hotair--2020-06-24--Nancy Pelosi accuses Senate Republicans of trying to get away with 'the murder of George Floyd' (Upd

Nancy Pelosi accuses Senate Republicans of trying to get away with 'the murder of George Floyd' (Update)

This is a really disgusting statement by Pelosi but to fully appreciate how bad it is , you have to know the context .
Republicans and Democrats have each been working on policing reform bills .
Pelosi is working on the Democratic bill in the House and Sen. Tim Scott is leading the Republican effort in the Senate .
A vote on Scott ’ s bill is expected later today and it appears Democrats are going to prevent the Senate from even opening discussion on the bill .
There are significant differences in the two bills , most notably the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity for police officers and the Republican bill would not .
So it ’ s fair to say there are major issues on which the parties disagree that are reflected in the approaches to police reform legislation .
Those issues could be argued about among reasonable adults .
Or , Nancy Pelosi could go on CBS radio and claim that a black Republican Senator is trying to get away with the murder of George Floyd : In an interview with CBS News Radio , Pelosi was asked whether there ’ s any hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compromise on legislation responding to police brutality in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death in Minneapolis… Pelosi said Republicans “ understand that there ’ s a need to get something done .
… They admit that and have some suggestions that are worthy of consideration — but so far , they were trying to get away with murder , actually — the murder of George Floyd , ” she said .
The full interview is here ( her comment comes at about 2:30 ) .
Here is the relevant portion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apologize and said she “ absolutely , positively ” would not : Notice that dodge at the end ?
Pelosi knows that Sen. Scott is leading the GOP effort but I guess even she is a little uncomfortable accusing a black senator of trying to get away with George Floyd ’ s murder .
Remember when Democrats were worried about threats made against Ilhan Omar after her “ some people did something ” remarks ?
The claim at the time was that Republicans were putting her life in danger by criticizing her .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
In private , Mr. Scott shocked his colleagues when he spoke at Republicans ’ weekly luncheon about death threats he and his aides had received in recent days , according to two officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door remarks .
He played some aloud for his colleagues , all of whom are white .
The calls , filled with profanity and racist slurs , included one diatribe addressed to “ Uncle Tim , ” where the caller , after cruelly and profanely condemning Mr. Scott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican colleagues , told Mr. Scott to “ take your one-way ticket straight to hell.
” One caller discussed putting the senator “ in his cross hairs , ” Mr. Scott said… While racist attacks and threats are not new to Mr. Scott or his office , he said they had become more aggressive in recent days .
The NY Times spells out the Democratic calculus on this : Eyeing an increasingly favorable political environment , Democrats have little incentive to adopt a narrower overhaul , or open themselves to potentially difficult votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Senate bill would allow them to skewer Republicans for failing to adequately respond to the crisis as they try to regain the Senate majority in the fall .
And if their refusal to budge produces concessions by Republicans — as was the case when they initially blocked two coronavirus relief packages they called insufficient — they could still claim credit .
Sen. Scott gave a speech today saying if Democrats don ’ t think his bill is good enough they should , “ make it better.
” But it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires than in putting them out .
That ’ s why she ’ s doubling down on the most incendiary language possible in the current moment .
Update : As expected , Democrats filibustered the GOP Senate bill .
Guy Benson has a good write-up here .

This is a really disgusting statement by Pelosi but to fully appreciate how bad it is, you have to know the context. Republicans and Democrats have each been working on policing reform bills. Pelosi is working on the Democratic bill in the House and Sen. Tim Scott is leading the Republican effort in the Senate. A vote on Scott’s bill is expected later today and it appears Democrats are going to prevent the Senate from even opening discussion on the bill.
There are significant differences in the two bills, most notably the Democratic bill would do away with qualified immunity for police officers and the Republican bill would not. So it’s fair to say there are major issues on which the parties disagree that are reflected in the approaches to police reform legislation. Those issues could be argued about among reasonable adults. Or, Nancy Pelosi could go on CBS radio and claim that a black Republican Senator is trying to get away with the murder of George Floyd:
In an interview with CBS News Radio, Pelosi was asked whether there’s any hope that Democrats and Republicans can reach a compromise on legislation responding to police brutality in the wake of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis… Pelosi said Republicans “understand that there’s a need to get something done. … They admit that and have some suggestions that are worthy of consideration — but so far, they were trying to get away with murder, actually — the murder of George Floyd,” she said.
The full interview is here (her comment comes at about 2:30). Here is the relevant portion of her remarks:
Pelosi was asked to apologize and said she “absolutely, positively” would not:
Nancy Pelosi says she “absolutely” refuses to apologize for accusing Republican senators of "trying to get away with murder"https://t.co/Lx1kCEBWGB pic.twitter.com/oYe4aw5jCi — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 24, 2020
Notice that dodge at the end? Pelosi knows that Sen. Scott is leading the GOP effort but I guess even she is a little uncomfortable accusing a black senator of trying to get away with George Floyd’s murder.
Remember when Democrats were worried about threats made against Ilhan Omar after her “some people did something” remarks? The claim at the time was that Republicans were putting her life in danger by criticizing her. I guess Democrats no longer care about that.
In private, Mr. Scott shocked his colleagues when he spoke at Republicans’ weekly luncheon about death threats he and his aides had received in recent days, according to two officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door remarks. He played some aloud for his colleagues, all of whom are white. The calls, filled with profanity and racist slurs, included one diatribe addressed to “Uncle Tim,” where the caller, after cruelly and profanely condemning Mr. Scott, his family and some of his Republican colleagues, told Mr. Scott to “take your one-way ticket straight to hell.” One caller discussed putting the senator “in his cross hairs,” Mr. Scott said… While racist attacks and threats are not new to Mr. Scott or his office, he said they had become more aggressive in recent days.
The NY Times spells out the Democratic calculus on this:
Eyeing an increasingly favorable political environment, Democrats have little incentive to adopt a narrower overhaul, or open themselves to potentially difficult votes on law enforcement matters. The collapse of the Senate bill would allow them to skewer Republicans for failing to adequately respond to the crisis as they try to regain the Senate majority in the fall. And if their refusal to budge produces concessions by Republicans — as was the case when they initially blocked two coronavirus relief packages they called insufficient — they could still claim credit.
Sen. Scott gave a speech today saying if Democrats don’t think his bill is good enough they should, “make it better.” But it’s clear Pelosi sees more advantage in starting fires than in putting them out. That’s why she’s doubling down on the most incendiary language possible in the current moment.
Update: As expected, Democrats filibustered the GOP Senate bill. Guy Benson has a good write-up here.


