web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "elections"

Hillary Clinton Gets Schooled by Pro-Clinton Author After She Denied Getting Election Help from Google

Westlake Legal Group google-Hillary-Clinton-1067x600-620x349 Hillary Clinton Gets Schooled by Pro-Clinton Author After She Denied Getting Election Help from Google Social Media Robert Epstein Politics Media Internet Hillary Clinton Google Front Page Stories elections Election donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception 2016

There’s so much evidence that Google was in the tank for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 elections that it’s hard to keep up with it all. As time goes on, the evidence begins to look even worse as researchers who are provenly pro-Clinton even begin to turn against her over it.

On Monday, Trump tweeted about a report that shows Google manipulated 2.6 million to 16 million votes in favor of Clinton during the election, making his victory over her even bigger. He also suggested she should be sued.

Clinton fired back by claiming that study had been “debunked.”

“The debunked study you’re referring to was based on 21 undecided voters. For context that’s about half the number of people associated with your campaign who have been indicted,” tweeted Clinton.

Enter the study’s author and “strong” pro-Clinton supporter, psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein, who wasn’t exactly keen on Clinton telling the world that his study is illegitimate.

Epstein began his own Twitter response by correcting Trump’s assertion that the study said Google was intentionally manipulating search results, but then turned his sights toward Clinton, saying it hurts him to do it but Clinton should be ashamed of herself.

Epstein noted that Clinton relied on Google for “money & votes” with the largest donor being Alphabet/Google. He also noted that people associated with Google offered to run her tech campaign and even created companies for the sole purpose of putting Clinton in office. What’s more, nearly all Google employees at the time donated to Clinton’s campaign.

Now, switching to Hillary Clinton: This is going to hurt me to write, because I & my whole extended family have been strong supporters of the Clintons for decades. I have a framed, signed letter from Bill on the wall near my desk. But Hillary should be ashamed of herself.

Hillary has long depended on Google for both money & votes. Her largest donor in 2016 was Alphabet/Google. Her Chief Technology Officer during the campaign was Stephanie Hannon, a former Google exec. And then there’s Eric Schmidt, longtime head of Google …

A leaked email showed that in 2014 Google’s Eric Schmidt offered to run Hillary’s tech campaign (see pic). In 2015, Schmidt in fact funded The Groundwork, a highly secretive tech company, the sole purpose of which was to put Clinton into office.

About 96% of 2016 campaign donations from Google employees went to Hillary. And Elan Kriegel, Hillary’s Chief Analytics Officer, credits his 2012 tech team, informally supervised by Eric Schmidt, for half of Obama’s win margin: nearly 2.5 million votes.

After all these blows to Clinton, Epstein’s finisher came in the form of asking Clinton why his work is being quoted by prestigious venues across the globe if it’s been so debunked.

Somebody get Clinton a rag to wipe all that egg off her face.

Stories consistently emerged even before the elections that there were clues to Google rigging results in favor of Clinton, beginning with a video that went viral that showed Google’s search results offering positive results about Clinton, even when negative things were typed in.

There were also stories behind the scenes with suggested claims from YouTube personality Phillip DeFranco that he wasn’t included in that year’s YouTube rewind after refusing to make a pro-Clinton video via his channel for Google.

The post Hillary Clinton Gets Schooled by Pro-Clinton Author After She Denied Getting Election Help from Google appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group google-Hillary-Clinton-1067x600-300x169 Hillary Clinton Gets Schooled by Pro-Clinton Author After She Denied Getting Election Help from Google Social Media Robert Epstein Politics Media Internet Hillary Clinton Google Front Page Stories elections Election donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception 2016   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Joe Biden Attempts to Explain Away His Parkland Gaffe, and It Does Not Go Well

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPphoto-620x317 Video: Joe Biden Attempts to Explain Away His Parkland Gaffe, and It Does Not Go Well Politics North Carolina Joe Biden Iowa Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020

In this July 20, 2019, photo, former Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden speaks at a campaign event in an electrical workers union hall in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)

Last week, I wrote about reports that allies of Joe Biden were trying to get his campaign to scale back his appearances due to the large amount of gaffes he’d made in recent weeks.

The belief was that he was more prone to committing gaffes later in the day when he was tired, and that cutting back on campaign stops would make him less likely to flub. It was an idea that was ripped by, among others, former President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod.

Perhaps the most troubling among the gaffes were the comments he made on August 10th about the Parkland kids visiting him “when I was vice president”:

The frontrunner to become the Democratic presidential candidate told reporters in Iowa on Saturday that “those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president.” But when they went to Capitol Hill, lawmakers were “basically cowering, not wanting to see them. They did not want to face it on camera.” The problem with this tale? The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 dead took place in 2018, more than a year after Biden left the White House.

He actually made the remarks twice that day. Watch:

Fresh off of a week of vacationing in Delaware, Biden was in Iowa on Tuesday and attempted to explain away his remarks about Parkland. It did not go well:

Speaking at a campaign event, Biden said he “was still called vice president” when he met with the students from Parkland.

“I also met with the kids from Parkland, in the Capitol,” Biden said. “I was still called vice president, but it was in ’18.”

