Home sales, home prices data and housing market reports. (Photo: Reuters)
The Commerce Department reported Tuesday sales of new single-family homes jumped 16.6% last month to an annualized rate of 619,000 units. The results easily topped the media forecast, as Wall Street was expecting 523,000 units.
The Commerce Department reported Tuesday sales of
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during a rally at Cohoes High School on Monday, April 4, 2016, in Cohoes, N.Y. (Photo: AP/Mike Groll)
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has widened her lead against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in a new California Democratic primary poll. In new [content_tooltip id=”37972″ title=”SurveyUSA”] Mrs. Clinton leads Sen. Sanders 57% to 39%.
While Sen. Sanders continues to lead among the youngest voters, Mrs. Clinton leads by 12 points among voters age 35 to 49, 34 points among voters age 50 to 64, and s45 points among voters age 65 and above.
Further, if the polling is accurate, Mrs. Clinton has majority support among every income group, while Sanders leads by 2:1 among first-time primary voters.
“This may be the end of the road for the Sanders campaign,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Richard D. Baris. “They don’t believe these numbers and actually feel that they have a good shot to defeat Mrs. Clinton in the Golden State. It wouldn’t be the first primary this cycle where the polling was grossly off.”
There are a total 548 delegates up for grabs in the California Democratic primary, including 317 in the congressional districts. Another 105 are at large, 53 are Pledged PLEOs and 73 Unpledged PLEOs. Mrs. Clinton now leads on the PPD average of California Democratic primary polls by 10 points.
Still, the poll is good news for Mrs. Clinton in the short-term, but also demonstrates her general election weakness against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. The poll results show that Mrs. Clinton is only ahead of Mr. Trump in California 52% to 38%, a very poor showing for a Democrat in a state the GOP hasn’t carried on the presidential level since the 1980s.
Mrs. Clinton’s 14-point edge over Mr. Trump stands in stark contrast to the margin Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008 and 2012. He carried California by 24 points against Sen. John McCain in 2008 and by 23 points against Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012. If Mr. Trump can increase his 3-point deficit among men to counter his 25-point deficit among women he might at least force her to defend a typically safe Democratic state.
The race tightens in the likely voter model. In fact, among Democrats who told SurveyUSA they are paying “a lot” of attention to Election 2016, Mrs. Clinton only leads Mr. Trump in California by 9 points, 50% to 41%. While Mr. Trump’s negatives have remained constant over the past three polls conducted in California by SurveyUSA, Mrs. Clinton’s negatives have increased over the same period.
In the race for Barbara Boxer’s U.S. Senate seat, Attorney General Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez of Orange County are likely to advance to a runoff in the November general election. The poll showed Harris leading Sanchez 31% to 22%, respectively.
Hillary Clinton has widened her lead against
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, left, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, right, meet and attend a tea party rally in Washington, D.C.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kty., will push a new measure authorizing the use of military force against the Islamic State and declare the post 9/11 measure no longer applies. The move comes as President Barack Obama ordered U.S. airstrikes and advisor forces to support Iraqi military operation to retake Fallujah, the first city to fall to ISIS.
“We will try to get a vote on it,” Sen. Paul said on Monday. He plans to use the fiscal 2017 defense authorization bill, which President Obama has used for operations involving U.S. airstrikes and a small number of troops in the fight against ISIS, or ISIL. Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said Sunday in a televised address Iraq will launch a military offensive to retake the Islamic State-held held city.
The U.S. spent much blood and treasure to capture Fallujah from Islamic militants after the invasion of Iraq, but it fell to ISIS in January 2014, when President Obama referred to them as the “jayvee” team. In a televised address late Sunday night, Prime Minister al-Abadi said Iraqi forces are “approaching a moment of great victory” against the Islamic State group.
The senator wrote an opinion piece for Time magazine outlining his call for at least a symbolic vote on the use of force.
“My colleagues who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution should support my amendment or at least have the decency to debate it,” Sen. Paul wrote in the op-ed. “Think about it for a moment. These original authorizations were passed back when some of the men and women fighting in our current conflicts were still small children. No president—including this president— deserves this kind of extra-constitutional power.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kty., said last week he could not support Sen. Paul’s bill.
Sen. Rand Paul will push a new
At this point, I am not going to announce support for Donald Trump, though I am not #NeverTrump and am emphatically #NeverHillary.