hotair--2020-06-24--NYT poll: Biden 50, Trump 36

NYT poll: Biden 50, Trump 36

Typically any presidential poll in modern America in which one candidate leads the other by double digits can be instantly dismissed as an outlier .
“ Biden by 14 ?
Outlier .
Next.
” This poll is not an outlier .
At the moment , it ’ s the polls showing Trump within striking distance of Biden that are the outliers .
Of the last 10 surveys tracked by RealClearPolitics , more than half have Biden up by double digits .
The *best* poll for Trump in the batch is one that has him trailing by six .
Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now up to 10.2 points , with Trump ’ s share of the vote dropping to an all-time low .
To put that in perspective , after Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee in 2016 he never trailed Clinton by more than 7.9 points in the RCP average , and even then only briefly .
That race was characterized by periods in which Clinton would suddenly shoot out to a solid lead and then fall back into a tight race as voters remembered that they despised her .
The polling on Trump vs. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s never led by less than 4.4 points , has frequently led by six or more , and has seen his lead nearly double since late May .
Almost a month of solid growth right now .
Which is amazing under the circumstances .
It occurred to me this morning that , for all the damage the pandemic might be doing to Trump , this feels like a period in which he should be closing the gap with Biden .
He had a hugely encouraging jobs report to start the month .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shop windows and tearing down statues plays right into his strongman “ law and order ” message .
Now ’ s the perfect moment for him to say , “ If you think this is bad , wait until these rioters and radicals have a liberal stooge in the White House who ’ s afraid to cross them.
” And he has said things to that effect over the last few weeks .
And he ’ s getting blitzed in the polls anyway .
The Times sees erosion in his support across all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elements of his white base defecting to Biden that are doing the most damage : [ T ] he former vice president has also drawn even with Mr. Trump among male voters , whites and people in middle age and older — groups that have typically been the backbones of Republican electoral success , including Mr. Trump ’ s in 2016… Most stark may be Mr. Biden ’ s towering advantage among white women with college degrees , who support him over Mr. Trump by 39 percentage points .
In 2016 , exit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Mr. Trump by just 7 percentage points .
The poll also found that Mr. Biden has narrowed Mr. Trump ’ s advantage with less-educated white voters… Fifty-two percent of whites under 45 said they supported Mr. Biden while only 30 percent said they supported Mr. Trump .
And their opposition is intense : More than twice as many younger whites viewed the president very unfavorably than very favorably… What ’ s striking , though , is that even among white seniors , one of Mr. Trump ’ s strongest constituencies , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ About two-fifths of whites over 65 said they disapproved of Mr. Trump ’ s handling of both the coronavirus and race relations .
Trump still leads handily with his core base of whites without college degrees ( +19 ) but that ’ s just half as well as he did with that group against Hillary in 2016 , when he won them by 37 .
Right now he leads among whites overall by just one point .
Needless to say , given the huge Democratic advantage among nonwhite voters , any Republican who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat is going to get his ass handed to him .
There are many possible explanations for that but the simplest one is that Biden is just much harder to hate than Clinton was .
His favorable rating here is 26/27 ; by comparison Trump ’ s is 27/50 .
What Republicans have tried to avoid from the beginning of this campaign was letting it turn into a referendum on Trump instead of a choice between two flawed candidates .
Nominating Bernie Sanders would have helped the GOP a ton in that regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal like Biden has made it exceedingly hard .
The number that really grabbed me from the Times poll , though , is his rating on handling the coronavirus .
Nearly 60 percent , including majorities of Trump ’ s own base of whites and men , disapprove of his performance on that issue .
On the related question of whether the country should prioritize containing the virus ( the Biden view ) or reopening the economy ( the Trump view ) , containment leads by 21 points .
Reuters has a poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grim numbers on Trump and COVID-19 : The conventional wisdom to explain Trump ’ s polling downturn this month is that it ’ s a backlash to his disinterest in conciliation with Black Lives Matter protesters .
And there ’ s truth to that , no doubt .
The Times poll finds a large majority of Americans , especially younger American , have a positive view of BLM .
The excerpt above notes that even a sizable chunk of white senior citizens disapproves of how he ’ s handled race relations .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t playing a larger role than we think in Trump ’ s struggles lately .
After all , he seems to have detached almost completely from trying to manage it .
Apart from occasional comments about the vaccine and how testing is supposedly a doubled-edged sword ( ! )
, he plays no real public role with respect to it except to cheerlead businesses reopening .
It ’ s worse than that , in fact : If anything , his most meaningful contribution lately involving COVID-19 is needlessly exposing people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the second indoor mass gathering he ’ s held in less than a week in a COVID-19 hotspot where people weren ’ t even required to wear masks .
In the Times poll , 76 percent said they always or usually wear a mask when they expect to be around other people but Trump ’ s approach to masks at this point is , at best , indifference .
Which reminds me of a point Dem pollster Will Jordan made last week : It ’ s absurd for him to resist pushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of political self-interest .
But he can ’ t get out of his own way .
He ’ d rather stick to his position that masks are “ weak , ” knowing that voters disagree and that doing so might make the pandemic worse , than change course .
It ’ d be one thing if the president were working tirelessly to contain the spread and sending all the right signals about proper precautions .
Even if the country suffered setbacks under those circumstances , undecideds could say , “ Well , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a novel virus .
It ’ s not easy.
” But he seems palpably not to care .
He won ’ t even hold his rallies outdoors as a small gesture towards minimizing contagion .
I suspect the average voter , who ’ s terrified of getting sick themselves and is increasingly likely to know someone personally who ’ s gotten the disease , looks at that with utter contempt .
And if that ’ s true , it raises the ominous possibility that Trump ’ s polling could get even worse soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California , Texas , Florida , and South Carolina haven ’ t been on the public ’ s radar for long , but they will be .
But if things don ’ t turn around there soon and we end up in a new crisis , Trump ’ s numbers on coronavirus are apt to slide further .
As gaudy as a 10-point average lead for Biden is , and what that might portend in terms of electoral votes , it ’ s conceivable that he ’ s not at the high-water mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times poll .
It ’ s not just that Biden ’ s lead is so large , it ’ s that Trump ’ s share of the electorate is down below 40 percent .
That should never be the case considering how rock-solid support among his base is — supposedly .
Trump aides have been watching for signs of his job approval slipping below 40 percent as a “ nightmare scenario ” since it would mean he ’ s beginning to lose some of the people who ’ ve stuck with him for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already happened twice in the last 10 polls tracked by RCP .
But it ’ s not just that his approval has slipped ; he ’ s actually polling *below* his approval in some surveys head-to-head with Biden , which means that even some of the people who think he ’ s doing a reasonably good job prefer the other guy .
( People like … white evangelicals ? )
The president ’ s never scored consistently about 45-46 percent in job approval even in good times , and 46 is probably the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral college assuming all 46 percent vote for him .
If we can ’ t assume that because some of that 46 percent is defecting to Biden then he ’ s in even more trouble than he thinks .

Typically any presidential poll in modern America in which one candidate leads the other by double digits can be instantly dismissed as an outlier. “Biden by 14? Outlier. Next.”
This poll is not an outlier. At the moment, it’s the polls showing Trump within striking distance of Biden that are the outliers. Of the last 10 surveys tracked by RealClearPolitics, more than half have Biden up by double digits. The *best* poll for Trump in the batch is one that has him trailing by six. Biden’s lead in the RCP average is now up to 10.2 points, with Trump’s share of the vote dropping to an all-time low.
Biden's lead in the RCP Average is now 10.2% as Trump's support sinks to a record low of 40.9%. pic.twitter.com/lK8NROJlPE — Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) June 24, 2020
To put that in perspective, after Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee in 2016 he never trailed Clinton by more than 7.9 points in the RCP average, and even then only briefly. That race was characterized by periods in which Clinton would suddenly shoot out to a solid lead and then fall back into a tight race as voters remembered that they despised her. The polling on Trump vs. Biden is totally different: Biden’s never led by less than 4.4 points, has frequently led by six or more, and has seen his lead nearly double since late May. Almost a month of solid growth right now.
Which is amazing under the circumstances. It occurred to me this morning that, for all the damage the pandemic might be doing to Trump, this feels like a period in which he should be closing the gap with Biden. He had a hugely encouraging jobs report to start the month. And the scenes of vandals and looters smashing shop windows and tearing down statues plays right into his strongman “law and order” message. Now’s the perfect moment for him to say, “If you think this is bad, wait until these rioters and radicals have a liberal stooge in the White House who’s afraid to cross them.” And he has said things to that effect over the last few weeks.
And he’s getting blitzed in the polls anyway.
The Times sees erosion in his support across all sorts of groups but it’s elements of his white base defecting to Biden that are doing the most damage:
[T]he former vice president has also drawn even with Mr. Trump among male voters, whites and people in middle age and older — groups that have typically been the backbones of Republican electoral success, including Mr. Trump’s in 2016… Most stark may be Mr. Biden’s towering advantage among white women with college degrees, who support him over Mr. Trump by 39 percentage points. In 2016, exit polls found that group preferred Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Trump by just 7 percentage points. The poll also found that Mr. Biden has narrowed Mr. Trump’s advantage with less-educated white voters… Fifty-two percent of whites under 45 said they supported Mr. Biden while only 30 percent said they supported Mr. Trump. And their opposition is intense: More than twice as many younger whites viewed the president very unfavorably than very favorably… What’s striking, though, is that even among white seniors, one of Mr. Trump’s strongest constituencies, he has damaged himself with his conduct. About two-fifths of whites over 65 said they disapproved of Mr. Trump’s handling of both the coronavirus and race relations.
Trump still leads handily with his core base of whites without college degrees (+19) but that’s just half as well as he did with that group against Hillary in 2016, when he won them by 37. Right now he leads among whites overall by just one point. Needless to say, given the huge Democratic advantage among nonwhite voters, any Republican who’s splitting whites evenly with a Democrat is going to get his ass handed to him.
There are many possible explanations for that but the simplest one is that Biden is just much harder to hate than Clinton was. His favorable rating here is 26/27; by comparison Trump’s is 27/50. What Republicans have tried to avoid from the beginning of this campaign was letting it turn into a referendum on Trump instead of a choice between two flawed candidates. Nominating Bernie Sanders would have helped the GOP a ton in that regard. Nominating an amiable, generic old liberal like Biden has made it exceedingly hard.
The number that really grabbed me from the Times poll, though, is his rating on handling the coronavirus. Nearly 60 percent, including majorities of Trump’s own base of whites and men, disapprove of his performance on that issue. On the related question of whether the country should prioritize containing the virus (the Biden view) or reopening the economy (the Trump view), containment leads by 21 points. Reuters has a poll of its own out today with similarly grim numbers on Trump and COVID-19:
The poll shows that 37% of Americans approved of the way Trump has responded to the pandemic, the lowest on record since Reuters/Ipsos started asking the question at the beginning of March. Fifty-eight percent said they disapproved… Members of Trump’s Republican Party also appeared to be more pessimistic than at any other time during his presidency. Just 43% said they thought the country was headed in the “right direction,” the lowest level recorded by the Reuters/Ipsos poll since Trump entered office in January 2017.
The conventional wisdom to explain Trump’s polling downturn this month is that it’s a backlash to his disinterest in conciliation with Black Lives Matter protesters. And there’s truth to that, no doubt. The Times poll finds a large majority of Americans, especially younger American, have a positive view of BLM. The excerpt above notes that even a sizable chunk of white senior citizens disapproves of how he’s handled race relations. But I wonder if the state of pandemic isn’t playing a larger role than we think in Trump’s struggles lately. After all, he seems to have detached almost completely from trying to manage it. Apart from occasional comments about the vaccine and how testing is supposedly a doubled-edged sword(!), he plays no real public role with respect to it except to cheerlead businesses reopening. It’s worse than that, in fact: If anything, his most meaningful contribution lately involving COVID-19 is needlessly exposing people to infection.
Worst day for new US #coronavirus cases since May 1. 3rd-worst day ever.
Worst day ever in Texas, California and Arizona, where Trump is giving a speech to 3,000 people not wearing masks (except for that one guy).
Elect a President who's not a radioactive dumbass. pic.twitter.com/L2OxW37CY9 — Rick G. Rosner (@dumbassgenius) June 24, 2020
The event yesterday in Arizona was the second indoor mass gathering he’s held in less than a week in a COVID-19 hotspot where people weren’t even required to wear masks. In the Times poll, 76 percent said they always or usually wear a mask when they expect to be around other people but Trump’s approach to masks at this point is, at best, indifference. Which reminds me of a point Dem pollster Will Jordan made last week:
One story of the past few months is Trump picking one 60-40 issue (or worse) after another and staking a claim on the 40 side. And gradually his approval rating approaching 40. https://t.co/EE81nUcVb2 — Will Jordan (@williamjordann) June 19, 2020
It’s absurd for him to resist pushing mask-wearing, if only as a matter of political self-interest. But he can’t get out of his own way. He’d rather stick to his position that masks are “weak,” knowing that voters disagree and that doing so might make the pandemic worse, than change course.
It’d be one thing if the president were working tirelessly to contain the spread and sending all the right signals about proper precautions. Even if the country suffered setbacks under those circumstances, undecideds could say, “Well, he’s trying. It’s a novel virus. It’s not easy.” But he seems palpably not to care. He won’t even hold his rallies outdoors as a small gesture towards minimizing contagion. I suspect the average voter, who’s terrified of getting sick themselves and is increasingly likely to know someone personally who’s gotten the disease, looks at that with utter contempt. And if that’s true, it raises the ominous possibility that Trump’s polling could get even worse soon. The spiking cases in Arizona, California, Texas, Florida, and South Carolina haven’t been on the public’s radar for long, but they will be. But if things don’t turn around there soon and we end up in a new crisis, Trump’s numbers on coronavirus are apt to slide further. As gaudy as a 10-point average lead for Biden is, and what that might portend in terms of electoral votes, it’s conceivable that he’s not at the high-water mark yet.
One last point about the Times poll. It’s not just that Biden’s lead is so large, it’s that Trump’s share of the electorate is down below 40 percent. That should never be the case considering how rock-solid support among his base is — supposedly. Trump aides have been watching for signs of his job approval slipping below 40 percent as a “nightmare scenario” since it would mean he’s beginning to lose some of the people who’ve stuck with him for so long, but it’s already happened twice in the last 10 polls tracked by RCP. But it’s not just that his approval has slipped; he’s actually polling *below* his approval in some surveys head-to-head with Biden, which means that even some of the people who think he’s doing a reasonably good job prefer the other guy. (People like … white evangelicals?) The president’s never scored consistently about 45-46 percent in job approval even in good times, and 46 is probably the bare minimum he needs to win the electoral college assuming all 46 percent vote for him. If we can’t assume that because some of that 46 percent is defecting to Biden then he’s in even more trouble than he thinks.


