Mediaboss Marketing

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Updated: Friday, March 17, 2017, 11:01 PM

Authorities are frantically searching for a Secret Service-issued laptop containing floor plans for Trump Tower, information about the Hillary Clinton email investigation and other national security information that was stolen from an agents car in Brooklyn, police sources told the Daily News Friday.

The computer was lifted Thursday morning and officials are trying to determine if Agent Marie Argentieri was targeted or if the robbery was random.

NYPD cops are assisting in the investigation, sources said.

Its a very big deal, a police source said. Theres data on there thats highly sensitive. Theyre scrambling like mad.

Bharara was investigating Trump cabinet member when fired: report

Sources and neighbors said the thief stepped out of a dark-colored sedan, possibly an Uber, and darted into Argentieris Bath Beach driveway about 3 a.m.

He grabbed the computer, a backpack, and other goods and walked away, sources said.

The crook, dressed in black, didnt get back in the car he arrived in. He was seen on surveillance video strolling away from the brick home wearing a backpack and holding a laptop, sources said.

Neighbor Mike Mignuolo, 73, believes, based on the video police showed him, that the suspect moved quickly and with a purpose.

Trump border wall to be 30 feet high, aesthetically pleasing

It showed somebody running to the car and running back out, he said. They knew what they were doing, absolutely. They knew what they were hitting.

Other items stolen include sensitive documents, an access keycard, coins, a black zippered bag with the Secret Service insignia on it and lapel pins from various assignments including ones involving President Trump, the Clinton campaign, the United Nations General Assembly and the Popes visit to New York, sources said.

An agency-issued radio was also taken, according to Politico.

43 photos view gallery

The coins and bag were later found.

Seth Meyers says Trump is like Robin Williams on a 'cokey night'

A Secret Service employee was the victim of a criminal act in which our agency-issued laptop computer was stolen, spokesman Shawn Holtzclaw said in a statement.

The information on the laptop cannot be remotely erased, sources said.

The agency said the device doesnt contain classified information but could be used to access a server that does.

Secret Service-issued laptops contain multiple layers of security, including full disk encryption and are not permitted to contain classified information, Holtzclaw said. An investigation is ongoing, and the Secret Service is withholding additional comment until the facts are gathered.

Calif. man arrested after climbing White House fence

Argentieri could not be reached for comment.

The agent told investigators the laptop contained floor plans for Trump Tower, evacuation protocols and information regarding the investigation of Clintons private email server, according to sources.

While nothing about the White House or foreign leaders is stored on the laptop, the information could compromise national security, she said.

After walking away, the suspect turned onto Cropsey Ave. and dumped the backpack in the snow outside a private home. Residents there had no comment.

Britain says White House apologized for Trump wiretap claims

A teacher from Poly Prep Country Day School, in neighboring Bay Ridge, found another bag containing papers on her front porch and she turned them over to school security.

Poly Preps head of security, a retired NYPD cop, determined they were Secret Service and notified Argentieri Friday morning, sources said.

If anyone has information that can assist in the investigation of this incident they are encouraged to contact the NYPD or the US Secret Service Field Office, the NYPD said in a statement.

The laptop theft is the latest in a series of embarrassments for the Secret Service.

Trump administration appeals ruling against travel ban

Last week, an intruder jumped the White House fence and wasnt caught for 16 minutes, and a pair of agents are reportedly under investigation for taking pictures with Trumps sleeping grandson.

With Roshan Abraham

Follow this link:
Laptop holding Trump Tower floor plans, Hillary Clinton email investigation info stolen from Secret Service agent - New York Daily News

ABC Comedy 'Last Man Standing' Compares Sore Losers to Hillary Clinton NewsBusters (blog) Then Ryan brought in a recent political sore loser into the conversation. As Kyle innocently tried to explain that losing isn't the end of the world and leads to winning later, Ryan said that looking at losing as a win was straight out of Hillary ... and more »

Go here to read the rest:
ABC Comedy 'Last Man Standing' Compares Sore Losers to Hillary Clinton - NewsBusters (blog)

WASHINGTON -- This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will question Neil Gorsuch about the judiciary's role. Herewith some pertinent questions:

-- Lincoln's greatness began with his recoil from the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, which empowered residents of those territories to decide whether to have slavery. The act's premise was that "popular sovereignty" -- majorities' rights -- is the essence of the American project. Is it, or is liberty?

-- Justice Robert Jackson wrote, "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to ... place [certain subjects] beyond the reach of majorities." Was that not also the purpose of the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause? It says: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Was this amendment's purpose to ensure that the natural rights of all citizens would be protected from abridgement by their states?

-- If so, was the court wrong in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases? It essentially erased the Privileges and Immunities Clause, holding that it did not secure natural rights (e.g., the right to enter contracts and earn a living), for the protection of which, the Declaration of Independence says, governments are instituted.

-- Chief Justice John Roberts says the doctrine of stare decisis -- previous court decisions are owed respect -- is not an "inexorable command." The ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), upholding racial segregation in separate but equal facilities, has been undone. Should the Slaughterhouse Cases ruling be revisited?

