Donald Trump Is Making A Massive Legal Mistake Sending the Feds Into Portland As a state and local government law scholar, I believe a surge of hundreds of federal officers into cities throughout the United States would represent an unprecedented expansion of the role of the federal government into local police matters. by Sarah J. Adams-Schoen

President Donald Trump has announced that the U.S. Department of Justice will send a “surge of federal law enforcement” into American cities run by “extreme politicians” who are on an “anti-police crusade,” including Chicago, Kansas City, Albuquerque, Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee. 

Those cities may soon see legal battles like the ones in Portland, Oregon, where four notable lawsuits challenge the actions of federal agents who, under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, were purportedly sent to protect federal property on the July 4th weekend and still remain. 

As a state and local government law scholar, I believe a surge of hundreds of federal officers into cities throughout the United States would represent an unprecedented expansion of the role of the federal government into local police matters. 

Together, the Portland lawsuits ask the court to delineate, and enforce, constitutional limits on the federal government’s ability to override state and local law enforcement and use police tactics that violate protesters’ constitutional rights.  

Extended protests and multiple incidents 

Since May 29, Portlanders have marched, sung, chanted and stood together in Portland to demand racial justice and condemn police violence against Black Americans. 

Local officials and observers describe a fringe minority of protesters pointing laser pointers at officers, throwing cans, breaking windows and setting dumpsters and bags of garbage on fire, and shooting fireworks at the federal courthouse. One person was arrested for allegedly attacking a federal officer with a hammer. 

In response to some of these actions, the Department of Homeland Security has sent paramilitary-style units to Portland. The president has characterized the operation as limited to protection of federal property and personnel and enforcement of federal laws – but also as restoring public safety after liberal politicians “have put the interests of criminals above the rights of law-abiding citizens.” 

State and local officials and observers say those federal agents are detaining and arresting innocent protesters. They also say federal officers have fired non-lethal rounds, pepper balls and tear-gas canisters at peaceful protesters, journalists, medics and legal-rights observers. 

In a court filing, the city says the presence of heavily armed federal agents is not keeping order, but rather “escalating violence, inflaming tensions in our City, and harming Portlanders.” The city also says, “Serious and credible allegations have been made that the federal government has effectively kidnapped people off Portland streets, among other abuses of power.” 

Independent monitors sue to protect themselves 

The first case, Index Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Portland, began as a lawsuit by six journalists and legal observers seeking to stop Portland police from assaulting news reporters, photojournalists and legal observers documenting the police’s violent response to protests. After the arrival of federal agents in Portland, the lawsuit expanded to include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Marshals Service. 

On July 23, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon rejected federal claims that “the force used on Plaintiffs [was] ‘unintended consequences’ of crowd control.” He issued a temporary restraining order barring federal agents from “arresting, threatening to arrest, or using physical force directed against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist or Legal Observer.” 

The judge also barred federal agents from “seizing any photographic equipment, audio- or videorecording equipment, or press passes … or ordering such person to stop photographing, recording, or observing a protest.” 

State sues to block baseless arrests 

In the second lawsuit, Oregon’s Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is suing on behalf of the state of Oregon to stop federal agents from detaining or arresting people without probable cause or a warrant, and to require the federal agents to identify themselves and their reason for an arrest or detention. 

The suit says citizens rightly fear “being thrown into a van by anonymous agents,” which infringes on their First Amendment rights to protest. It also says citizens have Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights not to be snatched “off of the streets without probable cause” by unidentified officers in unmarked cars. 

On Friday, Judge Mosman denied Rosenblum’s request to immediately bar such behavior by federal agents, saying that Rosenblum had not provided enough evidence to show federal agents were engaging in a pattern of unlawful detentions and finding the state did not have standing to seek the temporary order. 

As the parties prepare their next moves in this case, governors throughout the country will likely be watching to see whether Judge Mosman recognizes a state’s interest in local police matters and its standing to sue federal agencies to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. 

Citizens sue to protect their own rights 

The third case focuses on the 10th Amendment, which says that, except specific federal powers spelled out in the Constitution, all other powers are reserved to the states and its citizens. 

