Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review get a kick out of growing Democratic frustration over Hillary Clinton not campaigning for Dems this year and Obama not caring about much of anything these days. They also shake their heads as no security strategy seems to be working in Ferguson. And they scold conservatives for making light of protesters throwing rocks at MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.
The Politics of Justice
A former Justice Department official says politicizing of the justice system is at an all-time high and he expects federal charges to be filed in the shooting death of Michael Brown regardless of what local prosecutors do.
Hans von Spakovsky served in the civil rights division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration. He is now a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-author of the new book,”Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”
He says the Obama administration’s track record on deciding which cases to prosecute and Friday’s Texas indictment of Gov. Rick Perry are just the latest evidence that ideology is driving the justice system at multiple levels of government.
“Eric Holder has completely politicized the Justice Department. As we can see, unfortunately, this is happening in other places like the Travis County (Texas) D.A.’s office. That should concern every American. I don’t care what their political background is because that is a threat to everyone’s liberty and everyone’s freedom when that kind of power is used for political purposes,” said von Spakovsky, who expects federal charges to come in the Brown case.
“I am fearful that they will try to pursue a federal case even if there’s no evidence to justify it, because of the fact that they really see everything, including Eric Holder, through the prism of race even when race is not a factor in a case or an incident,” said von Spakovsky.
Von Spakovsky says the Justice Department is right to monitor the case but should only intervene if the local authorities fail to conduct a proper investigation or if there is evidence that the the shooting was part of a direct attempt to deprive Brown of his civil rights. For the most part, he says, DOJ seems to be treading lightly.
“If they go into this and interfere with the local investigation, that’s when it becomes a problem. It doesn’t look like they’re doing that yet as of now,” he said.
Holder has already dispatched a Justice Department team to investigate the case and over the weekend ordered a a private federal autopsy of Brown’s body on top of the two already done. The latter directive is puzzling to von Spakovsky.
“That one I frankly didn’t really understand. That may be an overstep on the part of the feds. There’s no evidence of any kind that the local coroner’s office cannot do a proper autopsy. I’m not really sure what excuse Holder has for ordering a second one, because the only reason to do that is if you’re questioning the validity and the competence of the local. There’s no evidence to show that they don’t know what they’re doing,” said von Spakovsky.
Tensions in Ferguson remain at a high level more than a week after the Brown shooting. Gov. Jay Nixon (D-Missouri) has ordered the National Guard to Ferguson to maintain order renewed clashes between protesters and police. Given the atmosphere and the fierce opinions on both sides of this case, is it even possible for officials to reach a conclusion that’s acceptable to all sides?
“There is if everyone will calm down and slow down. What needs to happen is a very thorough, very detailed investigation of the facts, which would include looking at all of the audio and video tapes of any kind that are available. Before anyone comes to any conclusions about what happened and whether or not the police officer was acting properly,” said von Spakovsky, who says President Obama and Holder have largely been measured and proper in their comments.
“The president and others, like Eric Holder, [have] said there’s no excuse for the kind of looting and violence that has occurred. That is absolutely right. That is something the leadership of the country, like Barack Obama, need to be telling to people in Ferguson,” he said.
Von Spakovsky says the politicizing of the judicial system is seen on all levels, most recently by the Travis County, Texas, indictment of Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas). On Friday, a grand jury charged Perry with abuse of power for threatening to veto funding for the Travis County district attorney’s office and then making good on the threat.
Perry raised the veto threat after Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was convicted of drunk driving and registering a blood-alcohol content approximately three times the legal limit. He threatened to withhold $7.5 million in state funding for the district attorney’s office unless Lehmberg resigned. He vetoed the funding bill after she refused.
Ste Democratic Party officials are demanding Perry’s resignation, but many Republicans and even prominent liberals such as David Axelrod and Alan Dershowitz say the case is very thin. Von Spakovsky is even more blunt.
“To call this indictment frivolous would be giving it too much credibility. It comes from an office that has a very unfortunate past history of using and abusing its power for political purposes,” he said.
The same office brought campaign fundraising charges against then-U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The case resulted in one conviction for DeLay, but that verdict was thrown out on appeal. Travis County prosecutors also brought charges against then-U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison shortly after her election.
“That case was thrown out 30 minutes after the trial started. So this is an office with a very bad reputation,” said von Spakovsky, who added there is no way for a Texas governor to abuse their power when it comes to vetoes.
“It is not a legitimate charge. The governor of Texas has unlimited, unbridled power under Section 14 of the Texas constitution to veto a bill for any reason or no reason. What this office is trying to do is take a political conflict and turn it into a legal case and they have no basis for doing so,” he said.
