Today on AirTalk, we’ll hear from both from the civil liberties and law enforcement sides regarding a state law that allows the public to request access to police records and explore the privacy and transparency concerns at hand. We'll also analyze the recent interview from Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; and more
FBI overreach? Andrew McCabe says FBI / DoJ considered reaching out to Cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said in an interview aired Thursday that he worried that investigations into President Donald Trump's ties to Russia and possible obstruction of justice would be shut down after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.
According to CBS, which conducted the interview, McCabe said Justice Department officials discussed bringing the Cabinet together to consider using the Constitution's 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.
McCabe, a frequent target of Trump's ire, described in the interview with CBS' "60 Minutes" that he was greatly alarmed by the possibility that the president "might have won the White House with the aid of the government of Russia." He said he assembled his investigators the day after his boss, Comey, was fired to discuss how to keep the investigations moving forward in the event he was fired or reassigned.
Was this an appropriate course of action for the FBI to pursue or is this a directive that should have come from Congress? How should this uncharted territory involving the 25th amendment be navigated?
With files from the Associated Press.
Guests:
Laurie L. Levenson, professor of law at Loyola Law School and former federal prosecutor
David M. Shapiro, lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York; former special agent and assistant legal advisor for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (1985 to 1987)
Luke Hunt, assistant professor of criminal justice at Radford University in Virginia and author of the forthcoming book, “The Retrieval of Liberalism in Policing” (Oxford University Press, 2019; former FBI special agent and supervisory special agent for 7 years
Police unions & civil liberties groups spar over application of CA law allowing easier access to investigative records of officer-involved shootings
Despite its reputation as a liberal, progressive state, California has long held some of the strictest laws in the country regarding public access to internal police records.
California also has one of the highest rates of officer-involved shootings in the country, and civil liberties activists and families of people killed in police shootings have long sought better access to these records.
On the first of this year, a landmark state law passed last year went into effect which allows members of the public to request access to those records, including video, disciplinary reports and investigative records into police shootings. But there has been pushback from the law enforcement community with regards to whether the law should apply to incidents that happened before January 1, 2019 when the law went into effect. Police unions across the state, including those for officers in the city of Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, have filed suit to block the law from applying to pre-2019 incidents. Some, like LAPD Chief Michel Moore, argue that the administrative and financial burden that accessing, redacting, and reproducing these records would create is too much for law enforcement agencies to handle. Others argue that if the law were to apply to pre-2019 incidents, it would be a violation of officers’ privacy rights because they would have made the decisions they did under the assumption that their records would remain sealed. The ACLU and others who support the law applying to pre-2019 incidents say that if it weren't designed to do just that, it wouldn't have an impact for a long time and essentially lose its power. They add that this law only applies to serious misconduct cases like sexual assault, lying officially, or questionable uses of deadly force.
Today on AirTalk, we’ll hear perspectives from the civil liberties and law enforcement sides of this issue and explore the privacy and transparency concerns at hand.
Guests:
Melanie Ochoa, staff attorney for criminal justice and police practices at the ACLU of Southern California
Jacob Kalinski, partner at Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC, where he also heads the firm’s Southern California Labor Litigation Group; his firm is representing several law enforcement unions, including the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, in the lawsuits against AB 1421
West Hollywood mayor John Duran asked to step down amid harassment allegations
Members of the West Hollywood city council on Tuesday called for John Duran to resign as mayor.
This comes after several men from the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles accused Duran of sexual harassment including inappropriate touching and comments. Duran has denied the allegations.
Lindsey Horvath, Lauren Meister and John D’Amico are three of the five council members urging Duran to step down. Duran has served four terms as mayor of West Hollywood and told the LA Times that he will not give up his position.
We speak with reporters who’ve been following the story and welcome your calls at 866-893-5722.
Guests:
Luke Harold, reporter at Beverly Press who’s been following the story; he tweets
Karen Ocamb, news editor at Los Angeles Blade; she tweets
So much for HQ2 in New York. Amid protests, Amazon drops plan to open up second headquarters in Queens
Amazon will not be building a new headquarters in New York, a stunning reversal after a yearlong search.
The online retailer faced opposition from some New York politicians, who were unhappy with the nearly $3 billion in tax incentives Amazon was promised. The Seattle-based Amazon had planned to bring 25,000 jobs to New York, and spend $2.5 billion building its offices.
"We are disappointed to have reached this conclusion - we love New York," the company said in a blog post , adding that it has 5,000 workers in the city and plans to grow those teams.
Amazon said Thursday it does not plan to look for another location at this time, and will continue to build out offices in Arlington, Virginia, and Nashville, Tennessee.
With files from the Associated Press
Guests:
J David Goodman, city hall reporter for the New York Times who’s been following the story; he tweets
Alistair Barr, editor at Bloomberg who’s been following the story
How will the land conservation packaged passed by the Senate affect California?
The Senate on Tuesday approved a major public lands bill that revives a popular conservation program, adds 1.3 million acres of new wilderness, expands several national parks and creates five new national monuments.
The measure, the largest public lands bill considered by Congress in a decade, combines more than 100 separate bills that designate more than 350 miles of river as wild and scenic, add 2,600 miles of new federal trails and create nearly 700,000 acres of new recreation and conservation areas. The bill also withdraws 370,000 acres in Montana and Washington state from mineral development.
The Senate approved the bill, 92-8, sending it to the House.
Lawmakers from both parties said the bill’s most important provision was to permanently reauthorize the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which supports conservation and outdoor recreation projects across the country. The program expired last fall after Congress could not agree on language to extend it.
With files from the Associated Press.
AirTalk invited Senator Dianne Feinstein to join us for our conversation but she was not available for comment.
Guests:
Dawn Rowe, supervisor representing San Bernardino County's 3rd District, which includes the cities of Redlands, Yucaipa, Loma Linda, Twentynine Palms, and Yucca Valley, along with the unincorporated communities of Joshua Tree, Johnson Valley, and Lucerne Valley
David Lamfrom, director of California desert and national wildlife programs at the National Parks Conservation Association
Hyper-conscientious and over-prepared: do the same traits that make girls good at school undermine them at work?
It’s been well-reported that girls outperform boys when it comes to grades, but why doesn’t that academic rigor seem to correlate with success in the workplace?
In her recent Op-ed in the New York Times “Why Girls Beat Boys at School and Lose to Them at the Office,” psychologist Lisa Damour argues that the same traits that make girls accomplished in school may be holding them back in the workforce.
Hyper-conscientious girls, she argues, often only feel confident in themselves when they’ve done the maximal amount of preparation. In contrast, boys often succeed while putting in minimal work -- an experience that develops their confidence and plays well in the office.
Damour says parents and teachers should ease up on praising overwork and instead prioritize efficiency. And she doesn’t claim that lack of confidence is the only thing keeping girls from breaking the glass ceiling, but she does think it’s a factor. Does your personal experience jive with Damour’s theory?
Is the problem school and parenting, or the kinds of traits that are valued in the office? If you were a hyper-conscientious student, did you have trouble transitioning into the workforce? If you’re the parent of a girl, have you observed these tendencies?
Guest:
Lisa Damour, psychologist in Shaker Heights, Ohio and author of the recent New York Times Op-ed “Why Girls Beat Boys at School and Lose to Them at the Office;” her new book, released this week, is “Under Pressure: Confronting the Epidemic of Stress and Anxiety in Girls” (2019, Ballantine Books)