Federal appeals court upholds First Amendment right to film police

[JURIST]

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday that citizens have a First Amendment right to record police performing their duties. The court found that officers, "are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions." The court was clear that this case was based on a First Amendment right to access of information about how public servants operate in the public realm. This decision follows the rulings by the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. Even with the ruling in favor of the First Amendment argument, two of the three judges ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, effectively shielding them from liability over the incidents.

Trust between communities throughout the US and police officials continues to be an issue, particularly after a series of incidents have led to demand for higher accountability from the public servants. The interactions have created dialogues in communities in an attempt to create a greater trust between members of the public and law enforcement. In April the Department of Justice raised doubts [JURIST report] about a police reform agreement reached in the city of Baltimore. In June rights group decided that they wanted police reform and through a lawsuit [JURIST report] attempted to bring about the change and accountability over the Chicago police enforcement practices.

After Trump Bows to Saudis, Decision to Release Evidence of Saudis Funding 9/11 Gets Reversed

BlackListedNews

President Trump’s change in attitude towards Saudi Arabia has apparently had a trickle-down effect, as a federal judge in Miami has reversed her decision to push for the release of crucial documents revealing information on the funding of the 9/11 attacks.

Judge Cecilia Altonaga is now ruling in favor of the FBI, granting the agency’s request to keep large portions of a slide show titled “Overview of the 9/11 Investigation” secret from the public.

The presentation Altonaga is now helping to keep private, includes sections on “Funding of the 9/11 Attacks,” “Early to Mid-2001 Additional Funding,” “Early to Mid-2000: Pilots/Intended Pilots Arrive U.S.,” “Investigative Findings” regarding hijacker “Identification,” and “Financial: Ample Financing was provided.”

This decision is the opposite of Altonaga’s ruling from May 16, in which she stated that the documents “should be largely opened for public inspection,” given the fact that the FBI failed to establish Freedom of Information Act Exemption 7(E), which applies when the release of the information would “disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.”

According to Altonaga’s latest ruling, she changed her mind based on the fact that the FBI countered with a technicality. The agency insisted that the contents of “Document 22” reveal “a photo taken by a security camera, which itself does not discuss FBI techniques, but from which a careful viewer could deduce the location of the security camera at the site the photo was taken.”

The lawsuit was initiated by Florida Bulldog, a team of investigative journalists that has spent years probing the connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi Arabia. According to the CIA’s database, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and when they first arrived in the United States, nine of them arrived in Florida.

Florida Bulldog sued the FBI in 2012 for details on the ties between the hijackers and a rich Saudi family that mysteriously left all of their belongings and abandoned their luxury home in Sarasota, Florida, just two weeks before the attacks. The lawsuit led to the release of materials from a 2002 FBI report, which found “many connections” between the Saudi family and “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.”

The idea that a federal judge would go from supporting a group of investigative journalists and pushing for transparency, to supporting the FBI and insisting that protecting the location of a security camera was worth covering up the funding of the 9/11 attacks, may seem bizarre—but it is a common practice under the current administration.

As The Free Thought Project has reported, Trump also went from calling for holding Saudi Arabia accountable for its involvement in 9/11, to ignoring the idea that the country could have had any involvement at all.

After months on the campaign trail, in which he pledged that if he was elected, Americans would “find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center,” Trump made Saudi Arabia the first foreign nation he visited as president of the U.S.

Trump’s visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on May 20—just four days after Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of Information trial in an attempt to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11 attacks.

During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110 BILLION weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be considered when looking at why Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29.

Court Affirms New York State Law Governing Anonymous Juries

Ny Times

Every so often, especially in a Mafia or terrorism trial, a judge will decide to keep secret the identities of the jurors. It is a decision intended to protect the jury from intimidation or corruption, but it also risks sending jurors a message that the defendants are dangerous — and thus worthy of conviction — even before a single piece of evidence has been introduced.

While the federal criminal system permits juries to consider cases in total anonymity, New York State has a more restrictive law that allows the addresses of jurors to be withheld from the public and the parties at a trial, but does not allow their names to be withheld.

Tackling the issue for the first time, a state appeals court this week affirmed the New York statute, ruling that when a judge in Orange County empaneled an anonymous jury to hear the case of a crew of gang members accused of beating a rival, he broke the law and deprived the defendants of a fair trial.