Those bringing the suit, which include the First Unitarian Church of Portland, say federal law enforcement agencies are infringing on Oregon’s sovereign powers to police Oregon streets. They say the deployment of federal law enforcement officers in Portland infringes on the power of Oregon citizens to hold state and local police accountable. 

The lawsuit also argues that the federal response violates the First Amendment rights of the First Unitarian Church of Portland, whose religious practice includes activism and protest in the face of injustice. 

While the lawsuit acknowledges that the federal government has a right to protect its property and personnel, it claims that “defendants have far exceeded these constitutional limitations” while policing in Portland. 

What happens next in this case depends in part on whether the plaintiffs ask for an immediate order requiring the federal agencies to leave local policing to state and local law enforcement. 

Medics sue to stop ‘targeting and attacking’ 

Several street medics who tended to injured protesters sued the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals Service and the city of Portland, saying that “police and federal agents brutally attacked volunteer medics with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, batons and flash-bangs.” 

The suit claims the attacks violate the medics’ First and Fourth Amendment rights and seeks damages for injuries to the medics. On Friday, the medics also asked the court for an order stopping law enforcement from further targeting and attacking medics. The court will likely rule on this request in the coming week. 

Federal overreach threatens police accountability 

The theme of urban violence used by Trump plays on white fears of Black people and those living in extreme poverty. 

Trump uses coded racist language to paint a picture of cities “plagued by violent crime,” “heinous crimes” and “bloodshed.” He claims that local leaders have abdicated their duty to protect citizens, requiring the federal government to step in. 

The nation was founded on the principle that freedom is safeguarded by two governments, a federal government with specific, limited powers, and state governments with all other powers. 

The Constitution reserves to the states an expansive power to police because that allows for law enforcement policies that reflect local circumstances and customs, and are responsive to the concerns of local citizens – which is exactly what Black Lives Matter and other protesters are now demanding in Portland and throughout the country. 

Will Joe Biden's Big Lead in the Polls Vanish Like Hillary Clinton's? Will Joe Biden suffer the same fate? by Rachel Bucchino

President Donald Trump must loathe looking at the daily polls.

Less than 100 days from the presidential election, and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden takes a massive lead over Trump -- but this isn’t unusual for the president.

In 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton held an average lead of 5.7 points, or 84 percent, in 44 polls between January and early June, but obviously lost the presidential bid, according to the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Four years later, Biden carries a 5.9, or 94 percent, lead in 72 national polls between the same time period.

FiveThirtyEight reported Biden has a 8.3 percent national lead as of Monday, with Biden at 50.2 percent and Trump at 41.8 percent. Although there’s still a lifetime in politics before the election, this margin is wider than Clinton ever reached in 2016, and steeper than Barack Obama’s lead over John McCain in 2008.

The Center for Politics and FiveThirtyEight noted that Clinton’s domination in the polls was often unstable and smaller than Biden’s lead.

“Joseph Biden’s lead over Donald Trump has been far more consistent in 2020. This consistency may reflect the fact that Donald Trump is now running as an incumbent with a proven track record. When an incumbent like Trump is running for reelection, the election is mainly a referendum on the incumbent’s performance,” Center for Politics wrote.

“Applying our current polling-average methodology to 2016 polls, Clinton led national polls by an average of about 4.0 points four months before the 2016 election, and 3.8 points on Election Day itself. So while a normal-sized polling error was enough to throw the 2016 election to Trump, it would take a much bigger — and much unlikelier — polling error for Trump to be ahead right now,” FiveThirtyEight wrote.

As election day approaches, however, the race for the presidency could become more competitive. Biden leads in a number of swing states including Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina, but, according to FiveThirtyEight, many of the swing states tend to “lean more toward Trump than the country does.”

NBC News/Marist released polls showing Biden up 7 points in North Carolina and up 5 points in Arizona. CNN also published polls with Biden up 5 points in Florida, 4 points in Arizona and 12 points in Michigan.

Fox News released polls Friday with Biden up in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Michigan with 11, 13, and 9 points, respectively.

