States Scan Barr Code on Civil Rights
There’s federalism, and then there’s overreach. In a crisis like this one, there’s a fine line between the two — but the Trump administration is intent on making officials walk it.
There’s federalism, and then there’s overreach. In a crisis like this one, there’s a fine line between the two — but the Trump administration is intent on making officials walk it. As some Americans lose patience with the stay-at-home orders, the Justice Department wants the country to know it’s paying attention. If governors or local leaders abuse their power to keep people locked up and businesses closed up, Attorney General William Barr wants states to know: he isn’t giving them a pass.
In a memo earlier this week, the nation’s chief law enforcer announced that he’s hand-picked two attorneys to keep an eye on the states “and, if necessary, take action to correct [it].” One of them, Eric Dreiband, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, already has plenty of practice where religious liberty is concerned — stepping in to defend churches who were unfairly singled out for harsher gathering protocol. Chances are, he’ll have even more opportunities to weigh in, as congregations in Kentucky, Washington State, Mississippi, fight for the right to worship in CDC-compliant ways.
There are some people, like Becket’s Luke Goodrich, who are trying to give officials the benefit of the doubt. “When you have a widespread, fast-moving health crisis like this, there are inevitably going to be examples of government overreach. Sometimes that could be the result of a malicious intent to restrict religious freedom," he agreed. "But more often, it’s the result of a well-intentioned — but perhaps overeager — effort to protect public health, combined with limited time, information, expertise dealing with a pandemic.”
But surely now, more than two months into this pandemic, state and local governments have had plenty of time to thread this public health/personal freedom needle. That’s why so many Americans are at the ends of their tolerance. As I told the New York Times, governors either need to start partnering with churches and the private sector — or they’re going to lose control. Now obviously, what works in one place might not work in another. The virus trajectory in Washington, D.C. looks nothing like Bismarck, North Dakota. But if governors would take the same approach as the president — giving guidance and letting the local people decide — then we wouldn’t see these growing levels of frustration and consternation.
Instead, mayors like New York City’s Bill de Blasio (D), who did nothing when hordes of people gathered to watch the Blue Angels but threatened to arrest Jewish mourners at an orthodox funeral. Both ignored social distancing and best practices — but only the religious event prompted the Democrat’s ire. That’s the sort of disparity and hypocrisy fueling the people’s outrage. As General Barr said, “We do not want to unduly interfere with the important efforts of state and local officials to protect the public,” Barr insisted. “But the Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis.”
There are ways to put people’s health at the forefront and still meet in responsible ways. Our hope — like one Mississippi pastor's — is that “all the people that need to be ministered to can be ministered to.” FRC’s experts have written extensively on how that can be done, including a new publication on church re-openings. Check out that, as well as our issue brief, “What Pastors Should Know about the White House Plan to Open up America Again.”
Originally published here.
Tainted Gov: Flynn Case Exposes FBI
As far as liberal set-ups go, it certainly followed the formula: a phone call, the Russians, a high-ranking government official’s son, lying prosecutors, even some of the same politically-motivated FBI agents. But the case against General Michael Flynn had another familiar storyline in the Left’s war against Donald Trump — a lack of evidence. Based on the bombshell evidence this week — a damning picture of FBI corruption, coercion, and entrapment — it seems General Flynn’s only real crime was ending up in an administration the Democrats wanted to destroy.
He was on the job for less than a month. The three-star Army general had only been working as President Trump’s national security advisor for a few weeks when news broke of his resignation. Later, we learned that he’d pled guilty to misleading the FBI about a call he had with a Russian ambassador. But even then, folks said, it didn’t add up. A lot of people — former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy the loudest among them — cried foul. Why would Flynn lie to the FBI about a call he knew they were listening to? And if there was “no evidence of wrongdoing” in that conversation (as even the Washington Post reported), why was he subject to an investigation in the first place?
“Flynn is not a foreign agent,” McCarthy insisted at the time. “There was no need to ‘grill’ him over the contents of a conversation of which the FBI and Justice Department already had a recording. And the FBI has no business probing the veracity of public statements made by presidential administrations for political purposes — something it certainly resisted doing during the Obama administration. It is easy to see why Democrats would want to portray Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador as worthy of an FBI investigation. But why did the FBI and the Justice Department investigate Flynn — and why did ‘officials’ make sure the press found out about it?”
Now, more than three years later — after Flynn lost his job, his house, and his reputation — we know exactly why. As part of his court battle to have his guilty plea withdrawn, the general’s legal team has explosive new evidence showing that the FBI was intentionally trying to frame the general for perjury. In a shocking series of handwritten notes from his FBI interview, written after a meeting with top FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe, agents planned to set Flynn up. “What is our goal?” one of the notes read. “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” “If we’re seen as playing games, the [White House],” another writes, “will be furious.” Of course, it will come as no surprise that one of the agents in on this set-up was none other than Trump-hating Peter Strzok, who got his tips on how to handle the interview from Lisa Page.
