AN OUTRAGEOUS PROSECUTION IN ATLANTA

BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN CRIME, POLICING

The Fulton County DA’s decision to charge officer Garrett Rolfe with murder struck me as highly dubious. It strikes Andy McCarthy as outrageous. Having read his article, I’m with Andy.

The murder charge is “felony murder.” This is an effort to get around the difficulty of proving that Rolfe intended to kill Rayshard Brooks. As McCarthy explains, “the homicide theory of felony murder is that, while the offender does not specifically intend to cause death, he does intentionally commit a felony from which death results.”

There still needs to be a felony, though. In this case, the alleged felony is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

However, says McCarthy, this underlying allegation “is ludicrous.” When a suspect forcibly resists arrest and steals an arresting officer’s taser, shooting back at the suspect is not aggravated assault.

Nor will it do for the prosecution to argue that, when Brooks shot at Rolfe with a taser, he wasn’t using deadly force. As McCarthy points out, the DA, Paul Howard, Jr., recently deemed a taser a deadly weapon under Georgia State law.

Howard made this statement when it was a police officer’s use of a taser that was in question. But, if anything, a taser is more deadly in the hands of a non-policeman. At least police officers are trained to use tasers safely.

Howard’s charging of Rolfe isn’t just unfounded, it is transparently political — an attempt to appease a mob. Why else would he bring the charges so quickly, before the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has completed its investigation?

Howard’s charge is probably also political in the direct, electoral sense. He’s seeking reelection, and trailing his opponent in the polls, while contending with sexual-harassment accusations by two women who worked in his office. Furthermore, according to McCarthy, there are allegations that Howard violated campaign-finance laws. The state ethics commission is looking into those.

Howard likely sees throwing the book at Rolfe as his last best hope for pulling out the election. What a guy!

No wonder so many Atlanta police officers wouldn’t work last night. As this prosecution proceeds, don’t be surprised if a significant number of them look for new jobs or take early retirement. It happened in Baltimore, even though the charges against six police officers for the killing of Freddy Gray ultimately resulted in zero convictions.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/06/an-outrageous-prosecution-in-atlanta.php

WHAT GIVES IN THE FLYNN CASE? (2)

BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN MICHAEL FLYNN

This past Friday afternoon, the time when the government traditionally seeks to bury bad news, interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea delivered what must be exculpatory evidence in the Flynn case to Sidney Powell (counsel for General Flynn). Deputized by Attorney General Barr, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeff Jensen had turned up the documents in his review of the government’s handling of the case against General Flynn.

What was in the documents? In his NR column on this development, Andrew McCarthy draws inferences based on his review of the supplement filed by Powell in support of Flynn’s motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn. The documents themselves were filed by Shea under seal, but Andy infers from Powell’s brief argument:

• That the documents support the proposition that the government had no good-faith investigation of General Flynn open at the time that he was interviewed by the FBI. Absent such an investigation, the false-statements charge to which he pleaded guilty lacks a legal predicate.

• That the documents support the existence of a side deal separate from the plea agreement submitted to Judge Sullivan — i.e., a promise that Team Mueller would not prosecute Flynn’s son if he copped a plea. Andy comments: “Under federal law, all understandings that are relevant to a guilty plea must be disclosed to the judge. It would be not merely a serious ethical breach for government lawyers to fail to reveal such an arrangement. It would be a fraud on the court.”

Andy rightly observes that Powell’s litigation on Flynn’s behalf has always been uphill. I think that remains the case. Depending on what the documents show and how clear they are on these points, however, Attorney General Barr should grasp the nettle himself. Citing Eric Holder’s dismissal of the case against Ted Stevens following his conviction, Barr should order Shea to seek dismissal of the Flynn case himself. Again, depending on what the documents show, Barr should consider going beyond Holder’s modified limited hangout and undertake to deal with Brandon Van Grack and everyone else involved in the Flynn prosecution who is still employed by the Department of Justice.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/04/what-gives-in-the-flynn-case-2.php

Virginia gun ‘sanctuary' leaders urge resistance to gun laws, compare to American Revolution

by Paul Bedard

AP Top Stories December 26 P

The clash in Virginia over gun control has reached a new level, with proponents of a gun “sanctuary” movement urging active resistance to Democratic proposals in Richmond, citing the arguments that led to the American Revolution.

