The Rule of Law Unjustly Manipulated: 4th Circuit Strikes Down NC Voter ID

In a decision that has many at a loss, today the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that North Carolina election integrity laws were enacted with a racially discriminatory intent. The Public Interest Legal Foundation released a statement with regard to the decision.

“The trial court conducted the trial, heard the evidence, and ruled that the law was valid. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals behaved like a trial court and decided that the law had a discriminatory intent,” said J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. “Normally, appeals courts remand to trial courts to review the evidence with the guidance of the appeals court. The Fourth Circuit undertook the job of a trial court and the integrity of the upcoming election is worse off because of it.”

Among the unusual rulings was the court holding that Section 5 objection letters by the Obama Justice Department about other election procedures constituted relevant evidence of racially discriminatory intent in the voter ID law. Objections are based on a failure to affirmatively disprove discriminatory intent, not because discriminatory intent is found.

“This case was brought to extract partisan advantage using the Voting Rights Act and sadly the plaintiffs were successful in turning that important civil rights law into a political weapon,” said Adams.

The concerns raised by the decision are numerous, as the Fourth Circuit acted like a trial court determining evidence and found that the voter ID law and other important election integrity reforms were not enacted for a legitimate purpose.

The three judges assigned to the case — all Democratic appointees — were unanimous that the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature violated the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act three years ago by enacting the measure requiring voters to show certain types of photo ID at the polls.

"The record makes clear that the historical origin of the challenged provisions in this statute is not the innocuous back-and-forth of routine partisan struggle that the State suggests and that the district court accepted," Judge Diana Motz wrote on behalf of Judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd. "Rather, the General Assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent."

There is little that remains to be stated that cannot be implied from the decision itself. Unorthodox left-leaning decisions not based on the rule of law are just a prelude to what another four years of Democratic “leadership” will undoubtedly impose on this country and the judiciary itself.

Dem FEC Commissioners Snoop Around RNC, Party at DNC

Democrat Federal Election Commissioners Ellen Weintraub and Ann Ravel have made clear they are Democrats first and FEC Commissioners second. Earlier we detailed how they went after Fox News but not CNN for the debates. Now they are attending the political party conventions for different purposes. At the Republican Convention last week, they snooped around looking for violations.

@JoshDStewart @AnnMRavel @SFpartytime Glad you asked. We’re on it — RNC vendors appear to be compliant! pic.twitter.com/lrQpULfO5d

— Ellen L Weintraub (@EllenLWeintraub) July 21, 2016

At the Democrat Convention, they party.

Full house in Philly pic.twitter.com/COmq6adBA7

— Ellen L Weintraub (@EllenLWeintraub) July 26, 2016

A little blocked..but Bridge Over Troubled Waters sounded just as it did in the 60's. https://t.co/mmJKUqwUJM

— Ann Ravel (@AnnMRavel) July 26, 2016

Rocking out to Paul Simon aside and not to take away the fun of the Commissioners, but the possible double standard is scary in light of their actions and declarations by Commissioner Ravel, such as “My role in the commission is not to apply constitutional principles” like the First Amendment.

Disunity and Elitism at the DNC Convention – Beyond Reality TV

After the GOP convention, all eyes turned to Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, and what a slow motion train wreck it has been.  Once you get past the lies and blatant attempts to deceive the American people, you can start to see that even the most tenured of Democrats are not buying the garbage spewing forth from the stage. There have been walkouts, consistent “booing” frequently when Clinton’s name is mentioned, and even resignations in the first few days. The DNC is in a tailspin plummeting toward the ground at a high rate of speed.

Before the convention even started, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida was forced to step down after several thousand internal DNC emails were released by WikiLeaks. Some of the emails contain attempts by the DNC to exert control over the message being spread by the media, which clearly reinforces the well-known fact that media readily caters to and communicates with the DNC, putting a leftist spin on real news and painting it as reality.

