<< News Scan | Main | Phone Access During Executions? >>


Public Confidence in Police Returns to Historical Average

| 22 Comments
Jim Norman reports for Gallup:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Overall confidence in the police has risen slightly in the past two years, with 57% of Americans now saying they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in law enforcement -- matching the overall average for the 25-year Gallup trend.
The reversion to the mean is good news, but there are some disturbing trends in the crosstabs.

Though the overall numbers have rebounded, the years of national turmoil have only deepened the divide in the confidence that Americans of different ages, ethnicities and political beliefs say they have in the police. The loss of confidence is most apparent among Hispanics, liberals and those younger than age 35.
Over half a century after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the divisions by race and ethnicity should have diminished, but race-baiting by "activists" whose careers depend on division make things worse instead of better.  In addition, our young are attending educational institutions that have become more uniformly left wing over the years.  I believe this produces a Reverse Kingsfield Effect where young people enter college with some degree of common sense and walk out "with a skull full of mush."

22 Comments

In my opinion, Barack Obama was a truly awful human being and a worse president (see, e.g., Musa Ali Daqduq)--his smearing of Darren Wilson fanned the flames of the anti-police enmity, which has contributed to the violence against cops.

Decencyevolves: Preferring the unedifying spectacle we are watching right now--watching a President who is crude, vulgar ignorant and abusive and an investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign adversary to undermine American democracy--to the past Administration is beyond me.

Decency, this "crude, vulgar ignorant" seems to be right on North Korea . . . .

With respect to "collusion" today's news seems a nothing-burger. There is no evidence whatsoever (and we would have heard it) that the Trump campaign colluded with the phishing scam that netted Podesta.

Election law specialists don't agree with you:

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740

The Trump campaign was eager for the assistance of "Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump [per the email]" through the release of information from foreign officials that purportedly would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. If Professor Haden is right, their eager solicitation of that assistance was a federal crime. the email itself is evidence of a crime. The fact that Kushner and Manafort were both copied on it makes them potentially liable and if the President was aware of it, he is liable too.

Oh please stop--obtaining information from a foreign agent isn't (and cannot be) a crime. If there was a quid pro quo, different issue. Let's stroll down memory lane--if talking to "the Russians"was such a problem, then why did Democrats lionize Ted Kennedy--a man who offered policy changes to Soviets in exchange for help in an election?

The hypocrisy astounds. And that's not getting into Mrs. Clinton's dealings as Secretary of State . . . .

That kind of whataboutism doesn't work very well as a legal defense. You're a securities lawyer as I recall. Aren't we all too familiar with the sensation of sadly shaking our heads at clients who complain that others who committed similar misconduct aren't being charged with the same offense that they are being charged with?

As I read the email, Don Jr. would love opposition research from the Russian government, which wanted to help his father win the Presidency. He solicited that help and he, Kushner and Manafort went to the meeting expecting they'd receive it. And opposition research is a thing of value--campaigns pay for it all the time.

The "whataboutism" does work . . . . there is the Ted Kennedy standard.

The "thing of value" is laughable for two reasons--first, Hasen was very circumspect about whether Claire McCaskill violated campaign laws when she provided polling data to Akin. And Democrats didn't seem to upset about that either. Second, and more importantly, there is no law (and indeed there could be no law) prohibiting a meeting to discuss the transfer of raw information from a private party to a campaign. Thin reed doesn't begin to describe this.

Trump Jr. acted in an unsavory manner--but politics ain't beanbag, as they say. And you guys, given Harry Reid and all the others, are in no position to complain about unsavory politics that doesn't cross a criminal line.

Have you represented defendants being sued or prosecuted in court before? "He wasn't sued or prosecuted and he did something similar to what I'm accused of" may be a layperson's idea of good defense, but it's not one I'd raise in open court.

Unlike Professor Hasen, neither you or I specialize in the area, but the principles don't sound too arcane. Soliciting something of value from a foreign person or entity in support of a federal election is a criminal offense. Donald Trump, Jr. "loved" the possibility of getting incriminating information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government, so he set up a meeting for that purpose. In so doing, he solicited this information from a foreign entity: the Russian government. The only remaining question is whether the incriminating information is "a thing of value." People pay for such information routinely and Donald Trump, Jr. certainly viewed it as valuable to the campaign.