“Resistance to illegal and unauthorized government acts is not new,” said two leaders of the movement in noting the decisions by the Founding Fathers to sign the Declaration of Independence that challenged Great Britain and King George III.

“This doctrine is, in fact, foundational to our form of government. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence is a document of interposition, between the American colonists and a tyrannical King George III. Its signatories — the people’s representatives — pledged to one another ‘our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,’ believing that they most likely would be tried and executed for treason against the crown,” said the new memo from the Virginia Citizens Defense League and the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America Inc.

Their 12-page memo was both in defense of the state gun sanctuary movement that has been adopted by 114 counties and communities and a challenge to the opinion of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring that the sanctuaries have “no legal effect.”

The movement sweeping Virginia has in less than two months become the national model for fighting gun control. In November, the Democrats took control of the state legislature and, backed by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, have offered several gun control proposals.

In reaction, gun owners have flooded into county and city meetings to demand that their representatives approve sanctuary resolutions to ignore gun control laws, similar to how immigration sanctuary resolutions work.

“Should the government in Richmond act lawlessly, then local officials and the people they represent will not cooperate and may take steps to actively resist,” said the letter.

Herring last week issued an opinion that the resolutions have no legal effect. What’s more, he said that local governments must give in to the state government.

Second amendment supporters watch as the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to pass a Second Amendment Sanctuary City resolution at a meeting in Buckingham , Va., Monday, Dec. 9, 2019. More than two dozen counties in Virginia have voted to declare themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” and are vowing to resist any attempts to tighten restrictions on guns.

(Steve Helber/AP)

“All localities, local constitutional officers, and other local officials are obligated to follow duly enacted state laws,” he wrote. “It is my opinion that these resolutions have no legal effect,” he added.

The sanctuary leaders, however, called the potential Virginia gun control laws a violation of the Second Amendment and cited Revolutionary War-era heroes who fought oppressive control.

Their letter said, “The U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution are the statements of the will of the people themselves, and the compacts from which the Virginia legislature draws its authority. Should the Virginia General Assembly, along with the Virginia governor or attorney general, enact and attempt to enforce a law which is prohibited by Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, and the pre-existing, inalienable rights of the people, then such law is of no legitimacy — and void. In response, local government officials who have sworn an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions unquestionably have the inherent power — and the duty — to refuse to enforce such unconstitutional laws, and even to protect the people against enforcement.”

The two groups also noted that Northam and Herring have in the past ignored mandates.

The movement plans to expand its local and county fight to the capital in Richmond in January when the legislature plans to take up gun control measures.

The groups have made plans to drive dozens of full buses to the capital on Jan. 20 for a lobbying day.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/virginia-gun-sanctuary-leaders-urge-resistance-to-gun-laws-compare-to-american-revolution

A KLOBUCHAR SURGE?

BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AMY KLOBUCHAR, DEMOCRATS, IOWA CAUCUSES

I believe there’s a market among Democrats for a presidential candidate who is not radical, who is not old and frequently confused, and who is not a straight white male. Who might that candidate be?

It might have been Kamala Harris. However, she oped not to fill that lane. Now, she’s an ex-candidate for president.

It might be Pete Buttigieg, except that it’s not so clear that he’s non-radical. Buttigieg seemingly would like to be many things to many people, and at times has sounded like a rad.

Amy Klobuchar is next in line after Harris and Buttigieg. Unlike those two, she knew who she is — or at least who she wanted to come across as being. Klobuchar has coveted the non-radical lane from the beginning and has occupied it without deviation.

As a result, she is surging in Iowa. Well, not exactly surging. The most recent survey in Real Clear Politics, by Emerson, has her in fifth place with 10 percent support. However, that’s a big step up for Klobuchar. Two months ago, Emerson had her at 1 percent.

This Washington Post article touts Klobuchar’s Iowa prospects. It quotes a county chairman who supports Elizabeth Warren as saying: “If I had to make a bet on the candidate most likely to have a late breakout into the top tier in Iowa, it would be Amy.”

Unfortunately for Klobuchar, a late breakout into the top tier in Iowa might not be enough. Coming from the neighboring state of Minnesota, Klobuchar has a kind of home field advantage. If she doesn’t win in Iowa, it may be easy to write off her showing.

My sense is that Klobuchar needs to finish ahead of Buttigieg in Iowa. If she loses to one of the two main rads — Sanders or Warren — and/or to Biden, she won’t have been beaten in her lane. But if Buttigieg finishes ahead of her, she will have been.