hotair--2020-06-24--BET founder: After Biden's "You ain't black" comment, it's time for the Black Lives Matter Party

Don ’ t pass the popcorn just yet , and don ’ t necessarily slough this off as just another quixotic alternate-party pipe dream either .
Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson wants to increase the political leverage of black voters , telling CNBC yesterday that bloc voting has led them into a dead end when dealing with both parties on a historical basis .
“ Had African American interests been embraced by one or two of the dominant parties , ” Johnson argued , “ we wouldn ’ t have the tremendous social , economic , racial issues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solution ?
Transform Black Lives Matter into a political party that would force both parties to negotiate with the bloc : Biden ’ s suggestion in May that “ you ain ’ t Black ” if you vote for Trump instead of him demonstrates that Black voters are too often taken for granted , Johnson said .
Biden later apologized for the remark , saying “ I shouldn ’ t have been so cavalier.
” “ That someone could be so presumptuousness , that you have to vote for a Democrat or otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that is the principal reason why we need a Black party , independent , to change that kind of behavior , ” said Johnson , who became the first Black billionaire in the U.S. when he sold BET to Viacom in 2001 .
He ’ s no longer on the Forbes billionaires list .
… Johnson , who has previously called on the U.S. government to provide reparations for slavery , said the independent political party would stand for things “ principally focused on the interests ” of Black Americans .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Black Lives Matter Leaders and Supporters , ” suggesting that “ Black Lives Matter ( BLM ) consider establishing a formal independent political party .
The party could be founded on the principle articulated by the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus in 1971.
” He described the Congressional Black Caucus ’ founding principle as Blacks having “ no permanent friends , no permanent enemies … just permanent interests.
’ ” Republicans might cheer this as a way to split the Democratic Party and reduce it to permanent minority status .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — deliberately , as far as Johnson is concerned — Democrats would no longer be competitive against Republicans .
If the BLM Party ran its own slate of candidates and black voters remained loyal to it , Republicans would not just own the White House but likely both chambers of Congress and most gubernatorial seats , too .
However , that ’ s not what such a party would likely do .
Johnson ’ s a smart guy and knows exactly what would happen if he tried to launch BLM in the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not only would that kill any real influence the black vote has , it would sap the enthusiasm for voter turnout among this bloc , too — exactly the opposite of what Johnson has in mind .
It seems far more likely that Johnson envisions a party focused on local and House elections , at least at first , building a very clear political base with real influence on other contests as an endorsement factor .
A prospective BLM Party has what the Libertarians and Greens lack — a natural geographic profile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House elections .
African-Americans form a majority in many urban centers in the US , which is one reason Democrats have controlled the cities for the last several decades .
By breaking free of the Democratic Party , black voters could set their own agendas for the cities , and be directly responsible for the outcomes , too .
That might be a very healthy development , especially considering the recent unrest over policing issues , which are truly a local issue .
If a BLM Party consolidated those voters , they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with one major party or another on regional and federal issues , but on their terms rather than as an “ appendage , ” as Johnson puts it .
With that kind of local power , a BLM Party could take urban House seats away from Democrats and build a powerful coalition in Congress that would be separate from the current Democratic establishment .
That would make it very difficult for either party to win an outright majority in the lower chamber , forcing them to negotiate with BLM Party leaders for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That alone would give black voters much more leverage at the federal level and keep that leverage untethered to Democratic establishment figures .
The CBC in its current form has no real power to set the agenda , even in a House Democratic majority , and Johnson knows it .
If the CBC gets replaced with a BLM Party bloc that owes nothing to Democrats for getting elected , that changes in a hurry .
With that kind of political power , voter enthusiasm in the bloc would likely increase .
Rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fringe , however , the BLM Party could demand concessions for delivering its voting bloc to one of the major-party candidates .
That would probably function mostly as a strongarm technique against Democrats for a while , until the party moderated away from its most Marxist-extremist , pie-in-the-sky agenda items to focus on achievable goals — an evolution that the promise of real power would almost certainly incentivize .
That kind of real-power leverage would also stoke black voter turnout to higher levels in 2016 and maybe even at a constant 2008 level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and likely decisive in either direction .
If that ’ s what Johnson has in mind , it would be nothing short of brilliant , at least in general political terms .
“ The Democratic Party is terrified of the notion , ” Johnson says , but I ’ m not so sure that the Republican Party would feel too much differently in the end .