According to von Spakovsky, the Holder Justice Department and the Travis County District Attorney’s office are just the tip of the iceberg on politicizing justice.
“From everything I’ve seen, it looks like it’s getting worse. These are not the only examples of this. There are others going on around the country,” he said.
Three Martini Lunch 8/18/14
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see Kurdish forces gaining some momentum against ISIS, with critical help from U.S. airstrikes. They also discuss the very suspect indictment lodged against Texas Gov. Rick Perry for threatening to veto funding for a local district attorney’s office before he actually vetoed it. And they assess Amanda Curtis, the bizarre new nominee for U.S. Senate in Montana.
‘They Need to Wake Up’
Both sides deserve blame in Ferguson, Missouri, and President Obama could do a lot more to calm tense situations like this, according to prominent Vanderbilt professor and conservative activist Carol M. Swain.
A lifelong Democrat who left party after becoming a Christian, Swain says Republicans have also lost their way and the American people need to take back their country.
This week, the shooting death of Michael Brown and the resulting rioting and protests have dominated media coverage. Swain says the situation got out of hand because of mistakes made on both sides.
“The vandalism and a lot of the looting we’ve seen before. We’ve also seen Al Sharpton come to the scene and then the media descend upon the city. I think it’s a serious problem with black youth and the police. I think the fault lies on both sides because it’s important for parents to teach their children how to react to police. At the same time we want to monitor police behavior to make sure that there isn’t brutality and racism taking place,” said Swain, who is concerned about the increased militarization of police departments.
“I am concerned about the military artillery and equipment in the city. But I’m more concerned about it because I think there’s some other cities around the country where we’ve seen tanks and a lot of military activity. For all we know, this is something that the government is behind. It could be used against other citizens, not just in that particular riot situation. I’m glad the issues are coming to the forefront. I think they’re much larger than Ferguson, Missouri,” said Swain, who is also author of “Black Faces, Black Interests.”
Swain is not overly impressed with President Obama’s public comments on the unrest in Missouri, but she does think he’s striking a better tone than he did in the wake of the Henry Louis Gates arrest in 2009 or the Trayvon Martin debate in 2012.
“He’s been more cautious than in the past. In the past, he’s been quick to jump to the conclusion that it’s all racism when he didn’t know the facts,” said Swain.
However, she says the president could be taking a stronger stand against lawlessness, regardless of the reason.
“I think he could help the situation a lot by appealing to the black community and maybe even the journalists as well. I think with the black community, they need to know that rioting, looting, violence, is never an appropriate response. It’s not an effective method of protest. I think it hurts the entire black community,” said Swain.
Swain was born into poverty as one of 12 children. She was a married, teenage mother with two children who did not finish high school. However, she later received her GED and received degrees from five different colleges and universities. Swain received her law degree from Yale and her Ph.D from the University of North Carolina. As a black woman raised in dire financial straits, she would seem likely to be a solid Democrat. And she was, until life took her in a different direction.
“Like most blacks, I was born a Democrat and I was a Democrat most of my life. In 2000, I had a Christian conversion experience that sort of shifted me (politically) a little bit. I did not align with the Republican Party until 2009 and it was bit by bit. At some point, I decided I could no longer be a Democrat because of all the policy stances that are contrary to Judeo-Christian values as I understand them,” said Swain.
As she evolved politically, Swain had no intention of becoming a public activist. She says it came about naturally.
“I never sought to be involved in politics, but I see issues like immigration, the national surveillance, the national security problems. Often, I don’t hear people speaking out, and I believe that part of my responsibility is to speak,” she said.
“I speak out about issues because I believe our nation is at a critical point. I think we the people need to stand up, take responsibility for the condition of the nation and we can’t point fingers at other people. It’s our responsibility. It’s our country. We have to fight for it,” said Swain.
Swain may have switched party allegiances in 2009, but she is far from satisfied with the performance of the GOP. The author of “”Be the People” sees Republicans too often holding a finger in the wind to determine how regain power.
“The Republican Party has lost its way. I think it has an identity problem. It doesn’t know what it wants to be. It believes it has to become the Democrat Party to stay in power. I believe that’s a serious mistake,” said Swain.
“The Republican Party has not stood up for the Constitution in Washington as far as I’m concerned. All this noise now about impeaching the president. They should have been screaming when the president first started abusing executive privilege. I think the Republicans have not stood up because they want to do it too. When they’re in power, we’re not going to get that much change,” said Swain.
If Republicans do control all of Congress next year, Swain says she will not be encouraged by rhetoric before or after Election Day but by actions taken by those in office. She says the first step to better leadership is holding current officeholders to account at the polls.
