BarkGrowlBite | October 31, 2016
The revelation that the computer belonging to the weenie waving ex-hubby of Hillary’s close chum Huma Abedin contains thousands of State Department emails has pissed off Hillary and top campaign staffer John Podesta. So, how does the Hillary campaign handle this damaging news with less than two weeks to go until the November 8 election day?
The Hillary campaign counters the revelation by resorting to the tried and true ‘shooting the messenger’ strategy. For Hillary and the Democrats, it’s now an all-out war against FBI Director James Comey.
During a campaign rally Saturday in Daytona Beach, Hillary attacked Comey by saying:
“If you're like me, you probably have a few questions about it. It is pretty strange. It's pretty strange to put something like that out with such little information, right before an election. In fact, it's not just strange it's unprecedented and it's deeply troubling. Voters deserve to get full and complete facts. And so we call on Director Comey to explain everything right away and put it all out on the table.”
And during an impromptu press conference during a flight to Des Moines she said:
“We are 11 days out from perhaps the most important election of our lifetimes. The American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately. We've heard these rumors. We don't know what to believe and I'm sure there will be even more rumors. That's why it is incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they're talking about. Because right now your guess is as good as mine and I don't think that's good enough.”
In a call to reporters Saturday, Hillary’s campaign chairman John Podesta blasted Comey’s letter to Congress about the renewed email investigation as being “long on innuendo and short on facts.” He said:
“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election. The more information that’s come out, the more overblown it seems. Despite initial reporting the letter amounted to a quote unquote reopening of the investigation … it seems that that is not at all the case. It's had to see how this amounts to anything. Comey has not been forthcoming with the facts. What little told us: hard to understand why this was warranted at all.
The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.”
Hillary’s VP candidate Tim Kaine accused Comey of breaking two Department of Justice protocols. Here is what he said Sunday on ABC’s This Week:
“Now this is an unprecedented move … because it happens close to an election. which is in violation of normal Justice Department protocol and it involves talking about an ongoing investigation, which also violates the protocol. And as far as we know now, Director Comey knows nothing about the content of these e-mails. We don’t know whether they’re to or from Hillary at all.”
In a letter to Comey, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested that the FBI Director violated the Hatch Act which prohibits government employees in their capacity as such from involving themselves in a partisan political campaign. Here are excerpts from Reid’s letter:
“Through your partisan action, you may have broken the law.
… your actions strongly suggests that your highly selective approach to publicizing information, along with your timing, was intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group.”
That ‘shoot the messenger’ strategy may be working. Reports from all around the country indicate Democrats are really riled up over Comey’s action and plan to vote in increasing numbers.
So, please disregard the bad news message and let us shoot the messenger instead.
Comey is not just being attacked by the Hillary campaign. FBI sources report that Attorney General Loretta Lynch did not want Comey to send his letter to Congress.
While FBI agents obtained a search warrant in September to obtain evidence from weenie waver Weiner’s computer regarding his sexting a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina, the Justice Department blocked the FBI until late Sunday from getting a search warrant to extract the State Department emails from that computer.
Lynch is thoroughly pissed off at the FBI Director. And I am sure President Obama is pissed off too. It remains to be seen how much longer James Comey can remain as head of the FBI.
Monday, October 31, 2016
THE EARTH IS SAFE … YET AGAIN
By Bob Walsh
For the 78th year in a row the Martians did NOT attack the earth, at Grover's Mill, New Jersey, or anyplace else for that matter.
There is actually a commemorative monument at the site where the Martian's didn't land on October 30,. 1938. Every year I listen to a recording of the Mercury Theater presentation of the War of the Worlds. Every year I have to remind myself that radio was relatively new and audiences were less sophisticated than they are now. The time line and compression is way off, what seemed to be happening could not possibly be happening in the time presented in the pseudo-news broadcast but many people believed that it was. In fact the remains of a water tower still stand there, it was shot up by locals who believed it was one of the Martian war machines attacking.
Still, it could have been worse. The same broadcast, in Spanish of course, with the geography tweaked for local audiences, was put out in Venezuela shortly after the end of WW II. When the locals found out that it was a "hoax" they attacked the radio station, killed several people and burned the building to the ground.
For the 78th year in a row the Martians did NOT attack the earth, at Grover's Mill, New Jersey, or anyplace else for that matter.
There is actually a commemorative monument at the site where the Martian's didn't land on October 30,. 1938. Every year I listen to a recording of the Mercury Theater presentation of the War of the Worlds. Every year I have to remind myself that radio was relatively new and audiences were less sophisticated than they are now. The time line and compression is way off, what seemed to be happening could not possibly be happening in the time presented in the pseudo-news broadcast but many people believed that it was. In fact the remains of a water tower still stand there, it was shot up by locals who believed it was one of the Martian war machines attacking.