But the real story in the leaked emails is the fall of Bernie Sanders. He consistently raised questions about the impartiality of the Democratic Party during the primaries. He was right - the DNC actively conspired against his campaign and in support of Hillary. The party enabled a scandal-laden Hillary Clinton to steal the nomination away from him. This is not Democracy nor is it fair.

“Myself and other Democrats who were Clinton supporters, we have been saying this was serious. It truly violates what the DNC’s proper role should be,” said Edward G. Rendell, a former DNC chairman and former Pennsylvania governor.

“The DNC did something incredibly inappropriate here” and needed to acknowledge that, Rendell said.

In the midst of the drama, one cannot help but pause and reflect on what would have happened without a corrupt DNC functioning off of a system rigged to negate the American public’s vote. As a point of clarity, Sanders is a crazy socialist and I put very little stock in much of anything that he says; however, that does not give his party the right to override America’s choice.  We vote for what we believe. Bernie believes what he preached. You can see that on his face when he speaks, and he lives it and owns it like few politicians on the left have over the years.  That does not make him right, but it does make him different. Americans believed him and that is what matters in our system, or at least it should be.  It became abundantly clear to many (both Republicans and Democrats) watching the primaries progress that Sanders was gaining steam and arguably could have won were it not for the completely rigged super delegate system that enabled Clinton to hang on for the win.

Clinton’s camp is continuing to scream unity over the chorus of “Boos” at the convention, but that unity is not for the voters, and many have started to realize that division most certainly exists between average Americans and the left’s political elite. That unity is not for Americans. That unity is not for Bernie. That unity is for DNC’s inner circle alone.  

The fact is that Democrats have now proven that they are no longer the party of the people.  Despite my personal disagreements with Bernie on just about every possible policy, I genuinely feel bad for the man. His run was admirable and instead of accepting the nomination, he is forced to deal with this travesty that is slap in the face to every American voter in this country. At least for Republicans, our voice still matters and our leaders are strong enough to uphold the will of the American people rather than cave to political corruption and elitism.

The DNC consistently states that they support the people, yet their actions paint a starkly different picture. The Democrats' goal is most certainly not to ensure that the people have a voice in their government.  This is yet another scandal feather that the Clintons can put in their already brimming caps.

Finally Some Good News For Free Speech Advocates

Free speech has continued to be in the news as of late. Most recently we have addressed digital free speech and the left’s persistent attacks focused on regulating the last bastion of truly free speech available to citizens of this country. For free speech advocates who were listening to Republican Nominee Donald J. Trump’s speech on July 21, 2016, we heard something out of this candidate that should make everyone celebrate. Trump vowed to repeal the IRS restriction on churches’ free speech.

He told GOP delegates on Thursday night that “the evangelical and religious community” has “so much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views.”

“Their voice has been taken away,” Mr. Trump said. “I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to protect free speech for all Americans.”

President Johnson pushed Congress to pass the Johnson Amendment during his fierce primary battle against Dudley Dougherty. The IRS explains that the rule means that religious institutions that receive a tax-exempt status may not "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

As the DNC convention moves forward with Hillary and several speakers continuing their unjust assault on the Citizens United decision seeking to silence those who would otherwise voice opposition to her vision of America. This is a “solution” she proposes to fix our country. Limiting speech and ideas is clearly a step down the wrong path. Still she proposes to do just that either through judicial appointments or constitutional amendments. It is extremely refreshing to see a nominee seeking to expand freedom of speech in our country, not squash it.  

Briefs Filed in Case Challenging Known Illegal Voting in Minnesota

Reply briefs were filed today in a case pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court challenging continuing violations by election officials that allow ineligible voters, such as felons, to vote illegally in Minnesota.  The case was filed by the Minnesota Voters Alliance:

We then prove that election officials have been notified, as required by specific statutes, of the ineligibility of every felon and non-citizen in the state. . . . We define for the Court the two particular ways in which election officials permit known ineligible persons to vote on election-day. First, felons and other known ineligible persons such as "non-citizens" are allowed to register and then cast ballots because election officials do not check any lists of ineligible persons. Second, election officials permit every felon marked “Challenged: Felony” on the poll roster to cast a ballot if the felon “swears” they are eligible. 