If Trump gives a killer nomination acceptance speech, improves his handling of the coronavirus or his approval rating jump, it’s likely that these states, in particular, will shift their votes to Trump, giving him the Electoral College votes despite Biden’s overwhelming national popular vote.

The Washington Post reported that although Biden’s doing well in red states like Arizona, Florida and Texas, “in the blue states Trump picked up in 2016, Biden is faring worse than Obama and Clinton did.”

“Densely white, blue-collar states in the Rust Belt are trending more Republican, while, thanks in large part to migration trends, states such as Arizona and Texas are trending more Democratic,” The Washington Post wrote.

Rust Belt states have boosted their support for Biden, but a lot can change in the next three months.

A Former Democratic Congressman Is Caught Up In a Voter Fraud Case. Is There More To Uncover? The indictment alleges that Myers bribed DeMuro and others to stuff ballot boxes to benefit specific candidates in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary elections in 2014, 2015, and 2016. by Fred Lucas

A voter fraud scandal in Philadelphia appears to be expanding with the indictment this week of a former Democratic congressman and more charges expected. 

U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced Thursday that former Rep. Michael “Ozzie” Myers, 77, had been indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to violate voting rights by fraudulently stuffing ballot boxes.

Other charges against Myers include bribery of an election official, falsification of records, voting more than once in a federal election, and obstruction of justice. 

Myers, who represented Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District, left Congress in disgrace in late 1979 as part of the broad “Abscam” bribery scandal and, upon conviction, was sent to federal prison. After his release in 1985, he became a political consultant.

If convicted in the voter fraud case, Myers would face up to 90 years in prison, according to the Justice Department.  

Myers’ indictment follows a guilty plea in May by a Philadelphia election judge, Domenick DeMuro. 

The indictment alleges that Myers bribed DeMuro and others to stuff ballot boxes to benefit specific candidates in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary elections in 2014, 2015, and 2016. 

“It doesn’t surprise me that this is in Philadelphia, which is one of the worst places in the country for election fraud,” Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer who was a member of the Federal Election Commission and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in 2017, told The Daily Signal.

“The key question now is who else did Myers pay to stuff ballot boxes for local, state, federal, and judicial candidates?” von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, said. “Did any of these candidates happen to know what the money they were paying Myers was going for? Were other election officials engaged?”

Prosecutors say the voting irregularities took place over the course of three election cycles—2014, 2015, and 2016—and emerged in a referral to the Justice Department by Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt on Sept. 22, 2014. 

The Philadelphia City Commission is a bipartisan, three-member board of elected officials charged with supervising elections and voter registration in the city. Schmidt is the Republican member, serving with two Democrats.

Schmidt, who could not be reached for comment Friday, made additional referrals to the Justice Department after later elections. 

It may be telling that the case is being prosecuted only now, von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal:

There is no doubt that the prior Justice Department under the Obama administration ignored it. When I served as a Fairfax County [Virginia] election official, we sent a referral to the Obama administration’s Justice Department about noncitizens registered to vote. So, I would wonder why it took so long in Philadelphia, and why the Obama Justice Department didn’t do anything about it.

Each voting machine at Philadelphia polling stations produces a printed receipt that documents its use, the Justice Department said. The elections judge and other election board officials at each polling place attest to the accuracy of machine results.

Federal prosecutors charged Myers with bribing DeMuro—the judge of elections for the 39th Ward, 36th Division, in South Philadelphia—over several years. 

DeMuro pleaded guilty in May to adding votes illegally for certain candidates in primary elections. 

Some of the candidates were running for judicial offices and their campaigns had hired Myers; others were running for various federal, state, and local offices and Myers favored them for a variety of reasons, prosecutors said. 

“Votes are not things to be purchased and democracy is not for sale,” McSwain, the U.S. attorney, said in a statement. “If you are a political consultant, election official, or work with the polling places in any way, I urge you to do your job honestly and faithfully. That is what the public deserves, it is what democracy demands, and it is what my office will enforce.”

The Justice Department did not identify which candidates paid Myers for consulting work. 