To restate my position without social media lingo, I would never vote for Hillary Clinton and, though I am right now uncomfortable with endorsing Trump, I anticipate — but don’t guarantee — that I’ll eventually hold my nose and vote for him.
You would be correct to challenge me on the consistency of my position. That is, if I say I am #NeverHillary, that could mean I would never vote for her, but it also could mean that I wouldn’t knowingly do anything that would help her win the election. Contrary to arguments of many I respect, I do believe that when there are only two people running who could possibly win, not voting for Trump would be, to whatever extent, helping Clinton. My conscience wouldn’t like that.
For me, the decision of whether to support Trump is more complicated than merely saying that it is a certainty that Clinton would be a disaster and there’s a chance Trump wouldn’t be.
True, there is no question that Clinton would be utterly disastrous, but if the country weren’t already in such dire straits that Clinton could finish President Obama’s devilish work in fundamentally transforming America in just four more years, I would feel far more inclined to oppose Trump.
Why? Well, if the nation weren’t on the precipice and we had the luxury of viewing this long term, I would be dreadfully concerned that Trump could do more damage to the causes I support than Clinton because he would be doing his damage under the banner of conservatism and the Republican Party.
If Clinton were to win, the Republican Party could vigorously and credibly oppose her, but if Trump were to win, it would be very awkward for it to criticize Trump if he were to govern as a liberal or do something outrageous. In this regard, people have discussed the so-called Hamilton rule, espoused by Alexander Hamilton during the 1800 presidential election campaign.
Hamilton wrote, “If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.”
Though that makes sense, I must also add that we can’t say, with certainty, that Trump would be conservatives’ complete political enemy as president. But I do admit that even apart from his outrageous and inexcusable behavior during the GOP primaries, I am extremely concerned that he would be our political enemy in a number of areas and also that he has a tendency toward authoritarianism, a tendency many of his supporters seem unlikely to oppose.
On what basis could we unite the GOP around Trump? Limited government? No. Lower taxes? Not likely. Entitlement reform? Dream on. Health care? Anyone’s guess. A coherent foreign policy? It’s hard for me to imagine. Transgender restrooms? No such luck. The wall? I assume we can still bank on this. Judges? That’s looking better, if anything Trump says or even promises can be relied on. Spending? I haven’t a clue. Abortion? Depends on what day it is.
But still, there is almost no chance that Clinton would ever govern otherwise than repugnantly. There is a chance that Trump could govern as a conservative on some issues, even if that’s not his natural instinct.
Let’s not state the latter point too softly. Trump’s lifelong instincts have been more liberal than conservative, and there’s no evidence he ever had an epiphany leading to a political conversion. Couple this with his boast that everything is a negotiation, which is almost like saying, “You really shouldn’t believe a thing I say today, because I may say the opposite tomorrow.”
So where does that leave us? Well, I can’t speak for others, but it’s early and I want to see how this plays out. At the very least, I believe that conservatives should withhold their support for Trump until they can extract meaningful concessions from him on major policy issues. Precisely because Trump has no ideological rudder, we must try to get commitments from him on not just judicial appointments but also specifics of tax policy, spending, health care, entitlement reform and the rest.
I’m not Don Quixote. I realize that Trump prides himself in being independent from such pressures — which is ironic, given his position that nothing is set in stone and everything’s negotiable. I also know we can’t be sure Trump would honor his commitments. Compounding matters, Trump’s die-hard supporters have shown no willingness to hold him accountable for his lurches to the left or his flip-flops.
But we have to do what we can. Those of us who believe that the nation is in peril and that another four years of this same statist agenda could put us over the tipping point must try to hold Trump’s feet to the fire to increase, even if only slightly, our chances that he’d govern more as a conservative.
I completely understand the sentiment of certain conservatives who have cogently expressed why they’ll never vote for Trump, and I respect their decision. Their calculus apparently tells them that in the long term, Trump could be worse for America than Hillary Clinton. I am sympathetic to that view, which is why I am so ambivalent. But as I said, because of the urgency of America’s current situation, I think our best bet will probably be to exert whatever influence we have to nudge Trump as far toward conservatism as we can rather than to bail out and let Clinton complete the nation’s destruction. From this perspective, November’s a long way off. We’ve gotta play the hand we are dealt.