-- The court, without warrant from the Constitution's text or history, has divided Americans' liberties between those it deems "fundamental," such as speech and association, and others, many pertaining to economic activity and the right to earn a living, that are inferior. Abridgements of the latter have been given less exacting judicial scrutiny. The court calls this "rational basis" scrutiny; it should be called "conceivable basis" scrutiny. If a legislature asserts, or the court can imagine, a rational basis for the abridgement, it stands. Do you think judges should decide which liberties to protect or neglect? Should courts examine evidence of whether economic regulations are related to public health and safety or merely reflect rent seeking by economic interests?

-- The Ninth Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Robert Bork said this is akin to an "inkblot" on the Constitution that judges should ignore. Do you agree? How can judges be faithful to this amendment? Was Madison correct that it should dispose us against a latitudinarian interpretation of Congress' powers? Is the Ninth Amendment pertinent to, say, the right to earn a living free from unreasonable licensure requirements or other barriers to entry into an occupation?

-- Other than a law that abridges a liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are there limits to Congress' power over interstate commerce?

-- The Fifth Amendment says no property shall be taken "for public use" without just compensation. In the 2005 Kelo case, the court upheld a city's seizure of private property not to facilitate construction of a public structure or to cure blight, but for the "public use" of transferring it to a wealthier private interest that would pay more taxes. Did the court err?

-- Madison worried that Congress would draw "all power into its impetuous vortex." For many decades, however, our centrifugal Congress has been spinning off essentially legislative powers, delegating them to presidents and executive agencies. The Constitution says "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Should the court enforce limits to Congress' power to delegate its powers?

-- Citizens United held that unions and corporations, particularly incorporated nonprofit advocacy groups, can engage in unregulated spending that is not coordinated with candidates or campaigns. Was the court correct that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in incorporated entities to speak collectively?

-- Is it constitutional for Congress, by regulating political spending, to control the quantity and timing of political speech?

-- You commendably believe that judges should adhere to the "original public meaning" of the Constitution's text. Would you feel bound to follow a previous court decision that did not evaluate evidence of original meaning and was, in your view, in conflict with it? If not, would you be elevating the views of judges over those of the Framers?

-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, a deferential, majoritarian jurist, said: "If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It's my job." Discuss.

Go here to see the original:
GEORGE WILL: Here are questions senators should ask Gorsuch - Sioux City Journal

In a recent column ("Flawed Judicial Mindset," March 3), Dana Kelley argues that the death penalty is plainly constitutional. Therefore, he reasons, if the Supreme Court strikes down the ultimate sanction, the justices will be altering the U.S. Constitution rather than interpreting it. That would be an act of judicial "tyranny" because the Constitution may only be changed by Congress and the states via the formal amendment process set forth in Article V of our governing charter.

I disagree with Mr. Kelley's analysis in multiple respects.

Let me begin by disclosing my own biases. I believe that the death penalty is morally justified in principle. There are some crimes for which execution is a morally appropriate punishment. However, I also believe that the death penalty is not morally justified in practice.

While I hold this latter view on multiple grounds, the two most important are as follows.

First, according to the preponderance of the empirical evidence, the death penalty does not deter crime any more effectively than the sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Second, our criminal justice system, while the best and most reliable in the world, is far from perfect. A small but critical percentage of jury trials result in a wrongful conviction. This is demonstrated by, among other things, the string of exonerations of death row inmates over the last three decades thanks to improved analysis of DNA. Furthermore, many leading criminal law scholars have concluded that innocent people have in fact been executed in this country. Thus, the risk of imposing the death penalty on an innocent person is simply too great given that the punishment has no supplemental deterrent effect in comparison to life without parole.

The morality and legality of the death penalty are two different issues. And Mr. Kelley's piece concerns the law. So now let's turn to that subject. Mr. Kelley rightly points out that certain parts of the Constitution appear to presume the existence of the death penalty. In particular, the Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be held to answer for a capital ... crime, unless" the person is indicted by a grand jury. And the amendment also states that a person may not be "deprived of life ... without due process of law." He says that these clauses codify capital punishment; they establish that the Constitution "allows the government to impose a death sentence, as long as it is the product of due process." But the story is considerably more complicated.

To begin with, the Fifth Amendment grants no government powers. Instead, it places limits on such power. Thus, the authority to execute a criminal must first be identified elsewhere in the Constitution. For state governments, the power to impose capital punishment is provided by the 10th Amendment, which grants states general authority to regulate the affairs within their borders. For our national government, the power comes from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which identifies the legal domains that are subject to federal regulation.

But here is the key point: Any exercise of government power--state or federal--is prohibited if it violates one of the rights-bearing provisions of the Constitution, such as those set forth in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. For example, Congress is expressly granted the authority to regulate interstate commerce. But if it enacts a statute designed to govern the national economy that also happens to restrict the freedom of speech, then the law is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. The death penalty is subject to the same limitations. Application of the ultimate sanction must be consistent with not only the due process clause, as Mr. Kelley explains, but also with every other rights-bearing provision in our national charter.

