Attorney General William Barr announced that Geoffrey Berman will be stepping down as the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan. That clearly came as a surprise to Berman who dashed off a blistering response that he is neither resigning nor stepping down until a replacement is confirmed by the United States Senate. Berman could now be fired, but the move by Barr raises legitimate issues for congressional investigation since Berman has been at the forefront of the investigation into Trump associates, including an ongoing investigation into Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s business activities. The sudden late Friday replacement only added to those concerns and Barr needs to address these questions fully and quickly. This is a very serious matter if Berman is being canned due to his investigations, particularly given President Donald Trump’s continual criticism of those investigations. Update: As predicted, Trump has now fired Berman and Berman has agreed to leave immediately.
Category: Politics
We recently discussed the apology of the New York Times for publishing a column from a leading United States Senator on the possible use of troops to quell rioting after the death of George Floyd. That decision, and the sacking of the opinion page editor, represented one of the lowest moments in American journalism. It made echo journalism the official policy of one of the oldest news organizations in the United States. The lesson was not, it appears, lost on young college journalists at Syracuse University who sacked a columnist because she questioned claims of “institutional racism.” Adrianna San Marco notably did not write her opinion in The Daily Orange but she was canned for challenging this widely held view. My greatest concern is the lack of specificity from the editors on the objections to her column beyond “reinforcing stereotypes.” Such actions demand a clarity in the standard being applied to writers.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court had blocked the Trump Administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as an “arbitrary and capricious” change. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the four liberal judges, ruled that Trump’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act. It was another self-inflicted wound due to a poorly executed policy change in this area. The ruling is based on procedural failures, not the merits or the underlying authority.
Continue reading “Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Trump Administration Of DACA Rescission”
Last year, in columns and testimony, I chastised the Democrats for the shortest investigation on the narrowest grounds with the thinnest record of any presidential impeachment in history. The insistence of impeaching by Christmas doomed any chances of a compelling impeachment case. It appears now that one person agrees with that assessment: former National Security Adviser John Bolton. I referenced Bolton and his upcoming book as one of the reason why a little more time could vastly improve and expand the House case. Bolton said that he simply wanted a court to refer the privilege claim, which could have been accomplished easily in the time wasted by the House (including the long delay in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate). In response, the Democratic leadership is lashing out at Bolton for refusing to come forward despite his offer to do so after a federal judge heard the privilege claim.
Continue reading “Democrats Hit Bolton After He Accuses The House Of “Impeachment Malpractice””
Google has moved against another set of conservative sites. While many have celebrated the action against ZeroHedge and The Federalist, I remain deeply concerned over the free speech implications of such actions. I have written for years about public and private censorship, including recent actions to regulate and control speech on the Internet. Democratic leaders have been calling for censorship on the Internet and in social media for years, a move that will destroy the greatest forum for free speech in the history of the world. Writers have joined in this movement and two such academics recently declared “China was right” all along about censorship.
As will come as no surprise to many on this blog, I view this latest action as another form of private censorship that targets conservative sites while ignoring similar rhetoric from the left. I am not very complex when it comes to such conflicts over free speech. I am not as much concerned with the merits of these fights as the implication of targeting some sites over others. I know very little about ZeroHedge while I am familiar with some of the writers on The Federalist. Google has said comparatively little about the reason for barring the sites and what NBC originally reported has been contradicted by the company. However, it is the explanation given for the action taken against the Federalist that I wanted to address. It seems to follow the pattern of politically biased, content-based discrimination against conservative sites by companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google. Despite the clear bias shown in these actions, most academics are either applauding the crackdown or remaining conspicuously silent as companies silence those with opposing or unpopular views.
Continue reading “Google Targets Conservative Sites In Latest Crackdown”
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton has pledged to release his new tell-all book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” regardless of the lack of pre-publication approval from the Administration. This includes an ABC special this weekend to kick off his release. The move is extremely risky and the law is not on the side of Bolton who could conceivably not only lose his profits but his freedom over such a dispute.
Continue reading “Bolton’s Bold Move Could Result in Loss Of His Profits Or His Freedom”
Much of the discussion yesterday focused on the historic ruling in favor of workplace protections for LGBT workers. Lost in the coverage was another case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of another horrendous policy of the Trump Administration on the environment. I have been a long and vocal critic of President Donald Trump’s record on the environment and the Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline us the latest rollback on Obama era protections. The Court voted 7-2 decision in favor of the $5.1 billion pipeline project across one of our most cherished and most used natural areas: the Appalachian Trail.
Below is my column in the Hill on the controversy over the creation of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, better known as Chaz. Well, it was Chaz. “The autonomous zone formerly known as CHAZ” is now the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP). As W.C. Fields said “It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to.” The problem is that Chief Best said no one is answering their calls. Chief Carmen Best stated today that the name had apparently changed but that they have yet to identify people who will speak for CHAZ or CHOP. She also noted that there appears to be widely different demands. That presents a serious barrier to a resolution.