If Donald Trump says everything’s negotiable, then he and his supporters should understand that we have a right to negotiate, as well.
[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]
At this point, I am not going
Statue of Liberty in front of the New York City skyline.
A funny thing didn’t happen on the way to the digital revolution. It failed to empty out the cities. If knowledge workers could communicate from anywhere, the futurists figured, why would they subject themselves to the traffic and noise of urban life? They could easily move their screens to a mountain chalet, beach house or Mediterranean cafe.
The opposite happened. Instead of spreading out, many members of the “creative class” scrunched themselves into a handful of acres in a few select cities. As a result, housing prices have exploded in London, New York and San Francisco — and are rising fast in Boston, Seattle, Denver and other centers for tech and finance. The elite apparently want to be around good restaurants, high-end shopping and other elites.
And so what happens to the longtime residents of modest means and new arrivals serving the gentry’s needs? When an influx of genius coders pushes small-apartment rents into the thousands, working families of four get pushed out.
The solution to the high cost of shelter is to increase the supply, say some economists, real estate interests and politicians owned by the real estate interests. In cities bounded by water, that means increasing population density.
That can be part of the answer. Some decaying industrial areas may be ripe for new development. But here’s the problem:
Many of the most desirable urban neighborhoods are desirable precisely for their quirky small houses and low-slung apartment buildings. Local shops and restaurants line their main streets. Replace these structures with a forest of sterile towers and you destroy what made these areas valuable in the first place.
Zeroing in on London, The Economist blames “faulty land-use regulation” for the city’s high cost of housing. It prescribes building on the “green belt,” which was created to preserve open space around the central city — and scoffs at rules protecting views of the iconic St. Paul’s Cathedral. (Guess only the penthouses would have the views.)
Like much of the “build, baby, build” crowd, the magazine parades its agenda behind the banner of diversity and fighting income inequality. Well, let’s ask. Would turning our old cities into soulless Singapores make these places more affordable?
The Economist complains that population density in central London is only half that of New York. Thing is, the rent for a centrally located one-bedroom apartment is 22 percent higher in New York than in London. In hot real estate markets, increasing supply can also hike demand.
For example, building booms in Williamsburg and other gentrifying parts of Brooklyn have attracted more moneyed people while leveling the tenements where poorer folk used to live.
There are remedies for the high cost of housing. One is to move elsewhere. It could be to a lesser neighborhood or nearby town served by public transportation. (Clamor against high rents tends to focus on upscale districts.)
And don’t forget the other great metropolises in this vast land of ours. Columbus, Omaha, Nashville, Baton Rouge and Spokane, to name a few, cost a lot less. They have great bars, hip districts and housing to die for.
As for the lower-income residents who remain in expensive cities, one fix is to pay them commensurate with the cost of living. A $15-an-hour minimum wage in the pricier locales makes total sense.
In sum, the notion that only a handful of ZIP codes can quench 21st-century ambitions is strange. The technology that lets Cleveland make video calls to Honolulu ought to be used. As for mingling, there’s now a Starbucks everywhere.
The digital revolution failed to empty out
President Obama gives a commencement speech to the graduating students of Barnard College. (Photo: Asiya Khaki)
This is the season of college Commencement speeches — an art form that has seldom been memorable, but has increasingly become toxic in recent times.
Two themes seem to dominate Commencement speeches. One is shameless self-advertising by people in government, or in related organizations supported by the taxpayers or donors, saying how nobler it is to be in “public service” than working in business or other “selfish” activities.
In other words, the message is that it is morally superior to be in organizations consuming output produced by others than to be in organizations which produce that output. Moreover, being morally one-up is where it’s at.
The second theme of many Commencement speakers, besides flattering themselves that they are in morally superior careers, is to flatter the graduates that they are now equipped to go out into the world as “leaders” who can prescribe how other people should live.
In other words, young people, who in most cases have never had either the sobering responsibility and experience of being self-supporting adults, are to tell other people — who have had that responsibility and that experience for years — how they should live their lives.
In so far as the graduates go into “public service” in government, whether as bureaucrats or as aides to politicians or judges, they are to help order other people around.
It might never occur to many Commencement speakers, or to their audiences, that what the speakers are suggesting is that inexperienced young graduates are to prescribe, or help to dictate, to vast numbers of other people who have the real world experience that the graduates themselves lack.