Myers is presumed innocent until proven guilty, of course, and The Daily Signal could find no public reports that the former congressman or his lawyers have spoken on the matter.  

According to the indictment, Myers solicited “consulting fees” from clients and used portions of those funds to pay DeMuro and others to tamper with election results. 

Prosecutors allege that Myers made payments to DeMuro ranging from $300 to $5,000 per election. 

DeMuro admitted to adding fraudulent votes to a voting machine—a practice known as “ringing up” votes. DeMuro then would falsely certify that the returns were accurate, according to the Justice Department. 

Prosecutors also allege that Myers directed DeMuro to lie to investigators about the bribes and the ballot-stuffing scheme.

How the Israeli Air Force Destroyed Saddam Hussein's Nuclear Weapons Dream The 1981 strike didn't end Iraq's nuclear aspirations. by Robert Farley

Iraq responded to Israel's attack not by abandoning its efforts, but rather by redoubling them.

What if Israel had not struck Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981? Or what if the attack, which was technically quite difficult, had failed? The attack, which was deeply controversial at the time, shifted the course of Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program. It also set a lasting precedent for how Israel, and potentially other nuclear states, have managed would-be proliferators. Could Iraq have developed a nuclear weapon if the Israelis had not attacked?

The Debate

The Osirak reactor was a joint French-Iraqi project, agreed to in 1975. Construction of the reactor began in 1979, but by most accounts Iraq had not committed to the development of nuclear weapons in 1981. French engineers were present at the reactor, and it was subject to inspections from the IAEA. While Osirak was capable of contributing to a nuclear program, it was not, by most accounts, capable of producing a substantial amount of weapons-grade material on its own.

Still, Israeli policymakers worried that Iraq, among the most industrially sophisticated Arab countries, could effectively use the reactor as part of a plan to develop nuclear weapons. This would offset the advantage that Israel had achieved with its own nuclear program. Moreover, Saddam’s Iraq had already demonstrated a troubling tendency to invade its neighbors. The Iranians, for what it’s worth, had also concluded that the Osirak reactor posed a major threat. They had launched their own attack against the reactor in 1980, and rumors continue to abound of shadowy collaboration between Israel and Iran regarding intelligence sharing.

Even granting the looming threat, however, Israeli policymakers worried that the attack would be seen as unprovoked aggression, and that it would incur unwanted attention on Israel’s own nuclear program. The attack, undertaken at extreme range, was also operationally risky. The gap between Iraqi and Israeli capabilities was not as great in 1981 as it would later become, and an interception by Iraqi air defenses or fighters could prove disastrous.

The Strike

Eight F-16s carried out the strike, escorted by six F-15s. The Iraqi air force was focused on the fight with Iran, and in fact Iran had recently launched a major airstrike that had disabled a large number of Iraqi aircraft. The Israelis, heavily laden with fuel, flew over both Jordan and Saudi Arabia without incident. They were not engaged by Iraqi air defenses until after the attack. Each F-16 dropped a pair of two-thousand-pound bombs, eight of which struck the Iraqi facility, causing severe damage. The Israelis suffered no losses; ten Iraqi soldiers and one French engineer died.

The Response

The international response was by no means positive. The UN Security Council denounced the attack, as did the General Assembly. France, the United Kingdom and the United States all reacted negatively. However, Israel suffered no real costs for undertaking the strike; Iraq remained preoccupied with Iran, and none of the other major Arab states (including, critically, Egypt) saw fit to respond aggressively.

For their part, the attack helped convince the Iraqis to commit to the development of nuclear weapons. Rather than working openly, the Iraqis took their nuclear projects underground, heightening security, dispersing facilities and rejecting international oversight. It is unclear whether the survival of Osirak would have enabled Iraq to deploy a nuclear weapon by 1991, but most analysts believe it is unlikely. Iraq’s concerted efforts proved insufficient to developing a nuclear weapon in time to deter the United States; it’s impossible to know whether the survival of the Osirak reactor would have enabled greater progress. The war with Iran consumed an enormous percentage of Iraq’s military, industrial and financial resources, making it impossible for Saddam to concentrate on the nuclear project. Even after the war, crushing debt and ongoing disputes with other Arab countries made it impossible for Iraq to engage in the kind of single-minded pursuit of nuclear weapons that North Korea perfected.