His memory of the event, however, remains incomplete.

“They asked me to come speak to them in the rotunda,” Biden said, before pausing to think.

“I think it was the rotunda, it was one of the buildings, or one of the rooms in the Capitol,” he said.

It’s sounds even worse than it reads. Watch the video:

“I was still called vice president”? SMH. He’s still called vice president now.

Whoever wrote this for him to say should be suspended from campaign duties for a couple of weeks to get them to consider how ridiculous it came cross. If they were trying to definitively rebut rumors that Biden was having trouble handling the day to day rough and tumble of the campaign trail, they failed – and failed bigly.

Related –>> Oh, No! At Iowa Rally, Biden Recalls ‘When Bobby Kennedy And Dr. King Were Assassinated, In The 70s—In The Late 70s’

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Video: Joe Biden Attempts to Explain Away His Parkland Gaffe, and It Does Not Go Well appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPphoto-300x153 Video: Joe Biden Attempts to Explain Away His Parkland Gaffe, and It Does Not Go Well Politics North Carolina Joe Biden Iowa Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Oh, No! At Iowa Rally, Biden Recalls ‘When Bobby Kennedy And Dr. King Were Assassinated, In The 70s—In The Late 70s’

Westlake Legal Group joe-biden-caricature-620x443 Oh, No! At Iowa Rally, Biden Recalls ‘When Bobby Kennedy And Dr. King Were Assassinated, In The 70s—In The Late 70s’ white house Joe Biden gaffe's Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020

Joe Biden-Caricature by DonkeyHotey, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

Speaking at an event in Urbande, IA on Tuesday, former Vice President Joe Biden recalled, “Just like in my generation, when I got out of school that, when Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King had been assassinated, in the 70s, the late 70s, when I got engaged.” Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4, 1968 followed by Bobby Kennedy on June 6, 1968.

If errors like this had happened once or twice, that would be one thing, but Biden’s slips of the tongue are now occurring with regularity. Nearly every time he speaks, he makes headlines, not for the content of his speeches, but for his latest gaffe.

And it is a big deal because it’s possible (though doubtful) that he might one day hold the highest office in the U.S.

When voters are asked which Democratic presidential hopeful has the best chance of defeating President Trump, Joe Biden consistently crushes the competition.

He is seen as the most electable of them all, not for any particular achievements or attributes, but essentially because he is the “least bad” candidate among the largely unimpressive field.

Even his wife was hard pressed to name a reason for voters to choose Joe other than electability. She said, “Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election. And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘OK, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

The frequency of Biden’s gaffes is now starting to undermine the Democrat’s strongest argument for nominating him.

I consider his remark that “poor kids are just as bright as white kids” to be a gaffe. He would have said something like that ten years ago, even 30 years ago. However, Biden’s account of the Parkland survivors visit to the White House, an event which took place in February 2018, and his comments on Tuesday night about the assassinations of King and Kennedy, to be something else entirely.

The former vice president has always been known to be gaffe prone, but his recent blunders go well beyond gaffe territory and have left some voters wondering if he has become “too old” to serve.

We all age at different rates, and while many people retain their cognitive abilities well into their 90s, others begin to lose their sharpness earlier.

And Democrats need to give some serious thought to this. Biden will turn 77 in November. And should he win the presidency, he would take office at the age of 78. The decline in his mental acuity at that point will be even more discernible.

The New York Times reported that, “Recent interviews with more than 50 Democratic voters and party officials across four states, as well as with political strategists and some of Mr. Biden’s own donors, showed significant unease about Mr. Biden’s ability to be a reliably crisp and effective messenger against Mr. Trump.”

Until Biden announced his candidacy in April, he had been largely out of the public eye since he left office. The difference between then and now is striking. He looks old. He moves old. He acts old.

A recent headline appearing in The Wall Street Journal read, “The latest missteps by Democratic presidential front-runner give some party activists anxiety over whether he still has the stuff.”

Does Biden still have the stuff?

The post Oh, No! At Iowa Rally, Biden Recalls ‘When Bobby Kennedy And Dr. King Were Assassinated, In The 70s—In The Late 70s’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group joe-biden-caricature-300x214 Oh, No! At Iowa Rally, Biden Recalls ‘When Bobby Kennedy And Dr. King Were Assassinated, In The 70s—In The Late 70s’ white house Joe Biden gaffe's Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Gets It On Israel And The Democrat Party

Westlake Legal Group 46FE2905-7DA1-4824-91F7-1D89E40E91C6 Trump Gets It On Israel And The Democrat Party Uncategorized republicans Politics Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

President Trump Official White House Photo

Trump Gets It On Israel and the Democrat Party

As reported by my colleague and good friend Sister Toldjah here, President Trump is calling out Democrat fakery whenever he finds it. In his latest, he called out Rashida Tlaib’s crocodile tears over not being allowed to go see her grandmother, a request the Israelis had already granted. What followed was epic Donald Trump as he used this opportunity to make inroads in yet another Democrat stronghold, Jewish Americans who vote Blue 71% compared to 25% Red since 1968.

