NYT Refuses to Publish Dershowitz’s Defense of Trump
“The New York Times recently refused to publish liberal Alan Dershowitz’s op-ed in defense of President Trump. Dershowitz, an avid supporter of two-time presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, is well-known in cable news and legal commentary, and has appeared in conservative and liberal outlets alike, including CNN, The Washington Post, Washington Times, Fox News and the Timesitself.
In an interview with theWashington Examiner, Dershowitz discussed his multiple attempts to contact editors at the Times and his belief that the once-unbiased newspaper looks exclusively for certain opinions to publish.
“I said that I thought the readers of the New York Times were entitled to hear or read the other side of the issue whether there were crimes committed…And I really do think The New York Times does not want its readers to hear an alternative point of view on the issue of whether or not Trump administration is committing crimes,” he said of the op-ed he submitted to the Times, offering a different point of view.”
Trump Strategist Steve Bannon Says Media Should ‘Keep Its Mouth Shut’
– New York Times
“Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s chief White House strategist, laced into the American press during an interview on Wednesday evening, arguing that news organizations had been “humiliated” by an election outcome few anticipated, and repeatedly describing the media as “the opposition party” of the current administration.
“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for awhile,” Mr. Bannon said during a telephone call.
“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”
The scathing assessment — delivered by one of Mr. Trump’s most trusted and influential advisers, in the first days of his presidency — comes at a moment of high tension between the news media and the administration, with skirmishes over the size of Mr. Trump’s inaugural crowd and the president’s false claims that millions of illegal votes by undocumented immigrants swayed the popular vote against him.
During a call to discuss Sean M. Spicer, the president’s press secretary, Mr. Bannon ratcheted up the criticism, offering a broad indictment of the news media as biased against Mr. Trump and out of touch with the American public. That’s an argument familiar to readers of Breitbart and followers of Trump-friendly personalities like Sean Hannity.
“The elite media got it dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong,” Mr. Bannon said of the election, calling it “a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.”
“The mainstream media has not fired or terminated anyone associated with following our campaign,” Mr. Bannon said. “Look at the Twitter feeds of those people: they were outright activists of the Clinton campaign.”
“That’s why you have no power,” Mr. Bannon added. “You were humiliated.”
Asked if he was concerned that Mr. Spicer had lost credibility with the news media, Mr. Bannon chortled. “Are you kidding me?” he said. “We think that’s a badge of honor. ‘Questioning his integrity’ — are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.”
“You’re the opposition party,” Mr. Bannon said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”
NYT Editorial Board Horrified That Trump Wants To Fight ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’
– Daily Caller
“The New York Times’ editorial board took a stand Thursday against President Donald Trump’s vow to eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth.
The Times’ editors worried that Trump’s approach to fighting radical Islamic terrorism — which they referred to with scare quotes — is “more likely to further inflame anti-American sentiment around the world than to make the United States safer.”
“The emerging details suggest that Mr. Trump’s plans to eradicate violent extremists are not only at odds with Mr. Obama’s; they trample on American values and international law,” they wrote.
The Times editorial found several problems with Trump’s approach, including his use of the term “radical Islam,” which the editors say is “demonizing and alienating the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims,” the fact that he is reportedly considering designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and the fact that he doesn’t plan on closing Guantanamo Bay (which Obama was unable to do despite vowing to close the prison on day one of his administration).
The editors expressed its support for Obama’s approach to fighting terrorism. Unlike Trump, Obama declined to say “radical Islamic terrorism” once during his eight years in office.
Trump has claimed the Obama administration’s politically correct approach to fighting terrorism is at least partially to blame for the slew of domestic terrorist attacks during the Obama years.”
Trump on defunding sanctuary cities: The day is over when criminal illegals can stay in our country and wreak havoc
“Great stuff from today’s speech at DHS headquarters — for both sides. For border hawks like me, Trump’s new executive orders on immigration fulfill key campaign promises — the wall, more enforcement agents, and giving the DOJ and DHS power to yank certain grants from sanctuary cities. For the left, it’s something stark to rally their base around. Eric Schneiderman, the ambitious New York Attorney General who’s investigating Trump’s charity, was out quickly this afternoon with a set of guidelines for sanctuary cities on how to resist complying with the feds.