Don’t pass the popcorn just yet, and don’t necessarily slough this off as just another quixotic alternate-party pipe dream either. Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson wants to increase the political leverage of black voters, telling CNBC yesterday that bloc voting has led them into a dead end when dealing with both parties on a historical basis. “Had African American interests been embraced by one or two of the dominant parties,” Johnson argued, “we wouldn’t have the tremendous social, economic, racial issues that we have now.”
Johnson’s solution? Transform Black Lives Matter into a political party that would force both parties to negotiate with the bloc:
BET founder Robert Johnson is calling on the Black Lives Matter movement to form an independent political party. “I think it’s time that African Americans form an independent party, not be an appendage of one party or ignored by the other party.” pic.twitter.com/WBIyfbxAVx — CNBC (@CNBC) June 23, 2020
Biden’s suggestion in May that “you ain’t Black” if you vote for Trump instead of him demonstrates that Black voters are too often taken for granted, Johnson said. Biden later apologized for the remark, saying “I shouldn’t have been so cavalier.” “That someone could be so presumptuousness, that you have to vote for a Democrat or otherwise you’re not identified as Black, that is the principal reason why we need a Black party, independent, to change that kind of behavior,” said Johnson, who became the first Black billionaire in the U.S. when he sold BET to Viacom in 2001. He’s no longer on the Forbes billionaires list. … Johnson, who has previously called on the U.S. government to provide reparations for slavery, said the independent political party would stand for things “principally focused on the interests” of Black Americans. Last week, Johnson sent a letter to “Black Lives Matter Leaders and Supporters,” suggesting that “Black Lives Matter (BLM) consider establishing a formal independent political party. The party could be founded on the principle articulated by the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus in 1971.” He described the Congressional Black Caucus’ founding principle as Blacks having “no permanent friends, no permanent enemies … just permanent interests.’”
Republicans might cheer this as a way to split the Democratic Party and reduce it to permanent minority status. Shorn of its most loyal voting bloc — deliberately, as far as Johnson is concerned — Democrats would no longer be competitive against Republicans. If the BLM Party ran its own slate of candidates and black voters remained loyal to it, Republicans would not just own the White House but likely both chambers of Congress and most gubernatorial seats, too.
However, that’s not what such a party would likely do. Johnson’s a smart guy and knows exactly what would happen if he tried to launch BLM in the same model as the Greens or the Libertarians. Not only would that kill any real influence the black vote has, it would sap the enthusiasm for voter turnout among this bloc, too — exactly the opposite of what Johnson has in mind.
It seems far more likely that Johnson envisions a party focused on local and House elections, at least at first, building a very clear political base with real influence on other contests as an endorsement factor. A prospective BLM Party has what the Libertarians and Greens lack — a natural geographic profile that could help them dominate local and House elections. African-Americans form a majority in many urban centers in the US, which is one reason Democrats have controlled the cities for the last several decades. By breaking free of the Democratic Party, black voters could set their own agendas for the cities, and be directly responsible for the outcomes, too. That might be a very healthy development, especially considering the recent unrest over policing issues, which are truly a local issue. If a BLM Party consolidated those voters, they could run their own power bases and partner up with one major party or another on regional and federal issues, but on their terms rather than as an “appendage,” as Johnson puts it.
With that kind of local power, a BLM Party could take urban House seats away from Democrats and build a powerful coalition in Congress that would be separate from the current Democratic establishment. That would make it very difficult for either party to win an outright majority in the lower chamber, forcing them to negotiate with BLM Party leaders for a coalition to form the majority. That alone would give black voters much more leverage at the federal level and keep that leverage untethered to Democratic establishment figures. The CBC in its current form has no real power to set the agenda, even in a House Democratic majority, and Johnson knows it. If the CBC gets replaced with a BLM Party bloc that owes nothing to Democrats for getting elected, that changes in a hurry.
With that kind of political power, voter enthusiasm in the bloc would likely increase. Rather than field a presidential candidate destined for the fringe, however, the BLM Party could demand concessions for delivering its voting bloc to one of the major-party candidates. That would probably function mostly as a strongarm technique against Democrats for a while, until the party moderated away from its most Marxist-extremist, pie-in-the-sky agenda items to focus on achievable goals — an evolution that the promise of real power would almost certainly incentivize. That kind of real-power leverage would also stoke black voter turnout to higher levels in 2016 and maybe even at a constant 2008 level, which would make their endorsement critical — and likely decisive in either direction.
If that’s what Johnson has in mind, it would be nothing short of brilliant, at least in general political terms. “The Democratic Party is terrified of the notion,” Johnson says, but I’m not so sure that the Republican Party would feel too much differently in the end.


hotair--2020-06-24--Rampage: Protesters now targeting statues of Lincoln, feminist and anti-slavery figures for some rea

Rampage: Protesters now targeting statues of Lincoln, feminist and anti-slavery figures for some reason

Last night brought a truly spectacular trifecta of self-owns by woke shock troops in Wisconsin and D.C. , the sort of thing that *should* ignite a backlash that ends the Jacobin moment America is enduring right now .
If it doesn ’ t then we might as well blow up the Lincoln Memorial ourselves so that at least it ’ s done in an orderly way before the mob gets to it .
Scene one : Outside the Wisconsin state capitol .
“ Who ready to f*** some sh*t up ?
” said one protest organizer to the crowd before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they encountered a statue of Hans Christian Heg .
Who ’ s he ?
“ Heg was a Norwegian immigrant , activist and abolitionist who led an anti-slave catcher militia helping slaves escape before serving as a Colonel for the Union army in the Civil War .
He was killed in the Battle of Chickmauga in north Georgia in 1863 , ” per Channel 3000 .
No matter .
Down he went : Scene two : Also outside the Wisconsin state capitol .
There ’ s another famous statue there , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The history of it is interesting : In 1895 sculptress Jean Pond Miner received an unusual honor for a woman of her day : her seven-foot tall allegorical statue “ Forward ” was given a prominent position at the Wisconsin State Capitol .
Miner completed her statue in 1893 at the World ’ s Columbian Exposition in Chicago , fulfilling a commission to create art representative of her native state .
“ Forward ” is an allegory of devotion and progress , qualities Miner felt Wisconsin embodied… Wisconsin women , who had raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forward ” in 1893 , provided the means for the figure ’ s long-term preservation as well .
Led by Wisconsin ’ s first lady Sue Ann Thompson and Camille Haney , women from across the state funded the creation of a bronze replica of “ Forward ” ( now displayed at the west entrance to Capitol Square at the end of State Street ) and the conservation and relocation of the original work to an indoor location at the Wisconsin Historical Society ’ s Headquarters building , where it was installed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a 19th-century woman and preserved by women patrons — as a monument to progress , no less .
No matter .
Down she went .
Why ’ d they target Forward ?
“ We ’ re not moving forward , we ’ re moving backwards , ” said one protester .
“ This ( statue ) doesn ’ t need to be here until we ’ re ready to move forward.
” Which sounds suspiciously like a lame ex post rationalization to justify the impulse to “ f*** some sh*t up.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were abused last night at the capitol , here ’ s what happened to a state senator who was documenting the scene : “ I don ’ t know what happened … all I did was stop and take a picture … and the next thing I ’ m getting five-six punches , getting kicked in the head , ” said Carpenter afterward .
Mobs are gon na mob , you know .
Scene three : Washington , D.C .
Surely statues of Lincoln are safe in this environment , no ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong ?
It seems it ’ s not Lincoln per se that ’ s the problem but rather this particular statue .
Like the Teddy Roosevelt statue outside the Museum of Natural History , it depicts a black figure in a posture of subservience to a white hero , a slave kneeling at the feet of the Great Emancipator in gratitude .
But there ’ s a difference between the Lincoln statue and the Roosevelt one : The Lincoln monument was funded entirely by former slaves .
None other than Frederick Douglass spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagery , it ’ s an unusual public document by African-Americans in the late 19th century , a period when they didn ’ t have a voice in the public square .
You would think the protesters would honor them , however ambivalently , by leaving the statue alone .
No matter .
It has to come down — unless police step in , I mean .
Wisconsin ’ s Democratic governor assured the public that he ’ s prepared to call in the National Guard to protect state buildings after windows were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was set outside another .
But whether anyone ’ s going to protect the monuments that the public has erected to worthy heroes remains an open question .
Why have the vandals embarked on a rampage of destroying statues willy-nilly ?
A toxic mix of impulses , I suspect .
One is mindless iconoclasm , smashing idols for the sheer pleasure of doing it .
Another is some latent belief that anything that ’ s old is necessarily racist and regressive and should be smashed on principle .
A third , more ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Jacobins that it ’ s time to remake America ’ s civic culture from the ground up , which means wiping away all icons of the past .
And the fourth is probably just wanting to make an old-fashioned show of political strength , proving that their side has the numbers to remake the civic landscape — literally — and no one with authority feels they have the legitimacy or popular support to stop them .
We ’ ll see about that .

