City workers drape a tarp over the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Va. on Aug. 23, 2017.
Steve Helber/AP
A Virginia judge has blocked efforts to remove the statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee that was at the center of the deadly violence that erupted in Charlottesville in 2017.
In a ruling issued this week, Judge Richard E. Moore said that any effort to remove the Lee statue would violate a state historic preservation statute and issued a permanent injunction preventing its removal. His decision extended to a separate monument to Confederate general Stonewall Jackson that city leaders and local activists had hoped to get rid of.
In 2017 Charlottesville's city council voted to remove the two statues, saying they were examples of racism.
Local residents filed a lawsuit in response, saying the council vote violated a state law barring the removal of war memorials. That August, white nationalists rallied in the city to protest the removal of the Lee statue. The rally would lead to the death of 32-year-old counter-protester Heather Heyer, and two state troopers who were killed in a helicopter crash while patrolling the rally.
In the aftermath of the violence, black shrouds were placed over the two statues, but in February 2018, Moore ordered them removed.
In his latest ruling, Moore cited the intent of the preservation law, saying, "I don't think I can infer that a historical preservation statute was intended to be racist," he said. "Certainly, [racism] was on their minds, but we should not judge the current law by that intent."
Moore determined damages could not be awarded, but that attorneys' fees would be given to the plaintiffs' counsel.
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By DARREN LINVILL & PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,” as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ P...
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President Donald Trump could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent Joe Biden when more votes are tallied. This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This...
So, what is bluster? By definition: - to speak or act in a noisy, angry, or threatening way without saying anything important As good enough an explanation as any I guess, but it really doesn't say it all. Back when I was a kid, there was always that kid on the teams that would lose at whatever game it was and get mad while blaming someone else for the loss, even though they'd been a major part in the loss. So I naively assumed that bluster was only a sore loser thing. As I got older and worked I found out that it was also a tactic to try and scare others from fighting back. So a poker reference here, it's very similar to someone going "all in" right away to discourage anyone from calling the bet. Now, we see it quite often in politics, usually with doubling down if it's confronted. In politics as a tactic, it's meant to scare the politician's opponents, but also to distract from the other things the politician has failed to deliver and/or actually w...
