Elise Viebeck has this post at the WaPo.
Well, stop-and-frisk is a component of effective policing, and BLM is inherently racist, so there is nothing wrong in what Mr. Giuliani is saying and doing.
But of course none of that matters unless there is a Trump Administration, and given that the candidate himself punches a new hole in the hull of his campaign ship almost daily, that seems to be a sinking possibility.
Giuliani is eyeing the role of Trump's attorney general if he's elected in November, according to sources close to the process. And to campaign for it -- after all, he's got to beat Chris Christie -- he's giving the surrogate performance of a lifetime. Trump's preferred policy of stop-and-frisk? Giuliani claims it brought about an 85-percent reduction in crime in New York City. Black Lives Matter? "Inherently racist." And police relations? He's holding a meet-and-greet for Trump with Cleveland's police union Tuesday.
Well, stop-and-frisk is a component of effective policing, and BLM is inherently racist, so there is nothing wrong in what Mr. Giuliani is saying and doing.
Giuliani denied he's pursuing "any office or position in a future administration."* * *[Ted Olson said,] "Rudy was a tremendous associate attorney general and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which is more important than any of the other federal prosecutorial districts. I doubt there is anyone in the country who could come close in terms of his experience. ... He had the job of number three [at the Justice Department], then was U.S. attorney, then ran for mayor. He is exquisitely well-suited for attorney general."
But of course none of that matters unless there is a Trump Administration, and given that the candidate himself punches a new hole in the hull of his campaign ship almost daily, that seems to be a sinking possibility.
I like Rudy. He did a ton of good in NYC. The WaPo reporter is somewhat lazy since Rudy didn't say that stop and frisk "brought about" the 85% crime reduction, but that it was one of the things that led to the historic crime reductions during his tenure as mayor.
As for BLM being "inherently racist"--I think an effective case can be made--first, the idea that Darren Wilson should have somehow increased the risk to himself when his life was clearly in danger shows, quite bluntly, that his life has little worth in their eyes--all due to what? The racial particulars of the encounter. Sickening if you think about it.
Giuliani is not without his flaws--there is evidence that our First Amendment freedoms aren't top of his list, and I wonder if he took seriously the abuses that unquestionably happened under the guise of NYC's stop and frisk policy.
Having witnessed what he did to turn around NYC and his conduct in the wake of 9/11, I would have said yes. But his recent support for Trump has been over the top and has led me to conclude that he simply isn't the intelligent, stable, person he used to be.
Anyone who could repeatedly chance Trump with the vigor that he expressed (i.e., calling him a "genius" for losing almost a billion dollars and writing off the loss on his tax return) is not, IMO, a suitable candidate to be the AG.
I understand that he hates Hillary (for many reasons (some personal and some based on policy disagreements), but he has allowed that venom to distort , and ignore, a multitude of reasons that Trump is not in any way qualified to be the POTUS.
As for Christie, Bridgegate has ruined his chance of becoming AG, in the increasingly unlikely event that Trump wins.
But wouldn't that be true of any supporter of Trump or Clinton? You almost have to be "over-the-top" to support either of them vocally.
Whatever one thinks of Trump, and even if one thinks him to be unqualified, well, we have two unqualified people who are the major party nominees. Thus, there will be people who enthusiastically make the lemonade (or Kool-Aid to mix metaphors). Questioning their mental balance for that reason alone is, to pick a phrase "over the top."
The genius comment is, of course, risible, but a lot of the attacks on Trump for using NOL carryforwards are equally risible. Pence showed that last night.
I continue to marvel at the all the time Trump bashing to the exclusion of his main opponent. She is, and this is not even close, far worse, as are many in her party.
Trump is so utterly repugnant and unfit fo be the POTUS that numerous news publications that have never (or almost never) in their 90 to 150 year history endorsed a Democrat for president are endorsing Clinton.
Today's endorsement by the Atlantic says it all. Outright repudiation of Trump. And a tepid endorsement of Clinton. FWIW, that's where I am at.
I know. What about the Supreme Court? Well. IMO, Trump is likely to cause so much havoc and destruction in America and the world (in order to serve his own self-interest and unstable mind) that the Court is not my primary concern. We will just have to wait for the pendulum to swing (as it has through our history) on the makeup of the Court.
ok, well, I haven't seen anything that Trump has said or done that remotely comes close to lying to the families of the heroes in Benghazi or sanctioning race-norming school discipline (which her agencies will enthusiastically do).
And bye-bye First Amendment if she gets to appoint Justices.
And that's not even getting into the classified info stuff, which is absolutely appalling.
I don't see Trump as anywhere close to as evil as HRC. I see him as an irresponsible jackass.