Last night brought a truly spectacular trifecta of self-owns by woke shock troops in Wisconsin and D.C., the sort of thing that *should* ignite a backlash that ends the Jacobin moment America is enduring right now.
If it doesn’t then we might as well blow up the Lincoln Memorial ourselves so that at least it’s done in an orderly way before the mob gets to it.
Scene one: Outside the Wisconsin state capitol. “Who ready to f*** some sh*t up?” said one protest organizer to the crowd before they advanced towards the building, where they encountered a statue of Hans Christian Heg. Who’s he? “Heg was a Norwegian immigrant, activist and abolitionist who led an anti-slave catcher militia helping slaves escape before serving as a Colonel for the Union army in the Civil War. He was killed in the Battle of Chickmauga in north Georgia in 1863,” per Channel 3000. No matter. Down he went:
Another view of the now-empty pedestal: pic.twitter.com/u2yff0edpM — Christina Lorey (@ChristinaLorey) June 24, 2020
Scene two: Also outside the Wisconsin state capitol. There’s another famous statue there, one of a female figure named “Forward.” The history of it is interesting:
In 1895 sculptress Jean Pond Miner received an unusual honor for a woman of her day: her seven-foot tall allegorical statue “Forward” was given a prominent position at the Wisconsin State Capitol. Miner completed her statue in 1893 at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, fulfilling a commission to create art representative of her native state. “Forward” is an allegory of devotion and progress, qualities Miner felt Wisconsin embodied… Wisconsin women, who had raised the funds for the creation of “Forward” in 1893, provided the means for the figure’s long-term preservation as well. Led by Wisconsin’s first lady Sue Ann Thompson and Camille Haney, women from across the state funded the creation of a bronze replica of “Forward” (now displayed at the west entrance to Capitol Square at the end of State Street) and the conservation and relocation of the original work to an indoor location at the Wisconsin Historical Society’s Headquarters building, where it was installed in 1998.
So the original was sculpted by a 19th-century woman and preserved by women patrons — as a monument to progress, no less. No matter. Down she went.
Protesters just tore down the Forward statue on the steps of the Capitol in Madison. Here is a video of it that is not sideways: pic.twitter.com/DdQcZ5Pal5 — Emily Hamer (@ehamer7) June 24, 2020
Protesters poured baking soda over the statue’s face. Not sure what the significance of that is. pic.twitter.com/3IfYORn7TK — Emily Hamer (@ehamer7) June 24, 2020
Why’d they target Forward? “We’re not moving forward, we’re moving backwards,” said one protester. “This (statue) doesn’t need to be here until we’re ready to move forward.” Which sounds suspiciously like a lame ex post rationalization to justify the impulse to “f*** some sh*t up.”
Lest you think it was just statues that were abused last night at the capitol, here’s what happened to a state senator who was documenting the scene:
I took this pic- it got me assaulted & beat up. Punched/kicked in the head, neck, ribs. Maybe concussion, socked in left eye is little blurry, sore neck & ribs. 8-10 people attacked me. Innocent people are going to get killed. Capitol locked- stuck in office.Stop violence nowPlz! pic.twitter.com/Zw2hdfYG66 — Tim Carpenter (@TimCarpenterMKE) June 24, 2020
“I don’t know what happened … all I did was stop and take a picture … and the next thing I’m getting five-six punches, getting kicked in the head,” said Carpenter afterward. Mobs are gonna mob, you know.
Scene three: Washington, D.C. Surely statues of Lincoln are safe in this environment, no? No.
"Thursday at 7pm, we're tearing this motherf–ker down." Protestors set a date and time to attempt to tear down the Emancipation Memorial in DC depicting President Abraham Lincoln standing over a freed slave.pic.twitter.com/zQKuSiqGaN — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) June 24, 2020
What’d Lincoln do wrong? It seems it’s not Lincoln per se that’s the problem but rather this particular statue. Like the Teddy Roosevelt statue outside the Museum of Natural History, it depicts a black figure in a posture of subservience to a white hero, a slave kneeling at the feet of the Great Emancipator in gratitude. But there’s a difference between the Lincoln statue and the Roosevelt one: The Lincoln monument was funded entirely by former slaves. None other than Frederick Douglass spoke at its dedication. However antiquated the imagery, it’s an unusual public document by African-Americans in the late 19th century, a period when they didn’t have a voice in the public square. You would think the protesters would honor them, however ambivalently, by leaving the statue alone. No matter. It has to come down — unless police step in, I mean.
Wisconsin’s Democratic governor assured the public that he’s prepared to call in the National Guard to protect state buildings after windows were broken on some and a small fire was set outside another. But whether anyone’s going to protect the monuments that the public has erected to worthy heroes remains an open question.
Why have the vandals embarked on a rampage of destroying statues willy-nilly? A toxic mix of impulses, I suspect. One is mindless iconoclasm, smashing idols for the sheer pleasure of doing it. Another is some latent belief that anything that’s old is necessarily racist and regressive and should be smashed on principle. A third, more ideological one is the Year Zero mentality of some Jacobins that it’s time to remake America’s civic culture from the ground up, which means wiping away all icons of the past. And the fourth is probably just wanting to make an old-fashioned show of political strength, proving that their side has the numbers to remake the civic landscape — literally — and no one with authority feels they have the legitimacy or popular support to stop them. We’ll see about that.