NBC News Twitter feed at 3:05 EST Tuesday had some interesting commentary by President Trump regarding that Jewish American support for Democrats. Pointing out the hostility displayed towards Israel by by Democrat House Members, Omar and Tlaib, the President called out the Democrat Party for defending them and their open and notorious hostility towards Jews and the State of Israel.

“I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat – I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge, or great disloyalty.”

You can see the whole thing here

President Trump is correct. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib both have a long history of hostile comments regarding the state of Israel. They are both vocal supporters of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement against the Israeli state. They also manage to ignore Hamas criminal activity against women and children while bad mouthing Israeli Rules Of Engagement,” rules that are much stricter than those currently in use by American Forces.

The President makes a very strong case that the Democrat Party has gone off the rails and has slipped so far to the left that it actively supports people who are hostile towards America and it’s allies. Trump is making a steady case that the Democrat priorities are anything but hard working Americans. Instead they are more concerned about illegal aliens who take jobs from American workers and take seats in college classrooms from American students.

This tweet is President Trump’s “What have you got to lose?” moment with American Jews. He’s asking quite pointedly, “Why do you support a party that traditionally has been hostile to your people?” “Why do you support a party that deliberately refuses to sanction one of its members for anti-Semitic comments?” Some of those Jewish Americans who have steadily voted Blue, are going to ask themselves that same question. They will be flipping the lever for President Trump in 2020.

President Trump is doing something that Republicans should have done long ago…fight for minority votes instead of writing them off. He fought for the Black vote in 2016. He got some of it. A few took him up on his “What have you got to lose?” and gave him a shot. Based on how well the economy is doing and his rising poll numbers among both Blacks and Hispanics, both of those groups who voted for him in 2016, will be back in 2020…and they’ll be bringing along some friends.

President Trump has now moved on to a new target. He is going after the Jewish American vote, like that of the Black and Hispanic communities, one long deemed by the Democrats as theirs. Buckle up. 2020 is gonna be an E-Ticket ride.

Mike Ford, a retired Infantry Officer, writes on Military, Foreign Affairs and occasionally dabbles in Political and Economic matters.

Follow him on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

You can find his other Red State work here.

The post Trump Gets It On Israel And The Democrat Party appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 46FE2905-7DA1-4824-91F7-1D89E40E91C6-300x263 Trump Gets It On Israel And The Democrat Party Uncategorized republicans Politics Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Solomon: ‘Long Wait For Transparency’ Over Russian Collusion Docs May Soon End; Could ‘Rock Washington’ This Fall

Westlake Legal Group 99CB8FEA-3EC4-4E75-A6D4-53E011083E7B-620x620 Solomon: ‘Long Wait For Transparency’ Over Russian Collusion Docs May Soon End; Could ‘Rock Washington’ This Fall Steele dossier spying Special Counsel President Trump pete hoekstra Mueller Investigation John Solomon john durham Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats Dan Coats Allow Media Exception 2020

Official portrait of President Donald J. Trump, Friday, October 6, 2017. (Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead)

 

Last September, President Trump announced he would order the declassification and release of all relevant documents about the role of U.S. intelligence agencies in the Russian collusion probe. Additionally, the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to send 53 interview transcripts from their own investigation to the director of national intelligence (DNI) for review and declassification. Neither release has happened.

Investigative reporter John Solomon, who has broken most of the major news on this story, is reporting that “the long wait for transparency may soon end.” He wrote that the expected release of many of these documents this fall “could rock Washington.”

One reason for the lack of action by the intelligence community was the leadership of DNI Dan Coats, whose interests often appeared to be at odds with those of President Trump. Coats, a former Republican senator from Indiana, resigned from his post on August 15th. Coats’ deputy, Sue Gordon, known to be on the same page as he was, left the agency as well.

Two names said to be currently under consideration to replace Coats are Pete Hoekstra and Fred Fleitz. Hoekstra, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, currently serves as the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands. Fleitz is a national security expert. I think Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) should be included on that shortlist, however, he may be considered too partisan.

Solomon believes “the president has an opportunity to speed up and organize the release of declassified information by simply creating an Office of Transparency and Accountability inside his own White House, run by a staffer empowered at the level of a formal assistant to the president. That would prevent intelligence agencies from continuing their game of public keep-away.”

As mentioned earlier, Solomon has followed this story closely. Over the last several months, he has interviewed four dozen U.S. officials and has identified the documents which he considers that,

When declassified, would show more completely how a routine counterintelligence probe was hijacked to turn the most awesome spy powers in America against a presidential nominee in what was essentially a political dirty trick orchestrated by Democrats.

Here is Solomon’s list of the documents that have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:

1.  Christopher Steele’s confidential human source reports at the FBI (known as 1023 reports).

These documents show exactly what transpired each time Steele and his FBI handlers met in the summer and fall of 2016 to discuss his anti-Trump dossier. The big reveal, my sources say, could be the first evidence that the FBI shared sensitive information with Steele, such as the existence of the classified Crossfire Hurricane operation targeting the Trump campaign. It would be a huge discovery if the FBI fed Trump-Russia intel to Steele in the midst of an election, especially when his ultimate opposition-research client was Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The FBI has released only one or two of these reports under FOIA lawsuits and they were 100 percent redacted. The American public deserves better.