How much sense does it make for the state to ask the person whose right to vote has been removed by the Court if they want to vote and then ignore what the Court said, but that is what election officials do in Minnesota. 

Not only are ineligible persons voting in Minnesota, but it has a significant effect on the outcome of elections: 

Next, we prove that the amount of ineligible voting being allowed by election officials is significant in Minnesota and that it probably has, and certainly can, determine the outcome of close elections. 

As a result of incredibly painstaking and intrepid work by a team of MVA volunteers, we have been able to present the Court with an extensive list of 1,670 instances of ineligible voting by 1,366 named individuals during the 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 general elections. . . .

In presidential election years, more than 500,000 persons register on election day in Minnesota.  Our previous research has shown that after the 2008 election, there were more than 17,000 of those persons who, when verified after the election, had their voter statuses changed to “challenged” because they did not pass the state’s eligibility checks. 

We will post updates on this case as it moves forward.  We trust that the Minnesota Supreme Court will take this threat to the integrity of its elections seriously and order the Secretary of State to follow the law and not allow ineligible persons to vote.

VA Supreme Court Strikes Down McAuliffe's Blanket Restoration of Felon Voting Rights

Today, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down Gov. Terry McAuliffe's order that restored voting rights to over 200,000 convicted felons.  The court found it was unconstitutional because it re-wrote the Virginia Constitution:

In a 4-3 decision, the Court said it “respectfully disagrees” with Mr. McAuliffe’s position that he has the executive power to make such a sweeping move. . . . The court ordered the cancellation of registration of all voters convicted of a felony who registered under the governor’s executive orders by Aug. 25. 

Chief Justice Donald Lemons issued the majority opinion, which said that Mr. McAuliffe’s executive orders had revised a section of the state constitution. 

The ruling said Mr. McAuliffe lacked the power to issue a clemency order “to a class of unnamed felons without regard for the nature of the crimes or any other individual circumstances relevant to the request.” 

Justice Lemons cited Virginia’s tradition of “cautious and incremental approach to any expansions of the executive power,” writing that the framers in 1776 were skeptical of “the unfettered exercise of executive power.”

We applaud the Virginia Supreme Court for upholding the rule of law in Virginia. 

5th Circuit on TX Voter ID Law - Remains in Effect, Accommodations Required

Yesterday, the en banc 5th Circuit ruled in the challenge to Texas' voter ID law.  While the left is claiming a victory, widely saying that the court found the law unconstitutional, the opinion is actually much more nuanced and leaves the primary requirements of the law in effect.  

Texas' voter ID law remains in effect for every voter that has an identification that meets the law's requirements.  The district court must determine how those who lack an acceptable ID to be able to vote in November, and it has already issued an order pertaining to that requirement.

Largely ignored in the liberal rejoicing over the decision is that the 5th Circuit threw out the district court's finding that the voter ID law was a poll tax and seriously questioned its finding that the law was enacted with discriminatory intent.

In dissent, Judge Edith Jones strongly criticized the court's decision to leave the question of discriminatory intent open:

Requiring a voter to verify her identity with a photo ID at the polling place is a reasonable requirement widely supported by Texans of all races and members of the public belonging to both political parties. The majority, however, today holds not only that Texas’s photo voter ID law, SB 14, violates the “results test” declared in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but concludes that there is “more than a scintilla” of evidence to support a finding that the Texas Legislature passed the photo voter ID law with a racially discriminatory intent. By keeping this latter claim alive, the majority fans the flames of perniciously irresponsible racial name-calling.