hotair--2020-06-24--Breaking: Appellate court orders end to Flynn prosecution

It ’ s all over but the shouting , and perhaps one last bit of red tape .
Within the last hour , the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn .
The vote broke 2-1 on the order , which might have come as a surprise after the arguments two weeks ago in court over the Department of Justice motion to dismiss : The general consensus after oral arguments was that the appellate court sounded unconvinced that the issue was ripe enough for an intervention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Judge Neomi Rao , the court ruled that Sullivan didn ’ t have the authority to deny the executive branch the right to withdraw the case , not even temporarily to conduct his own investigation .
Under Fokker Servs BV among other precedents , the “ leave of court ” principle is only a pro forma step unless the judge has evidence to demonstrate corruption : Whatever the precise scope of Rule 48 ’ s “ leave of court ” requirement , this is plainly not the rare case where further judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Flynn agrees with the government ’ s motion to dismiss , and there has been no allegation that the motion reflects prosecutorial harassment .
Additionally , the government ’ s motion includes an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn ’ s guilt into doubt .
See Mot .
to Dismiss , ECF No .
198 .
Specifically , the government points to evidence that the FBI interview at which Flynn allegedly made false statements was “ untethered to , and unjustified by , the FBI ’ s counterintelligence investigation into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In light of this evidence , the government maintains it can not “ prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.
” Id .
Insufficient evidence is a quintessential justification for dismissing charges .
See Ammidown , 497 F.2d at 623 ( explaining that a motion to dismiss should be granted “ if it is explained to the judge that there was … an insufficiency of evidence … or other similar consideration ” ) .
The government ’ s representations about the insufficiency of the evidence are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.
” United States v. Armstrong , 517 U.S. 456 , 464 ( 1996 ) ( quotation marks omitted ) .
On the record before the district court , there is no clear evidence contrary to the government ’ s representations .
The justifications the district court offers in support of further inquiry—for instance , that only the U.S. Attorney signed the motion , without any line prosecutors , and that the motion is longer than most Rule 48 ( a ) motions—are insufficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the government is entitled .
Rao , writing for herself and Judge Karen Henderson , concludes that Sullivan ’ s proposed amici-brief circus would do “ specific harms ” to executive-branch authority , and might even be intended to do so .
On that score , Rao took specific aim at Judge John Gleeson and his extraordinary investigative demands : In this case , the district court ’ s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the Executive Branch ’ s exclusive prosecutorial power .
The contemplated proceedings would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internal deliberative process behind its exercise of prosecutorial discretion , interfering with the Article II charging authority .
Newman , 382 F.2d at 481 ( citing United States v. Cox , 342 F.2d 167 , 171 ( 5th Cir .
1965 ) ) .
Thus , the district court ’ s appointment of the amicus and demonstrated intent to scrutinize the reasoning and motives of the Department of Justice constitute irreparable harms that can not be remedied on appeal .
See Cobell , 334 F.3d at 1140 ( “ [ I ] nterference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Government of the United States … can not be remedied by an appeal from the final judgment.
” ) ; see also Cheney , 542 U.S. at 382 .
… And we need not guess if this irregular and searching scrutiny will continue ; it already has .
On May 15 , Gleeson moved for permission to file a brief addressing , among other things , “ any additional factual development [ he ] may need before finalizing [ his ] argument ” and suggesting a briefing and argument schedule .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ No .
1:17-cr-232 , ECF No .
209 , at 1–2 ( May 15 , 2020 ) .
The district court granted the motion and then set a lengthy briefing schedule and a July 16 , 2020 , hearing .
See May 19 , 2020 , Minute Order , No .
1:17- cr-232 .
In his brief opposing the government ’ s motion , Gleeson asserted the government ’ s reasons for dismissal were “ pretext ” and accused the government of “ gross prosecutorial abuse.
” Amicus Br.
, No .
1:17-cr-232 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 38–59 ( June 10 , 2020 ) .
He relied on news stories , tweets , and other facts outside the record to contrast the government ’ s grounds for dismissal here with its rationales for prosecution in other cases .
See id .
at 43 , 46–47 , 57–59 .
These actions foretell not only that the scrutiny will continue but that it may intensify .
Among other things , the government may be required to justify its charging decisions , not only in this case , but also in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s brief .
Moreover , Gleeson encouraged the district court to scrutinize the government ’ s view of the strength of its case—a core aspect of the Executive ’ s charging authority .
See In re United States , 345 F.3d 450 , 453 ( 7th Cir .
2003 ) ( condemning district court ’ s failure to dismiss criminal charges based on its view that “ the government has exaggerated the risk of losing at trial ” ) .
As explained above , our cases are crystal clear that the district court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ See Fokker Servs.
, 818 F.3d at 742 ; Ammidown , 497 F.2d at 623 .
Flynn didn ’ t win everything ; the appellate court declined to remove Sullivan from the case .
With a writ of mandamus in hand , however , that won ’ t matter much either way .
Judge Robert Wilkins dissented , mainly arguing that the case wasn ’ t yet ripe for intervention .
Why not wait for Sullivan to rule ?
By issuing a writ of mandamus , Wilkins argues , the court has exceeded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the majority accuses Sullivan of committing : It is a great irony that , in finding the District Court to have exceeded its jurisdiction , this Court so grievously oversteps its own .
This appears to be the first time that we have issued a writ of mandamus to compel a district court to rule in a particular manner on a motion without first giving the lower court a reasonable opportunity to issue its own ruling ; the first time any court has held that a district court must grant “ leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Criminal Procedure 48 ( a ) without even holding a hearing on the merits of the motion ; and the first time we have issued the writ even though the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy , on the theory that another party would not have had an adequate alternate remedy if it had filed a petition as well .
Any one of these is sufficient reason to exercise our discretion to deny the petition ; together , they compel its rejection .
Interestingly , Wilkins never gets around to what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which formed a very strong part of Rao ’ s decision that Sullivan ’ s circus presented irreparable harm to executive authority and prosecutorial prerogative .
Nor does Wilkins address the issue that the prosecution submitted evidence of prior investigative and prosecutorial misconduct which would normally necessitate the dismissal of charges , at least without prejudice .
Rao , however , circles back to a seven-point rebuttal of Wilkins ’ dissent .
She specifically cites Sullivan ’ s actions after the dismissal motion to show that the court is “ acting , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rules : Fifth , the dissent minimizes the import of the district court ’ s orders , claiming that we are granting mandamus “ before the district court has acted.
” Dissenting Op .
2 ( quotation marks omitted ) .
Yet the district court has acted here .
It has ordered briefing and scheduled a hearing in order to provide a court-appointed amicus the opportunity “ to present arguments in opposition to the government ’ s Motion to Dismiss.
” Order Appointing Amicus Curiae , ECF No .
205 , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court has appointed one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue the charges .
Although no decision has yet been made on the motion to dismiss , the district court ’ s judicial supervision , detailed supra 7–8 , “ threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor ’ s motives and decisionmaking to outside inquiry.
” Wayte v. United States , 470 U.S. 598 , 607–08 ( 1985 ) .
As explained above , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internal deliberations ” of the Executive Branch to be a quintessential irreparable injury giving rise to mandamus .
Cobell , 334 F.3d at 1140–43 .
… This is not a case about whether “ a district judge may even hold a hearing on a Rule 48 ( a ) motion.
” Dissenting Op .
11 ( emphasis omitted ) .
Rather , it is about whether , after the government has explained why a prosecution is no longer in the public interest , the district judge may prolong the prosecution by appointing an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probing the government ’ s motives .
On that , both the Constitution and cases are clear : he may not .
Now the question will be whether this goes any further .
Sullivan hired outside counsel to represent him in this appeal , an extraordinary ( but not entirely unprecedented ) move .
Does that signal his willingness to keep fighting , even with both parties to this prosecution in agreement on dismissal ?
Sullivan could theoretically demand an en banc hearing , or appeal to the Supreme Court .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former over the latter , but the odds are long either way .
His appointment of Gleeson , and Gleeson ’ s antics afterward , probably did more damage to Sullivan ’ s standing with his peers than anything else in this argument .
Indeed , absent Gleeson ’ s actions , this court might not have issued a mandamus writ at all .

It’s all over but the shouting, and perhaps one last bit of red tape. Within the last hour, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn. The vote broke 2-1 on the order, which might have come as a surprise after the arguments two weeks ago in court over the Department of Justice motion to dismiss:
BREAKING – DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules Michael Flynn case can end and DOJ’s request to drop charges be accepted by the federal district court. pic.twitter.com/qPWmyZlO6M — Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) June 24, 2020
The general consensus after oral arguments was that the appellate court sounded unconvinced that the issue was ripe enough for an intervention. Instead, in an opinion authored by Judge Neomi Rao, the court ruled that Sullivan didn’t have the authority to deny the executive branch the right to withdraw the case, not even temporarily to conduct his own investigation. Under Fokker Servs BV among other precedents, the “leave of court” principle is only a pro forma step unless the judge has evidence to demonstrate corruption:
Whatever the precise scope of Rule 48’s “leave of court” requirement, this is plainly not the rare case where further judicial inquiry is warranted. To begin with, Flynn agrees with the government’s motion to dismiss, and there has been no allegation that the motion reflects prosecutorial harassment. Additionally, the government’s motion includes an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn’s guilt into doubt. See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 198. Specifically, the government points to evidence that the FBI interview at which Flynn allegedly made false statements was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn.” Id. at 2. In light of this evidence, the government maintains it cannot “prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Insufficient evidence is a quintessential justification for dismissing charges. See Ammidown, 497 F.2d at 623 (explaining that a motion to dismiss should be granted “if it is explained to the judge that there was … an insufficiency of evidence … or other similar consideration”). The government’s representations about the insufficiency of the evidence are entitled to a “presumption of regularity … in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quotation marks omitted). On the record before the district court, there is no clear evidence contrary to the government’s representations. The justifications the district court offers in support of further inquiry—for instance, that only the U.S. Attorney signed the motion, without any line prosecutors, and that the motion is longer than most Rule 48(a) motions—are insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity to which the government is entitled.
Rao, writing for herself and Judge Karen Henderson, concludes that Sullivan’s proposed amici-brief circus would do “specific harms” to executive-branch authority, and might even be intended to do so. On that score, Rao took specific aim at Judge John Gleeson and his extraordinary investigative demands:
In this case, the district court’s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the Executive Branch’s exclusive prosecutorial power. The contemplated proceedings would likely require the Executive to reveal the internal deliberative process behind its exercise of prosecutorial discretion, interfering with the Article II charging authority. Newman, 382 F.2d at 481 (citing United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965)). Thus, the district court’s appointment of the amicus and demonstrated intent to scrutinize the reasoning and motives of the Department of Justice constitute irreparable harms that cannot be remedied on appeal. See Cobell, 334 F.3d at 1140 (“[I]nterference with the internal deliberations of a Department of the Government of the United States … cannot be remedied by an appeal from the final judgment.”); see also Cheney, 542 U.S. at 382. … And we need not guess if this irregular and searching scrutiny will continue; it already has. On May 15, Gleeson moved for permission to file a brief addressing, among other things, “any additional factual development [he] may need before finalizing [his] argument” and suggesting a briefing and argument schedule. Mot. to File Amicus Br., No. 1:17-cr-232, ECF No. 209, at 1–2 (May 15, 2020). The district court granted the motion and then set a lengthy briefing schedule and a July 16, 2020, hearing. See May 19, 2020, Minute Order, No. 1:17- cr-232. In his brief opposing the government’s motion, Gleeson
asserted the government’s reasons for dismissal were “pretext” and accused the government of “gross prosecutorial abuse.” Amicus Br., No. 1:17-cr-232, ECF No. 225, at 38–59 (June 10, 2020). He relied on news stories, tweets, and other facts outside the record to contrast the government’s grounds for dismissal here with its rationales for prosecution in other cases. See id. at 43, 46–47, 57–59. These actions foretell not only that the scrutiny will continue but that it may intensify. Among other things, the government may be required to justify its charging decisions, not only in this case, but also in the past or pending cases cited in Gleeson’s brief. Moreover, Gleeson encouraged the district court to scrutinize the government’s view of the strength of its case—a core aspect of the Executive’s charging authority. See In re United States, 345 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2003)
(condemning district court’s failure to dismiss criminal charges based on its view that “the government has exaggerated the risk of losing at trial”). As explained above, our cases are crystal clear that the district court is without authority to do so. See Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 742; Ammidown, 497 F.2d at 623.
Flynn didn’t win everything; the appellate court declined to remove Sullivan from the case. With a writ of mandamus in hand, however, that won’t matter much either way.
Judge Robert Wilkins dissented, mainly arguing that the case wasn’t yet ripe for intervention. Why not wait for Sullivan to rule? By issuing a writ of mandamus, Wilkins argues, the court has exceeded its own authority — the same error that the majority accuses Sullivan of committing:
It is a great irony that, in finding the District Court to have exceeded its jurisdiction, this Court so grievously oversteps its own. This appears to be the first time that we have issued a writ of mandamus to compel a district court to rule in a particular manner on a motion without first giving the lower court a reasonable opportunity to issue its own ruling; the first time any court has held that a district court must grant “leave of court” pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) without even holding a hearing on the merits of the motion; and the first time we have issued the writ even though the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy, on the theory that another party would not have had an adequate alternate remedy if it had filed a petition as well. Any one of these is sufficient reason to exercise our discretion to deny the petition; together, they compel its rejection.
Interestingly, Wilkins never gets around to what he thinks of Gleeson’s antics, which formed a very strong part of Rao’s decision that Sullivan’s circus presented irreparable harm to executive authority and prosecutorial prerogative. Nor does Wilkins address the issue that the prosecution submitted evidence of prior investigative and prosecutorial misconduct which would normally necessitate the dismissal of charges, at least without prejudice.
Rao, however, circles back to a seven-point rebuttal of Wilkins’ dissent. She specifically cites Sullivan’s actions after the dismissal motion to show that the court is “acting,” and in a manner that violates precedents and rules:
Fifth, the dissent minimizes the import of the district court’s orders, claiming that we are granting mandamus “before the district court has acted.” Dissenting Op. 2 (quotation marks omitted). Yet the district court has acted here. It has ordered briefing and scheduled a hearing in order to provide a court-appointed amicus the opportunity “to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss.” Order Appointing Amicus Curiae, ECF No. 205, at 1. In other words, the court has appointed one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue the charges. Although no decision has yet been made on the motion to dismiss, the district court’s judicial supervision, detailed supra 7–8, “threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor’s motives and decisionmaking to outside inquiry.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607–08 (1985). As explained above, we have held such “interference with the internal deliberations” of the Executive Branch to be a quintessential irreparable injury giving rise to mandamus. Cobell, 334 F.3d at 1140–43. … This is not a case about whether “a district judge may even hold a hearing on a Rule 48(a) motion.” Dissenting Op. 11 (emphasis omitted). Rather, it is about whether, after the government has explained why a prosecution is no longer in the public interest, the district judge may prolong the prosecution by appointing an amicus,
encouraging public participation, and probing the government’s motives. On that, both the Constitution and cases are clear: he may not.
Now the question will be whether this goes any further. Sullivan hired outside counsel to represent him in this appeal, an extraordinary (but not entirely unprecedented) move. Does that signal his willingness to keep fighting, even with both parties to this prosecution in agreement on dismissal? Sullivan could theoretically demand an en banc hearing, or appeal to the Supreme Court. He’d have a lot more luck with the former over the latter, but the odds are long either way. His appointment of Gleeson, and Gleeson’s antics afterward, probably did more damage to Sullivan’s standing with his peers than anything else in this argument. Indeed, absent Gleeson’s actions, this court might not have issued a mandamus writ at all.