“Because the system is set up the way it is in Tennessee and other parts of the country, there’s almost nothing the voters can do. I think that’s unfortunate.We have to have a system that’s responsive and in which we can hold incumbents accountable,” said Swain.
For Swain, accountability does not stop once the primary votes are counted.
“In some of those cases, I think we have to do the ultimate. Punish them in the November elections, even if means that our own political party fails to win in that particular state. The only way to hold politicians accountable is to hold them accountable all the way through the cycle,” she said, noting the only voters can set the nation in a new direction.
“They need to wake up,” said Swain.
Three Martini Lunch 8/15/14
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer CNN’s Jake Tapper for calling out the president’s hypocrisy on press freedom. They also react to growing concerns on the left and right that President Obama is bored with his job and cannot wait until he leaves office. And they discuss a new poll showing 26 percent of tea party activists have a positive view of socialism.
Catching the Catfishers
Russian hackers recently stole 1.2 billion internet passwords and alarmed millions of people around the world, but one of the Pentagon’s top cyber-security experts says there are far more sinister online threats and you may be leaving you and your family vulnerable through your activities on the world wide web.
Whether it’s an effort to gain access to bank accounts, steal your identity or lure you into divulging volumes of personal information, criminals are looking to exploit Americans at every turn in a practice known as “catfishing”. But what is it?
“What it essentially means is someone is lying to you in the online domain, whether it’s something innocuous like adding a couple of inches to their height or taking away a few pounds from their weight or whether it’s something much more insidious by someone lying to you about who they are, whether it’s a predator or someone trying to lie to you to get information to steal your identity,” said Tyler Cohen Wood.
Wood is a cyber branch chief at the Defense Intelligence Agency. She is also author of “Catching the Catfishers: Disarm the Online Pretenders, Predators and Perpetrators Who Are Out to Ruin Your Life.” She says there several things that should give you pause about your online connections.
“Some of the red flags are simple things like: If this person you’re talking to won’t Skype with you or have a video conversation, that’s a red flag. If someone will not send you a photograph in real time that’s a red flag too. That could indicate they took a photograph from someone else’s site,” said Wood.
“I also recommend if they do send you a photograph and it’s just one photograph, that you do a Google Image Search so you can determine if that photograph appears on someone else’s Facebook site or any other of their social media,” she said, noting there are other warning signs as well.
“You also want to look at their social media and make sure that the social media makes sense. Make sure that they have friends, that they have regular banter with those friends and they don’t just have a bunch of filler friends and it didn’t look like they just created the social media in one day. Those are just some of the red flags you want to look for,” said Wood.
As you take time to scrutinize the validity of your new cyber friends, Wood says you also want to be very protective of your own personal information.
“You want to not put up personal identifying information. You don’t want to have your address or the exact location of where you work. If someone’s trying to steal your identity, all they need is your birthday, your name and an address that you’ve lived at,” warned Wood.
“I go through in my book how to protect yourself from giving away that information. A lot of times we give away this information without even realizing that we’re doing it by using location services or just self-disclosure of information,” she said.
In addition to the obvious information you shouldn’t be sharing with most people, Wood says there are other “digital crumbs” to avoid for individuals and business owners.
“One of the greatest risks to businesses protecting their intellectual property and corporate IP is the fact that we no longer just sit in an office. We’re always on the go. People use their personal smartphones for business or their tablets. There’s something that I’ve called application permission creep. That’s when the personal applications you use on your phone extend the permissions that they should be allowed,” said Wood, who says there are solid ways to address this problem.
“You can go to the permission settings, regardless of android or iPhone and see what permissions the applications that you use have. You would be surprised. A lot of applications on android will have permissions to view your text messages, your contact list, the things that you’ve stored on the phone. They have full access to sell that data. A lot times contact lists or the things you say in text messages are corporate intellectual property, so I recommend businesses really look at the applications their employees are using on their phones and look at the permissions that those have,” said Wood.
But what should you do if those preventative steps fail and your personal information is compromised or you discover a “catfisher?”
“That’s when you contact authorities. You can also contact the social media site that you’re using because a lot of them have bullying or protection laws so they can help disable the account. But i would definitely capture all the information and contact your local authorities,” said Wood.
She says the teenage daughter of a friends was able to spot a fake romantic interest posing as a 17-year-old boy. When confronted, the person stopped communicating, but Wood says the confrontation spoiled a chance to identify the perpetrator.
“If they had chosen to contact the authorities, the social media site they were using or the (internet service provider), a preservation letter could have been sent and we could have determined who this person was if that was the route they decided to go down,” said Wood.