No one doubts our unwavering duty to enforce antidiscrimination law. But in this media-driven and hyperbolic era, the discharge of that duty requires the courage to distinguish between invidious motivation and shadows. The ill-conceived, misguided, and unsupported majority opinion shuns discernment. Because of definitive Supreme Court authority, no comparable federal court precedent in over forty years has found a state legislative act motivated by purposeful racial discrimination. Even more telling, the multithousand page record yields not a trace, much less a legitimate inference, of racial bias by the Texas Legislature. Indeed, why would a racially biased legislature have provided for a cost-free election ID card to assist poor registered voters—of all races—who might not have drivers’ licenses? Yet the majority emulates the clever capacity of Area 51 alien enthusiasts who, lacking any real evidence, espied a vast but clandestine government conspiracy to conceal the “truth.” 

The major take-away from this opinion is that voter ID laws are valid.  While the 5th Circuit judges disagree over whether they are discriminatory in purpose or effect, the requirement for a person in possession of an ID to present it prior to voting was yet again upheld.

AG and RNLA Member Speaks About SCOTUS At RNC.

Arkansas Attorney General, Leslie Rutledge and RNLA member spoke at the RNC yesterday issuing some blistering attacks on Hillary Clinton. In particular, she took the time to call attention to the additional impact that the Presidential Election will have on the Supreme Court.

I know this race will shape the Supreme Court for generations. Do we want the late Antonin Scalia to be replaced by a liberal activist judge? Donald Trump will nominate conservative Justices who uphold the constitution, support the rule of law, and rein in out of control federal bureaucrats.

General Rutledge’s entire speech is well worth a listen.  We appreciate General Rutledge’s leadership and dedication to preservation of the Constitution of the United States of America.  

BREAKING: Trump Announces Gov. Pence as VP Pick

Today, Donald Trump announced his Vice Presidential running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana.  RNLA praises Mr. Trump for selecting an excellent attorney with a wealth of government experience and solid conservative credentials as his running mate:

RNLA President Larry Levy said: "Governor Pence is a dedicated conservative who has demonstrated his leadership abilities in his able management of the state of Indiana for over three years. He served in Congress for twelve years, serving on multiple committees including the Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, and the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet. In addition, he chaired the conservative Republican Study Committee. Gov. Pence is also an experienced attorney who will work to uphold the rule of law in the executive branch.” 

RNLA Co-Chair Kimberly Reed said: “Donald Trump expressed a wish to add government experience to the Republican ticket with his vice presidential selection, and he has picked wisely in choosing Gov. Pence.  Gov. Pence’s governing experience and conservative credentials combined with Mr. Trump’s extensive business and leadership experience provide a clear best choice for voters in November.”  

RNLA Indiana Chapter Leader and Board of Governors Member Thomas Wheeler said: “Governor Pence brings a wealth of experience to the ticket, including 12 years in Congress and four years as the 50th Governor of the State of Indiana. His conservative credentials as Chair of the House Republican Conference provide the perfect balance for the ticket.”

Rules Committee Meets for Thoughtful Debate and Consideration of Rules

The Convention Rules Committee is meeting in anticipation of the Republican National Convention next week.  The 112-member Rules Committee is composed of one male and one female delegate from each state and territory.

This important Committee is led by the following RNLA members, among many other excellent Republican leaders:

• David Asp - MN
• Vincent DeVito - NY
• Harmeet Dhillion - CA
• Randy Evans - GA
• Peter Feaman - FL
• Richard Forsten - DE
• Bob Kabel - DC
• Anne Lewis - GA
• William Palatucci - NJ
• John Ryder - TN
• J.L. Spray - NE
• Mike Stuart - WV
• Lawrence Tabas - PA
• Harvey Tettlebaum - MO

We thank these RNLA members for their able leadership and dedication to ensuring the future of the Republican Party.

In contrast to the media hysteria regarding the Rules Committee in the preceding months, the debate has been conducted by the Committee members thoughtfully and respectfully.  In all the debates, the Committee members emphasized openness, transparency, the rule of law, and how to make the Republican Party and RNC responsive to the people.  In most cases, after careful consideration and debate, the members have decided not to make major changes to the rules.

