts say ?
Update : Sounds like Berman won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And there may be a reason for that apart from the unlikelihood that he ’ d win in court .
The new acting head of the SDNY is Audrey Strauss , who ’ s well-regarded — and who was apparently overseeing the division ’ s Trump-related investigations .
Trump and Barr have the power to get rid of Berman but , thanks to Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer , maybe not the power to install someone at the SDNY who ’ ll do their bidding .
Berman might have relented in the belief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was trying to protect .
Will Strauss be next ?

If you missed Jazz’s post this morning about the attempted firing of Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, read it now. Even with everything else going on, it’s apt to be one of the biggest stories of the coming week. And maybe for weeks thereafter.
Let’s start with the latest, a surprising show of spine from Trump ally Lindsey Graham at an inopportune moment. Graham is up for reelection in four months. He doesn’t want Trump or Trumpers mad at him. And yet:
“Blue slips” are a Senate custom in which the senators who represent a state in which a vacancy is being filled are given some degree of power over whether the nomination should proceed. Not necessarily veto power; blue slips have lost some of their authority over the last few decades. But it sounds from Graham’s statement like he *is* prepared to let Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand exercise effective veto power over Berman’s replacement.
And needless to say, that veto power will be exercised. Vigorously:
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calls for inspector general probe into AG Barr’s attempted firing of US Attorney for SDNY and for Jay Clayton to remove himself as nominee to “stand up to this corruption”. — Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) June 20, 2020
Let’s back up. Why is Berman’s attempted firing a big deal, and why does Schumer’s veto place Barr and Trump in an unusual pickle? First, it’s a big deal because Berman’s office is the one that’s created the most legal headaches for Trump cronies:
Mr. Berman’s office has taken an aggressive approach in a number of cases that have vexed the Trump administration, from the prosecution and guilty plea obtained from Mr. Cohen to a broader investigation, growing out of that inquiry, which focused on Mr. Trump’s private company and others close to him. Over the last year, Mr. Berman’s office brought indictments against two close associates of the president’s current lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, and began an investigation into Mr. Giuliani himself, focusing on whether his efforts to dig up dirt in Ukraine on the president’s political rivals violated laws on lobbying for foreign entities. Mr. Berman’s office also conducted an investigation into Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee, subpoenaing financial and other records as part of a broad inquiry into possible illegal contributions from foreigners.
And not just domestic cronies. According to John Bolton, when Erdogan asked Trump for help with the DOJ’s investigation of the Turkish bank Halkbank, Trump “told Erdogan he would take care of things, explaining that the [New York] southern district prosecutors were not his people but were Obama people, a problem that would be fixed when they were replaced by his people.” Berman isn’t an “Obama person” — he took office under Trump — but if he’s resisting political pressure from the top to do favors from the president then Trump might very well view him as a political enemy. Which gets to last night’s central mystery: Why did the attorney general move to fire the head of the SDNY four months out from an election, late on a Friday? And why did he lie about it, insisting that Berman was “stepping down” when Berman was doing no such thing?
I almost can’t process how insane it is for one of the country’s top federal prosecutors to call out the attorney general for lying about the circumstances of his dismissal, never mind doing it in an official statement from the SDNY. But come back to the key question: Why did Barr try to fire him, why now, and why in such an apparently underhanded manner? Normally one might speculate that scandal was swirling around Berman and the DOJ was trying to nudge him out gracefully without the details surfacing. But Barr reportedly offered to make Berman head of the DOJ’s Civil Division as a lure to get him to “step down” from the SDNY, so it can’t be scandal. What is it, then?
Is Berman maybe investigating something that Trump and Barr don’t want him to investigate? Barr’s Department has looked so shady this year in trying to back off on sentences for Trump cronies like Mike Flynn and Roger Stone that the suspicion inevitably arises here that he was trying to do the same thing for Giuliani or the inaugural committee or Halkbank/Erdogan — or for some other politically connected target of an investigation that we don’t even know about yet. Note the line in Berman’s statement about moving forward with investigations “without delay or interruption.” Is that boilerplate, or is he hinting that he too suspects Barr is firing him in order to short-circuit some ongoing probe for political reasons? Don’t forget either that before the DOJ gave Stone and Flynn their sweetheart sentencing deals Barr removed Jessie Liu, the U.S. Attorney in D.C. who’d supervised those cases, and replaced her with one of his own close advisors, Timothy Shea. Maybe that was the plan with Berman too. Maybe Barr wanted to intervene in some politically charged case in the SDNY, thought Berman might resist, and needed him replaced with someone more willing to follow questionable orders.
There’s another reason why trying to fire Berman is a big deal, though. Normally U.S. Attorneys are appointed the same way other top federal officials are. The president nominates them, the Senate confirms them, and then they serve until the president or the relevant cabinet officer fires them. In this case that’s Barr, which means Berman is fired even if Schumer and Gillibrand decide not to allow his position to be filled, right? Actually, no. Trump never formally nominated Berman as U.S. Attorney for the SDNY after he fired Obama holdover Preet Bharara from the position. Then-AG Jeff Sessions appointed Berman to the vacancy for 120 days; eventually the federal district court for the SDNY made Berman’s appointment indefinite under a federal law that gives them the power to do so.
Why is that important? Because it probably means that Barr can’t fire him.