Still, it could have been worse. The same broadcast, in Spanish of course, with the geography tweaked for local audiences, was put out in Venezuela shortly after the end of WW II. When the locals found out that it was a "hoax" they attacked the radio station, killed several people and burned the building to the ground.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
IGNORANT AMERICAN COLLEGE GRADS
College grads are six times likelier to know who won "American Idol" than they are to know the name of the speaker of the House
By Walter E. Williams | Townhall | October 26, 2016
Do you wonder why Sen. Bernie Sanders and his ideas are so popular among American college students? The answer is that they, like so many other young people who think they know it all, are really uninformed and ignorant. You say, "Williams, how dare you say that?! We've mortgaged our home to send our children to college." Let's start with the 2006 geographic literacy survey of youngsters between 18 and 24 years of age by National Geographic and Roper Public Affairs.
Less than half could identify New York and Ohio on a U.S. map. Sixty percent could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East, and three-quarters could not find Iran or Israel. In fact, 44 percent could not locate even one of those four countries. Youngsters who had taken a geography class didn't fare much better. By the way, when I attended elementary school, during the 1940s, we were given blank U.S. maps, and our assignment was to write in the states. Today such an assignment might be deemed oppressive, if not racist.
According to a Philadelphia magazine article, the percentage of college grads who can read and interpret a food label has fallen from 40 to 30. They are six times likelier to know who won "American Idol" than they are to know the name of the speaker of the House. A high-school teacher in California handed out an assignment that required students to use a ruler. Not a single student knew how.
An article on News Forum for Lawyers titled "Study Finds College Students Remarkably Incompetent" cites a study done by the American Institutes for Research that revealed that over 75 percent of two-year college students and 50 percent of four-year college students were incapable of completing everyday tasks. About 20 percent of four-year college students demonstrated only basic mathematical ability, while a steeper 30 percent of two-year college students could not progress past elementary arithmetic. NBC News reported that Fortune 500 companies spend about $3 billion annually to train employees in "basic English."
Reported by Just Facts, in 2009, the Pentagon estimated that 65 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. were unqualified for military service because of weak educational skills, poor physical fitness, illegal drug usage, medical conditions or criminal records. In January 2014, the commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command estimated this figure at 77.5 percent, and in June 2014, the Department of Defense estimated this figure at 71 percent (http://tinyurl.com/guz7pqy).
A few weeks ago, my column discussed the dishonesty of college officials (http://tinyurl.com/zgmhzkc). Here's more evidence: Among high-school students who graduated in 2014 and took the ACT college readiness exam, here's how various racial/ethnic groups fared when it came to meeting the ACT's college readiness benchmarks in at least three of the four subjects: Asians, 57 percent; whites, 49 percent; Hispanics, 23 percent; and blacks, 11 percent. However, the college rates of enrollment of these groups were: Asians, 80 percent; whites, 69 percent; Hispanics, 60 percent; and blacks, 57 percent. What I am labeling as dishonest, fraudulent or deceitful comes from the fact that many more students are admitted to college than are in fact college-ready. Admitting such students may satisfy the wants and financial interests of the higher education establishment, but whether it serves the interests of students, families, taxpayers and the nation is another question.
To accommodate less college-ready students, colleges must water down their curricula, lower standards and abandon traditional tools and topics. Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein writes in his book "The Dumbest Generation": Tradition "serves a crucial moral and intellectual function. ... People who read Thucydides and Caesar on war, and Seneca and Ovid on love, are less inclined to construe passing fads as durable outlooks, to fall into the maelstrom of celebrity culture, to presume that the circumstances of their own life are worth a Web page."
EDITOR’S NOTE: Unless they graduated with a degree in the sciences, engineering or math, today’s college grads are very likely to be educated idiots. And among the educated idiots I include many college profs.
Compare the sad state of our colleges and universities with their worthless African-American Studies and Gender Studies among other nonsensical programs to the no-nonsense studies in the universities of China, South Korea and Japan.
By Walter E. Williams | Townhall | October 26, 2016
Do you wonder why Sen. Bernie Sanders and his ideas are so popular among American college students? The answer is that they, like so many other young people who think they know it all, are really uninformed and ignorant. You say, "Williams, how dare you say that?! We've mortgaged our home to send our children to college." Let's start with the 2006 geographic literacy survey of youngsters between 18 and 24 years of age by National Geographic and Roper Public Affairs.
Less than half could identify New York and Ohio on a U.S. map. Sixty percent could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East, and three-quarters could not find Iran or Israel. In fact, 44 percent could not locate even one of those four countries. Youngsters who had taken a geography class didn't fare much better. By the way, when I attended elementary school, during the 1940s, we were given blank U.S. maps, and our assignment was to write in the states. Today such an assignment might be deemed oppressive, if not racist.
