Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz says the inflammatory comments from lawmakers and other influencers in the Derek Chauvin murder case affected the jury and he believes the guilty verdict will be overturned on appeal.
Dershowitz told Newsmax TV what Chauvin did to George Floyd was morally inexcusable, but the babble from the likes of Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton seeped into the jury room and most likely led to the guilty verdict. “All Americans who care about due process and liberty, should be concerned that the jury verdict may have been influenced by if not the thumb maybe the elbow of outside pressures, the fears and the threats. Every juror in that room knew about these threats.” Hear more of Dershowitz’s analysis on Newmax.
Jeffrey Robinson, the ACLU’s top racial justice expert, discusses King Cotton as a food brand, a prominent Memphis hotel and the economic theory that Southerners used to justify the Civil War. What was their logic? The power of cotton, of course. The South strategized that they could break away from the North and it would be economically feasible, because everybody depended on their cotton. In other words, cotton was King in the mid-19th century. Here’s more from Robinson on the ACLU Channel.
You have already seen the private security footage that sparked the manhunt of the two Boston terrorism suspects, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The footage shows the value of cameras in fighting terrorism.
After the images were released by the FBI, representative Peter King of New York praised surveillance cameras, calling them, “a great law enforcement method and device,” and New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said, “The more cameras the better and I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table.”
But civil liberties advocates like Peter Bibring of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California say that there is a big difference between obtaining private security footage and government-run cameras like those praised by Rep. King and Commissioner Kelly. H/T Reason.TV
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, calls for limits on the First Amendment during a July 16 speech on the Senate floor. The purpose of Schumer’s address: To pimp his DISCLOSE ACT, aimed at restricting corporations from making financial contributions to political PACs, ostensibly in the name of transparency.
What’s wrong with Schumer’s push? He’s a fraud who didn’t raise any stink whatsoever when Obama outspent McCain, $770 million to $322 million, in the 2008 election. Nor has Schumer objected in the slightest to the more than $500 million spent by global tycoon George Soros to construct an echo chamber of non-profit organizations engaged in secretive, Astroturf efforts to influence the outcome of US elections.
Chuck is only squawking now because the GOP PACs are beginning to outpace their Democratic counterparts in attracting corporate funds, and so, feeling the pinch, he wants to chip away at the First Amendment. Sorry, buddy, but if your party is patently anti-capitalist, and you thus see diminishing donations from businesses, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. Your expedient needs and extremist agenda hardly justify undermining liberties we have enjoyed in America for more than 200 years.
Even the ACLU understands the dangers posed by the DISCLOSE ACT, opposing it on the grounds that it “would inflict unnecessary damage to free speech rights and does not include the proper safeguards to protect Americans’ privacy.” Chuck, get serious, dude. Stop screaming fire.