2.  The 53 House Intel interviews.

House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I’m told, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA.

3.  The Stefan Halper documents.

It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources. We know for sure that one or both had contact with targeted Trump aides like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos at the end of the election. My sources tell me there may be other documents showing Halper continued working his way to the top of Trump’s transition [team] and administration, eventually reaching senior advisers like Peter Navarro inside the White House in summer 2017. These documents would show what intelligence agencies worked with Halper, who directed his activity, how much he was paid and how long his contacts with Trump officials were directed by the U.S. government’s Russia probe.

4.  The October 2016 FBI email chain.

This is a key document identified by Rep. Nunes and his investigators. My sources say it will show exactly what concerns the FBI knew about and discussed with DOJ about using Steele’s dossier and other evidence to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in October 2016. If those concerns weren’t shared with FISA judges who approved the warrant, there could be major repercussions.

5.  Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements.

Another of Nunes’ five buckets, these documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. If he made that statement with the FBI monitoring, and it was not disclosed to the FISA court, it could be another case of FBI or DOJ misconduct.

6.  The ‘Gang of Eight’ briefing materials.

These were a series of classified briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. Of all the documents congressional leaders were shown, this is most frequently cited to me in private as having changed the minds of lawmakers who weren’t initially convinced of FISA abuses or FBI irregularities.

7.  The Steele spreadsheet.

I wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every claim in the Steele dossier. According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet rumors. Given Steele’s own effort to leak intel in his dossier to the media before Election Day, the public deserves to see the FBI’s final analysis of his credibility. A document I reviewed recently showed the FBI described Steele’s information as only “minimally corroborated” and the bureau’s confidence in him as “medium.”

8.  The Steele interview.

It has been reported, and confirmed, that the DOJ’s inspector general (IG) interviewed the former British intelligence operative for as long as 16 hours about his contacts with the FBI while working with Clinton’s opposition research firm, Fusion GPS. It is clear from documents already forced into the public view by lawsuits that Steele admitted in the fall of 2016 that he was desperate to defeat Trump, had a political deadline to make his dirt public, was working for the DNC/Clinton campaign and was leaking to the news media. If he told that to the FBI and it wasn’t disclosed to the FISA court, there could be serious repercussions.

9.  The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application.

This was the last of four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe had started, and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I’m told the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump’s orbit.

10.  Records of allies’ assistance.

Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. Members of Congress have searched recently for some key contact documents with British intelligence. My sources say these documents might help explain Attorney General Bill Barr’s recent comments that “the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed.”

The fall may be setting up to be a perfect storm for Democrats. In addition to the anticipated release of these documents, we can expect the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s interactions with the FISA Court. Also, U.S. attorney John Durham’s team has been working hard on determining the origins of the Russian collusion investigation.

Durham was tapped by Attorney General William Barr in May to lead this probe. The few leaks we’ve heard about over the summer, such as the cooperation of alleged FBI spy Joseph Mifsud, have given us reason for optimism. We also know that prior to Durham’s appointment, he was working on cases related to this investigation.

We’ve had such a long wait already. Let’s hope John Solomon is right.

The post Solomon: ‘Long Wait For Transparency’ Over Russian Collusion Docs May Soon End; Could ‘Rock Washington’ This Fall appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 99CB8FEA-3EC4-4E75-A6D4-53E011083E7B-300x300 Solomon: ‘Long Wait For Transparency’ Over Russian Collusion Docs May Soon End; Could ‘Rock Washington’ This Fall Steele dossier spying Special Counsel President Trump pete hoekstra Mueller Investigation John Solomon john durham Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats Dan Coats Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

California’s New Use Of Force Laws Are The Result Of Politically Fostered Mistrust Of Police

Westlake Legal Group legal-broken-gavel California’s New Use Of Force Laws Are The Result Of Politically Fostered Mistrust Of Police Use of Force Uncategorized republicans racial profiling Politics police shootings police brutality police Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020 2019 2018
California’s New Use Of Force Laws Are The Result Of Politically Fostered Mistrust Of Police

The State of California just enacted new Use Of Force legislation for its law enforcement officers. On Monday, according to the San Fransisco Chronicle

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB392, which directs police to “use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life” and, when possible, to use techniques to de-escalate a confrontation before shooting.

The bill does not explicitly define “necessary,” though courts could consider the actions of both the officer and the suspect when determining whether a shooting was justified. The law will take effect Jan. 1.

According to the Los Angeles Times, this was the result of a widening gap between police departments and the minority communities they serve, a gap exacerbated by police shootings seen by some as racially motivated. From the Times

SACRAMENTO —  After an emotional fight that laid bare the chasm between California’s communities of color and police, Gov. Gavin Newsom Monday signed Assembly Bill 392, creating what some have described as one of the toughest standards in the nation for when law enforcement officers can kill.

Intense private negotiations and public outcry influenced the final language of the legislation, which will take effect on Jan. 1. Recent fatal police shootings of unarmed black men, in particular, prompted activists to seek changes in rules that in some cases were more than a century old. Though the final bill doesn’t go as far as some wanted, supporters say it’s a first step in changing the culture of policing in California.

