[guest post by Dana]

President Trump today signed an executive order that includes an increase in police funding, as well as police reforms:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order aimed at tracking misconduct by law enforcers and creating incentives for departments to improve their practices.

The president, during a speech in the White House Rose Garden that heaped praise on the police and took time to attack his political opponents, said before signing the order that it will ban the use of police chokeholds “except if the officer’s life is at risk.”

…

Trump lauded law enforcement officers at the event, saying that “the least we can do, because they deserve it so much, they have to get our gratitude and we have to give them great respect for what they do.”

“In many cases local law enforcement is underfunded, understaffed and under [supported],” he added.

Trump rejected calls to “defund the police,” and instead, wants to reward police departments for creating better training and higher standards of practice:

The Trump administration’s order rejects calls to “defund the police” that have gained traction from within the nationwide protest movement. Rather, it aims to reward police departments with federal grant money for updating their standards on training and credentialing and will create a database to track individual cops on metrics such as excessive use-of-force complaints, which would be shared between departments.

The order would also give departments incentives to involve trained professionals, such as social workers, to respond to calls for certain nonviolent issues — including mental health, drug addiction and homelessness — rather than police alone.

“I strongly oppose the radical and dangerous efforts to defund, dismantle and dissolve our police departments,” Trump said in the Rose Garden. “Americans know the truth: Without police there is chaos, without law there is anarchy, and without safety there is catastrophe.”

Both the Republicans and Democrats are readying bills on police reforms. However, there is a distinct difference between what the parties believe to be the best way to effect change. It should be noted too that neither party has prepared a bill that would satisfy protesters, as neither goes far enough to “defund the police” (completely revamping police departments):

Central to the Republican package would be the creation of the national database to improve transparency so officers cannot transfer from one department to another without public oversight of their records. The Democrats have a similar provision.

Yet the Republican bill does not go as far as the Democrats do on the issue of eliminating qualified immunity, which would allow those injured by law enforcement personnel to sue for damages. The White House has said that is a step too far. As an alternative, Scott has suggested a “decertification” process for officers involved in misconduct.

One large police union, the influential Fraternal Order of Police, said in a statement it is working with Congress and the White House on the proposals, having provided “feedback” on the Democratic bill and “substantial input” on the emerging GOP package.

Well this should be interesting:

Two Justice Department officials have agreed to testify under subpoena before the House Judiciary Committee next week about politicization under Attorney General William P. Barr, setting up a likely fight with the department about what they will be permitted to say.

House Democrats issued subpoenas on Tuesday to the two officials, including Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, one of the career prosecutors who quit a case against President Trump’s friend Roger J. Stone Jr. after Mr. Barr and other senior officials decided to intervene to reverse their recommendation that Mr. Stone be sentenced in accord with standard guidelines and instead requested leniency.

The other official who agreed to serve as a witness is John W. Elias, a career official in the Justice Department’s antitrust division. The division opened an inquiry into a fuel efficiency deal between major automakers and the state of California; congressional Democrats have called the scrutiny politically motivated.

Democrats are calling the officials whistle-blowers. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, said in a statement that Mr. Barr has refused to testify himself, so the committee was moving forward with oversight of his actions without him.

At this point I’m more interested in hearing from the Flynn prosecutors. Maybe Judge Sullivan will have them testify after Flynn loses the writ.