CORRECTED LINK: Oh here's an interesting catch. This is a short 1979 OLC opinion on who can remove a court-appointed U.S. Attorney. Back then OLC said the president can, but the AG cannot. https://t.co/S33OpN1ry4 pic.twitter.com/Gdn9p2VQU3 — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 20, 2020
Can Trump fire Berman? Uh … probably. It would be strange and likely a violation of separation of powers if the head of the executive branch couldn’t fire an employee at the Department of Justice. (We went through this with Mueller, remember.) The fact that Berman was appointed by a federal court, not the president, adds a wrinkle, though. And federal law adds another wrinkle about how, exactly, a court-appointed U.S. Attorney is to be replaced:
To recap: 1) Berman was appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). 2) That statute contemplates that he keeps his job until a permanent successor is confirmed by the Senate. 3) 28 U.S.C. § 541(c) says U.S. Attorneys are subject to removal by the President. So the statutes conflict. pic.twitter.com/ZpmO2k3Z0l — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 20, 2020
Of course, the Trump DOJ may argue that § 546(d) is unconstitutional insofar as it prevents the President from removing Berman, but that’s complicated here by Berman being an *Acting* U,S. Attorney—over whose appointment and removal Congress can arguably exercise *more* control. — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 20, 2020
If Trump wants Berman out, the solution is simple — in theory. Just nominate someone new to be U.S. Attorney for the SDNY, which he and Barr have already done in the person of SEC Commissioner Jay Clayton, and let the Senate confirm that person. Berman will be out and Clayton will be in.
…except that, per Lindsey Graham’s statement, the Judiciary Committee won’t consider the nomination in this case unless Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand allow it, which they won’t. That means Trump is effectively blocked from removing Berman by nominating a replacement. His only option for getting rid of him is to fire him personally and then win the inevitable lawsuit over whether he has the constitutional power to do that in the case of a U.S. Attorney who was appointed by a federal court.
To boil all of that down: Despite the Attorney General’s attempt to fire him, Berman’s still on the job today, investigating God knows what that Trump and Barr don’t want him to investigate, and there’s probably nothing Barr can do about it and *maybe* nothing Trump can do about it. Although, realistically, no court is going to allow that situation to abide. Berman needs to be accountable to someone; if he’s not accountable to Barr then certainly he’s accountable to Trump. One somewhat elegant way out of this would be for the federal district court in the SDNY to simply replace Berman themselves with Clayton as a courtesy to the president. But maybe the court doesn’t want to do that, fearing that Trump and Barr really are up to some sort of chicanery involving obstruction of justice, with Berman standing in their way. In which case we’re probably headed back to a Mueller doomsday scenario in which Trump fires a prosecutor who’s giving him and his friends trouble and the only remedy is for the House to decide whether to impeach. Again.
Exit question: Why would Lindsey Graham be a stickler about following the blue-slip policy in this case, knowing that it might make Berman effectively impossible to replace? He’s been criticized persistently by TrumpWorld for not using his power in the Judiciary Committee to serve the president’s interests, such as by aggressively investigating the Bidens. He’s going to be criticized again if he lets Schumer basically guarantee Berman’s job against Trump’s wishes. Maybe Lindsey’s worried that he’s seen as too close to Trump back home and wants to make a little show of independence? Hard to believe that might be true in a state as red as South Carolina, though. Conceivably he’s trying to protect Berman on the merits, because he’s rightly alarmed by this entire situation and what Barr and Trump might be up to. But that’s giving Graham an awful lot of credit after three and a half years of obsequiousness.
Update: Apparently recognizing that he doesn’t have the legal power to fire Berman, Barr has gotten Trump to do it. Berman’s out — probably.
Notice that the deputy U.S. Attorney, not Jay Clayton, is currently in charge. Two mysteries remain, one old and new. The old: Why did Barr (and Trump) want Berman out in the first place? What’s he done wrong that required him to be cashiered four months out from an election? And the new: Is Berman going to challenge Trump’s power to dismiss him? He’ll almost certainly lose that case, but note that there’s no Supreme Court precedent squarely on this point. Barr’s citations in the excerpt above are to a federal district court and a circuit court in another part of the country. What would John Roberts say?
Update: What? Trump didn’t fire him?
Trump on Berman: That’s all up to the AG. AG Barr is working on that. That’s his department, not my department but we have a very capable AG so that’s really up to him. I’m not involved. pic.twitter.com/FIqoZYpDNs — Acyn (@Acyn) June 20, 2020
Update: Sounds like Berman won’t challenge the decision to fire him. And there may be a reason for that apart from the unlikelihood that he’d win in court.
BREAKING: Geoffrey Berman: “In light of" AG Barr’s decision "to respect the normal operation of law and have Deputy US Attorney Audrey Strauss become Acting US Attorney, I will be leaving the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, effective immediately." — NBC News (@NBCNews) June 20, 2020
The new acting head of the SDNY is Audrey Strauss, who’s well-regarded — and who was apparently overseeing the division’s Trump-related investigations. Trump and Barr have the power to get rid of Berman but, thanks to Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer, maybe not the power to install someone at the SDNY who’ll do their bidding. Berman might have relented in the belief that Strauss will continue the probes that he was trying to protect. Will Strauss be next?