The Precedent

The strike effectively set the Begin Doctrine, the idea that Israel would undertake military action to prevent the development of nuclear weapons by its Middle Eastern adversaries. The Osirak attack and the other manifestation of the Begin Doctrine—the 2007 attack against the Box on the Euphrates—have repeatedly been cited as examples of the right of anticipatory self-defense, which enables countries to strike potential foes while not under immediate threat. This precedent plays a large role in the legal justification for potential U.S. strikes against Iran and North Korea. Over time, and particularly in light of Iraqi aggression against Kuwait in 1990, the international community has viewed the strike in a more positive light.

Conclusion

The destruction of Osirak did not end the Iraqi government’s interest in developing a nuclear weapon. Iraq responded to the attack not by abandoning its efforts, but rather by redoubling them. The 1991 Gulf War effectively ended Iraq’s nuclear program, and the 2003 war ended Saddam Hussein’s regime. Nevertheless, the Osirak attack has taken on an almost mythical relevance in discussions of Israeli military prowess and risk tolerance. This may have had an impact on Iranian decisionmaking regarding the viability of a nuclear program.

The biggest lesson from the Osirak attack may have been that international condemnation doesn’t have much of a long-term impact. After the attack, Israel shrugged off widespread criticism, while Iraq largely ignored international nonproliferation obligations. Indeed, over time the Osirak strike became “respectable,” and generally viewed as an appropriate response to the threat posed by Saddam’s regime. Today, the legitimacy of the strike is not often questioned, which has probably made it easier for the United States and others to think about military action in preventive terms.

The CMV-22B Osprey Will Make America's Marines Deadlier Than Ever Only time will tell whether the pricy CMV-22B brings about the revolution in logistics the Navy is hoping for. by Sebastien Roblin

Arguably the most intriguing proposal would be to use CMV-22s as recovery tankers. While the Osprey is still too slow to gas up outbound fighters on a mission, a CMV-22 could instead greet the jets when they return, fueling up Hornet and Lighting fighters as they await their turn to land.

Only time will tell whether the pricy CMV-22B brings about the revolution in logistics the Navy is hoping for.

For over fifty years, the Navy has operated C-2A Greyhound cargo haulers with twin turboprop engines to ferry personnel, supplies, mail and spare parts to its massive aircraft carriers at sea—a mission known as Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD). The Greyhound, which is derived from the Navy's E-2 Hawkeye radar planes, can haul up to five tons of cargo or 26 passengers while still managing to land and takeoff from the three-hundred-meter-long carrier flight deck—and then fold its wings to fit in the hangar deck below.

In the late 2000s, however, the Navy began looking to replace the aging Greyhound. Candidates to take up the COD mission included modernized C-2s and the Navy’s recently retired S-3 Viking anti-submarine jets. In the end, though, the Navy gave in to urging from the Marines and decided to pursue the most expensive option—the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

The Osprey has been in development for decades—and the promise of its revolutionary and exceptionally flexible helicopter-to-airplane flight capabilities have been tempered with concerns over deadly accidents and high procurement and maintenance costs. Let’s just say this change is less than universally acclaimed.

Still, the V-22’s strengths are a big deal—the nacelles of its twin Rolls-Royce T406 turboshafts can rotate 90 degrees, switching from vertical helicopter-like flight mode to a horizontal airplane-like configuration. While surface ships love the flexibility of using helicopters to land and takeoff from virtually any cleared deck or surface, helicopters are limited to significantly lower altitudes and speeds, and can't fly nearly as far as airplanes. For example, a typical Blackhawk helicopter has a maximum speed of around 170 to 200 miles per hour and a range of 350 miles—while the Osprey can attain 350 miles per hour in horizontal flight mode (about as fast a World War II Spitfire fighter) and fly up to a thousand miles away.