Could a hypothetical indictment face a successful motion to dismiss under the circumstances? I'm not an election lawyer and don't know, but the posts I've seen from Professor Hasen suggest a strong possibility that such charges wouldn't be dismissed. I've yet to see a legal analysis that supports the opposite conclusion.

Meeting someone to get dirt on a political opponent isn't a crime. It can't be.

Check your First Amendment.

Let's play this out. In our hypothetical case, United States v. Donald Trump, Jr., the defendant is charged with soliciting a thing of value, to wit damaging information about his opponent, from the Russian Government in violation of campaign finance laws prohibiting the solicitation of foreign contributions to a political campaign. Mr. Trump's attorneys assert that his First Amendment rights to _______ are violated by holding him criminally liable for accepting this assistance from a foreign adversary of the United States to his father's political campaign.

So the blank is what? He has a first amendment right to solicit damaging information about his opponent from a foreign government? Based on what? I'm with Professor Hasen on this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_s_free_speech_defense_is_as_bogus_as_it_sounds.html

As Judge Kavanaugh noted in Blumen v, FEC, "It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. It follows, therefore, that the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.”

First of all, your buddy's campaign turn a blind eye towards foreign donations. But even more meaningfully, federal regulations allow foreigners to work for volunteer for campaigns.

With respect to Trump Jr., he has a First Amendment right to obtain information about Clinton misdeeds. Campaign finance law cannot and does not prohibit foreigners from talking to campaign people and providing information. Hasen is a hack--he was very circumspect about McCaskill--not so much with Trump Jr.

Second of all, Hasen uses the word "collusion"--which pretty much gives away the game--merely getting information from someone isn't "collusion", it's listening. Trump Jr. has a first amendment right to obtain information. It's really that simple. Hasen, like I said, seems to change his legal analysis based on the party of the alleged wrongdoer--Claire McCaskill, who clearly violated the law by providing access to her polling folks (on her nickel), didn't get the shrieks about Trump.

Lib hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

The problem with the First Amendment argument you make is that it would encourage foreign adversaries to subvert our election campaigns, as Russia did last year. It also demonstrates the Trump campaign's appetite for dirt and campaign assistance from the Russian government. It puts candidate Trump's televised plea to the Russian government to hack and release Clinton's emails a month later in vivid context.

We've been told by the Trump campaign and Administration for a year that they weren't working with the Russian government. Who in his right mind believes that now?

And for anyone who thinks it's no big deal, or a " nothingburger" that a Presidential campaign works with a foreign adversary to defeat a mutual opponent running against him, is that finally where partisanship leads you?

The First Amendment is not subject to such analysis--in other words, we don't look at the First Amendment and determine its reach based on such considerations. The emails show that Trump Jr. wanted info this Russian had--from a legal standpoint, "So what?" The First Amendment allows him to meet and get that information. Think about it--does the First Amendment block someone from getting information from a foreign person merely because that someone is involved with a campaign?

That's just nonsensical. And by the by, every campaign has an appetite for dirt.

Your last statement is truly laughable. When your ilk was falling all over itself to lionize Ted Kennedy, where were you? Kennedy sought Soviet help from a policy standpoint and promised policy shifts. And what of Obama? He was talking to the Iranians before he became president, and that undermined Bush's negotiating power with the Iranians.

You turn a blind eye to that--yet want me to get the vapors over overeagerness to get some dirt on Clinton? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That ship has sailed.


By the by, does the name Charlie Trie ring a bell?

i do wonder how far this lust to win takes conservatives. Where does it end? Will their First Amendment argument extend to this if it proves out?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html

If the campaign told Russian bots where to target attacks in Hillary Clinton with news like the libelous Pizzagate "story" for maximum effect, knowing they were foreign agents, do we all "love" that too? If you solicit the kind of aid from foreign adversaries, is that still protected speech? Or do we finally get to the point where we agree with Judge Kavanaugh, a Trump short lister for the Supreme Court, that

“It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. It follows, therefore, that the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.”

And the Clinton campaign (the unsuccessful 2016 one, not the 2012 unsuccessful one) worked with the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt about Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446z

Where is Kaine, et al., and their calls of "TREEEEEESON!"?