According to a Philadelphia magazine article, the percentage of college grads who can read and interpret a food label has fallen from 40 to 30. They are six times likelier to know who won "American Idol" than they are to know the name of the speaker of the House. A high-school teacher in California handed out an assignment that required students to use a ruler. Not a single student knew how.
An article on News Forum for Lawyers titled "Study Finds College Students Remarkably Incompetent" cites a study done by the American Institutes for Research that revealed that over 75 percent of two-year college students and 50 percent of four-year college students were incapable of completing everyday tasks. About 20 percent of four-year college students demonstrated only basic mathematical ability, while a steeper 30 percent of two-year college students could not progress past elementary arithmetic. NBC News reported that Fortune 500 companies spend about $3 billion annually to train employees in "basic English."
Reported by Just Facts, in 2009, the Pentagon estimated that 65 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. were unqualified for military service because of weak educational skills, poor physical fitness, illegal drug usage, medical conditions or criminal records. In January 2014, the commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command estimated this figure at 77.5 percent, and in June 2014, the Department of Defense estimated this figure at 71 percent (http://tinyurl.com/guz7pqy).
A few weeks ago, my column discussed the dishonesty of college officials (http://tinyurl.com/zgmhzkc). Here's more evidence: Among high-school students who graduated in 2014 and took the ACT college readiness exam, here's how various racial/ethnic groups fared when it came to meeting the ACT's college readiness benchmarks in at least three of the four subjects: Asians, 57 percent; whites, 49 percent; Hispanics, 23 percent; and blacks, 11 percent. However, the college rates of enrollment of these groups were: Asians, 80 percent; whites, 69 percent; Hispanics, 60 percent; and blacks, 57 percent. What I am labeling as dishonest, fraudulent or deceitful comes from the fact that many more students are admitted to college than are in fact college-ready. Admitting such students may satisfy the wants and financial interests of the higher education establishment, but whether it serves the interests of students, families, taxpayers and the nation is another question.
To accommodate less college-ready students, colleges must water down their curricula, lower standards and abandon traditional tools and topics. Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein writes in his book "The Dumbest Generation": Tradition "serves a crucial moral and intellectual function. ... People who read Thucydides and Caesar on war, and Seneca and Ovid on love, are less inclined to construe passing fads as durable outlooks, to fall into the maelstrom of celebrity culture, to presume that the circumstances of their own life are worth a Web page."
EDITOR’S NOTE: Unless they graduated with a degree in the sciences, engineering or math, today’s college grads are very likely to be educated idiots. And among the educated idiots I include many college profs.
Compare the sad state of our colleges and universities with their worthless African-American Studies and Gender Studies among other nonsensical programs to the no-nonsense studies in the universities of China, South Korea and Japan.
RETIRED FBI AGENT MIKE CALLAHAN’S ANALYSIS OF CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION
Below is my take on captioned matter. It is my belief that the FBI was politically manipulated to insure a particular outcome. I think there is substantial evidence to support my belief and the manner in which the investigation was handled tarnished the Bureau’s reputation for conducting impartial and apolitical investigations. I am not trying to influence how people vote. I could not care less. My concern is what those in authority did to our FBI. My reasons are set forth below.
Part One:
1. The statute that was used to judge HRC’s actions, makes it a criminal felony violation to mishandle classified information intentionally OR with gross negligence. Director Comey stated that HRC acted with “extreme carelessness” in the handling of classified info. Extreme Carelessness is Gross Negligence. She violated this statute which Congress, not Director Comey created. As an executive branch member, he has no authority to ignore the express language of a statute created by Congress. His mission is to follow the law, not abolish congressional statutory language that he does not like. He decided to arbitrarily modify the statute by de facto elimination of the “Gross Negligence portion of the statute. By doing so, he acted outside the scope of his authority.
2. In my 30 yrs in the FBI and total of 44 yrs in Law enforcement, I was never involved in or even heard of an investigation which ignored evidence of “other crimes” uncovered while investigating the original crime under investigation.` But in this case, the FBI began by investigating mishandling of classified info on a private email system – then recovered thousands of emails that HRC and her team destroyed (recovered from recipients' computers). Some of those emails disclosed that certain donors to the Clinton Foundation gave huge amts of money to the Foundation and in return rec’d meetings with HRC at the State Dept. Many of the donors were from Foreign Countries. While access alone is not criminal, it provides a “Reasonable Indication” (which is sufficient to open a new investigation under DOJ Guidelines,) into the likelihood of Quid Pro Quo/Bribery.