The appellate court ruled in the case of four men — Benigno Aguilar, Alex and Emmanuel Flores and Lucio Ramirez — whom local prosecutors contended were members of an upstate street gang called La Eme. The men were convicted in August 2010 of viciously assaulting a member of a rival gang called BKK with a baseball bat and stabbing him in the chest during a street fight the year before in Newburgh.

Before jury selection, Justice Nicholas DeRosa, who presided at the trial, informed the men’s lawyers that he intended to withhold the names of the prospective jurors and identify them only by number. Justice DeRosa came to the decision on his own, explaining that in recent years several jurors in other cases had told him that they felt uncomfortable walking through the courthouse parking lot, where they occasionally encountered the defendants whose fates they were deciding.

One of the defense lawyers objected to the judge’s decision and told him that keeping the jurors’ names secret would indicate to them “that this is a gang case in which they have to be concerned for their safety.” The lawyer and his colleagues suggested that if Justice DeRosa was concerned about the jurors, he could disclose their names only to the lawyers. But the judge decided against that, arguing that if the lawyers knew the jurors’ names they would have a duty to tell their clients.

The judge also never instructed the jurors that his decision to mask their identities should not be viewed as a reflection on the guilt or innocence of the defendants. [MORE]

Alton Sterling protesters treated 'like animals' in Baton Rouge prison, advocacy group claims

TheAdvocate

Scores of protesters arrested last summer following Alton Sterling's fatal shooting were treated "like animals" and humiliated inside the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, according to a scathing new report that describes the lockup's conditions as so bad as to be unconstitutional. 

The demonstrators, most of whom were booked on counts of obstructing a highway, were subjected to excessive force, including the indiscriminate use of pepper spray by guards, and spent hours or days locked in overcrowded cells "caked with grime and blood," according to the report, prepared by The Promise of Justice Initiative, a New Orleans-based advocacy group.

The report, to be released Monday, accuses guards of retaliating against protesters for participating in demonstrations that went on for days following the fatal shooting of Sterling in a confrontation with police outside a convenience store.

But the report alleges the mistreatment of the protesters reflects a more systemic oppression inmates endure at the jail on a daily basis. Moreover, the report claims, the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office "appears to encourage or at least tolerate abusive and humiliating conduct of guards."

"The arrest and detention of approximately 180 individuals protesting the police killing of Alton Sterling provided a distressing window into the actual conditions of East Baton Rouge Parish Prison," the report says. "Unfortunately, this report reflects the treatment of detainees in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison when the whole world was watching." [MORE]

Ruling won't end fight against Redskins Derogatory name

NBC

A misconception has arisen in the days since the NFL franchise owned by Daniel Snyder secured a definitive legal victory in the longstanding challenge to its federal trademark rights. Many believe that Washington won the case because the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the name to be not offensive.

That’s not the case. The Supreme Court ruled only that the government has no right or duty to refuse or restrict trademark protection based on concerns that the protected name is or could be regarded as offensive.

The editorial board of the Washington Post recently explained the difference while reiterating its prior call to change the name.

“Mr. Snyder can call his football team anything he wants without fear of losing the valuable trademark protection that is key to merchandising revenue,” the editorial board wrote. “But just because the First Amendment gives him the right to use a racial slur, that doesn’t mean he should. Why would he even want to? We understand the affection Mr. Snyder and some team fans espouse for the history embodied in the name, and we have never thought there is racist intent when fans hail the team’s name.

“None of that, though, changes the inescapable fact that the name is one that no one with any real sense of decency would ever think to call a Native American to his or her face. It is degrading. It does real harm, particularly in psychological damage to Native American children and teens. It should be changed — and then congratulations will be in order.”

This is far from a case of political correctness run amok or non-Native Americans telling Native Americans what should offend them. A Washington Post poll from 2016, however flawed and criticized it may have been, still showed that roughly 10 percent of self-identifying Native Americans find the term objectionable. Even if that number is low, what other NFL franchise carries a name that reasonably offends 10 percent of the group to which it refers?

Date set for trial on racial discrimination in Little Rock schools

Arkansas

U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. said Friday that allegations of intentional racial discrimination in regard to the Little Rock School District's school buildings and programs will be the focus of a hearing to begin July 18 in his court.

That will include the attendance-zone lines for Little Rock Central High, the judge said.

Allegations of inequitable Little Rock district school buildings and other district-provided resources, including school programs, are among the issues that were raised in a 2015 lawsuit against state education and school district leaders by two former School Board members and the families of some black students.

The suit also challenged the 2015 state takeover of the district because six of its 48 schools were state-labeled as academically distressed for chronically low test scores. The judge dismissed the state-takeover challenge on Sept. 28.