Beating a small city Indiana mayor in Iowa shouldn’t be too much to ask of a long-serving Senator from a neighboring state. But even in the recent Emerson poll, Klobuchar trailed Buttigieg by 8 points.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/a-klobuchar-surge.php

WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL: A Trail Of FBI Abuse: The Horowitz report confirms that the bureau deceived FISA judges with the Steele dossier.

WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL: A Trail Of FBI Abuse: The Horowitz report confirms that the bureau deceived FISA judges with the Steele dossier.

The press corps is portraying Monday’s report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz as absolution for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but don’t believe it. The report relates a trail of terrible judgment and violations of process that should shock Americans who thought better of their premier law-enforcement agency.
Readers can look at the detailed executive summary and decide for themselves. But our own initial reading confirms the worst of what we feared about the bureau when it was run by James Comey. The FBI corrupted the secret court process for obtaining warrants to spy on former Trump aide Carter Page. And it did so by supplying the court with false information produced by Christopher Steele, an agent of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
***
How can anyone, most of all civil libertarians, pass this off as no big deal? The absolution is supposedly that Mr. Horowitz concludes that the FBI decision to open a counter-intelligence probe against the Trump campaign in July 2016 “was sufficient to predicate the investigation” under current FBI rules.
Yet Mr. Horowitz also notes that these rules amount to a “low threshold for predication.” John Durham, the U.S. Attorney investigating these matters for Attorney General William Barr, said Monday he disagrees with Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions on predication, albeit without elaboration for now.
Mr. Horowitz confirms what the FBI had already leaked to friendly reporters, which is that the bureau’s alarm in July 2016 was triggered by a conversation that former Trump aide George Papadopoulos had with Australian Alexander Downer. But we learn for the first time that the FBI immediately ramped up its counter-intelligence probe to include four Trump campaign officials: Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn.
The bureau quickly moved to a full-scale investigation it called Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI’s justification, as related to Mr. Horowitz, is that the risk of Russian disruption of the 2016 election was too great to ignore.
Yet the bureau never told anyone in the Trump campaign, or even Donald Trump, whom or what it was investigating so he could reduce the danger or distance himself from those advisers. The FBI was investigating the campaign but wouldn’t tell the candidate who would soon be elected.
The FBI abuses escalated when it was presented with the now infamous Steele dossier. Mr. Steele was hired by Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, the oppo-research outfit hired by a law firm for the Clinton campaign. Mr. Horowitz confirms that the FBI then used the Steele dossier to trigger its application to the FISA court to spy on Mr. Page.

It was a put-up job from the beginning. It’s also interesting to watch the CIA hanging the FBI out to dry.

83

by Glenn Reynolds

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/350959/

The Shameless Hypocrisy Of Cities Suing For Climate Change ‘Damages’

Horace Cooper

North and South American natives once spoke of the mythical El Dorado, a sacred city made entirely of gold. History records that conquistadors embarked on expeditions throughout the Americas in pursuit of El Dorado and legendary riches. Ultimately their quests yielded nothing but misery and loss.

A modern-day parallel exists among several municipal governments and Rhode Island, which have set out on an equally unrealistic quest for a modern-day “jackpot justice” – a scheme to reap billions from several energy companies.

Using an already discredited “public nuisance” legal claim, Rhode Island and several cities have filed lawsuits that blame all of Earth’s climate change on a few profitable energy companies. The suits allege that, by producing oil, these energy companies have contributed to climate change, which, they argue, may cause damage to their communities in the future. Their cases, incidentally, fail to mention the large amounts of fossil fuels used by these same cities for public transportation, municipal airports, city buildings, and public improvement projects.

Litigants point to a July ruling in which an activist Rhode Island judge overturned a previous decision to move Rhode Island’s climate change case to federal court. Having watched federal courts dismiss many of these claims outright, the plaintiffs believe they have a better chance of success in lower, state courts. Baltimore was also successful in blocking a motion to move its lawsuit to federal court.