hotair--2020-06-24--"It's a mandate": AOC handily beats CNBC host in NY primary

Good news , sorta .
Looks like we ’ ll have AOC to kick around for another two years .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez buried her Democratic primary challenger Michelle Caruso-Cabrera , a former CNBC reporter who tried to unseat the frosh Representative after her “ fluke ” election in 2018 .
After winning 72.6 % of the vote in NY-14 , Ocasio-Cortez wants her props for a “ mandate ” : A mandate for … what , exactly ?
Perhaps AOC doesn ’ t realize this , but a win in a congressional district — even a big one like she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ mandate ” that extends beyond the district ’ s borders .
In fact , this was a primary , so technically this is a “ mandate ” among Democrats , not the general electorate .
However , there is evidence that the progressive mandate among Democrats does extend beyond NY-14 .
The race in NY-16 hasn ’ t yet been called , but incumbent Rep. Eliot Engel is trailing his progressive challenger Jamaal Bowman by almost 27 points , with 95 % of precincts reporting .
Engel serves as House Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latest member of House Democratic leadership to fall to a primary challenge : Bowman , a former middle school principal who ’ s seen a late surge in the polls and fundraising , garnered 61 percent of the vote early Wednesday morning with 85 percent of precincts reporting .
Engel , a 16-term incumbent , trailed in second with 36 percent of the vote .
A win by Bowman would provide progressives a huge political scalp as a number of insurgent candidates have launched challenges against establishment Democrats or longtime incumbents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nationwide protests against racial injustice roiling the country after the death of George Floyd while in police custody in Minneapolis .
Bowman would also become the second New York progressive to defeat a senior lawmaker after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) stunned the political world by defeating former Rep. Joseph Crowley in a 2018 primary .
However , the count so far does not account for a surge in absentee ballots seen in New York as the coronavirus pandemic has led states to boost their mailed vote options .
New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordered mail-in ballot applications to be sent to every registered voter in the state for the primary , which was delayed from late April .
That ’ s the only reason Decision Desk HQ and other outlets haven ’ t called NY-16 , but that ’ s a gap that likely can ’ t be made up with absentee ballots .
The vote lead is just under 12,000 , which is a lot of ground to make up in a House primary no matter how popular vote-by-mail turns out to be .
Engel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victim of the progressive surge .
He might not be the last one this cycle in New York , either .
Carolyn Maloney is clinging to a narrow lead in NY-12 over former Team Obama campaigner Suraj Patel , 41.7/40.6 .
Maloney , who chairs the House Oversight Committee , may extend that lead in the absentee balloting , but Patel ’ s experience as a campaigner might provide him with a GOTV edge in that area .
If progressives manage to push out three big-time establishment figures in New York ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in declaring a “ mandate , ” at least within her own party .
But what happens when that “ mandate ” gets tested in a general election — and not around New York City , but in suburbs and exurbs across the US ?
It seems at least arguable that it will end up like all purity campaigns — with a solid grip on both the moral high ground and the minority .

Good news, sorta. Looks like we’ll have AOC to kick around for another two years. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez buried her Democratic primary challenger Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, a former CNBC reporter who tried to unseat the frosh Representative after her “fluke” election in 2018. After winning 72.6% of the vote in NY-14, Ocasio-Cortez wants her props for a “mandate”:
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said her reported results of about 70% of the vote, which put her far ahead of challenger Michelle Caruso-Cabrera in the Democratic primary election, would be a ‘transformative’ mandate https://t.co/RNnk2PyljQ pic.twitter.com/m2HqKjIu2H — Reuters (@Reuters) June 24, 2020
When I won in 2018, many dismissed our victory as a “fluke.” Our win was treated as an aberration, or bc my opponent “didn’t try.” So from the start, tonight’s race was important to me. Tonight we are proving that the people’s movement in NY isn’t an accident. It‘s a mandate. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 24, 2020
A mandate for … what, exactly? Perhaps AOC doesn’t realize this, but a win in a congressional district — even a big one like she won last night — isn’t a “mandate” that extends beyond the district’s borders. In fact, this was a primary, so technically this is a “mandate” among Democrats, not the general electorate.
However, there is evidence that the progressive mandate among Democrats does extend beyond NY-14. The race in NY-16 hasn’t yet been called, but incumbent Rep. Eliot Engel is trailing his progressive challenger Jamaal Bowman by almost 27 points, with 95% of precincts reporting. Engel serves as House Foreign Affairs Committee chair, and would be the latest member of House Democratic leadership to fall to a primary challenge:
Bowman, a former middle school principal who’s seen a late surge in the polls and fundraising, garnered 61 percent of the vote early Wednesday morning with 85 percent of precincts reporting. Engel, a 16-term incumbent, trailed in second with 36 percent of the vote. A win by Bowman would provide progressives a huge political scalp as a number of insurgent candidates have launched challenges against establishment Democrats or longtime incumbents. Their bids have received a boost amid the nationwide protests against racial injustice roiling the country after the death of George Floyd while in police custody in Minneapolis. Bowman would also become the second New York progressive to defeat a senior lawmaker after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) stunned the political world by defeating former Rep. Joseph Crowley in a 2018 primary. However, the count so far does not account for a surge in absentee ballots seen in New York as the coronavirus pandemic has led states to boost their mailed vote options. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) ordered mail-in ballot applications to be sent to every registered voter in the state for the primary, which was delayed from late April.
That’s the only reason Decision Desk HQ and other outlets haven’t called NY-16, but that’s a gap that likely can’t be made up with absentee ballots. The vote lead is just under 12,000, which is a lot of ground to make up in a House primary no matter how popular vote-by-mail turns out to be. Engel is almost certainly toast, the latest victim of the progressive surge.
He might not be the last one this cycle in New York, either. Carolyn Maloney is clinging to a narrow lead in NY-12 over former Team Obama campaigner Suraj Patel, 41.7/40.6. Maloney, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, may extend that lead in the absentee balloting, but Patel’s experience as a campaigner might provide him with a GOTV edge in that area.
If progressives manage to push out three big-time establishment figures in New York’s primaries, then AOC might be correct in declaring a “mandate,” at least within her own party. But what happens when that “mandate” gets tested in a general election — and not around New York City, but in suburbs and exurbs across the US? It seems at least arguable that it will end up like all purity campaigns — with a solid grip on both the moral high ground and the minority.