“I did not lie to them,” Flynn has insisted since his January suit to clear his name. So why plead guilty? Because, it turns out, dirty prosecutors from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s staff threatened him that if he didn’t, they would charge his son with a felony for a paperwork oversight at DOJ. When Flynn finally agreed, they kept the deal a secret — which, as McCarthy points out, is illegal. “Under federal law, all understandings that are relevant to a guilty plea must be disclosed to the judge.” If it had been, he points out, “it would have illustrated the hardball that Mueller and his band of activist Democratic prosecutors were playing in an effort to nail President Trump.”
But ethics, as Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, is finding out, isn’t exactly a hallmark of the FBI. She’s uncovered piles of evidence of misconduct — including missing or “edited” reports about Flynn and the details of his interviewed (which offered fewer protections than an actual criminal proceeding). But then, this is an agency that’s used subversive tactics to undermine Donald Trump and the democratic process since before he was even elected. They’ve abused their authority for years, openly (and secretly) plotting against this administration, ignoring a “Mount Olympus of evidence” against the last one, and now, using KGB-type tactics to ensnare an American hero. Who can even be surprised? The only thing that should shock America is that there continues to be no justice or accountability for how this agency operates — which, to this point, includes subverting its own leaders from inside the walls of government!
This didn’t start when Donald Trump arrived on the scene. The last four years of political prejudice has been staggering, to be sure, but any trust Americans had in the nation’s top law enforcement agency was misplaced long before that. Our country deserves better. General Flynn and President Trump deserve better. But the FBI’s treatment here is business as usual. And that, some argue, is the scandal. It must stop.
Originally published here.
Idaho’s Political Hot Potato: Girls’ Sports
She didn’t just play Division 1 basketball — she coached it, at four different schools. If anyone knows about women’s sports, it’s Idaho State Rep. Barbara Ehardt (R). Like a lot of people, she understands that what’s at the root of this fight against athletes competing as the gender of their choice isn’t prejudice. It’s basic fairness. And when her governor signed the bill she’d drafted to protect it, Barbara couldn’t have been happier. Then came the news everyone dreaded: far-Left groups were suing to settle the score.
In the states where this debate is playing out (and there are a lot of them) one of the biggest frustrations leaders like Barbara have is the slanted coverage. “The first thing that I think people should know is: bills like this actually are widely supported,” she told “Washington Watch’s” Sarah Perry. “This is common sense legislation. People use that a lot, but it really is common sense legislation that is supported throughout the nation.” She’s right. Most Americans agree that girls shouldn’t have to compete against biological men — especially when scholarships and professional opportunities are on the line.
“The problem is,” she points out, “once it’s brought in the form of legislation, it now becomes politicized. And that’s certainly what happened in Idaho with the far-Left.” Idaho’s legislature may be Republican, Barbara explained, “but we [had] such support that we literally had the [liberal] forces of the entire nation… descending on Idaho and trying to combat this bill. So in that respect, it was hard. But kudos to our governor — and kudos to every legislator who stood up and supported this bill. It makes sense.”
Now, despite facing the prospect of a drawn-out court battle, Barbara is as convinced as ever that Idaho did the right thing. The ACLU, who’s suing to stop the law (despite, many believe, not having real standing to do so), argues that “inclusive teams support all athletes and encourage participation.” But they must not understand the point of Title IX, which was designed to be exclusive and give women the opportunities that had been, up to that point, partially denied. Instead, what the ACLU is doing — somewhat ironically, as a bastion of women’s lib and equality — is trying to gut 50 years of female legislative progress.
“It absolutely hits at the core of Title IX,” Barbara agreed. “And as I told people during the hearings… I benefited from Title IX. You see, I was one of those kids that grew up born in the 60s. And I was eight years old in 1972 and had no idea the impact the Title IX would have on my life. People used to ask me what I wanted to do when I grew up, and I would tell them — and this is a true story — I told them I wanted to play sports.” And what did they say back? “‘That’s not what girls do.’ And so Title IX absolutely paved the way. Women who had gone before me paved the way for opportunities like mine. And I feel an obligation to do the same for those who follow.”
Of course, the burning question now is whether Governor Little has the stomach to fight this all the way to the end. “I really have that sense,” Barbara said. “When Governor Little had this bill placed before him… the governor had 10 days… to sign it. And during those 10 days, again, the continued forces of the Left descended — including businesses in Idaho who are more concerned about diversity and their perceived [ideas of] discrimination…” And yet still, Governor Little worked through that.
“It would have been so much easier to just veto it. But I think the fact that he has put himself out there and sided with the overwhelming support of the legislature and… the people [sends the message] that this is important. I believe that he will remain with us,” Barbara insists. “I’ve been in contact with our [attorney general’s] office, and we’re moving forward.” For the sake of the dozens of states who’d like to do the same, let’s pray they’re successful!
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