RIP CHAZ. All Hail CHOP, but the question of leadership remains. Here is the column:
Continue reading “Chopped: How Seattle Is Defining Leadership In Seattle And Washington”
We have been discussing the destruction of public art and history monuments by mobs who are often allowed to carry out such acts without police intervention, a problem that pre-existed the current protests (here and here and here). It was particularly alarming to see statues defaced or destroyed in London, including (bizarrely) a statue of Abraham Lincoln. The response in London and Paris is strikingly different but, in this tale of two cities, it is London that seems to be surrendering to the hysteria of the moment.
Continue reading “Tale of Two Cities: London and Paris Divide On The Preservation Of History”
The New York Times has run an opinion column by Mariame Kaba denouncing efforts by Democratic leaders and the media to try to spin the call for defunding the police as just a reallocation of funds and a new set of priorities and a new structure for policing. Kaba wrote “Yes, we mean literally abolish the police.” That opinion piece follows a warning by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., that Democrats and others trying to “repackage” the push to “Defund the Police” Notably, while the New York Times apologized for publishing an opinion piece by a ranking U.S. Senator on the use of federal troops to quell rioting, it has now problem with publishing a column calling for the abolishment of police. As discussed earlier, this is a movement that is moving rapidly to the left and repackaging is now considered counter-revolutionary.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on Mayor Muriel Bowser’s unquestioned statements about how she is shocked by the federal actions against peaceful demonstrators. Bowser told CNN’s Cooper “I think I’ve been shocked all week about how the federal government behaved against American citizens.” For some of us, the statement came across as a Claude Rains moment of being “shocked, shocked” that protesters are being silenced in D.C. She (and CNN) ignored the actions of her Chief of Police and her dismissal of objections of civil libertarians to Newsham’s appointment. Now, that was truly shocking.
Here is the column
Continue reading “Bowser’s Historical Revision: Before Lafayette Park, There Was Pershing Park”
Yes, we have reached over $26 trillion in debt and members are demanding more stimulus money. According to data released yesterday by the Treasury Department, we hit $26,003,751,512,344.91. That is the definition of ballooning and runaway debt but no one seems to be talking about it. We are now a credit card country that believes we can put the entire economy on layaway.
Continue reading “Debt: $26,003,751,512,344.91 . . . In Case You Are Counting”
Retired federal judge John Gleeson was recently appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to argue against dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and to advise him on whether the court should substitute its own charge of charge for Flynn for now claiming innocence. I have been highly critical of Sullivan’s orders and particularly the importation of third parties to make arguments that neither party supports in a criminal case. Now Gleeson has filed a brief that confirms the worst fears that many of us had about his appointment. Gleeson assails what he called “a trumped-up accusation of government misconduct.” The ultimate position advocated in Gleeson’s arguments would be a nightmare for criminal defendants, criminal defense counsel and civil libertarians. Indeed, as discussed below, Gleeson was previously reversed as a judge for usurping the authority of prosecutors.
Gleeson actually makes the Red Queen in “Alice in Wonderland” look like an ACLU lawyer. After all she just called for “Sentence First–Verdict Afterward” Gleeson is dispensing with any need for verdict on perjury, just the sentence. However, since these arguments are viewed as inimical to the Trump Administration, many seem blind to the chilling implications.
It seems that University of Chicago professors are much in the news this week. We recently discussed the controversy of posting by University of Chicago Professor Brian Leiter saying that military leaders should “depose” President Donald Trump and jail him. Now another Chicago professor is under fire. Notably, while no one called for Leiter to be fired for wistfully discussing a military coup, there is a chorus of writers and academics calling for the canning of Harald Uhlig, the senior editor of the prestigious the Journal of Political Economy. Uhlig is also the Bruce Allen and Barbara Ritzenthaler Professor in Economics at the University of Chicago. The reason is that Uhlig had the audacity to criticize Black Lives Matters and the movement to Defund The Police. Joining this effort is New York Times’ Paul Krugman, who is striking out at someone for giving his opposing view — an intolerant position that now appears to be official policy at the New York Times. It is all part of the new order where writers call for censorship, academics call for removing academic freedoms, artists call for art removal, and politicians call for dismantling police.
President Donald Trump tweeted another inflammatory and reckless tweet in suggesting that man injured in the controversial Buffalo police abuse case, Martin Gugino, 75, might be an “Antifa provocateur.” I previously discussed the case from a legal standpoint on the difficulty of proving assault in the second degree. However, it is highly inappropriate for a president to be spreading such claims on a case pending trial and without confirmation. We have discussed the loosely defined groups associated with Antifa but I have not seen proof that Gugino is one of those groups. The tweet is particularly distasteful given that Gugino remains in critical condition.
Continue reading “Trump Tweets Attack On Gugino As Possible “ANTIFA Provocateur””