To the extent that such graduates remain in government — “public service” — they can progress from aides to becoming career politicians, bureaucrats and judges, never acquiring the experience of being on the receiving end of their prescriptions or dictates. That can mean a lifetime of people with ignorance presuming to prescribe to people with personal knowledge.
However well-educated the students might be in particular narrow fields — and, in too many cases, they have not gotten even that — what the graduates might have, at best, is a foundation for acquiring the real world experience necessary to complete their education and fulfill the ancient admonition, “With all your getting, get understanding.”
Presumption is not understanding. It is the antithesis of understanding.
It was my personal good fortune never to have been present at a college or university Commencement speech until I was 46 years old. In my earlier years, my college and postgraduate degrees had been mailed to a forwarding address that I left behind when I took leave of the campus at the earliest opportunity.
At age 46, I was a Commencement speaker, and had to be told and shown how to wear the regalia. By the time I actually heard someone else give a Commencement speech, I was in my 50s — and knew enough by that time to be appalled, rather than inspired.
It was also my good fortune not to have gone to college until I was several years older than most people. At an age when too many young people have been told too often how brilliant and exceptional they are — presumably to promote “self-esteem” — I was working at unskilled labor jobs and struggling to buy food and pay my room rent.
Having to start work at the bottom was a blessing in disguise — and extremely well disguised at the time.
I learned the hard way that the good grades I had earned before dropping out of school were of no use to me in my low-level jobs. No one told me how brilliant I was. They were too busy correcting my mistakes.
It was painfully obvious that adults around me understood much more about their work — and about life. This taught me inescapable lessons and respect for people who had no academic pretensions but a lot of common sense.
It would take a lot more than lofty Commencement speeches to undo those lessons. We all have windfall gains and windfall losses. But, all in all, I feel lucky compared to those graduates who are so vulnerable to slick Commencement speakers.
[mybooktable book=”wealth-poverty-and-politics-an-international-perspective” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]
This is the season of college Commencement
FILE PHOTO: Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2015 — Gov. Terry McAuliffe, D-Va., leaves the chamber after delivering his annual State of the Commonwealth address at the Capitol in Richmond, Va. (Photo: AP)
Here we go again in the Old Dominion. Federal officials at the Department of Justice are investigating Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe for potentially illegal campaign contributions in connection with his 2013 gubernatorial bid.
Fox News Monday reported the Democratic governor, a known and longtime Clinton ally charged with delivering the state to the likely Democratic nominee in November, is the target of a Justice Department investigation into whether he violated campaign finance laws.
The probe, which was first reported by CNN, followed up by Fox News and confirmed by PPD, is focusing on a $120,000 donation from Chinese businessman Wang Wenliang. Investigators believe Wang, who also “donated” $2 million to the Clinton foundation, funneled the questionable contribution through his U.S. businesses. U.S. election law prohibits foreign nationals to donate to political races.
Marc Elias, Gov. McAuliffe’s attorney, said in a statement his office was not aware of the investigation, but would cooperate if contacted by federal law enforcement officials.
“We cannot confirm the CNN report,” Mr. Elias said. “Neither the Governor nor his former campaign has knowledge of this matter, but as reported, contributions to the campaign from Mr. Wang were completely lawful. The Governor will certainly cooperate with the government if he is contacted about it.”
Gov. McAuliffe now becomes the second consecutive governor in the state of Virginia to be investigated by the Justice Department. Former Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell was indicted and later convicted in 2014 of corruption charges involving more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from a wealthy businessman in exchange for promoting a dietary supplement.
The Supreme Court is currently weighing an appeal of the conviction, but federal law bars public officials from accepting money or gifts in exchange for “official acts.” The court is expected to clarify what exactly constitutes bribery and what separates it from the routine actions that politicians often perform as a courtesy to constituents.
Federal officials at the Justice Department are
Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., gestures towards Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton during the NBC, YouTube Democratic presidential debate at the Gaillard Center, Sunday, Jan. 17, 2016, in Charleston, S.C. (Photo: AP/Mic Smith)
PPD has confirmed Hillary Clinton declined to participate in the Fox News debate with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, which was to be scheduled just ahead of the California Democratic primary on June 6. While Mrs. Clinton hasn’t officially released a statement, she will tell the network that it would not be a wise use of the candidate’s time and money, which will be used in a pivot toward presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.