The Times goes on to say that this should not have any deleterious effect on day-to-day policing in large metropolitan areas.

The new language will require that law enforcement use deadly force only when “necessary,” instead of the current wording of when it is “reasonable.” In large urban law enforcement departments that already train for de-escalation and crisis intervention, day-to-day policing will probably not noticeably change.

I’m not so sure, mainly because this procedural change isn’t the only thing going on in the arena of community-police relations. In many locales, there has been a loss of trust between the communities and the police that serve them. In certain departments, this could be a self inflicted wound. In my brief, 10 year experience in law enforcement, the Sheriff’s Office I worked for was well regarded in the Black neighborhoods while the City PD, wasn’t so well thought of. A typical comment from residents was, “County don’t play.” And we didn’t. We went by the rules and enforced the law, no favorites…and the community knew it. They didn’t always like us, but they did trust us.

In other locales, race baiters have used demonstrably false statements to inflame unfortunate incidents, into a full blown race riots. Such was the case in Ferguson, MO, where Michael Brown, a black man who had just finished robbing a convenience store attacked a white police officer responding to the robbery call. The officer fearing for his safety, shot and killed Brown as he continued to attack him. The officer was cleared by a grand jury after several witnesses and laboratory results confirmed his version of the events; that Brown had attacked him and tried to get his firearm.

That didn’t stop the race hustlers such as Al Sharpton from inciting riots that featured violence and property damage to the point that the National Guard had to be called out. Ferguson Police Department is now under a Federal consent decree due to an investigation by the Obama/Holder DOJ.

The final straw in California, was the shooting death of Stephon Clark by Sacramento Police in 2018. At the time of the shooting, Clark was unarmed, but was holding a cellphone which the Police thought was a gun. The officers were not charged.

California cities aren’t the only areas that are in the throes of an anti-police societal shift. Others we’ve seen in the news, Detroit, New York City and President Trump’s favorite example of Democrat governance, Baltimore, Maryland. It’s this societal shift, not police procedure restrictions that is the biggest danger in California’s new law.

Police Officers are professionals. Given certain legal constraints, the vast majority of these dedicated public servants work within those constraints and are able to effectively police their communities. This new law, in and of itself, is unlikely to change that. It’s the societal environment that resulted in its passage that is the problem.

Police in many locales aren’t generally trusted…and it’s not always their fault. I had the opportunity to speak with David Webb on his Tuesday morning show on Sirius XM. The subject was the Eric Garner incident in New York City, where Mr. Garner died as a result of the struggle that ensued when Police Officers attempted to arrest him on outstanding warrants.

Mr. Webb opined that Mr. Garner would certainly be alive today, if he hadn’t resisted lawful arrest—and he’s right. However, that’s not the entire story of mistrust. That particular story starts with civil authorities at all levels passing legislation that is meant to feel good but makes no sense to the populace it is inflicted on.

In Garner’s case, it was feel good cigarette taxes that are so onerous, they have fostered a burgeoning industry in bootleg smokes sold as singles. Like most folks, I believe in obeying the law (well except for highway speed limits) even if I think a particular ordinance is stupid. Moreover, “broken windows” policing, a proven method, says that even minor, infractions of “stupid” laws need to be addressed. Which, as a result of a neighborhood complaint regarding Garner’s activities, the Police were doing.

As I indicated to Webb, there’s an old military leadership adage—Never give an order, that you know damned well will not be obeyed. If the Soldier disobeys, he’s in trouble. You have to punish him. You are in trouble as a leader for punishing the Soldier for what he, his buddies and you all know…is BS. Many of the city ordinances in New York City are just that…an insult to the citizenry they are inflicted on…I mean really…a limit on the size of fountain drinks?

Our society is based on voluntary compliance with the law. Generally speaking, most of us support obedience all of our laws even when we might disagree with a few of them. But there comes a point when societal segments have had enough silliness and their respect for the law in general wanes. This is exacerbated when politicians like Bill DeBlasio New York) and Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (Baltimore) throw their own law enforcement agencies under the bus. What’s worse, we even have Democrat Presidential candidates calling Michael Brown’s death a “murder.” This after, the officer in question was fully exonerated.

How are citizens expected to respect Law Enforcement when their nominal superiors don’t? Why should police officers go out of their way via “self initiated activity,” when the payoff for being proactive is being excoriated by your ultimate boss, the Mayor. So they don’t. They answer their calls, try not to get fired and nothing more. Their communities, defend into chaos…just like Baltimore.

In short, requiring police to have a good, articulable reason for using deadly force is the least of their problems. Public distrust, most of it fostered by corrupt politicians using them as scapegoats and the subject of feel good legislation, is definitely at the tippy top.

David Webb can be found on Sirius XM Channel 125 9-12AM M-F

Mike Ford, a retired Infantry Officer, writes on Military, Foreign Affairs and occasionally dabbles in Political and Economic matters.

Follow him on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

You can find his other Red State work here.