Three Martini Lunch 8/14/14
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud conservative writers for engaging in an intelligent debate over the actions of rioters and police in Ferguson, Missouri. They also shudder as a former aide to five ambassadors to Iraq believes ISIS could target the U.S. soon. And they react to Simon & Schuster rejecting a book by Bowe Bergdahl’s former platoon mates because she feared it would portray President Obama in a negative light.
Will Gay Marriage Be Legal in Virginia Next Week?
A federal appeals court is refusing to stay it’s rejection of Virginia’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, meaning same-sex marriage will take place and be recognized in the commonwealth next week unless the Supreme Court intervenes.
The three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request from Prince William County Clerk of Court Michele McQuigg for the judges to hold off enforcing its decision until the legal fight ends,most likely at the Supreme Court. Without action from the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages will be legal and recognized in Virginia starting August 20.
Traditional marriage defenders say Wednesday’s decision by the three judges is clear evidence they see themselves advancing a political cause.
“It’s a clear case of judicial activism. This is a no-brainer that you stay the decision. This has never been heard before in an appellate court like this and never heard before the United State Supreme Court, so the consequences are chaotic,” said Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver, who has defended traditional marriage in several states.
“If in fact they don’t stay the decision and people go get marriage licenses and then the case is overturned, then all those licenses are invalid. They’re not worth the paper they’re written on. So it’s a no-brainer that they would stay this. The only reason they wouldn’t is because they’re ideologues.”
Staver goes even further, saying one of the key pillars of our American system is eroding as this legal debate over marriage persists.
“I think what we’re seeing is not marriage on trial. We’re seeing the judiciary on trial. The only power they have is in the confidence of the people. If the people lose confidence in the courts, then the courts lose their power,” said Staver. “They certainly lose power or gain power only when the people respect their decisions. When they act like this, how can you respect a decision by these activist judges,” said Staver.
The good news for traditional marriage defenders is that the Supreme Court will most likely issue a stay until the justices can consider the many different state cases themselves. That’s the prediction of McQuigg’s attorney.
“Approximately seven months ago, the Supreme Court unanimously stayed a nearly identical federal court decision in a case that is materially indistinguishable from this one,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Ken Connelly.
“By unanimously staying that case, we believe the Supreme Court essentially signaled to all lower federal courts that they must take similar steps to preserve the enforcement of these laws until the Supreme Court itself definitively resolves the issue,” he said.
Connelly says even Virginia Attorney Mark Herring, a fierce advocate for same-sex marriage, supports a stay until the Supreme Court rules on the issue.
Upon taking office in January, Herring immediately announced Virginia would no longer defend the traditional marriage amendment its constitution and would instead be actively pushing for it to be struck down. Connelly says it’s hard to know what impact Herring’s actions have had in this case since many courts around the nation have ruled the same way. However, Staver believes Herring has played a role and considers his actions deplorable.
“I think it’s a big impact. The attorney general of Virginia ought to do his job. His job is to enforce this constitutional amendment. If he has a moral or some other objection to it, then he should step aside and let someone else do an aggressive defense,” said Staver, who says any other lawyer would get in serious trouble for doing what Herring has done to the people of Virginia.
“In any other area, if an attorney actually turned on the client and argued the opposite of what the client wanted, that attorney would be subject to sanctions. That attorney would be subject to professional responsibility ethics challenges and discipline,” he said.
Since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013, courts across the nation have used the decision as the premise to strike down traditional marriage laws and amendments.
Connelly says those courts are badly misreading the Supreme Court’s ruling, noting the justices found DOMA “unusual” because it was the first time the federal government waded into the issue of marriage. He says that same argument cannot be made in the Virginia case.
“There is absolutely nothing in Virginia’s marriage law regarding man-woman marriage or any other state’s laws regarding man-woman marriage that are unusual. They have been in place, in all cases, before the states even came into existence. The marriage laws come up from the English common law and marriage itself predates the state, not just the United States but states in general around the world,” said Connelly.
“Virginia has always provided for man-woman marriage and only man-woman marriage, so it’s not taking anything away. There’s nothing unusual about Virginia’s laws,” he said.
While Staver agrees that the legal argument strongly favors traditional marriage, he is not confident in the Supreme Court seeing it that way when the case finally gets there.
“I have no confidence in the Supreme Court on this particular critical issue. Frankly, if the Supreme Court were to take up gravity and determine that the laws of gravity were no longer good for us, that they were good for the founders but we’ve evolved past that, what kind of an opinion would that be? I think that’s the same thing with marriage,” said Staver.
Staver also has words of warning for right-leaning politicians and other conservative activists who keep silent on the issue or even consider embracing same-sex marriage as the polls lean in that direction.