“We are turning our attention to the threat Donald Trump poses,” the statement will read.
Fox News invited the former secretary of state to the debate last Tuesday, an invitation Sen. Sanders quickly accepted. However, as polls quickly tighten and Mrs. Clinton trails Mr. Trump, pressure on Sen. Sanders to drop out has mounted.
Hillary Clinton declined to participate in the
Donald Trump speaks during his rally at the Indiana Farmers Coliseum in Indianapolis on Wednesday. His speech railed against current US trade policy. (Photo: IDS)
Having become interested in public policy because of Ronald Reagan’s message of limited government and individual liberty, I’m understandably depressed by the 2016 election.
But we can at least learn something from the process.
Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution savages Donald Trump in a column for the Washington Post. Here’s a particularly brutal excerpt.
…what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo,
a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision.
Since I don’t know what actually motivates Trump or his voters, I have no idea whether the above passage is fair, but it is true that Trump’s policy agendaoftentimes doesn’t make sense.
But here’s the part of the column that caught my attention.
…what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms.
I’m tempted to send Mr. Kagan a card that says “Welcome to the Club.” Libertarians and small-government conservatives for decades have been warning against the dangers of untrammeled majoritarianism.
We revere the Constitution because we believe that our freedoms and liberties should not be decided by 51% of the population. We cherish the fact that our Founding Fathers put limits on the power of the federal government.
But I don’t think Kagan deserves a card because his opposition to mobocracy is very selective. Has he ever criticized the Supreme Court for acquiescing to the New Deal and abandoning its obligation to limit Washington to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution?
Did he condemn Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court for deciding that the “power to tax” somehow gave the federal government the authority to force citizens to buy government-approved health insurance plans?
I don’t recall seeing Kagan fret about these majoritarian steps that eroded constitutional liberties, so it’s hard to take seriously his complaints now.
I’m also unimpressed by his concerns about potential abuse of power by a Trump Administration.
Trump will…have ridden to power despite the party, catapulted into the White House by a mass following devoted only to him. …In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? …is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?
He raises some very legitimate concerns. I don’t trust Trump with lots of power. That being said, the hypocrisy is staggering.
Did he write any columns about Obama’s sordid misuse of the IRS to target political opponents?
Has he complained about Operation Chokepoint? Fast and Furious? NSA spying? Efforts to undermine the 1st Amendment and restrict political speech?
Why is abuse of power okay for Obama but not for Trump?
Notwithstanding Kagan’s glaring hypocrisy, his conclusion may be correct.
This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes…but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities.
Except it needs to be expanded. Because fascism already has a foothold in America.
And it might expand not just because of a “television huckster,” but also because of a corrupt former presidential spouse or an envy-riddled Vermont crank, both of who tap into resentments and insecurities.
Indeed, Kagan’s description of Trump sounds a lot like Clinton or Sanders if you replace “Muslim” and “Mexican” with “banker” or “top 1 percent.”
Charles Cooke of National Review wonders whether Trump will lead leftists to change their minds about government power. He starts by highlighting conservative opposition to an all-powerful presidency.
…progressives tend not to buy the argument that a government that can give you everything you want is also a government that can take it all away. For the past four or five years, conservatives have offered precisely this argument, our central contention being that it is a bad idea to invest too much power in one place because one never knows who might enjoy that power next. And, for the past four or five years, these warnings have fallen on deaf, derisive, overconfident ears. …we have argued that Congress ought to reclaim much of the legal authority that it has willingly ceded to the executive, lest that executive become unresponsive or worse; that, once abandoned, constitutional limits are difficult to resuscitate; that federalism leads not just to better government but to a diminished likelihood that bad actors will be able to inflict widespread damage.
So are statists about to get religion on the issue of big government, albeit belatedly?
