Court shopping leads to bad law and a double standard of enforcement. How despicable. Radical Democrats leftists are turning America into an outlaw, renegade nation that plays football with the rule of law.
Hate driven decisions can wreck our nation but the radical Democrats seem not to give a damn as long as they can attack the president they hate. Will The Supreme Court step in and rectify these wrongs or are they also politicized beyond hope? (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
White Bill walks the streets and black Bill is likely to go to jail. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How would you like to have Hamas in your neighborhood? (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Is ‘Guilty Until Proven Innocent’ the New Standard?
The absurd ruling by District Judge John Bates in the DACA case — which means that what is lawlessly imposed by executive order may not be lawfully rescinded by executive order — reminds us that justice is being politicized plenty from the bench. No surprise, then, that the pols and pundits are getting in on the act.
Byron York’s Washington Examiner column takes up the question of whether, where Donald Trump is concerned, the “generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head.” The matter at issue is the so-called Steele dossier, the Clinton-campaign-sponsored compilation of opposition-research memos that the author, former British spy Christopher Steele, masqueraded as intelligence reports. Byron collects commentary from left-leaning political, academic, and media doyens, all arguing that the dossier’s sensational allegations carry a degree of credibility because, though unverified, they have not been proven untrue.
We’ll come to the law in a moment. First, it’s worth observing how even the facts are corrupted by political narrative. The dossier did not drop out of the sky five minutes ago. Many media outlets had it long before it was finally published 17 months ago, refusing to run with it because they well knew that doing so would be irresponsible. The FBI has had Steele’s reports for nearly two years. As former deputy director Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee, the bureau made elaborate efforts to corroborate it. What’s more, the FBI and Justice Department have come in for fierce criticism for failing to verify dossier allegations that were included in the surveillance applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court). They have great incentive to show corroboration if it exists, but they haven’t.
The provenance of the document (about which the FISA Court was kept in the dark) strongly counsel against crediting its assertions. It is partisan opposition research generated for the purposes of a heated, acrimonious election campaign. Its allegations were leaked to the media for partisan purposes, and journalists, notwithstanding their unabashed anti-Trump biases, have not been able to corroborate it, either. We know that Steele, who is banned from entering Russia, relied on third- and fourth-hand hearsay from Russian sources who, for the most part, have not even been identified. And (as I’ve recounted here), Steele himself does not stand behind what he has written. In court proceedings, he has taken the position that the dossier is a collection of bits of “raw intelligence” that are “unverified” and “warranted further investigation” before anyone should have publicized or relied on them.
So the proponent of uncorroborated assertions, upon being sued for libel, has not just declined to defend them but has undercut their reliability. How could fair-minded people, then, repeat these allegations as if they had standing?
The president’s opposition has clearly decided there is no duty to be fair-minded in matters Trumpian. When I ask about this, there’s not so much a defense as a deflection: Well, is Trump’s commentary fair-minded? No, it’s often wrong and way over the top. But I’m not making Trump’s behavior the standard by which I measure mine, so it’s odd to me that people who detest him do so.
There is supposed to be some demonstration of confidence that information is true before we rely on it. The Steele dossier does not meet that test.
In any event, it is urged that our standard in courts of law is “innocent until proven guilty.” Only partly true. That standard is actually the presumption that applies in criminal trials, where guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. We have lower burdens of proof for civil cases (preponderance of the evidence). And for other aspects of criminal proceedings — to get an indictment or a warrant to arrest, search, or eavesdrop — prosecutors must show probable cause. It is undeniable, though, that there is supposed to be some demonstration of confidence that the information is true before we rely on it. The dossier does not meet that test.
Interestingly, there is an ambit more welcoming of rank hearsay: intelligence-gathering and analysis. Intelligence officers deal in probabilities, not proof, so as long as they appropriately weigh the biases and lack of verification attendant to information, they need not dismiss it out of hand. But there is a caveat: Intelligence matters are classified. A big part of why we do not police intelligence-gathering the way we do criminal proceedings is that the information is never supposed to become public, never supposed to be a source of embarrassment to the people implicated.
Intelligence is a national-security exercise, not a rendering of justice. As we have frequently stressed in pointing out that the FBI’s Russia investigation is a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal investigation, the point is to divine the intention of foreign powers that could threaten American interests. We do not owe hostile foreign governments a presumption of innocence — indeed, we could not protect the country if we extended one.
In national-security matters, if there is a threat, it is sensible to proceed with a “guilty until proven innocent” mindset because threats emanating from foreign places where our law does not apply and our investigative agencies do not operate will frequently not be amenable to courtroom standards of evidence. But the trade-off is that we know we could be wrong in a way that could slander people, so we keep the information under lock and key. If we took any other approach, if we required even a moderately demanding standard of proof before information could be considered, we could miss information that helps save lives.
Note, however, that there is an important exception to this, too. When the FISA Court was created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the idea was to give Americans who get caught up in counterintelligence investigations a measure of due-process protection. Henceforth, the executive branch would have to get court permission to conduct national-security surveillance. (I am not getting into the knotty question of whether the executive has constitutional authority to circumvent the court.) Because FISA introduced a judicial element into what had previously been an exercise of executive political judgment, the Justice Department formulated standards for the type of information suitable for presentation to the court.
As House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has pointed out, the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide dictates that “only documented and verified information may be used to support FBI applications to the [FISA] court.”
After nearly two years with no corroboration, a fair-minded commentariat would not be asking whether rank, unverified hearsay from anonymous sources should nevertheless be believed because it hasn’t been disproved. It would be asking why the FBI and Justice Department presented unverified information to a federal court in order to spy on Americans.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) COSBY GUILTY
Legendary comedian, Bill Cosby, has been found guilty on all three counts in a sexual-assault trial of drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand at his home in 2004.
Cosby's first trial ended in a deadlock last year. The most recent one began this month. He's faced dozens of sexual misconduct allegations.
Cosby, who once embodied the ideal American father faces a maximum sentence of 30 years and a fine of $75,000. He is 80-years-old.
NBC News reports:
Assistant Montgomery County District Attorney Kristen Feden portrayed Cosby as a sexual predator who used his TV image as a man of wholesome values to target women he believed he could silence.
Prosecutors called five other women who alleged that Cosby also sexually assaulted them in a manner similar to the way he assaulted Constand.
"He preyed on Andrea Constand the same way he preyed on all those five women," Feden said.
A sentencing hearing has yet to be scheduled. It's possible Cosby could spend the rest of his life in prison.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) The Great March of Return
A few weeks ago the Hamas regime in Gaza appeared to have come to the end of its tether. Its rockets, mortars and assault tunnels were being increasingly countered by Israeli ingenuity. To add to Hamas’ frustration, its drone project suffered a setback on
Saturday morning when. Fadi al-Batash was assassinated in Kuala Lumpur. Dr.Batash , an electrical engineer who had been living in Malaysia for about ten years and probably would have continued to be safe and secure had he not been an active member of Hamas involved in developing assault unmanned aerial vehicles( UAVs). Hamas claimed that the Mossad had assassinated him. Most Israeli cabinet ministers did not comment on Dr. Batash’s death. However, Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman attributed the electrician’s demise to internal Palestinian struggles.
Besieged and economically manacled, Hamas is unable to provide the basic needs of Gaza’s residents.
Despite these setbacks we shouldn’t be complacent.
Fortunately our state comptroller reminds us of our many shortcomings when he publishes his annual report. Last year he complained that Israel had never seriously examined the implications of its siege on Gaza and never made serious attempts to resolve the dangerous standoff it caused.
I’ll hazard a guess and say that in this year’s report he will have more to say about the situation in the Gaza Strip. I’m sure he will devote a chapter or two to “The Great March of Return” and its ramifications. Quite likely the comptroller will question the wisdom of using live fire to stop the protestors storming the border fence.
The campaign is in effect a series of protests that began at the end of March and is planned to continue for six weeks. It appears to have been organised by independent activists, but was endorsed and supported by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza. Its organisers demand that Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to what is now Israel. They set up five tent camps 500 to 700 metres from the border with Israel to accommodate the protesters.
At the first demonstration held on the 30th of March thirty thousand Palestinians assembled at the designated site.
Most of the protesters demonstrated peacefully, but groups made up mainly of young men approached the border, rolled burning tires towards the fence, and threw stones and Molotov cocktails at Israeli troops.Predictably, the IDF’s use of live fire, rubber bullets and tear gas has been condemned by human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, and Amnesty International. United Nations officials have also criticised the way the IDF responded to the assaults on the border fence.Responding to the criticism levelled at the IDF I want to quote Dr. Eran Lerman Vice President of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies and former deputy director for foreign policy and international affairs at the National Security Council, Israel's central body for coordination, integration, analysis and monitoring in the field of national security and is the staff forum on national security for the Israeli Prime Minister and Government.
Eran Lerman has held senior posts in IDF Military Intelligence for over 20 years. He also served for eight years as director of the Israel and Middle East office of the American Jewish Committee. He teaches in the Middle East studies programme at Shalem College in Jerusalem, and in post-graduate programmes at Tel Aviv University and the National Defence College.
“What led to the relatively high level of Palestinian casualties in the two rounds, so far, of the so-called ‘March of Return?’To some, the preordained answer is ‘Israeli brutality’ and the IDF's easy finger on the trigger: even some voices within Israel have described these events in terms of soldiers shooting at unarmed ‘protesters.’ The International Criminal Court Prosecutor General, Fatou Bensouda, saw fit to issue a warning to both sides, including a rare reference to the Palestinian practice of hiding behind civilians, as well as to the use of live fire by the IDF. Some thoughtless statements by Israeli politicians (‘there are no innocents in Gaza’) added to the vehemence of the debate. But the accusation of premeditated assault on civilians stands at odds with the systematic efforts that the IDF, under Lt. General Gadi Eisenkot's command, has taken in recent years to manage the conflict wisely and reduce the level of friction with the Palestinians wherever possible. Nor does it conform with Israel's active role, which even Qatar acknowledged, in the recent White House initiative to improve living conditions in Gaza. The tag of murderous, racist killers simply does not fit, and in the internal Israeli debate, abrasive as it often is, these allegations have enraged even strong critics of the government's current policies.”Dr Lerman argues that The explanation lies elsewhere, and at the most immediate level requires an understanding of the specific topography of the Gaza border. The IDF is obliged to deny access to the actual fence, given the proximity of several kibbutzim – and even of the town of Sderot – to the border. Against the background of the record of violence that had already brought three rounds of intensive fighting since Hamas took over in a military coup in June 2007, it was decided to designate a minimal perimeter of a few hundred metres just within the Gaza Strip as a no-go zone, unless a presence in this area is coordinated through the relevant channels, such as the Egyptians. To allow this policy to lapse risks a permanent presence of a mix of civilians and terrorists right up to the border, and perhaps the re-cultivation of the perimeter in a way that would offer cover and shelter to would-be shooters and assault squads, whether sent by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (an Iranian proxy), or the various Salafi-jihadist groups and ISIS clones that have emerged in Gaza in the wake of broader regional developments.Thus, the warnings against crossing the perimeter do not come because Israel seeks to "suppress protest," but because the lives of residents in the entire Gaza border area would be exposed to extreme, daily danger if this barrier is not maintained. Ample warning has been given again and again. When confronted with the mass of marchers deliberately and knowingly sent into a designated military zone, the IDF chose tactics aimed at dealing with identified activists seeking to reach the border fence and cross it. Those killed – without ruling out the possibility of misidentification -- were mostly, if not all, activists of Hamas and other terror organisations. The large number of those listed as wounded apparently includes many who were hit by non-lethal means. And yet Hamas kept sending more people forward, Friday after Friday.Hamas now seeks to obliterate the border through such tactics. This would clearly amount to the obliteration also of the Israeli population in the Gaza border zone. Hamas, after all – despite some recent window-dressing – has never acknowledged Israel's right to exist on any inch of what it considers Palestinian soil. By pushing the marchers, including women and young children, ever forward, Hamas (while presented as the initiative of a broad-based multi-party group, it is quite clearly led by the Hamas security services) seeks to win the bitter internal battle for dominance within Palestinian society.
The IDF’s uncompromising response has led some people to suggest the use of less lethal means to repel the protesters. Although Israeli ingenuity has produced some innovative anti-riot control systems, most if not all of them were designed for use in urban environments. The Gaza border terrain, prevailing winds and other factors have ruled out their use against the Gaza Strip protesters. Paintball guns would be slightly more effective.
I confess I’m uneasy with the situation I’ve described. It doesn’t photograph well and even convincing arguments like the points made by Eran Lerman are not appreciated by unfamiliar observers and especially by anti-Israel groups.It’s consoling to learn that Hamas is finding it increasingly difficult to muster large numbers of protesters.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Some observers have hinted that while Israeli ingenuity has largely managed to defang the terrorist groups in Gaza, they appear to have the upper hand in the P.R war.