Clinton Reiterates Support for Unrealistic and Dangerous Election "Reforms"

While the media focused on Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton yesterday, Hillary made a speech following Sen. Sanders' endorsement that contained calls for liberal election and campaign finance "reform."  This is a familiar refrain from the Democrats this year, but Hillary's speech had some new points.  The "reforms" are in line with the draft of the "most progressive platform in the history of party" released by the Democrats earlier this week.

Hillary's "Reform" - Everyone has to disclose all donors
Campaign finance reform is a subject to which liberals and Democrats criticize the current laws while exploiting loopholes in the system they claim to deride.  The campaign finance laws are already so complicated that national campaigns with full-time staff, attorneys, accountants, and compliance personnel struggle to comply.  Requiring the disclosure of additional donors would not only violate those donors' constitutional rights but also pose immense practical challenges for campaigns and non-profits.

Hillary's "Reform" - Automatic voter registration for everyone when they turn 18
Hillary's proposal goes far beyond the mandatory voter registration systems that are being implemented in several states across the country.  Those systems are dangerous enough, but Hillary's proposal goes beyond registering people who interact with the DMV to automatically registering everyone when they turn 18.  While she did not go into details, her proposal appears to be mandatory, universal voter registration, not the systems currently being implemented that at least have underused opt-out mechanisms.

Hillary's "Reform" - 20 days of in-person voting in every state
This is where Hillary's speech covered some new ground.  Universal donor disclosure and universal mandatory registration are frequently discussed by today's radically liberal Democrat leaders.  20 days of in-person early voting would be an enormous expense and procedural hassle for the states that would have to implement it, and very few states already have such a long period of early voting in place (including none of Hillary's "home" states of Arkansas, Illinois, and New York).  Early voting does not increase turnout, can actually harm voters, and increases the risk of voter fraud.

Hillary's "Reform" - No one waits more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot
Short lines at the polls are a good goal, one that was a focus of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration and for which hard-working local election officials strive, but the federal government cannot simply dictate that no person must wait more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot.  Local election officials allocate scarce resources and personnel based on expected turnout, but they can not perfectly anticipate the innumerable things that could go wrong on election day, causing people to wait a long time to vote.  Long lines at the polling place are unfortunate and all local election officials should, and do, strive to shorten them, but Hillary ignores all the considerations and efforts of those officials when she unrealistically declares that no one should wait more than 30 minutes to vote.

RNLA Advocates Opposition to Mandatory Voter Registration and Mandatory Voting in GOP Platform

The Platform Committee began meeting today, in preparation for next week's Republican National Convention.  

RNLA leadership wrote to the leadership of the Platform Committee last month, requesting that the Committee add language to the platform that opposes mandatory voter registration and mandatory voting:

The RNLA respectfully requests that the Platform Committee add the following language to the 2016 Republican Party platform:

As freedom is essential to the American system of government, neither automatic voter registration nor mandatory voting should be enacted in any state or by the federal government. Citizens should be free to decide whether to participate in the political system through voting or registering to vote.

Automatic voter registration, more properly called mandatory voter registration, is a coercive, intrusive system that does not accomplish its goal of increased voter turnout but does create problems, such as inaccurate voter rolls. Mandatory registration opens the door for fraud by registering people who have no intention of ever voting in the jurisdiction, are transient, or are otherwise added to the rolls when they should not be. Mandatorily registering a citizen when he or she has decided not to register violates a citizen’s basic rights. 

We hope that the Platform Committee, in addition to considering the other important issues that will define the Republican Party for the next four years, will choose to add this important plank to the 2016 Republican Platform. 