Time and time again, Trump has been compared to Hitler, to Mussolini, to George Wallace, and to Bull Connor. Time and time again, self-described “liberals” have recoiled at the man’s praise for internment, at his disrespect for minorities and dissenters, and at his enthusiasm for torture and for war crimes. …If one were to take literally the chatter that one hears on MSNBC and the fear that one smells in the pages of the New York Times and of the Washington Post, one would have no choice but to conclude that the progressives have joined the conservatives in worrying aloud about the wholesale abuse of power. …Having watched the rise of Trumpism — and, now, having seen the beginning of violence in its name — who out there is having second thoughts as to the wisdom of imbuing our central state with massive power? …I would genuinely love to know how many “liberals” have begun to suspect that there are some pretty meaningful downsides to the consolidation of state authority. …When Peter Beinart warns that Donald Trump is a threat to “American liberal democracy” — specifically to “the idea that there are certain rights so fundamental that even democratic majorities cannot undo them” — he is channeling the conservative case for the Founders’ settlement, and taking square aim at the Jacobin mentality that would, if permitted, remove the remaining shackles that surround and enclose the state. Does he know this?
I suspect the answer to all these questions is “no.”
There is nothing genuinely liberal about most modern leftists. They will act hysterical about the prospect of Trump holding the reins of power, but I predict they will fall silent if Hillary is in the White House.
[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]
Anti-Trump arguments by leftists like Robert Kagan
Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old man who died last week from a severe spinal cord injury he suffered before or during an arrest.
Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry Williams on Monday found Police Officer Edward Nero not guilty on all charges in connection with the death of Freddie Gray. The verdict comes months after another officer’s trial ended in a hung jury.
Officer Nero, 30, faced charges of second-degree assault, misconduct in office and reckless endangerment charges. Prosecutors, including the controversial Marilyn Mosby, argued Officer Nero unlawfully arrested Mr. Gray without probable cause and was negligent when he didn’t buckle the prisoner into a seat belt, a recently adopted policy that had not yet been implemented by the department in practice.
“Officer Edward Nero, his wife and family are elated that this nightmare is finally over,” Marc Zayon, the defense attorney said in a statement.
Judge Williams, who offered an expanded and lengthy ruling from the bench, said Officer Nero did not act “corruptly” or with an intent to commit a crime. He also said Nero’s partner, Officer Garrett Miller, detained and arrested Gray himself.
When the verdict was read, Officer Nero, who likely still will never be able to return to his job, put his head down as his attorney placed a comforting hand on his back. After the not guilty verdict was read, Officer Nero stood up and hugged his attorney, wiping away a tear.
Meanwhile, riot-trained officers from in and outside the city of Baltimore have arrived in preparation for civil unrest and rioting. In month, protestors from Black Lives Matter, leftist and anarchist groups turned increasingly violent and rioted, costing millions of dollars in damages. Many businesses in the already economically depressed community have yet to rebound. A group of angry “protesters” began to surround Mr. Nero’s brother as he left the courthouse under the protection of armed security officers, shouting “no justice, no peace.”
Now, the very same officials who either wanted to give the protestors “space to destroy” or further fan the flames are attempting to clam the situation.
“This is our American system of justice and police officers must be afforded the same justice system as every other citizen in this city, state, and country… In the case of any disturbance in the city, we are prepared to respond. We will protect our neighborhoods, our businesses, and the people of our city,” Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said.
Over a dozen police officers from the Baltimore City Police Department, background, were injured in riots following the funeral for Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old man who died last week from a severe spinal cord injury he suffered before or during an arrest.
“As the eyes of the nation are upon us, I have no doubt we will all exhibit behaviors that represent the very best of Baltimore,” Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said.
On the morning of April 12, 2015, Officers Nero, Miller and Lieutenant Brian Rice were patrolling a high-crime area in the Western District, the very known drug corner Mrs. Mosby’s office had requested increased active policing. Lt. Rice made eye contact with Mr. Gray and he quickly ran away. Lt. Rice called for backup, and Officers Nero and Miller responded to that call. According to testimony, Officer Miller, who’d jumped off his bicycle, caught up with Mr. Gray and placed him in handcuffs.
Prosecutors said the officers weren’t justified in arresting Mr. Gray without patting him down and, in failing to do so, the officers violated police procedure for routine stops. Without probable cause, prosecutors argued Mr. Gray never should have been taken into custody. He died at some point in police custody, with prosecutors publicly insinuating they gave him a “rough ride” while arguing in court he should have buckled him in.
But the defense argued that the Baltimore Police Department’s new order requiring that individuals in police custody be strapped in was more a suggestion than a policy because officers were expected to act with discretion based on the circumstances of each situation.
Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry Williams on Monday