“Those who remain silent will ultimately remain accountable, just as much as Democrats who advocate to the contrary. This is not an issue on which you can remain silent, any more than you can remain silent in Nazi Germany. That was a moral issue. There was a moral imperative there of the dignity of the human being. You can’t remain silent there and expect no consequences. Nor can you remain silent or advocate to the contrary with regards to the undermining marriage as the union of a man and a woman,” said Staver.
Three Martini Lunch 8/13/14
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud Frank Luntz for pointing out many Americans consume media to affirm rather than inform their political beliefs and that media outlets cannot even agree on the facts these days. They shake their heads as a new report show the wages for the jobs created in the Obama years pay far less than the ones that were lost in the recession. And they have fun with the failed push to get actor Jeff Bridges to run for U.S. Senate in Montana.
Degrade or Defeat ISIS?
Concerned Veterans for America CEO Pete Hegseth says President Obama needs to decide whether he wants to degrade or defeat the terrorist army controlling much of Syria and Iraq and he says defeat will require American troops returning to Iraq.
Hegseth’s comments come just four days after Obama authorized limited air strikes to protect U.S. assets and personnel in the Kurdish capital of Irbil and humanitarian missions to aid religious minorities persecuted by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.
“It is very narrowly tailored right now. The question is whether or not it is enough to turn back an ISIS threat which is growing and gathering,” said Hegseth, a former U.S. Army officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
He says this threat must be addressed if we hope to avoid the development of a radical state that poses a threat to the rest of the world.
“ISIS is a well-equipped, radical organization that has stated its desire to attack the American homeland and our interests. In many ways, it is a worse environment than pre-9/11 Afghanistan,” said Hegseth, who says the terrorists are poised to consume a lot more territory if they are not stopped very soon.
“These ISIS folks are modern-day Nazis. They are dedicated to killing anyone who doesn’t believe exactly what they believe and exterminating them. You would see substantial consolidation of gains in the north and I think you would see a renewed focus on Baghdad,” he said.
According to Hegseth, the choice facing the Obama administration is whether to contain or eliminate the threat posed by ISIS. And he says those options require very different actions.
“There’s a big difference between degrade and defeat. In order to stop and degrade their momentum, you’re going to have to continue air strikes. You’re going to have to send equipment to the Peshmerga, and you’re going to need to embed advisers. It’s not enough just to have advisers on post gathering intelligence. You need to have them targeting in the field alongside indigenous forces, whether that’s the Peshmerga or the Iraqi army,” said Hegseth.
Hegseth admits degrading ISIS would be far less of a commitment than wiping them off the map, but he says allowing ISIS to exist in any form carries significant threats.
“We could degrade and deny them for a substantial amount of time. The problem is you’ve got a lot of places where they can still plot, train and execute. The fear for us as Americans or western Europeans is that you have hundreds of Americans and many, many hundreds of western Europeans with passports who have traveled to Syria and Iraq through Turkey. We don’t have a full account of how many there are getting training, getting intelligence, getting expertise and then heading back to their home country. That’s what makes this such a scary scenario,” said Hegseth.
Hegseth believes ISIS need to be obliterated, but says it will mean taking steps the vast majority of Americans don’t want to take.
“If you want to defeat them, if you believe this is a threat that is too significant to ignore and just degrade, you’re going to need U.S. boots on the ground. That’s just a fact. Now whether that’s divisions, I leave that to generals who do the war planning, but a significant level of troops on the ground will be required to displace ISIS from what they’ve gathered so far,” said Hegseth, who believes total defeat of ISIS is the only realistic policy goal.
He also says the previous gains in Iraq were worth fighting for and worth pursuing again. He says the failure of the Obama administration to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011 was catastrophic.
“When we left and didn’t leave a residual force and gave away our diplomatic leverage, you saw (Iraqi Prime Minister ) Maliki hedge toward Iran and start to marginalize opponents. When ISIS made their march on Iraqi elements with no U.S. support, they faded away,” said Hegseth.
Hegseth, who saw some of the worst of the sectarian violence in Iraq, says he knows the public has little stomach for troops to return to Iraq and most soldiers aren’t eager to go back either. Still, he says those who served recognize what’s at stake.
“I think the folks that are the least war weary are the folks who have seen war, not because we want it but because we understand how if you don’t meet these threats head-on, they just manifest themselves more dangerously,” said Hegseth, who says Obama needs to decide soon what his policy goal is with respect to ISIS.
“The longer we we wait, the more we defer the problem, the worse the consequences are down the road, which is why I hope this administration will take this more seriously and make some tough choices but that’s not been in their DNA so far,” said Hegseth.