Nowhere to be found.

In reality, Trump Jr. was played a fool but did nothing illegal.

Jonathan Turley throwing a huge bucket of cold water on the nonsense.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/11/gwu_law_prof_jonathan_turley_on_trump_jr_meeting_a_russia_for_the_love_of_god_this_is_not_treason.html

You stated: " The only remaining question is whether the incriminating information is "a thing of value.""

Is money a "thing of value?"

Amal Clooney spent a great deal of her time raising money for Hillary. So has Orlando Bloom, Elton John, Anna Wintour (who also did voter registration for her, was a style consultant, and gave free advertising via puff pieces in her magazine) and many other foreign celebs. Illegal immigrants Astrid Silva and Francisca Ortiz spoke at the DNC convention. If being foreign and giving something of value to a campaign is criminal, we need to fill a lot of prison cells.

“It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. It follows, therefore, that the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38287698

Again, Vogue's editor and chief is a foreigner:

"Last week, legendary Vogue editor Anna Wintour, considered one of fashion's most influential voices, was overheard on a train lambasting the mogul.
Her comments came as Teen Vogue ran a "scorched-earth" attack on Mr Trump, posting an opinion editorial that accused him of repeatedly lying to the public.
Many online readers were shocked by the ferocity of the piece - and Miss Wintour's criticisms."

"Vogue set out its stall for then Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in mid-October, by endorsing her for the presidency.
"Vogue has no history of political endorsements," the fashion Bible noted, before stating that it was making an exception "given the profound stakes of this one"."

Sounds like Anna Wintour to me!

I gather that efforts by the Russian government to interfere with our elections and the enthusiastic embrace of such efforts by a Presidential campaign don't bother you, so long as they favor the candidate you prefer. I'm not as sanguine about that, or about the current Administration's lack of interest in doing anything to prevent a repeat performance by the Russian government in 2018 or 2020. The President asked Putin twice if he interfered with our election and he said no each time, so according to our Secretary of State it's time to move past this--nothing to see here. The cynicism of all this is nauseating.

In the end, Megan McArdle, a person I don't often quote, says it like it is:

"Donald Trump is an American. He is an American who ran for office under a slogan of patriotic pride and love of country. People who love their country do not help rival powers intervene in their country’s elections, even if that intervention might have the lovely side effect of getting them elected. Countries gonna country, and spies gonna spy. But Americans running for American office must pick sides: the will of American voters or the influence of a foreign power. Hint: You choose your fellow Americans . . . .Here's the reality: Once you are given the details of a Russian attempt to change the outcome of an American election, there is only one patriotic thing you can do, and that is to get on the phone to the FBI and say 'I have some very disturbing news.' End of story."

The unnamed poster is conflating a lot of things; a meeting for dirt; strange "news" operations and hacking.

And the "patriotism" thing is oh-so-cute. Clinton was a draft-dodger. Patriotic is the last word that comes to mind with respect to Obama. Heck, Obama posted things on the DailyKos website after Moulitsas' "Screw 'em." comment.

Ted Kennedy. Game. Set. Match.

Not sure who you are referring to here, but I am NOT a Trump supporter.

People who see rank partisanship everywhere and in everyone do so because that is how they react to such issues, so they assume everyone else does as well.

I despise both Hillary and Trump and voted for neither.

As far as the McArdle quote, I agree with most of it. So? Not doing the right thing is not necessarily a crime. McArdle alleges no crime, at least in the quote you provide. If you want to use this as a cudgel to claim that people should not vote for Trump because he is dishonest and unethical, I'd probably agree with much of what you say while pointing out the biggest weakness of that argument, that the other candidate was Hillary Clinton. However, this thread has become about people alleging criminal actions where no evidence yet exists.

Decencyevolves: Sorry for the tardy response. Tarls--Perhaps we are closer to a meeting if the minds than I thought. Federalist, we seem to be as far apart as ever. That said, I will do something I thought I'd never do--quoteAndy McCarthy from National Review:

"We are a good distance from being able to assess whether President Trump should be impeached. It is specious, though, to suggest that this is not a question worthy of exploration, or that its answer hinges on whether collusion with Russia amounts to a criminal-law violation."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449401/trump-jr-emails-high-crimes-misdemeanors

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives