Mediaboss Marketing

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani criticized his successor Michael Bloomberg for allowing the NYPDs stop-and-frisk program to spiral out of control and for now disowning the policy on the campaign trail.

"What is this stuff that hes condemning stop and frisk? I did it for eight years. He did it for 12. I did a hundred stops. He did six hundred. Six hundred! Hes the one who took the damn program and, you know, took it the level of six hundred, Giuliani said of the 2020 Democrat to radio host John Catsimatidis on The Cats Roundtable Sunday morning on New Yorks 970 AM.

Bloomberg, who continued stop and frisk following Giuliani's tenure in office, began apologizing for it back in November. However, previously recorded remarks by the former New York City mayor regarding how his administration used the policy to profile individuals by race surfaced last week, putting the candidate further on the defensive and apologizing for the policy.

I was always a little annoyed at him for taking the program and not really monitoring it and letting it run out of control, from a hundred to six hundred, down to only like 5% guns, Giuliani said of successor's handling of the stop-and-frisk policy his administration initially launched to tackle violent crime in New York City at the time.

According to Giuliani, former President Bill Clintons Justice Department under Janet Reno and Eric Holder reviewed the stop-and-frisk program when Giuliani was mayor of the city and found that it did not violate the Constitution, but after Bloomberg took office in 2001, Giuliani said his oversight of the program became too lax.

I went to the Justice Department eight years earlier and argued myself with Reno and Holder and talked him out of prosecuting us, the city for civil rights violations in 2000, 2001, and I knew the reason for that was that we kept very tight control on the data," the president's personal attorney explained.

According to Giuliani, one hundred was the appropriate number for which the city would get a return that showed it was proportionate to the city population.

They got so taken with the fact that if you search 600,000 people, surely you're going to keep the guns off the street because everybody's gonna get searched that walks around that neighborhood. But then again, there is a Constitution, and you can't search everybody, he said.

Looking back, Giuliani regretted defending Bloomberg nearly 20 years ago when people began questioning the Bloomberg administrations overuse of the stop-and-frisk policy.

I defended him throughout I had to keep my mouth shut," he said. "But now that he's turned on the program and turned on [former NYPD Commissioner Ray] Kelly, I mean, he was 100% in favor of that program, as enthusiastic about it as I was, and bragged about it a lot when he was mayor.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, agrees, having told reporters late last week that Bloomberg cannot blame Giuliani or anybody else for his own failure with the program.

"Stop and frisk was uniquely and largely a Bloomberg administration policy. I don't think he can blame it on a predecessor. I don't think you can blame it on anyone after, and also he never made the choice to stop, stop and frisk," she said. "It was a judge that struck it down. He appealed the judge's decision. And I think most importantly, when, you know, in this apology that was issued people's lives were ruined."

See the original post:
Giuliani slams Bloomberg over stop-and-frisk policy: He let it get 'out of control' - Washington Examiner

CNNs Dana Bash locked horns with Marc Short on Sunday as she pressed the chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence over Donald Trumps recent remarks about numerous matters of law enforcement.

The interview began with a focus on how Attorney General William Barr gave an interview recently where he contradicted Trump on several topics, not the least of which by saying the presidents tweets make it impossible to do my job. Trump, on the other hand, has dismissed that critique by tweeting about how he has the legal right to direct Barr as he sees fit.

In his reaction, Short dismissed Barrs comments while saying the AG is doing a great job and he does enjoy the support of the president. He further dismissed the idea that Barrs rebuke was unusual while decrying the alleged politicalization of the Justice Department.

Bash continued from there by noting that Trump continues to involve himself in criminal cases pertaining to his former associates, so she asked Short Why isnt the president listening to the attorney general? Short defended Trumps use of Twitter with the common refrain that its how the president communicates with the people, and then he pivoted to complain that the media never criticized Eric Holder for calling himself the wingman for former president Barack Obama.

Bash noted that Barr is the one criticizing the president for his tweets rather than the media, but Short continued to rail against the media, the Russia hoax, and CNNs hiring of former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe (who just had his investigation dropped). When Bash switched gears to ask why Barr is getting directly involved in the cases against Trumps associates, Short retorted that the AG is trying to correct the biased events that transpired in the DOJ.

The interview moved on from there with Bash grilling Short on how Trump could call Michael Bloomberg a total racist for his uncovered remarks about stop and frisk, even though the president supports the same policy.

Watch above, via CNN.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Original post:
CNNs Dana Bash Grills WH Adviser on Trump-Barr Dispute: Why Isnt the President Listening to the Attorney General? - Mediaite

WASHINGTON: I am spitting mad and want to lash out at our Department of Justice, or lack of justice, over their recent decision not to prosecute Andrew McCabe for his criminal actions. In fact, my anger goes deeper the DOJ, all the way to the White House. Donald J. Trump is not only the President of the United States, but he is also the chief judicial officer. He can and should be at the forefront of directing the DOJ, an executive branch, to fully enforce the laws of this land as well as his policies. (DOJ drops probe into former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe)

Barack Hussein Obama was fully in control of his enforcement and prosecutorial branches, as is evidenced by Spygate.

One of the messages between FBI agent Peter Strozk and his paramour, FBI attorney Lisa Page, was explicit, stating that Obama wanted a full briefing on the ongoing attempts to undermine Donald Trump.

The Obama administration was also fully behind the prosecutions of white men and police officers involved in the shootings of black men, using hysterical rhetoric to try to show cause to do so. Most of those cases, like those in Sanford, Florida, where a Hispanic male, identified as white, killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense. Or Ferguson, Missouri, where a police officer killed Michael Brown in self-defense. Even in Baltimore, Maryland, where Freddie Gray died in Police custody, all resulting in failed prosecutions where Obamas DOJ, under racist Eric Holder, was heavily involved.

Yet, it shows the level of radical left-wing involvement in our judicial system that is considered acceptable, while cases like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn show a complete intolerance for conservatives.

In the meantime, President Trump is being meticulous in allowing our DOJ its total freedom for fear of being impeached again. That DOJ has been proven to be full of far-left swamp monsters. He must not allow the swampy elements within the DOJ to undermine his political agenda that we the people elected him to implement.

No justice, no peace, was a leftist slogan under Barry Obama that holds true today. But justice for all, not only the chosen ones, in this case, the leftist. There is more than ample proof of Hillarys crimes, destroying evidence after being subpoenaed by Congress, more than 33,000 emails, telephones, computer hard drives and so on.

Yet the leftist purveyor of anti-Americanism is free to continue to sow seeds of hatred, protected by the leftist within the DOJ. At the same time, Donald Trump faced impeachment charges when no laws were broken, brokered by the same swamp.

Conservatives go to jail and get enhanced sentences simply for being, or supporting, Republicans while Democrats can do no wrong. Antifa mercilessly attacks innocents and Trump supporters capriciously without being charged, while conservatives go to jail for defending themselves, as happened with two New York City Proud Boys.

There will be a breaking point unless justice is meted out fairly and evenly, and very, very soon. Once that point is reached, hell hath no fury like that which will be unleashed. And many Americans are near that point today.

Sean Hannity tried to protect the President on a recent radio broadcast over the miscarriage of justice of the DOJ freeing McCabe, saying just wait for the Durham indictments, then well see whose laughing. Hannity just putting lipstick on a pig. Those of us who love America have heard that old song and dance for the last 11 years.

The result is to first vote Republicans into office, stopping the Obama agenda in its tracks.

Our guns are increasingly at risk, our religion is under attack, even our race and sex is an issue. So we voted President Trump into the Oval Office charging him to dig us out of this unending spiral into progressive doom.

While the President has worked miracles with the economy, turned around unemployment, raised millions out of poverty, while rebuilding our military, he is failing in the most primal enterprise, that of justice.

If Americans cannot feel safe from unscrupulous leftwing courts attacking our basic constitutional rights, while allowing leftists to violate any law they wish to, without prosecution, we have a problem of monumental proportions.

There is a remedy within our Constitution, highlighted by the Second Amendment. But we really dont want to go there until all our options have been examined. But feeling helpless lessens those options drastically.

And right now many of us are feeling helpless.

Yes, Im mad as heck and am not going to take too much more abuse by my government. A government who is supposed to be, of the people, by the people, and for the people.

If the President and DOJ cannot deliver equal justice, what will come next is a whirlwind that no one wants to ride.

If John Durham has any indictments ready to issue, now is the time, before it is too late.

President Trump has to drain the swamp a whole lot faster before an implosion consumes our nation. We need to see that we are not being given lip service to something we hold dear, that of equal justice under the law for all: or else all Hades is going explode.

Because Im not the only one who is as mad as heck.

Read more:
DOJ on McCabe: I am mad as heck and don't know how much I can... - Communities Digital News

This was the week that President Trump really started to drain the swamp. It came when he yanked the nomination of Jessie Liu to a Treasury Department post. The decision was all Trumps and occurred after Trump learned details about what was going on when she was United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Though Trump was most aggravated with Liu not clamping down on the outrageous sentencing recommendations of her staff in the Roger Stone case, there was a long list of other concerns that made it clear to the president the extent of ideological weaponization across the Justice Department.

Lets start with Roger Stone for now.

Lius so-called career prosecutors devised a sentencing recommendation of nine years in prison for behavior that became commonplace anytime former Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before Congress under oath.

Lest we forget, Holder was found in criminal contempt of Congress in a bipartisan 255-67 vote. Back then, most House Democrats didnt find contempt of Congress to be an impeachable offense. Don't forget, House Democrats marched off the floor during the Holder contempt vote.

This nicely illustrates the central theme that has animated Trumps impeachment, Justice Department investigations of Trump, Lius yank, and the entire political saga of the last three years.

Justice is no longer blind. Investigations, charges, and even prison terms depend on the ideological views of the targets.

If you are a friend of the president, the Justice Department career lawyers will do all they can to find a venue in the District of Columbia where they know a rabid population of Democrat jurors will do all they can to send you to Big Sandy.

If you doubt me, you havent heard of Tomeka Hart, the nasty partisan jury foreman in Stones trial who should have never been on the jury in the first place.

The Scales of Justice come in two versions, one for Democrats and one for Trump.

Let's examine those Justice Department career lawyers.

It is now plain that career lawyer isnt a euphemism for unbiased and impartial. Its exactly the opposite. It usually means Democrat, leftist, elitist, culturally hostile to middle America and feverishly anti-Trump.

When I was at the Department of Justice, it was no different. I wrote a whole wild book about the prevailing madness, years before the country got a taste of Andrew Weissmanns partisan biases.

Justice Department career lawyers are highly skilled at finding reasons to kill cases against cabinet officials who disclose top-secret information, put State Department emails on private servers, or who lie on FISA warrant applications. The lessons learned in Ivy League law schools are put to good use in developing plausible excuses to avoid any grand jury presentations at least plausible excuses to the Washington Post and now bankrupt McClatchy.

After all, did any of the "career lawyers" bring the Holder criminal contempt findings to a grand jury? Did former U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu agree or disagree with their inactivity?

These are some of the unanswered questions that led to a president yanking a nomination.

But when the target is Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, or dozens of Trump campaign officials who were served with grand jury subpoenas, by golly have the career lawyers got an argument in favor of action.

This is what the president began to realize was happening at the United States Attorney office in the District of Columbia biased justice.

It wasnt just the Trump campaign being targeted for unequal justice by the U.S. Attorneys office.

It was the sweetheart deal for the Awan brothers, the dynamic duo who worked for Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who may have been involved in foreign espionage when they stole data from House email servers.

It was the manipulated outcome in another national security matter involving Democrat senate intelligence staffer James Wolfe, who leaked secret data to his girlfriend. Liu actually signed off of that plea personally, joined by career attorneys Jocelyn Ballantine and Tejpal Chawla. For lying to the FBI, Wolfe got two months. For the same behavior, Lius career prosecutors recommended nine years.

It was the non-prosecution of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to investigators about his media leaks.

It was the collusion with Muellers special prosecutors in allowing them to punt the Ukraine-related prosecution of Obama lawyer Greg Craig to Lius shop. Mueller and his team avoided an embarrassing prosecution of an Obama pal and Lius career lawyers prosecuted the case in D.C. Not surprisingly, a D.C. jury acquitted Craig.

It was failing to aggressively prosecute the radical #resist leftists who sought to disrupt the inauguration, even though James OKeefe successfully recorded them plotting the violence.

And most notably, it was a 9-year sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone by four career lawyers in Lius office.