Several mayors of sanctuary cities have already piped up to say that they won’t comply with the feds. What sort of money is on the table here? As an example, the DOJ distributed $165 million in grants to local agencies in 2015 as part of its State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. The Attorney General has discretion in deciding how that money is divvied up; if a city won’t help the feds by identifying illegals in its custody, they don’t get paid. The liberal attack line, I assume, will be that Trump is undermining his own law-and-order approach by leaving some local police forces struggling to make up the shortfall in funds. It’s on that turf that the political battle will be fought. The legal battle, of course, will be fought in court: One question, which has already been addressed by one federal circuit, is whether local police are required to hold illegals for ICE. Sessions may end up pressing that fight.
Enjoy a few minutes from today’s speech, with Trump’s rhetoric unusually forceful even by his typical standards on immigration. Note the reference to families who’ve lost relatives to crimes committed by illegals, which is of a piece with the administration’s plan to call more attention to individual crimes. Trump and his team surely realize how effective it is when they can put a human face like Kate Steinle’s to the phenomenon of violence committed by people who shouldn’t be here. The man knows media and narratives. It’s a smart way to go. One footnote in closing, though: Freezing the DACA program was not part of today’s immigration measures. The whole point of Trump’s message here is that the White House is ready to go all-in on removing criminals — and, by implication, not the otherwise law-abiding kids and college students who were brought here illegally by their parents as children. Paul Ryan went so far as to tell DREAMers in an interview tonight not to worry about their status. Stay tuned.”
Trump to publicize crimes by illegal immigrants in ‘sanctuary cities’
– New York Post
“President Trump plans to publish a weekly list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the Big Apple and all other sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The list will inform citizens and others about “public safety threats associated with sanctuary” cities, according to an executive order Trump signed Wednesday.
“The [Homeland Security] Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens,” the order said.
Mayor de Blasio said that New York — one of about 300 sanctuary cities across the US — would not change it’s policy in the face of Trump’s threat to withhold federal funding from cities that do not play ball with his order.
The NYPD said Wednesday the city has a list of roughly 170 criminal offenses that are not covered by the sanctuary policy, and that the department notifies the feds when illegal immigrants are charged with those crimes.
The list includes serious crimes such as felony assault, rape, murder and terrorism as well as gun smuggling and witness tampering.”
Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings
– New York Times
A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.
But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.
The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.
The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — those at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones.
The counterintuitive results provoked debate after the study was posted on Monday, mostly about the volume of police encounters and the scope of the data. Mr. Fryer emphasizes that the work is not the definitive analysis of police shootings, and that more data would be needed to understand the country as a whole. This work focused only on what happens once the police have stopped civilians, not on the risk of being stopped at all. Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police.
Mr. Fryer, the youngest African-American to receive tenure at Harvard and the first to win a John Bates Clark medal, a prize given to the most promising American economist under 40, said anger after the deaths of Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others drove him to study the issue. “You know, protesting is not my thing,” he said. “But data is my thing. So I decided that I was going to collect a bunch of data and try to understand what really is going on when it comes to racial differences in police use of force.”
He and student researchers spent about 3,000 hours assembling detailed data from police reports in Houston; Austin, Tex.; Dallas; Los Angeles; Orlando, Fla.; Jacksonville, Fla.; and four other counties in Florida.
They examined 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015, coding police narratives to answer questions such as: How old was the suspect? How many police officers were at the scene? Were they mostly white? Was the officer at the scene for a robbery, violent activity, a traffic stop or something else? Was it nighttime? Did the officer shoot after being attacked or before a possible attack? One goal was to determine if police officers were quicker to fire at black suspects.
In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.
But police shootings are only part of the picture. What about situations in which an officer might be expected to fire, but doesn’t?
To answer this, Mr. Fryer focused on one city, Houston. The Police Department there let the researchers look at reports not only for shootings but also for arrests when lethal force might have been justified. Mr. Fryer defined this group to include encounters with suspects the police subsequently charged with serious offenses like attempting to murder an officer, or evading or resisting arrest. He also considered suspects shocked with Tasers.
Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black. This estimate was not precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But in various models controlling for different factors and using different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.
The study, a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, relied on reports filled out by police officers and on police departments willing to share those reports. Recent videos of police shootings have led to questions about the reliability of such accounts. But the results were largely the same whether or not Mr. Fryer used information from narratives by officers.
Such results may not be true in every city. The cities Mr. Fryer used to examine officer-involved shootings make up only about 4 percent of the nation’s population, and serve more black citizens than average.