hotair--2020-06-24--As the protests make less sense the media does its part to keep them churning along

Those who are supposed to offer clarity instead deliver nonsense .
As activist groups go they crave a tipping point , that moment when their messaging is absorbed by a greater number and their cause grows into a movement .
There is a risk as well , when the push becomes an annoyance to more people than you are converting .
We are well past this second example , as the racial strife we see across the news channels is less successful at raising awareness than it is now at raising ire .
With growing frequency we are seeing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearance of pure anarchy , and the general public is growing tired of it all .
Militant-minded disruptors are trying to occupy sections of cities and throughout the country we are seeing statues and monuments being toppled like a third world purge is taking place .
As this is all playing out our media complex is not simply standing back and reporting on these idiotic instances , they are cheering them along and promoting the messaging .
To start , look at the glowing ways the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP event has been covered .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are literally taking over square blocks of a city where businesses and residences are located , hardly any condemnation of the local politicians who have permitted this illegal occupation .
We do hear how these adorable insurgents have attempted to make their own garden , however .
The press seems intent on overlooking the obvious while attempting to gaslight on a peaceable gathering .
Grudgingly there has been coverage of some of the violence within this police-free zone , but the journalists do not want to explore too deeply .
They do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly springs out of the Black Lives Matter movement has cost the life of one black individual .
And note the dichotomy of coverage between this ‘ ’ protest ’ ’ and those that we saw in Michigan last month .
When citizens went to the Michigan state capitol a number of permit-carrying gun owners had their firearms .
Across the media landscape this was declared a ‘ ’ storming ’ ’ of the government building ( as police supervised them walking in , after submitting to temperature checks ) and the gathering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intonations of impending violence in many reports .
Not a law was broken , but it was dangerous .
With CHAZ the press has been sanguine about a self-appointed Warlord , one who was illegally handing out guns to the occupiers .
With fatal shootings we have yet to hear anything approaching the condemnation we heard out of Lansing .
More than just delivering generous pats on the head the press is intent on serving as the PR arm of the new movement .
Following his Saturday rally speech President Trump spoke against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is taking place .
A number of journalists rebuked this passage , insisting he was promoting the hateful racism of the Confederacy .
To make this charge they had to have that accusation pre-written , because they clearly did not hear those words from Trump .
He dropped historical names , such as Washington , Jefferson , and Columbus — names I apparently need to note predated the Confederacy .
At a recent White House briefing PBS activist and occasional reporter , Yamiche Alcindor , forwarded this narrative .
Yamiche asked Kayleigh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down Confederate statues was an assault on our heritage .
To ask such a question Alcindor has to promote a number of factual blind spots ; that the President did not name those Founders , that our heritage goes no further back than the civil war , and that currently only confederate monuments are being targeted .
McEnany adroitly responded with a number of names targeted , asking where do we draw the line , at Ghandi ?
Alcindor reveals the precise methodology of the media these days .
Just this week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jackson statue in D.C. That video is revealing for a number of reasons , mostly for the things you do not see .
There are no signs or banners for a cause .
There are also very few POC individuals .
Also there is no clear reason why Jackson ’ s monument is considered connected in any fashion to the current outrage across the country .
The other thing lacking is journalistic perspective .
No one in the media is willing call out this behavior , none are able to question how this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Also lacking are the names of any of the black victims of violence who sparked this activism .
How is Georg Floyd ’ s memory honored by going after statues of disconnected figures ?
How is the plight of black citizens improved by targeting the statue of musician Stevie Ray Vaughn ?
How is police violence curtailed or even the broader claim of institutional racism addressed by going after a known abolitionist like Andrew Jackson ?
The press will not even entertain these questions .
There is just a narrative to promote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ go out to remove the musical ‘ ’ Hamilton ’ ’ from the Disney+ streaming service when it debuts on July , 3 .
Many in the press love that show .
Now they will be in a position of either defending a beloved show , or supporting the censoring of more art in this country .
The press will look bad if either instance rears up .

Those who are supposed to offer clarity instead deliver nonsense.
As activist groups go they crave a tipping point, that moment when their messaging is absorbed by a greater number and their cause grows into a movement. There is a risk as well, when the push becomes an annoyance to more people than you are converting. We are well past this second example, as the racial strife we see across the news channels is less successful at raising awareness than it is now at raising ire.
With growing frequency we are seeing the actions of these activists taking on the appearance of pure anarchy, and the general public is growing tired of it all. Militant-minded disruptors are trying to occupy sections of cities and throughout the country we are seeing statues and monuments being toppled like a third world purge is taking place. As this is all playing out our media complex is not simply standing back and reporting on these idiotic instances, they are cheering them along and promoting the messaging.
To start, look at the glowing ways the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP event has been covered. We get scant coverage of how they are literally taking over square blocks of a city where businesses and residences are located, hardly any condemnation of the local politicians who have permitted this illegal occupation. We do hear how these adorable insurgents have attempted to make their own garden, however. The press seems intent on overlooking the obvious while attempting to gaslight on a peaceable gathering.
Grudgingly there has been coverage of some of the violence within this police-free zone, but the journalists do not want to explore too deeply. They do not want to report how this movement that allegedly springs out of the Black Lives Matter movement has cost the life of one black individual. And note the dichotomy of coverage between this ‘’protest’’ and those that we saw in Michigan last month.
When citizens went to the Michigan state capitol a number of permit-carrying gun owners had their firearms. Across the media landscape this was declared a ‘’storming’’ of the government building (as police supervised them walking in, after submitting to temperature checks) and the gathering was painted as a threat, with intonations of impending violence in many reports. Not a law was broken, but it was dangerous. With CHAZ the press has been sanguine about a self-appointed Warlord, one who was illegally handing out guns to the occupiers. With fatal shootings we have yet to hear anything approaching the condemnation we heard out of Lansing.
More than just delivering generous pats on the head the press is intent on serving as the PR arm of the new movement. Following his Saturday rally speech President Trump spoke against the tearing down of our historical features that is taking place. A number of journalists rebuked this passage, insisting he was promoting the hateful racism of the Confederacy. To make this charge they had to have that accusation pre-written, because they clearly did not hear those words from Trump. He dropped historical names, such as Washington, Jefferson, and Columbus — names I apparently need to note predated the Confederacy. At a recent White House briefing PBS activist and occasional reporter, Yamiche Alcindor, forwarded this narrative.
Yamiche asked Kayleigh McEnany about the President saying that taking down Confederate statues was an assault on our heritage. To ask such a question Alcindor has to promote a number of factual blind spots; that the President did not name those Founders, that our heritage goes no further back than the civil war, and that currently only confederate monuments are being targeted. McEnany adroitly responded with a number of names targeted, asking where do we draw the line, at Ghandi?
Alcindor reveals the precise methodology of the media these days. Just this week, another monument was targeted — an Andrew Jackson statue in D.C.
That video is revealing for a number of reasons, mostly for the things you do not see. There are no signs or banners for a cause. There are also very few POC individuals. Also there is no clear reason why Jackson’s monument is considered connected in any fashion to the current outrage across the country.
The other thing lacking is journalistic perspective. No one in the media is willing call out this behavior, none are able to question how this serves the cause in any fashion. Also lacking are the names of any of the black victims of violence who sparked this activism. How is Georg Floyd’s memory honored by going after statues of disconnected figures? How is the plight of black citizens improved by targeting the statue of musician Stevie Ray Vaughn? How is police violence curtailed or even the broader claim of institutional racism addressed by going after a known abolitionist like Andrew Jackson?
The press will not even entertain these questions. There is just a narrative to promote. We will note their silence as calls go out to remove the musical ‘’Hamilton’’ from the Disney+ streaming service when it debuts on July, 3. Many in the press love that show. Now they will be in a position of either defending a beloved show, or supporting the censoring of more art in this country. The press will look bad if either instance rears up.