Most of the plaintiff students and their families, represented by a legal team headed by Rep. John Walker, D-Little Rock, were initially identified by the last name of Doe and not their real names.

The Arkansas attorney general's office and the Friday, Eldredge & Clark law firm are representing the defendants, Johnny Key, who is the state education commissioner and acts as the Little Rock district's school board, and Little Rock Superintendent Mike Poore.

I

n his six-page order, Marshall granted the state and district's motions to dismiss -- for lack of evidence -- allegations of racially discriminatory teacher assignments in the district and racially discriminatory student disciplinary practices.

"The core of Plaintiffs' remaining claim is about facilities and other resources, such as school programs," Marshall wrote in Friday's order.

"Has LRSD intentionally discriminated based on race through district policy, custom, or practice in providing them?" he continued.

"And there's the embedded issue about the attendance zone for Central High School," he said. "Though Poore and Key make strong arguments about traceability and on the merits, the Court concludes that it can make a better judgment on the facilities/resources claim after seeing and hearing the witnesses, plus considering all the documents with the context that only live testimony, as well as oral argument, will provide."

Judd Deere, a spokesman for Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, said the state's chief legal officer welcomed Marshall's decision to remove some of the issues to be tried.

"The attorney general is pleased that Judge Marshall recognized that the Little Rock School District is not discriminatory when it comes to administering student discipline or teacher assignments," Deere said in an email. "Even though the attorney general's role is limited to the representation of the commissioner of education, she will review today's order and the judge's decision to take two other claims to trial."

Poore said he feels the district has a strong defense going into trial.

"We are trying to be equitable in our delivery to kids," Poore said. "We were working in every available way to try to make a difference for kids all across the district. We have really targeted kids -- and have gotten great help from the state on this -- in the poor-performing schools with extra support.

"This district does a good job and we are trying to get better every day," Poore added. "I am anxious to go to court now and present the facts."

Walker and Chris Heller, an attorney for the school district, did not respond Friday afternoon to emailed requests for comments on the order.

The judge's order and the court hearing come at a time when the state-controlled Little Rock district is seeking to raise money for construction of a high school to replace McClellan and J.A. Fair high schools and make improvements to roofs, windows and heating/air conditioning systems at other campuses.

Voters rejected a proposal to extend 12.4 property-tax mills by 14 years to 2047 in a May 9 special election. That plan would have generated $202 million -- $160 million in new money for construction and the remainder to pay off existing bond debt at a lower interest rate.

The district now is applying to the state Board of Education for approval to issue second-lien bonds to raise $92,055,000 to help with the new high school and the updates at other campuses. Second-lien bonds do not require voter approval.

Citizens Against Taxation Without Representation, a grass-roots organization, has opposed both bond proposals, objecting to raising the district's annual debt obligation when there are no locally elected school board members to hold accountable for how money is spent.

Former School Board members Jim Ross and Joy Springer are among the members of the group but also plaintiffs in the lawsuit that alleges racial discrimination in the disparate condition of the district's schools.

The plaintiffs in the Doe case have argued that the district provides greater access to high-quality educational resources and top-end facilities to student groups who are disproportionately white. That is done to recruit and retain white students in the district to the detriment of the plaintiffs who are black, attorneys for the plaintiffs have said.

They cited Pinnacle View Middle School, Forest Heights Stem Academy and Central High as examples of schools that have high percentages of white students and have had building needs made a district priority over schools such as McClellan High and Henderson Middle school that have nearly all black enrollments.

Overall, the Little Rock district's enrollment is about 64 percent black, 18 percent white, 14 percent Hispanic, 2 percent Asian and 2 percent of other races or ethnicities.

Included in the allegations of district efforts to "privilege" white students is the "gerrymandering" of school attendance zones, the Doe plaintiffs contend.

"Central's attendance zone containing a non-contiguous area ... effectively enhances the white student population of Central as opposed to the less-white Hall High, and ... placement of an exceptionally high number of portable classrooms at Central [facilitates] the concentration of white high school students at that location," a legal brief submitted by the Doe plaintiffs to the judge on Friday argued.

In Friday's trial brief, the Doe attorneys asked Marshall to order the district to redraw the Central High attendance zone so it is contiguous and without a satellite zone, and to reserve as many as 600 of the 1,200 seats at Pinnacle View Middle School for students from the Cloverdale and Henderson middle school attendance zones.