The post California’s New Use Of Force Laws Are The Result Of Politically Fostered Mistrust Of Police appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group legal-broken-gavel-copy-1-300x169 California’s New Use Of Force Laws Are The Result Of Politically Fostered Mistrust Of Police Use of Force Uncategorized republicans racial profiling Politics police shootings police brutality police Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020 2019 2018   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Administration Files Official Brief To Dismantle the Unconstitutional DACA Program

Westlake Legal Group dreamers-620x414 Trump Administration Files Official Brief To Dismantle the Unconstitutional DACA Program SCOTUS republicans Politics immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story elections Dreamers donald trump democrats Deferred Action for Parents of Americans Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals daca Allow Media Exception

CreditJacquelyn Martin/Associated Press

What started as a textbook example of executive lawmaking by fiat that turned into a textbook case of results-oriented judicial rulings is now headed to the Supreme Court.

Of course, I’m talking about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

The executive lawmaking by fiat took place in 2012 when President Obama basically gave the finger to Congress and announced that he was going to contravene black letter law and exempted some illegal aliens from being eligible for deportation.

The method he used for this was not an Executive Order or the APA rule-making process, it was established by a memo former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano sent out to her field staff directing them to not deport illegal aliens who allege that they were brought to the US as children. That’s it. That was the depth of the analysis and consultation. A. Memo. A similar program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court which should have been a hint that it wasn’t on the up-and-up. But when Jeff Sessions got around to pulling the plug on DACA, lawfare ensued and the administration was told it could not rescind the Napolitano memo.

Just stop for a moment and consider this. Federal courts literally told the Trump administration that they could not rescind a memo written five years and three Homeland Security secretaries earlier. Logically, this means a cabinet secretary’s memo is more powerful than an actual law because it takes no consensus to issue it and it can’t be withdrawn when management changes.

The Trump administration appealed this to the Supreme Court and the case is to be heard in November. Today, however, we got a glance at the argument.

Justice Department lawyers told the Supreme Court on Monday that President Trump acted lawfully in September 2017 when he decided to end an Obama-era program that protects young undocumented immigrants from deportation.

In a legal brief submitted to the court, the lawyers asserted that the president was fully within his rights to eliminate the program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and said the lower courts were mistaken when they said Mr. Trump’s action almost two years ago was arbitrary.

The Department of Homeland Security “correctly, and at a minimum reasonably, concluded that DACA is unlawful,” the lawyers argued, disputing the conclusions by the lower court judges about the three reasons the administration gave for ending the program. “None of those three grounds is remotely arbitrary or capricious, let alone all three.”

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments about the fate of the program in November. The justices could decide the case next spring or summer, just as the presidential election campaign is in full swing.

The government’s brief, filed late Monday, is the first salvo in what could be one of the biggest legal tests of the president’s immigration agenda. The outcome of the case will probably determine whether Mr. Trump can make good on a central campaign promise.

I think that it is a safe bet that this version of DACA is dead. Given the way the Supreme Court has ruled, it is very difficult to see the same majority that has upheld President Trump’s actions on immigration so far suddenly decide that this administration must continue to carry out the policies of the previous one given the lack of fact finding or public comment or anything more than one person signing a memo.

That, of course, creates a whole new series of problems for Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats threw away a perfectly good chance to reach an permanent DACA settlement early in Trump’s presidency but decided they would much rather have the issue to fund-raise off from than having a solution. The House Democrats will have to propose some kind of bullsh** bill, the question then being will they overreach and propose something that can’t pass (energizing the open borders types but putting red and purple district Democrats on record on a massive amnesty bill)? Or will they actually try to find a bill the Senate can live with? That, of course, was a rhetorical question. For the Republicans the question is do they hold firm or cave? And will President Trump create his own DACA once the Obama one is dead or will he start deporting DREAMers?

Because it is an election year, neither side will have much of an incentive to compromise. And, to tell you the truth, I’ve sort of lost sympathy for the whole DREAMer nonsense and I suspect that many in the GOP and in the country at large are also close to having their give-a-sh** circuit breaker trip along with me.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Trump Administration Files Official Brief To Dismantle the Unconstitutional DACA Program appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group dreamers-300x200 Trump Administration Files Official Brief To Dismantle the Unconstitutional DACA Program SCOTUS republicans Politics immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story elections Dreamers donald trump democrats Deferred Action for Parents of Americans Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals daca Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Tim Scott Blasts Beto and Other Dems for Trying to “Dupe” African-American Voters With Claims of Racism

Westlake Legal Group TimScottAPImage-620x317 Video: Tim Scott Blasts Beto and Other Dems for Trying to “Dupe” African-American Voters With Claims of Racism Tim Scott south carolina republicans racism Race Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Beto O Rourke beto Arkansas Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020

In this Nov. 5, 2015, photo, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., speaks about the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

A deliberate and persistent theme among Democrats running for president is that Donald Trump is a “racist” president who African-American voters should not trust.

It’s not a new tactic, of course. Democrats have called every Republican president or presidential nominee a “racist” to varying degrees going back decades, but this time around they think it will stick. A big reason why is because the left’s mainstream media allies have dropped all pretense of neutrality on Trump and have openly decided to join in on the accusations themselves.