An Quick Overview on Convention Rules; Delegates are Legitimately Bound

RNLA Member James Bopp, Jr., wrote a nice informative blog post over at The Hill yesterday discussing convention delegates and the current RNC rules. Now, most familiar with the situation know that the idea of a revolt on the floor has been an impossibility for some time. Yet, the mainstream media and liberals continue to try and resuscitate the movement like voters from beyond the grave in California.

James Bopp points out with a high level of specificity the reality of the situation. GOP delegates are legitimately bound, deal with it, as the alternative would likely result in the destruction of the Republican Party itself.

The advocates of this view say they want to “Free the Delegates” or affirm their right of “conscience” and they cite GOP Convention history, a Supreme Court decision, and current RNC Rules to support their position. They are right about history, but wrong about Supreme Court precedent and current RNC Rules. Absent the adoption of a contrary RNC Rule, state party rules and state laws which bind delegates are legally valid and respect for the Rule of Law requires that delegates vote in accordance with these requirements.

Throughout the blog post, Bopp goes on to debunk David French of National Review’s three main points that he contends could potentially free up delegates at the Convention. French’s three main points consisted of the following.

“1. State legislatures cannot violate the First Amendment rights of Republican delegates.”
. . . [T]he First Amendment right here is not an individual right of each delegate but a right of political association that requires the association to act. So Mr. French overstates his point by a slight of hand, while correctly arguing that the First Amendment protects political party rules against contrary state laws, he erroneously characterizes it as “the First Amendment rights of Republican delegates.” Delegates have no individual First Amendment right to vote as they please contrary to a state law. . . .

“2. Traditional and current Republican rules and practices allow delegates to vote their conscience.”
Of course, it is true that, through most of its history, delegates were not bound by any state party rule or state law to vote for any particular candidate at the GOP national convention. Historically and now, delegates are selected by state party conventions or caucuses, and only rarely by election in a primary by the voters – this is why our primaries are called “Presidential preference primaries.” 
But as primaries have become more popular in order to gauge grassroots Republican support for a particular candidate, state laws and state party rules that bind delegates to the results of these primaries have also become more popular. So the critical issue is what do the RNC Rules say about this. . . .

“3. If the Republican Party wishes to bind delegates to Trump, it will have to change the rules to do so.”
This is just not so. As explained, state party rules and state laws are currently valid and enforceable, since there is no RNC Rule that prohibits them.  So the shoe is on the other foot. A RNC Rule prohibiting binding must be adopted by the National Convention, to be effective at the 2016 Convention, to relieve delegates of their state binding. Certainly those advocating a “conscience amendment” implicitly understand this and they are right. . . .

The entire post is worth reading for those somewhat familiar with the rules and certainly to those with little knowledge of the process. 

Bopp also penned an article discussing why any changes to the rules of the Convention should not take effect until the Convention adopting the change adjourns.  Attempts to change the convention rules themselves could have a devastating effect on the party itself.

Regulating Digital Speech Is Closer Than You Think

We have addressed the left’s persistent attacks on the first amendment frequently on this blog. Take a look back at Obama’s Lawyer, the attacks on Fox News, Ann Ravel’s unintelligible partisan dribble about her own agency, and even Attorneys General issuing harassing subpoenas on non-profit organizations for expressing a point of view.  The concerns are numerous and provide a grim picture of the underlying intent of the attacks.  

Those who get in the way are being dealt with through threats, intimidation, and far worse. Kimberly Strassel recently published a book detailing the various methods and actions taken by those who would see the First Amendment limited to only their point of view on any range of topics.  Liberal Senators and Congressmen/women are taking a cue from Commander in Chief. They are seeking to expand and lop side government agencies to allow for extensive regulatory overreach. Nowhere is this more prevalent than at the FCC and the FEC. For those familiar with the legislation, the concern is that the left has been and continues to seek to regulate the internet.