Still, climate litigants would be wise to keep the champagne firmly corked as these recent rulings in Rhode Island and Baltimore will likely be overturned. In North Dakota earlier this year, a similar nuisance case against Purdue Pharma was dismissed by a judge who found the plaintiffs failed to meet the required burden of proof. Moreover, the courts reviewing the Oklahoma case are likely to take a more skeptical view of the nuisance tactic, which has generally fared poorly on appeal. For example, a nuisance suit against lead paint manufacturers initially succeeded, only to fail on appeal in 2009, ironically before the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

A major driver of legal precedent denying the use of nuisance ordinances comes from an Obama-era Supreme Court ruling. In the 8-0 American Electric Power v. Connecticut decision in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions because the Clean Air Act specifically tasks the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress with the proper regulatory authority. Put another way, only the executive and legislative branches – not the judicial branch – may regulate and impose climate change policy. That precedent was properly cited last year when New York City’s climate lawsuit was bounced out of court. Also last year, a federal judge dismissed Oakland and San Francisco’s lawsuit for being outside the court’s authority.

In addition to the utter lack of legal substantiation, these lawsuits reveal how these municipalities are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. In one setting they downplay risks of climate change and in other settings they pretend the risks have never been higher.

Consider San Francisco’s 2017 municipal bond offering which reassuringly told potential investors, “The City is unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur, when they may occur, and if any such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the City and the local economy.” Yet in its multi-billion-dollar climate lawsuit, the city went full-on Chicken Little, warning, “Global warming-induced sea level rise is already causing flooding of low-lying areas of San Francisco.”

The example isn’t isolated. Marin County, California’s lawsuit alarmingly asserted that there’s a 99-percent risk of an epic climate-change-related flood by 2050. But a municipal bond offering to potential investors failed to warn of any potential climate change dangers claimed within its lawsuit. San Mateo County’s prospectus advising bond investors that it’s “unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur” didn’t stop it from forecasting a 93-percent chance cataclysmic flood by 2050 in its lawsuit against oil companies. The examples go on.

Aside from the shameless hypocrisy of mayors wooing potential investors while claiming pending climate disaster in court, the motivation behind these lawsuits is clear. Many cities filing lawsuits against energy companies are financial train wrecks, seeking billions to offset their mismanagement. Huge legal awards – enough to make their fiscal troubles vanish – have a powerful allure. The prospect of jackpot justice has fogged their judgment just as surely as the conquistadors who vainly searched for El Dorado.  

If anything, the mayors of Oakland, New York, San Diego, and others are seeking pots of Fool’s Gold. These greedy politicians should stop abusing the legal system, wasting taxpayer dollars, and put a halt to their fantasy gold-digging. 

Horace Cooper is a legal commentator and a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/10/31/the-shameless-hypocrisy-of-cities-suing-for-climate-change-damages/

SOME STORIES HAVE A HAPPY ENDING

BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN FREE SPEECH, LEFTISM

When city governments can’t handle excrement on the sidewalks, crime, potholes, and other traditional responsibilities, they often respond by launching grandiose but wholly useless initiatives. They might try to change the weather or, as in the case of San Francisco, destroy America’s oldest and most effective civil rights organization.

We wrote about San Francisco’s attack on the National Rifle Association here. San Francisco not only adopted a resolution labeling the NRA a “terrorist organization,” which is ridiculous, not to mention pointless. It also threatened to boycott not only the NRA, but any company that does business with the NRA–a wholly un-American attempt to suppress free speech.

The NRA reacted to San Francisco’s attack as you would expect: it sued. Jim Geraghty reports that the city has already surrendered:

The NRA sued, and lo and behold, San Francisco is backing down, before the suit even went to court.

In a formal memo to city officials, San Francisco mayor London Breed declared that “no [municipal] department will take steps to restrict any contractor from doing business with the NRA or to restrict City contracting opportunities for any business that has any relationship with the NRA.”

The memo declares, “resolutions making policy statements do not impose duties on City departments, change any of the City’s existing laws or policies, or control City departments’ exercise of discretion.”

In other words: never mind. The NRA’s lawyer comments:

“The memo serves as a clear concession and a well-deserved win for the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel for the NRA. “It is unfortunate that in today’s polarized times, some elected officials would rather silence opposing arguments than engage in good-faith debate. The NRA – America’s oldest civil rights organization – won’t stand for that.”

It isn’t clear from Geraghty’s report whether San Francisco’s surrender is permanent and enforceable, so that the NRA can dismiss its lawsuit without prejudice. But it sounds from Brewer’s statement as though that is the case.