All of it, all of the biased justice, led to Trump yanking her nomination.

These pages have been covering the ideological biases of DOJ lawyers for nearly a decade.

Trump has now learned the details of what is going on inside one Justice Department office, the D.C. United States Attorney's office. He also learned details about people who accepted appointments in his administration and took their jobs while holding their noses.

This was the week that Trump got his sea-legs. He campaigned on draining the swamp, and he has learned how subtle and how sophisticated the swamp is.

Meanwhile, institutionalists, including some Republicans too cowardly to be quoted by name, have gone on record as clutching their pearls at Trumps actions. They want the bureaucrats to be unmoored from the executive branch.

The career lawyers at the Justice Department did not stand for election and win. The entire Department should take note. There is a unitary executive. Elections matter. The president ran against the elites who are dispensing biased, sanctimonious unequal justice in Washington, D.C.

It shouldnt surprise anyone that he is keeping his promises.

See the article here:
President Trump Starts to Drain the Swamp, Yanks Liu - PJ Media

He should take personal responsibility for making dangerous arguments in defense of Trump.

| 6:00 AM

The arguments Alan Dershowitz made during the Senate trial as to why Trumps behavior didnt constitute an impeachable offense were roundly panned by most legal scholars. Since lawyers tend to engage on an intellectual (rather that personal) level, that is how they responded.

Initially, Dershowitz suggested that his arguments had been taken out of context, which wasnt true. But now he is pretending to occupy the high ground, while playing the role of victim, by claiming that his detractors are simply demonizing defense lawyers.

I have been demonized by many on the left who refuse to understand why a liberal Democrat would defend the constitutional rights of a controversial Republican president. This is the mirror image of the McCarthyism of my youth, when many on the right could not understand why anti-communist centrist lawyers would defend the rights of communists.

Those lawyers were demonized as I am being today. I have a thick skin, developed over many years of defending controversial and unpopular clients and causes. But I am concerned that young lawyers will be deterred from representing such clients and causes for fear it will destroy their careers. I am hearing that from young lawyers and students.

Demonizing defense lawyers for representing politically incorrect clients and causes is the true road to tyranny.

First of all, I suspect that most liberal Democrats parted ways with Dershowitz a long time ago for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he has become a regular commentator on Fox News as a disseminator of that networks propaganda.

But when Dershowitz claimed to be concerned about young lawyers being deterred from representing controversial clients, I immediately did a Google search to see if he had said or written anything about a civil rights lawyer named Debo Adegbile.

Back in 2013, Tom Perezwho had served as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rightsbecame the Secretary of Labor. Obama nominated Adegbile to replace Perez at the Civil Rights Division. He had spent the previous twelve years working as a lawyer at the NAACP. But his confirmation blew up when he was accused of defending a cop killer during his tenure there.

The case involved a racially-charged trial in the 1981 shooting death of a white Philadelphia police officer, Daniel Faulkner. Mumia Abu-Jamal, a black journalist, was convicted and sentenced to death. The NAACP began handling his appeals before Adegbile started his tenure with the organization. But he eventually contributed to the filing of a 2009 court brief arguing that Abu-Jamal faced a discriminatory juryan appeal found to have merit by a judge. Abu-Jamals sentence was eventually reduced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

That is all it took for Republicans to launch a campaign against Adegbiles confirmation by suggesting that he was an extremist who helped get a cop-killer off the hook. In the end, seven Democrats joined Republicans in blocking a vote on Adegbiles confirmation. It was one of the most shameful examples of political capitulation to racist sentiments in the years just prior to the Trump presidency. As then-Attorney General Eric Holder said, It is a very dangerous precedent to set for the legal profession when individual lawyers can have their otherwise sterling qualifications denigrated based solely on the clients that their organizations represent.

When he had his chance, Dershowitz certainly didnt lead the charge in defending Adegbile for his minimal role in representing a politically incorrect client. So heres my message to the famed defense lawyer: Spare me your crocodile tears of concern, Alan. As your colleagues in the legal profession have pointed out, your arguments on behalf of Donald Trump were not only wrong, they were dangerous. Its time for you to take some personal responsibility for your own actions. You are not the victim here.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really worksand how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, Ill make a donation

See the article here:
Alan Dershowitz Tries to Play the Victim Card - Washington Monthly