Is Obama Telling Rangel to Retire? Sounds Like It

President Obama has offered an opinion on the fate of Representative Charlie Rangel of New York. Recently, the House Ethics Committee charged Rangel with 13 violations.

During an interview with CBS News, President Obama seems to argue that Rangel should hang up his hat:

I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served -- his constituents very well. But these -- allegations are very troubling. . . .

And he'll -- he's somebody who's at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I'm sure that -- what he wants is to be able to -- end his career with dignity. And my hope is that -- it happens.

Obama's comments come as some media reports speculate that Rangel will survive the storm. While other commentators have argued that an ethics trial could harm Democrats, it is unclear whether Rangel's situation would actually have national implications. Obama's comments, ironically, will probably bring more attention to the situation and make it an issue that more likely implicates the reputation of the Democratic Party.

Will Rangel heed Obama's "advice"? According to Ben Smith of Politico, Rangel is unfazed by Obama's statement. Quoting an anonymous source, Smith reports that Rangel "doesn’t give a damn about what the president thinks about this."

Another "Beer Summit"? Breitbart Wants To Meet With Sherrod

A day after Shirley Sherrod announced her intent to sue blogger Andrew Breitbart, Breitbart has offered to meet with her privately. During an interview with Newsweek, Breitbart says that "This thing has gotten to a place that’s far beyond where it should be." Breitbart then said he would like to discuss the matter privately with Sherrod :

[Breitbart] I’d be more than happy to meet with her in private and have a discussion with her.

[Interviewer] Is that an invitation?

[Breitbart] Sure, I’ll go whoever she wants. I’ll go to Albany, Ga. I’ll go anywhere to have a private discussion with her.

Although stranger things have happened, I seriously doubt that this "beer summit" will take place.

Sherrod to Sue Breitbart; Probably Has Stronger Suit Against The USDA

Shirley Sherrod says she will sue conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart posted a heavily edited speech that Sherrod delivered at an NAACP event. The portion of the speech, along with commentary on Breitbart's blog, misleadingly portrays Sherrod as a racist. The full version of the tape, however, paints a completely different story (see here).

It is unclear what type of action Sherrod will bring, but she will probably sue for libel. In order to prevail, she will have to prove that Breitbart acted with actual malice. This standard requires that Sherrod prove that Breitbart published information about her that he knew was false or that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Although this is normally a tough standard, Sherrod might prevail, given the circumstances of the scandal. It will be difficult, however, given the First Amendment interests at stake.

Stronger Case Against the USDA
Sherrod probably has an even stronger lawsuit against the government (unless she is a "political appointee," which would change this analysis significantly; update below). USDA officials forced her out of her government job without due process of law. She was not given the opportunity to explain herself, nor did her supervisors listen to the full speech before demanding her resignation.

Federal statutes and constitutional law provide procedural protections for government employees who face potential discharge. Although Sherrod has not indicated that she will sue the government, she would probably have an even better chance with that litigation.

Links to this article: Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic, Sherrod's Chances

Update: Readers here and elsewhere have made very good points. First, some readers have argued that Sherrod should not sue the government because she can make a stronger statement in a litigation against Breitbart. After all, the government has apologized and offered her another position. I do not question the soundness of those claims. Nonetheless, saying that a particular course of action is stronger from a legal perspective does not mean that the plaintiff should actually take that path.

Second, at least one reader at The Atlantic has pointed out that Sherrod was a "political appointee." If this is true, then her chances against the government under any legal theory are sharply diminished. This does not alter the difficulty of a libel action against Breitbart. Both paths represent an uphill battle.

White House Seeks to Expand FBI Power, Erode Privacy

The Washington Post reports that the White House seeks to expand the power of the FBI to command access to electronic communications without a warrant. According to the Washington Post,

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

Agents could compel companies to disclose the information if they believe it will assist anti-terrorism or intelligence investigations.

Naturally, privacy advocates vehemently disapprove of the White House proposal. Critics also argue that President Obama is betraying his promise to back away from President Bush's policies that expanded government authority over civil liberties. These critics have a pretty solid argument.

Gaffe A Minute: Sharron Angle Thinks Disclose Act Is Already Law (But It Is Not)

The Las Vegas Sun reports that Sharron Angle has made another major gaffe. During a recent interview, Angle stated that the Disclose Act already exists. It, however, does not. Furthermore, debate over the proposed campaign finance legislation has been tabled because not enough Senators were willing to invoke cloture.

Angle is providing a gaffe a minute. Also, Rasmussen, a conservative pollster, released a poll today showing Harry Reid leading Angle 45-43. Rasmussen says that the Nevada race "leans Democrat." It is not surprising that Angle's handlers are trying to keep her away from the media.

Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of Bulk of Controversial Arizona Immigration Law

A federal district court has enjoined enforcement of all of the major portions of a controversial Arizona immigration law, including a provision that authorized police officers to check the immigrant status of individuals suspected of criminal activity. The ruling will not surprise most immigration and constitutional law experts. Supreme Court doctrine gives the federal government wide authority over immigration issues. Conflicting state law is preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The court ruling, however, only grants a preliminary injunction. This kind of injunction will bar enforcement of portions of the law until the court issues a final ruling on its validity. The issuance of a preliminary injunction, however, means that the government has proven that there is a "likelihood" that it will prevail on the merits of its argument that federal law preempts the Arizona statute.

Shirley Sherrod Wants to Educate President Obama On Issues of Race

Shirley Sherrod might be too much for the Obama administration after all. And I mean that as praise for Sherrod. The Associated Press reports that Sherrod wants to educate President Obama on issues of race. Sherrod believes that Obama has some lessons to learn because his life experiences did not expose him to some of the difficulties that she faced:

I'd like to help him see some of the things that he could do in the future."

"I really regret what they did. But as I said before, he's my president," Sherrod said. "When you get it down to where the rubber meets the road, I think you need to understand a little more what life is like. I'd love to talk to him, though, or people in his administration ... to help them understand."

"I can't say that the president is fully behind me. I would hope that he is," she added. "I would love to talk to him."

Also, George Stephanopoulos interviewed Sherrod on Good Morning America. Stephanopoulos discussed the interview on ABCNews.com. During the interview, Sherrod said the following:

“[Obama] is not someone who has experienced what I have experienced through life, being a person of color. He might need to hear some of what I could say to him. . . .I don’t know if that would guide him in a way that he deals with others like me, but I at least would like to have the opportunity to talk to him about it.”

I doubt this conversation will ever happen. The Obama administration treats race as a form of political kryponite -- something to avoid by any means necessary. Also, I would hate to see something similar to the silly Beer Summit the followed the controversial arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Nevertheless, Sherrod seems like a person who could offer Obama some valuable insight regarding race and social justice.

See also:

This Is How Post-Racialism Looks: Another Take on the Firing of Shirley Sherrod

Lessons For the NAACP From the Shirley Sherrod Fiasco.

UPDATE: This essay was updated to include an analysis of the report by George Stephanopoulos.