The plaintiffs also are asking for a more equitable distribution of Advanced Placement courses and gifted education programs among the schools, an education program for parents on educational opportunities within the district for their children and for an independent auditor of district finances.

They also want regular access to the district's financial officers for answers to questions about district operations.

Further, the plaintiffs ask for the hiring of a district ombudsman to assess the achievement of the goals of the lawsuit in regard to academics, facilities and student discipline.

Marshall, in his order Friday, responded to a request from the Doe attorneys for an expansion of the four days scheduled for the hearing that is to start at 9:30 a.m. July 18.

The plaintiffs had asked for 15 days to be set aside for the case. Marshall said the plaintiffs should be able to complete their case by the close of business on July 21, a Friday. The defense likely would go into the following week, the judge said.

On the allegation of racially disparate student discipline in the district, Marshall said in his order that Poore and Key are entitled to summary judgment, dismissing the claims.

"Taking the record in the light most favorable to the students and parents, there's insufficient evidence to support a judgment that LRSD has a racially motivated policy, custom, or practice of disciplining black students more harshly or differently than white students," the judge said. "The record shows isolated instances involving a few teachers and perhaps principals, generalized feelings of disparate treatment, and some bottom-line numbers from across the district. All this is insufficient as a matter of law."

In regard to teacher assignment issues, the judge said the "plaintiffs simply haven't offered sufficient evidence to support a judgment that LRSD assigns teachers based on a racially discriminatory custom, policy or practice." He said that remarks made more than 10 years ago and six superintendents ago don't suffice.

Besides Walker, attorneys for the Doe plaintiffs are Omavi Shukur, Shawn Childs, Robert Pressman and Austin Porter. Gale Stewart is listed as being "of counsel."

Racist GOP Passes Bills in House upon the basis that Non-White immigrants are criminal

CommonDreams

While many of us are rightfully angry over Donald Trump’s treatment of the media, over the GOP’s attempt to gut health care for millions of Americans and over myriad other issues, two little-noticed but impactful bills sailed through the House of Representatives last week with barely a peep from progressive voices. The bills were the first immigration-related pieces of legislation taken up by the House since Trump’s inauguration and apply harsh penalties for undocumented people. They also help the president live up to some of his most xenophobic rhetoric and were passed with little or no debate, even receiving some Democratic support. They now head to the Senate, and unless there is a major public outcry, the bills could become law and fuel the hateful promises Trump made to the racist elements in his base.

Heidi Altman, director of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center, explained to me in an interview that “we saw the same sort of procedural shenanigans happening with the health care act.” She added that when it came to the immigration bills, there was hardly any outrage from either Democrats or the public. “These bills were introduced, and then they were rushed to the floor of the House, and so that stripped us of the opportunity to weigh in in a meaningful way,” she said.

One of the two bills is named Kate’s Law, after Kathryn Steinle, a young, telegenic, white American woman who was killed in San Francisco in 2015 after a bullet fired from a stolen gun ricocheted off the sidewalk and struck her in the back. The man accused of shooting the gun, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, happened to be undocumented—a factor that gave candidate Trump just the fodder he was looking for to target “sanctuary cities” like San Francisco and scapegoat immigrants as violent criminals. Yes, Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted of multiple felonies on narcotics-related charges (rather than violent crimes), but apparently it did not matter that the bullet that tragically ended Steinle’s life was an accidental ricochet off the sidewalk. According to The Los Angeles Times:

Lopez-Sanchez told KGO-TV that he found a gun wrapped in a T-shirt on the ground near a bench that evening and that it accidentally fired three times when he touched it. He said he kicked the gun off the pier and walked away, unaware anyone had been shot.

Had the fatal shot been fired by a citizen, there would have been no attempt to make a martyr of Steinle and politicize her death. Indeed, a judge dismissed Steinle’s parents’ suit against the city of San Francisco for being a “sanctuary city,” but allowed their case against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to go forward, given that the gun in question was left unsecured by a BLM federal officer in an unattended car. [MORE]

Restoring ex-felon voting rights could overhaul the US political map, [naive or stupid] advocates say

Mic

President Donald Trump’s re-election bid in 2020 may very well hinge on whether people like Alabama pastor Kenneth Glasgow can vote.

Glasgow is the formerly incarcerated co-founder of the Ordinary People’s Society, whose group is now working with the American Civil Liberties Union in multiple states to restore voting rights to former inmates with felony records.

The reform leaders are hosting a Voter Rights Restoration training session on Saturday in Selma, Alabama, fewer than two months after Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill into law allowing many in the state with felony convictions to regain their right to vote if they meet certain guidelines.