One of the most important such provisions is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It requires that governments not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, and several other grounds. Unfortunately, there is considerable racial discrimination in our criminal justice system. And much research establishes that the death penalty itself is applied in racially discriminatory ways. As a result, there is a powerful argument that capital punishment--as currently applied in the United States--violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

At most, the 14th Amendment only bars capital punishment until we can expunge disparate racial treatment from our enforcement of criminal law. Does any part of the Constitution go further? In particular, might the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment make the death penalty unconstitutional more generally? Mr. Kelley thinks the answer is absolutely not. He relies upon Justice Scalia's argument that the framers of the Constitution could not have believed that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment because they wrote the Fifth Amendment, which expressly contemplates that executions will be carried out in at least some circumstances. And, Justice Scalia continued, the Eighth Amendment must be interpreted consistently with how it was understood in the late 18th century.

The problem here is that there is considerable evidence that the framers thought that the meaning of "cruel and unusual" would change with time. After all, they used the word "unusual." What is unusual is constantly evolving as governments alter the laws of punishment. It is thus quite reasonable to believe that the death penalty, as a matter of constitutional law, is now cruel and unusual, even though it was not so in 1790.

Now, I actually agree with Mr. Kelley's conclusion about executions and the Eighth Amendment: I do not think that the death penalty is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment. My point here is this: there is a plausible legal argument that Mr. Kelley and I are wrong. And thus, should the Supreme Court strike down the death penalty on Eighth Amendment grounds, that will clearly not be an act of tyranny. It will, at worst, simply be a case where the Supreme Court got it wrong on a legal issue over which reasonable and fair minds can differ. And if the High Court instead uses the 14th Amendment to invalidate capital punishment temporarily, the justices will be on even firmer ground. Indeed, I think they will be right.

Joshua M. Silverstein is a Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law. The opinions in this column are his own.

Editorial on 03/19/2017

See the article here:
Death penalty might indeed be unconstitutional - NWAOnline

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will question Neil Gorsuch about the judiciary's role. Herewith some pertinent questions:

Lincoln's greatness began with his recoil from the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, which empowered residents of those territories to decide whether to have slavery. The act's premise was that "popular sovereignty" majorities' rights is the essence of the American project. Is it, or is liberty?

Justice Robert Jackson wrote, "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to ... place [certain subjects] beyond the reach of majorities." Was that not also the purpose of the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause? It says: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Was this amendment's purpose to ensure that the natural rights of all citizens would be protected from abridgement by their states?

If so, was the court wrong in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases? It essentially erased the Privileges and Immunities Clause, holding that it did not secure natural rights (e.g., the right to enter contracts and earn a living), for the protection of which, the Declaration of Independence says, governments are instituted.

Chief Justice John Roberts says the doctrine ofstare decisis previous court decisions are owed respect is not an "inexorable command." The ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), upholding racial segregation in separate but equal facilities, has been undone. Should the Slaughterhouse Cases ruling be revisited?

The court, without warrant from the Constitution's text or history, has divided Americans' liberties between those it deems "fundamental," such as speech and association, and others, many pertaining to economic activity and the right to earn a living, that are inferior. Abridgements of the latter have been given less exacting judicial scrutiny. The court calls this "rational basis" scrutiny; it should be called "conceivable basis" scrutiny. If a legislature asserts, or the court can imagine, a rational basis for the abridgement, it stands. Do you think judges should decide which liberties to protect or neglect? Should courts examine evidence of whether economic regulations are related to public health and safety or merely reflect rent seeking by economic interests?

The Ninth Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Robert Bork said this is akin to an "inkblot" on the Constitution that judges should ignore. Do you agree? How can judges be faithful to this amendment? Was Madison correct that it should dispose us against a latitudinarian interpretation of Congress' powers? Is the Ninth Amendment pertinent to, say, the right to earn a living free from unreasonable licensure requirements or other barriers to entry into an occupation?

Other than a law that abridges a liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are there limits to Congress' power over interstate commerce?

The Fifth Amendment says no property shall be taken "for public use" without just compensation. In the 2005 Kelo case, the court upheld a city's seizure of private property not to facilitate construction of a public structure or to cure blight, but for the "public use" of transferring it to a wealthier private interest that would pay more taxes. Did the court err?

Madison worried that Congress would draw "all power into its impetuous vortex." For many decades, however, our centrifugal Congress has been spinning off essentially legislative powers, delegating them to presidents and executive agencies. The Constitution says "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Should the court enforce limits to Congress' power to delegate its powers?

Citizens United held that unions and corporations, particularly incorporated nonprofit advocacy groups, can engage in unregulated spending that is not coordinated with candidates or campaigns. Was the court correct that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in incorporated entities to speak collectively?

Is it constitutional for Congress, by regulating political spending, to control the quantity and timing of political speech?

You commendably believe that judges should adhere to the "original public meaning" of the Constitution's text. Would you feel bound to follow a previous court decision that did not evaluate evidence of original meaning and was, in your view, in conflict with it? If not, would you be elevating the views of judges over those of the Framers?

Oliver Wendell Holmes, a deferential, majoritarian jurist, said: "If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It's my job." Discuss.

More:
Opinion/Column: Some questions to pose to Judge Gorsuch - The Daily Progress