The Cato Institute recently held an event discussing the reality of the situation. Digital speech is under attack and has been for some time. The event featured Lee Goodman, Commissioner, FEC; Ajit Pai, Commissioner, FCC; and Rudy Takala, Watchdog Reporter, Washington Examiner. Goodman, Pai and Takala provided an exceptional overview of the current state of “Digital Speech”. In the interest of brevity, this is a paraphrase of the bulk of the concerns discussed.

The Internet is the last stronghold of what is truly free speech available to Americans and for that matter, the world.  As much as the left paints Citizens United as a horrible SCOTUS decision (which both Democratic presidential candidates seek to overturn), the internet as it is equalizes the decision by giving a voice to anyone willing to use it. Money makes little difference in the world of the internet. And while it may not be the end-all solution, it is the best and most readily available to all in our country. The wealthy, indigent, blacks, whites, Catholics, Muslims, conservatives, liberals, and moderates . . . we all have a chance to voice our opinion to weigh in on issues and express our opinions and partake in rational debate.

Debate is one of the things that makes this country great. The ability to share ideas and disagree with one another is what moves our nation forward. If you can get to a computer, at home or at the library, you have a platform to share your thoughts and ideas with others from across the world. That should be encouraged, not stifled through regulation overreach and the left-leaning media.  

You need not look too far to see oppressive governmental regimes heading down the path of over regulation, stifling speech and ideas, as well as outright banning of content. This is the path envisioned by many who continue to seek additional regulations. The intent is to regulate and control the flow of information, to tax it, and ensure that the ideas of many are drowned out in the favor of the ideas of a select few. This is the risk. These are the ideas being put forth by those who claim to be supporting minorities and giving them a voice. Which voice is that? Because if all remains constant, in the end, it most certainly will not be their own unless they can afford to pay for it and its message supports that of the current administration. 

The Trump VP Vetting Process

There is currently a high level of excitement and speculation surrounding potential running mates for the presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee Donald J. Trump. While no one outside the inner circle knows for sure what is going to happen, those who attended the RNLA National Policy Conference in 2009 received an inside look at the vetting process in an address by former Reagan White House Counsel Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., who is also in charge of the Trump VP vetting process.  

The contenders under the most serious consideration, such as Gingrich and Christie, have been asked by attorney Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr. to answer more than 100 questions and to provide reams of personal and professional files that include tax records and any articles or books they have published.

Culvahouse, a former White House counsel who is managing the vetting for Trump, was the lawyer who vetted then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the GOP vice-presidential nomination during the 2008 campaign.

Culvahouse shared details insights about the VP vetting process for 2008 Republican Nominee, John McCain, at the RNLA National Policy Conference. Culvahouse has been hard at work attempting to narrow the list for Trump. The process is not one that is an exact science and there are no formal rules governing the vetting process. It is likely that he is following a similar process for Trump but with a few more questions. (Below are direct quotes):

The Vetter’s role is to vet and we are given a list and my deal with John [McCain] is there were three rules:

1.     He was the decider

2.     There was no one between he and me [. . .]

3.     [. . . ]He could not pick anyone I had not vetted

He agreed to that and we had 26 people on the long list. It was a blind basis. They did not know that they were on the list. I had a staff of about 30 lawyers and we wrote 40-50 page reports.

How do you make the qualifications assessments? Qualifications in this town means someone with a great resume. We all know people with a long list of qualifications who have [been] Senators or Committee Chairmen forever, who at least in our minds may not be qualified to be President or Vice President of the United States. That’s a very important and different responsibilities. [ . . . ]

Ethical issues, I learned as White House Counsel and doing some lookbacks on some of our nominees that have gotten into trouble. We look for corner cutting.  I believe in redemption, everyone is entitled to a mistake or two. But someone who has an aggregation of complaints, someone who doesn’t [pay] their parking tickets on repeated occasion, tax issues [. . . ], that sort of thing we found disqualifying.

Short list. There was a handful. We interviewed them. They answered seventy-four questions. There was no debate about what the meaning of “is” is, I drafted that question. Have you ever been unfaithful? Has anyone ever asserted that you have been unfaithful? Is there anyone who could truthfully assert that you have been unfaithful? Then you define unfaithful. I think we got great cooperation.