Ex-felons convicted of treason or impeachment are excluded from the program. And those convicted of murder, rape or other felony sex crimes — including offenses related to pedophilia — face steep legal hurdles to get their rights back under the new law, according to the ACLU. So instead, the group is focusing on people who committed “more minor offenses” like theft, robbery, burglary and forgery, ACLU spokesperson Rebecca Seung-Bickley told Mic on Thursday.

“These are people who have served their time, completed their full sentence or have gone through probation or parole,” she said. “They’ve made a mistake and paid a price. They want to go back to work and be apart of their community again and part of that is voting.”

ACLU, state file plans to reduce solitary confinement at uncivilized teen prison

JSOnline

The state Department of Corrections and teen inmates filed plans with a federal judge late Friday to dramatically reduce the use of solitary confinement and pepper spray in Wisconsin's juvenile prison complex.

U.S. District Judge James Peterson last month ordered those plans to be written after he found teen inmates' constitutional rights were likely being violated at Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper Lake School for Girls. 

The Department of Corrections and the inmates differed on many aspects of the plans, such as the maximum amount of time juveniles could be held in isolation and how soon new rules should take effect. Peterson is expected to decide those details in the coming weeks. 

Inmates at the prison complex 30 miles north of Wausau sued in January. They are being assisted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and the Juvenile Law Center.

At least four other lawsuits have been filed over incidents at the prison and the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into prisoner abuse and child neglect there. 

Peterson last month ruled the state must curb the use of restraints, pepper spray and solitary confinement as the lawsuit continues. 

The two sides had to file their plans by Friday, and they did so a couple of hours before their midnight deadline. 

Under their proposal, juvenile inmates could be placed in solitary confinement only if they posed safety risks or committed violent offenses at the prison. That would end the practice of putting teens in solitary confinement for breaking minor prison rules.

Those in solitary confinement would be held there for much shorter periods than they are now.

Prison staff would have to review those held in solitary confinement because of safety concerns every four hours to determine if they still needed to be there.

The two sides differ on how long inmates should be held in solitary confinement as a form of punishment.

The ACLU wants a maximum of three days, with no possibility of extensions. The Department of Corrections wants a maximum of seven days per offense, which would allow the prison to hold inmates in solitary for long periods if they had multiple violations.

The maximum stint under current rules is 60 days, though sometimes that is exceeded.

Under the proposal, those in solitary confinement would regularly see mental health professionals, receive education and therapy and get time out of their cells to exercise and interact with their peers.

Now, some inmates are kept in solitary confinement 24 hours a day.

Naive [or stupid] House Democrats Roll out legislation they hope will ensure the voting process is fair.

RollCall

Even before the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity raised alarms with its sweeping requests for state voter data, House Democrats rolled out legislation they hope will ensure the voting process is fair.

One measure, introduced at a news conference on Capitol Hill on June 22, would restore voter protections across 13 mostly Southern states. Sponsored by Alabama’s Terri A. Sewell and Georgia’s John Lewis, a civil rights icon, the measure is a response to the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision. That ruling struck down provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required those states to seek federal approval before changing voter laws and also set a formula for determining which states would be subject to the law. 

“We’ve got to ensure that people understand that every American deserves the right to vote. Certain barriers make that impossible, like, if you don’t drive because you’re elderly and disabled. But this is unfair,” Sewell said. The states affected are Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Arizona, California, New York and Virginia.

Another measure, introduced by Virginia Rep. Donald S. Beyer Jr., aims to end gerrymandering of House districts by using ranked-choice voting — where voters get to rank candidates rather than just pick one — and creating districts where more than one member represents a diverse group of constituents.

The bill seeks to establish a more diverse, balanced and fair representation in Congress — “an appeal to the low tolerance Americans have for the current ‘winner-takes-all’ approach,” a Beyer spokesperson said.

While the Virginia Democrat’s proposal would mean radical changes across the U.S. voting and congressional representation system, he said changing the system is the only way to “revitalize” the political process.

“We would have more moderate Democrats from districts leaning Republican, and vice versa, creating a type of politician — now nearly extinct — known as a ‘bridge builder,’” Beyer wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post last week. “Many members would share constituents with members of the other party, creating incentives to work together on legislation affecting the district.”

Neither bill has garnered any Republican backing, though the Sewell-Lewis bill is co-sponsored by 185 House Democrats.