Nearly every 2020 Democratic candidate has made the claim a focal point of their campaign. But in the aftermath of the horrific El Paso mass shooting earlier this month that killed 22 and injured dozens more, the former El Paso Congressman has amplified the accusation tenfold and made it part of his central theme that America was “founded on racism.”

On a campaign stop he made over the weekend in the red state of Arkansas, here’s just some of what O’Rourke said:

“In this country, though we’d like to think otherwise, was founded on racism, has persisted through racism, and is racist today. And if you don’t want to accept that phrase, or that word, or that distinction, look at this: there’s 10 times the wealth in white America today than there is black America,” O’Rourke explained. “There’s 2.3 million people behind bars tonight while we enjoy our freedom, disproportionality comprised of people of color, the largest prison population on the planet bar none.”

Watch:

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) appeared on Martha MacCallum’s “The Story” program on Fox News Monday night and was shown video clips of Democrats like O’Rourke repeatedly playing the race card and denigrating the country they want to represent. In response, Scott slammed them:

“No, not at all,” Scott told MacCallum, responding to a question about whether Democrats’ strategy for winning African-American voters will work. “This is an opportunity for the Democratic Party to try to figure out a way to dupe the African-American voters, not only in South Carolina but around the country because they really have nothing but empty promises to run on.”

[…]

“There is nothing left to try to reel in the African-American community,” said Scott, “because President Trump and the Republican Party has done a very good job of focusing on improving the economic outcome of people who have been struggling for the last decade under the previous administration, so we now have a chance to have a contrast between the parties of the right, the right side and the party and policies of the left going the wrong direction.”

Watch the full segment below as Scott explains in detail why Democrats can’t credibly focus on issues like the economy, unemployment, and reforming the criminal justice system – because Trump is already doing it. He also noted it was a mistake to assume what African-American voters wanted in a presidential candidate could only be offered by Democrats:

Scott said earlier this month that his run for reelection in 2022 would be his last.

Related –>> The NRA Wipes The Floor With Beto O’Rourke After His Weekend Visit To An Arkansas Gun Show

——–
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Video: Tim Scott Blasts Beto and Other Dems for Trying to “Dupe” African-American Voters With Claims of Racism appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group TimScottAPImage-300x153 Video: Tim Scott Blasts Beto and Other Dems for Trying to “Dupe” African-American Voters With Claims of Racism Tim Scott south carolina republicans racism Race Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Beto O Rourke beto Arkansas Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Joe Biden’s Wife Suggests Other Candidates Might Be Better On Policy, but Vote for Joe Anyway

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-05-31-at-7.17.37-AM Joe Biden’s Wife Suggests Other Candidates Might Be Better On Policy, but Vote for Joe Anyway Politics Joe Biden Jill Biden Front Page Stories elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception 2020

Former VP Joe Biden isn’t exactly getting ringing endorsements from those close to him. Former President Barack Obama doesn’t seem to be keen on endorsing him, and now Biden’s own wife seems to think her husband’s legitimacy as a candidate is based solely around his electability.

According to the Daily Caller, Jill Biden said that while you might like other opponents who are better than her husband on things like healthcare, in the end, it’s all about beating Trump:

“Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” Jill Biden said, according to The Washington Post. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

I’m not so sure that’s a great approach. It definitely wasn’t for other candidates in previous elections. They said that about Romney and he lost too.

It’s likely Biden will get the nomination and will face Trump, but perhaps what Mrs. Biden is saying is far more poignant than we may give it credit for. Right now we have a radicalized Democratic party who may pack up their toys and go home if Biden is nominated after the primary. He is more moderate than the rest and has the disadvantage of being a white male, something many Democrats are outspokenly angry about after electing a black man and nominating a woman for president.

If Democrats want to stand any chance of winning in 2020, they’ll have to tone down their more radical urges and put Biden at the top of the priority list.

It likely won’t happen. Between the upset Bernie bros once again losing the nomination and Elizabeth Warren’s radicalized base, losing to a moderate probably won’t please too many in the new Democrat party and they’ll either stay home or go to a third party.

The most interesting part, however, is that Mrs. Biden didn’t try to make the argument that her husband’s ideas were the right ideas, just that her husband was the most electable. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.

The Democratic party is in really sad shape if moderates can’t even make arguments for moderate policies.

The post Joe Biden’s Wife Suggests Other Candidates Might Be Better On Policy, but Vote for Joe Anyway appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-05-31-at-7.17.37-AM-300x161 Joe Biden’s Wife Suggests Other Candidates Might Be Better On Policy, but Vote for Joe Anyway Politics Joe Biden Jill Biden Front Page Stories elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New Poll Shows Trump In ‘Dead Heat’ With Biden, Sanders; Some Voters ‘Silently Agree’ With Specific Trump Policies

Westlake Legal Group white-house-620x414 New Poll Shows Trump In ‘Dead Heat’ With Biden, Sanders; Some Voters ‘Silently Agree’ With Specific Trump Policies President Trump polling numbers polls Pete Buttiegieg kamala harris Joe Biden Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren elections donald trump democrats Campaigns Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2020

 

A Zogby/Wall St. 24/7 poll released on Monday showed President Trump slightly ahead of the top 2020 Democratic hopefuls. The online poll, conducted August 9-12, surveyed 897 likely voters and has a margin of error of +/- 3.3%.