Meanwhile, the NRA continues to pursue a similar lawsuit against Los Angeles, which adopted a similarly benighted policy. Fighting for free speech is like weeding your garden–it is a task that never really ends.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/some-stories-have-a-happy-ending.php

ADMIN BLASTS ‘ABSURD’ RULING FOR BLOCKING TRUMP’S ASYLUM PROCESS

11:50 AM 11/20/2018 | POLITICS

Saagar Enjeti | White House Correspondent

The Trump administration blasted a federal judge’s Tuesday ruling that blocks President Donald Trump’s attempt to quell asylum claims by Central American migrants in a Tuesday statement.

TOPSHOT – Honduran migrants take part in a new caravan heading to the US with Honduran and Guatemalan national flags in Quezaltepeque, Chiquimula, Guatemala on October 22, 2018. – US President Donald Trump on Monday called the migrant caravan heading toward the US-Mexico border a national emergency, saying he has alerted the US border patrol and military. (Photo by ORLANDO ESTRADA / AFP) (Photo credit should read ORLANDO ESTRADA/AFP/Getty Images)

“Our asylum system is broken, and it is being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year,” a joint Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security statement declared. “It is absurd that a set of advocacy groups can be found to have standing to sue to stop the entire Federal Government from acting so that illegal aliens can receive a government benefit to which they are not entitled.”

Both DOJ and DHS vowed to fight the Tuesday ruling by the 9th circuit saying “we look forward to continuing to defend the Executive Branch’s legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border.”

A demonstrator, part of a protest march against migrants, shouts towards a line of police in riot gear who were standing guard over a temporary shelter housing a caravan from Central America trying to reach the U.S., in Tijuana, Mexico November 18, 2018. REUTERS/Adrees Latif

Trump issued a presidential proclamation in recent weeks requiring Central American asylum seekers to enter the United States at a legal port of entry. Migrants previously were able to enter the United States illegally and then claim asylum.

Officials say this process flagrantly violates U.S. law and allows for a disorderly loophole that is overwhelming U.S. detention facilities.

Opponents of Trump’s action, however, argue that it violates federal law, which states:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance.

The judge referenced federal law along with United Nations protocols that the U.S. is also party to declare, “The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process.”

TAGS : TH CIRCUIT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DONALD TRUMPhttps://dailycaller.com/2018/11/20/trump-blasts-judge-asylum/

Here's a Preview of House Democrats' Cavalcade of Investigations

Here's a Preview of House Democrats' Cavalcade of Investigations

 

BY RICK MORAN 

Chuck Schumer, Tom Carper

Incoming Democratic chairmen of various House committees spread out over the airwaves on Sunday to preview the coming avalanche of investigations into the president and Republicans.

All that's missing is a guillotine.

I suppose this is what passes for "the people's business" in the Democratic Party universe.

Axios:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said on ABC's "This Week" that protecting the Mueller investigation will be his top oversight priority. Nadler said that if acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is still in office when he takes the gavel, his first order of business will be to invite or subpoena him to appear before the committee.

• Nadler also added that the Judiciary Committee will re-examine the White House's apparent stifling of the FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
• Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on CNN's "State of the Union" that "the appointment of Mr. Whitaker should concern every American — Democrat, Republican, liberal conservative — who believes in rule of law and justice."
• Schumer said that he, Nancy Pelosi and several other ranking members have sent a letter to the chief ethics officer of the Justice Department asking him to issue guidelines urging Whitaker to recuse himself from all matters related to the Mueller investigation.
• Incoming House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings said on "This Week" that one of his top oversight priorities involves the Trump administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the census.
• He also added that looking into voter suppression is a priority: "We cannot have a country where it becomes normal to do everything in folks' power to stop people from voting."
• Incoming House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Democrats will have to "ruthlessly prioritize" which investigations to follow so that their "positive agenda" — things like fixing health care — does not get lost.

Schiff will "ruthlessly prioritize" every means necessary to impeach the president. As for "fixing health care," forget it. They will discover, as Republicans did, that there are so many ideas about what to do about Obamacare that it will be impossible to get a majority of the House behind anything except cosmetic changes that won't fix anything.

All that pent-up hate and rage needs an outlet, so you could say that it's a good thing that Democrats take it out on Trump rather than going around arresting people for "hate speech" or some such nonsense. Their investigations go beyond simple revenge. This will be a reckoning -- a balancing of the scales, a tit for a tat, a settling of the score.

Hopefully, they'll be so busy preening for the camera and trying out their talking points that they will totally forget about ruining the economy, persecuting anti-abortion activists, and forcing us all to "accept" gay issues.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/heres-a-preview-of-house-democrats-cavalcade-of-investigations/