Moreover, the results do not mean that the general public’s perception of racism in policing is misguided. Lethal uses of force are exceedingly rare. There were 1.6 million arrests in Houston in the years Mr. Fryer studied. Officers fired their weapons 507 times. What is far more common are nonlethal uses of force.
And in these uses of force, Mr. Fryer found racial differences, which is in accord with public perception and other studies.
In New York City, blacks stopped by the police were about 17 percent more likely to experience use of force, according to stop-and-frisk records kept between 2003 and 2013. (In the later year, a judge ruled that the tactic as employed then was unconstitutional.)”
…Continue reading more of the fascinating article @ NYT
An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force
Cuban Peers Dispute Ted Cruz’s Father’s Story of Fighting for Castro
– New York Times
“MATANZAS, Cuba — Since he was a boy, Senator Ted Cruz has said, all he wanted to do was “fight for liberty” — a yearning that he says was first kindled when he heard his father’s tales of fighting as a rebel leader in Cuba in the 1950s, throwing firebombs, running guns and surviving torture.
Those stories, retold by Mr. Cruz and by his father, Rafael, have hooked Republican audiences and given emotional power to the message that the Texas senator is pushing as a contender for the party’s presidential nomination. In their telling, the father’s experience in Cuba — when the country was swept up by the charismatic young Fidel Castro, only to see him become a repressive Communist dictator — becomes a parable for the son’s nightmarish vision of government overreach under President Obama.
But the family narrative that has provided such inspirational fire to Mr. Cruz’s speeches, debate performances and a recently published memoir is, his father’s Cuban contemporaries say, an embroidered one.
The elder Mr. Cruz, 76, recalls a vivid moment at a watershed 1956 battle in Santiago de Cuba, when he was with a hero of the revolution, Frank País, just hours before he was killed in combat.
In fact, Mr. País was killed seven months later and in a different place and manner.
In interviews, Rafael Cruz’s former comrades and friends disputed his description of his role in the Cuban resistance. He was a teenager who wrote on walls and marched in the streets, they said — not a rebel leader running guns or blowing up buildings.
Leonor Arestuche, 79, a student leader in the ’50s whom the Castro government later hired to verify the supposed exploits of revolutionary veterans, said a term existed for people like Mr. Cruz — “ojalateros,” or wishful thinkers. “People wishing and praying that Batista would fall,” she said, “but not doing much to act on it.”
An old neighbor remembers soldiers bloodying the 18-year-old Mr. Cruz’s face and driving off with him that summer. Mr. Cruz gives a harrowing account of soldiers beating him over three or four days, stomping on the back of his head and breaking his teeth…
The reason Mr. Cruz was arrested, however, is less clear, and he has offered different explanations. In an interview alongside his son in March, Mr. Cruz said he had sought to recruit to the revolutionary cause someone who turned out to be an informant working for Batista’s regime. The 1959 account, though, did not mention any informant; Rafael Cruz said then that the authorities were alerted to his involvement in the resistance by another man, who gave up only Mr. Cruz’s name after Batista’s forces beat it out of him and left him bleeding in the same cell as Mr. Cruz.
Mario Martínez, who Mr. Cruz confirmed was part of his small revolutionary cell, said he did not recall Mr. Cruz’s being apprehended for trying to recruit someone and said he believed that the cause of his old comrade’s detainment was possession of a revolver — one that Mr. Cruz had never used.
Mr. Martínez declined to be directly interviewed and relayed answers to questions posed by The New York Times about Mr. Cruz through Ms. Arestuche.
According to Mr. Martínez’s account, he and Mr. Cruz had belonged to the youth brigade of Mr. Castro’s 26th of July Movement in their hometown, Matanzas, but had done little besides join in protest marches. They never turned to violence, he said.
The fog of almost 60 years can cloud even the clearest of memories, and it is possible that witnesses who can back up Mr. Cruz’s account might exist and come forward. But none of the Cuban historians, former comrades of Mr. Cruz in his hometown or veterans of the Santiago battle reached by The Times could corroborate his story.
Approached in Marietta, Ohio, on Oct. 13, between wooing campaign donors and headlining a Republican dinner, Mr. Cruz was unable to provide the name of any participant from the Santiago assault. “I mean, we were scattered,” he said, adding, “I was with one other guy at a little coffee place or something like that, and I don’t remember his name.”