In a head-to-head race, Trump topped former Vice President Joe Biden by a margin of 46% to 45%. 9% were not sure.

Trump outperformed Biden among voters aged 65+ (56% to 40%), men (53% to 42%), independents (44% to 36%), small-city voters (47% to 43%), and suburban voters (45% to 44%).

Biden topped Trump among millennials (50% to 38%), women (48% to 39%), suburban women (50% to 35%), large-city voters (46% to 45%), African Americans (74% to 21%), and Hispanics (48% to 46%).

Although Biden won among Hispanics, 46% is an impressive number for a Republican candidate.

In a head-to-head race, Trump led Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) by a 45% to 44% margin, a statistical tie. 11% were not sure.

Sanders topped Trump with suburban women (45% to 36%), Hispanics (52% to 43%), African Americans (77% to 17%), Generation Z voters, those people born from 1995 to 2010 (66% for Sanders, Trump’s support was not available), medium-city voters (53% to 38%), and small-city voters (47% to 43%).

The two were tied among independents (39%), and large-city voters (46%).

In a head-to-head race, Trump topped Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) by a 44% to 42% margin. 14% were not sure.

Harris outperformed among millennials (51% to 32%), Generation Z (56% to 26%), Hispanics (58% to 34%), suburban women (46% to 37%), and interestingly, among all women (42% to 39%).

Trump led among independents (41% to 35%), men (50% to 41%), small-city voters (46% to 40%), and suburban voters (45% to 40%).

In a race against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Trump was ahead by a 45% to 43% margin. 13% were not sure.

The poll also showed Trump besting South Bend, IN Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) by a 45% to 42% margin, with 14% unsure.

Perhaps the most interesting results concerned “silent” Trump supporters. Nearly half of those surveyed, 49% (22% strongly and 27% somewhat strongly), agreed with the following statement:

Even though I tell people I do not approve of Donald Trump, I personally agree with him on certain issues.

Zogby notes that the percentage of likely voters who believe they have to “silently” support Trump has increased to 49% from 40% in the last year.

There are many Democrats who do not support the far left platforms of the current field of 2020 candidates. For example, the majority of Americans oppose open borders, providing free medical care to illegals, late term abortions, and the Green New Deal. And some are afraid to voice their opinions.

I find the concept of silent support to be fascinating. The fact that it’s a serious question from a major pollster speaks volumes about the state of American politics. (Note: If any readers are interested in looking at the breakdown of where various groups and sub-groups stand in regard to silent support, please scroll down.)

This poll was last conducted in May and at that time, the President was trailing the top 2020 Democratic candidates. His position has improved considerably since then. He is now in a statistical dead heat with Biden and Sanders and is seen as narrowly defeating Warren, Harris and Buttiegieg. The poll found that Trump “has made in-roads with independents, suburban voters, urban men, and, urban parents” and has “increased support among his base — men, consumer blocs, older voters, and union voters.”

 

Zogby’s breakdown of poll results on silent support statement:

Most sub-groups who typically support the president were more agreeable to the idea of hiding their support Trump but there were some surprises among the demographics we surveyed.

The groups most likely to “strongly and somewhat” agree they privately support Trump on certain issues were: likely voters living in the East (56% at least somewhat agree/44% at least somewhat disagree). Likely voters living in the West were more disagreeable (45% at least somewhat agree/55% at least somewhat disagree).

Other groups who agreed they “silently” support the president included workers employed full time (55% agree/45% disagree), NASCAR fans (63% agree/37% disagree), union workers (63% agree/38% disagree), weekly Amazon shoppers (60% agree/40% disagree), weekly Walmart shoppers (56% agree/44% disagree), Hispanics (64% agree/36% disagree), NRA members (77% agree/23% disagree), investor class voters (60% agree/40% disagree), and self-identified creative class voters (57% agree/43% disagree).

There were differences in the level of agreement when it came to age, gender and where voters lived. A majority of millennials aged 18-29 (52% agree/48% disagree) agreed they support Trump on certain issues in private, while older voters aged 50-64 felt the opposite (43% agree/57% disagree). Men (54% agree/46% disagree) were more likely to feel compelled to hide their support for the president on certain issues than women (44% agree/56% disagree).

The sub-groups most likely to disagree with “silently” supporting Donald Trump were Democrats (69% disagree/31% agree), liberals (70% disagree/31% agree), voters divorced/widowed/separated (62% disagree/38% agree), and voters not in unions (53% disagree/47% agree).

The post New Poll Shows Trump In ‘Dead Heat’ With Biden, Sanders; Some Voters ‘Silently Agree’ With Specific Trump Policies appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group white-house-300x200 New Poll Shows Trump In ‘Dead Heat’ With Biden, Sanders; Some Voters ‘Silently Agree’ With Specific Trump Policies President Trump polling numbers polls Pete Buttiegieg kamala harris Joe Biden Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren elections donald trump democrats Campaigns Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com