The two measures have disparate aims: one to expand voting rights, the other to expand the system itself. Both, however, frame a Democratic legislative response to the White House commission’s purpose to investigate voter fraud. [MORE]

Maxine Waters on Trump: 'We are getting played by our president'

TheHill

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) slammed President Trump after his Friday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying America is “getting played” by both the world leaders.

“We’re getting played by our president and certainly we’re getting played by Putin,” Waters said in an interview on MSNBC. “I don’t like the idea that our president again would go into a room without any note-takers, without any staff…and come out of it saying how honored he is to meet with [Putin].”

Trump’s bilateral meeting with Putin on Friday, originally scheduled for 30 minutes, ran for more than two hours. The only participants in the meeting were Trump, Putin, Secretary of States Rex Tillerson, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and two translators.

After the meeting, the two diplomats shared conflicting accounts of what happened during the meeting.

Tillerson said that Trump confronted Putin over Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, and pressed the Russian leader despite his repeated denials.

But Lavrov offered a different story - that Trump “accepted” Putin’s claim that Russia did not meddle in the U.S. election.

"U.S. President Trump said that he heard firm assertions from Russian President Putin that it is not true and that Russian authorities have not meddled in the elections," Lavrov said. “[Trump] said that he accepts these assertions. That's it.”

The two leaders also reportedly pledged to form a “working group” on cyber security issues, promising to work together on threats like election interference and organized crime.

Cory Booker: I don’t know if I’ll run in 2020

The Hill

Sen. Cory Booker said Monday that he hasn't ruled out a presidential bid in 2020.

In an interview with CNN's "The Axe Files," Booker said that he has no plans yet to challenge President Trump in the next election, but that he still hasn't decided against it.

"I don't know what the future's going to bring," Booker told CNN host and former Obama aide David Axelrod. "I'm not making predictions, but I want to unleash the fullness of who I am right now, and I want to call out injustice where I see it."

Booker says that politicians who look ahead to their next position while in office undermine their own integrity.

"I think that politicians make a terrible mistake if they're thinking about aspirations for another office, because I think it undermines their integrity where they are," Booker said.

"If I start thinking about the future like that or engaging in that stuff ... I think it would make me a lesser of a senator." [MORE]

Puerto Rico faces off with bondholders over statehood

The Hill

Puerto Rico's top elected leaders are doubling down on their pursuit of statehood, even as bondholders ask Congress and the White House to hold off until debt payments are made. 

Former New York Gov. George Pataki, who represents some of the island's bondholders, said he supports statehood, but only after Puerto Rico's financial woes are solved. 

"People may well push [statehood], but I don't think it will be credible," Pataki said. 

Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González-Colón (R), who along with Gov. Ricardo Rosselló is leading the charge for statehood, said statehood and the debt issue are inseparable. 

"Puerto Rico's economic problem is the lack of an economic model," she said. "The territorial condition limits the island's growth opportunities."

Supporters of statehood for Puerto Rico say its territorial status makes it nearly impossible for the island's economy to become self-sustaining. [MORE]

[no special treatment for white supremacy servants] Philly’s First Black DA Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charge, Is Immediately Jailed

Atlanta Black Star

The city’s top prosecutor pleaded guilty Thursday to a corruption charge, resigned from office and was sent immediately to jail by a judge who said he couldn’t be trusted.

In a surprise development two weeks into his federal trial, District Attorney Seth Williams pleaded guilty to a single count of accepting a bribe from a businessman in exchange for legal favors.

U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said he was not inclined to trust Williams’ assurances about appearing for sentencing set for Oct. 24, so he ordered him jailed. He was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs.

Diamond said he was “appalled” by the evidence he heard during the jury trial and had concluded Williams “sold” his office.

Williams, 50, faces up to five years in prison under a plea deal struck during the middle of the night after a series of phone calls. [MORE]

Need a Criminal Lawyer? Trump Wants to Make it Harder if You're Poor

Vice

The president's budget would eliminate loan forgiveness for people who become public defenders—which could make America's criminal justice crisis even worse.

When Collin Tierney walked into a job fair for law school students interested in defending suspected criminals in 2011, he was shocked by what he saw. At table after table, prospective and recent grads were lined up in the dozens for interviews at public defender offices across the country. The lawyers sent to chat with prospective employees weren't prepared for the massive amount of interest, but if they had been paying attention to the calendar, they might have known better.

In 2007, around the time these nascent lawyers were considering whether to go to law school, Congress instituted the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. That made law school incredibly affordable by forgiving student loans hanging over students who worked in public service for at least ten years. [MORE]