I asked three lead in questions [. . .]

1.     Why do you want to be VP

2.     Are you prepared to use nuclear weapons in defense of the American Homeland

3.     Osama Bin Laden is identified in the fata. The CIA’s ready to take the shot but if they take the shot there will be multiple civilian casualties. Do you take the shot?

Much like with Trump's campaign counsel Don McGahn handling the legal issues, everyone can trust in an experienced expert such as A.B. Culvahouse handling the VP vetting. 

Reactions to FBI Statement on Hillary Clinton's Email Server

"Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now," [Hillary] Clinton responded. "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."

Except that Clinton did, then she lied about it. Not just once, but on several occasions. That is now established as an indisputable fact.

Watch the statement from FBI Director James Comey here, or read the statement here.  On to some of the comments statements:

House Speaker Paul Ryan via Politico:

"While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation," Ryan said in a statement. "No one should be above the law."

Even as Comey announced that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring the case against Clinton, Ryan remarked that even "based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law."

"Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent," Ryan continued. "The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment."

National Review put out a piece that sums up the clear legal issues evidenced in Comey’s statement.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

Even the liberal Washington Post thought the issues were serious and headlined their story on it Hillary Clinton’s email problems might be even worse than we thought:

It's hard to read Comey's statement as anything other than a wholesale rebuke of the story Clinton and her campaign team have been telling ever since the existence of her private email server came to light in spring 2015. She did send and receive classified emails. The setup did leave her — and the classified information on the server — subject to a possible foreign hack. She and her team did delete emails as personal that contained professional information.

Those are facts, facts delivered by the Justice Department of a Democratic administration. And those facts run absolutely counter to the narrative put forth by the Clinton operation: that this whole thing was a Republican witch-hunt pushed by a bored and adversarial media.

For a candidate already badly struggling on questions of whether she is honest and trustworthy enough to hold the office to which she aspires, Comey’s comments are devastating. Watching them, I could close my eyes and imagine them spliced into a bevy of 30-second ads — all of which end with the FBI director rebuking Clinton as “extremely careless.”

RNC Chair Reince Priebus via a statement on Facebook:

Rudy Giuliani on CBS News:

"No one should be above the law. Today Hillary Clinton was put way above the law."

Hillary may have avoided criminal prosecution but she will be made to pay a political price.  

Obama's Lawyer Doesn't Believe the 1st Amendment Applies to Fox News!

As we described yesterday, Fox News was targeted by FEC Democrats for hosting a Republican presidential primary debate.  

President Obama's lawyer Bob Bauer, on his blog, defends Commissioner Weintraub, criticizes Commissioner Goodman, and brushes off as inconsequential Fox News' profound free press rights.  He acknowledges that Commissioner Weintraub voted to find Fox News violated the law for engaging in legitimate, wholly constructive press activity.  But he defends Commissioner Weintraub on the theory that outlawing -- even technically -- press activity is more important in this case than disrupting the prestige and decorum at the FEC. What a profoundly disturbing suggestion by one generally regarded as a civil libertarian who represents the First Amendment rights of oppressed political actors before the government.  

More troubling, Mr. Bauer completely ignores the fact that two Commissioners voted to actually PUNISH (Mr. Bauer places this word in quotation marks as if to question the accuracy of the suggestion) Fox News in this case.  What?  No discussion of that remarkable action by two Commissioners?  Ignoring the votes won't diminish the dramatic chilling impact on free press rights, Mr. Bauer.

Why such a blithe treatment of press rights by First Amendment lawyer Bob Bauer?  Could it be this case is about Fox News?  Mr. Bauer, former White House Counsel, is married to Anita Dunn, instigator of the White House's war against Fox News several years ago.  That might explain why in this case decorum at the FEC matters more than free press rights.