The downside to the Osprey is that it’s quite expensive to procure and maintain, with unit cost estimates ranging between $70 to $100 million apiece, and flight hour costs of $11,000. This is approaching the price of an F-35 stealth fighter and two or three times the cost of a standard Blackhawk helicopter. The Osprey’s engines reportedly shed excessive heat, potentially damaging deck surfaces, and its powerful rotor wash cause difficulty coping with brownout landings in dusty environments or deploying troops by rope. Furthermore, V-22s have suffered over a dozen deadly accidents over the years related to the complexity of the tilt-rotor system.

In the nine months between December 2016 and September 2017, three Ospreys were destroyed in accidents, causing three deaths. Another Osprey was damaged in a rough landing for an unsuccessful commando raid in Yemen in January 2017 and had to be destroyed with an airstrike. The Osprey’s troubled reputation has even led citizens of the Japanese island of Okinawa, site of a major U.S. military base, to protest having the tilt-rotors based there.

Supply-Chain Revolution

The Navy's CMV-22B principally differs from the Marine Ospreys by having enlarged fuel sponsons, extending their range to 1,320 miles—without even factoring in-flight refueling. Additional minor upgrades include a rapid fuel dump capability, improved cargo bay lighting, and a long-range high-frequency radio. Compared to the Greyhound, the tilt-rotor has a greater maximum cargo load of 5 tons, but a smaller volume of internal space, and can carry three fewer passengers. The C-2A has a faster maximum speed (400 miles per hour), can fly higher, and is way cheaper at $40 million per unit.

But why is the Navy attracted by the Osprey’s vertical-lift off capability? Because it would allow the Osprey to land on ships other than an aircraft carrier! Previously, supplies would have to be ferried by Greyhound to a carrier, then moved by helicopter from the carrier to other surface ships in the carrier task force. The Osprey could simply land directly on many of the other surface ships—and those ships could operate farther afield thanks to the Osprey's far greater range compared to most helicopters.

The Osprey does have few additional advantages over the C-2 for carrier operations. For example, it won't require catapult-assisted takeoff, lowering the number of necessary support personnel, and it has night-vision equipment for night landings. Furthermore, the CMV-22B's in-flight refueling capability could allow even longer-range flights than were possible with the C-2.

One problem, however, is that the Navy's carriers will require the Osprey to heft the F135 turbofan engines used by the F-35C stealth fighters entering service on Carrier Air Wings. The Osprey's cargo bay isn't large enough to accommodate the F135's power module. In 2015, the Marines tested a method of lugging F135s by carrying the larger half of the turbofan on an external sling, though this obviously is less than highly convenient.

Other CMV-22 shortcomings for carrier operations include lack of pressurization, which exposes the crew to inclement weather, and its inability to taxi along the flight deck on its own power while its wings are folded.

Boeing is also looking to convince the Navy that the CMV-22 could fulfill all sorts of secondary roles that S-3 Vikings or helicopters used to fulfill, such as anti-submarine patrols, search-and-rescue of downed airmen, special ops insertion, and electronic warfare. The Marine Corps is also looking into installing heavier armament and defensive systems on its Ospreys, and some of those capabilities could make their way to the Navy.

However, arguably the most intriguing proposal would be to use CMV-22s as recovery tankers. While the Osprey is still too slow to gas up outbound fighters on a mission, a CMV-22 could instead greet the jets when they return, fueling up Hornet and Lighting fighters as they await their turn to land. While the Marines are phasing in such an inflight-refueling system with a hose trailing out the cargo bay door, the Navy has yet to buy into the concept. However, it could relieve the burden placed on Super Hornets assigned to air refueling duties.

In June 2018, the Navy signed a contract for 38 CVM-22Bs to replace its 27 C-2As in June 2018 and reportedly is ready to activate two operational Fleet Logistics squadrons (VRM-30 and VRM-40 based at Norfolk Virginia and North Island, California) and one Fleet Replacement Squadron. While the aircraft are built, personnel will begin training with Marine Osprey pilots in the VMMT-204 training squadron. Production of the CMV-22B has begun in 2018, with entry into operational service forecast in 2020.

Only time will tell whether the pricy CMV-22B brings about the revolution in logistics the Navy is hoping for.