No one donates thousands/millions of dollars to a Private Foundation for a meeting with the Secretary of State to talk about the NFL football season/ or the weather forecast. What deals were made or discussed in those meetings? The FBI had blinders on and refused to widen the investigation when there was clear probable cause to do so. This my friends never happened when I was in the FBI. In my career, if we started with a stolen property case and it lead to drugs, guns and murder, we expanded to include all the new crimes. It is unprecedented that it did not happen with the HRC investigation. This is wrong. I don’t know whether DOJ ordered the FBI to ignore other avenues of investigation or whether the Bureau restricted itself to ignore these obvious avenues of inquiry.
3.) In all my 44 yrs of service, I never saw a case where deliberate destruction of evidence was ignored instead of thoroughly investigated. Deliberate destruction of evidence is not only felonious in and of itself (i.e. felonious per se) but also indicative of Knowledge that the original conduct of HRC and her Aides was intentional/deliberate. (This goes back to my point in section one above and is indicative of the fact that the handling of classified info was even more than gross negligent and was instead likely deliberate/intentional).--- Nevertheless when you find evidence that HRC’s lawyer Cheryl Mills called one of the private server operators after a Congressional subpoena was issued for the emails and ordered him to destroy thousands of emails relevant to the subpoena, this is prima facie evidence of obstruction of justice. Moreover, there is evidence that 13 of HRC’s phones were deliberately destroyed and /or “missing”—some of the phones were smashed with a hammer/ and bleach bit was used to destroy 33,000 emails.
I have never seen a case like this in all my yrs where deliberate destruction of evidence was simply ignored by the FBI and not investigated. Again, I don’t know whether this was ordered by DOJ or whether the FBI restricted itself. Either way, it is totally inappropriate.
4.) The DOJ/ apparently with FBI concurrence/ gave Cheryl Mills and HRC’s other lawyer so called “Act of Production” immunity for their computers which contained highly classified information. “Act of Production” immunity is strictly limited to the very act of turning over the computers. It is never given to include what is actually found on the computers –It is only given for the act of turning them over. In all other cases that I am aware of when this is done, the FBI agent receiving the computer cannot take the stand and testify that he/she rec’d the computer from the person receiving the immunity. If the FBI wants to use the info they find on the computer against the provider, they have to show that it belonged to the provider by means unrelated to the Act of Production. In the HRC investigation, the immunity grant, as I understand it was all encompassing, not limited to the act of production but extended to the contents of the computer and even included any contents the lawyers may have destroyed. This is both incredible and unprecedented.—I have never seen a case handled in this fashion. Immunity grants should be limited to what is necessary to obtain the needed evidence and not extended beyond what is absolutely necessary. The fact that there was no grand jury, subpoena power and Federal judge controlling the grand jury to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt probably contributed to these broad immunity grants. Ask yourself why no grand jury was convened?
5.DOJ/apparently with FBI acquiescence agreed to limit the scope of their inquiry to a date prior to when the major destruction of evidence occurred. How could this be agreed to unless the fix was in? There was reason to believe that massive obstruction occurred and the FBI/DOJ not only declined to investigate it but also inexplicably agreed to stop the investigation before the dates when the destruction occurred. I have never seen or heard of anything like it. Moreover, knowing full well that a multitude of Congressional inquiries were ongoing with respect to these matters, the FBI agreed to destroy the contents of the computers rec’d from HRC’s 2 lawyers. When have you ever seen or heard of anything like this?
6. The DOJ/apparently with FBI acquiescence refused to use a grand jury to investigate this case. The FGJ could have issued subpoenas and compelled witness testimony under oath. It was not done here. With respect to gathering evidence from HRC’s Private Server Company, the State Dept and HRC’s staff, including her lawyers, search warrants could have been obtained before critical evidence was destroyed. None of this was done. All of these steps would have been taken in every other case but not this one.
7.) According to published news reports, President Obama, using a pseudonym was the sender/receiver of several emails containing classified info that went thru HRC’s non secure set up. Even Cheryl Mills was horrified when she read one of the emails without knowing it came from Obama.
8.) DOJ or the FBI decided to permit Cheryl Mills to be present during the questioning of HRC. Mills at that time was an immunized Subject of the investigation. Probable cause existed to believe that Mills had ordered the destruction of numerous HRC emails. This decision was simply amazing and beyond the pale.
My guess is that a lot more negative info will trickle out before this is over. I am upset with Director Comey for allowing the apolitical reputation of the FBI to come under question. What happened is a severe blight upon the reputation of an agency that we served with distinction for so many years. It will take many years to reconstruct our reputation.
Part Two:
I appreciate that Director Comey held a press conference in July, explaining the FBI investigative findings, which was unprecedented. What he did was necessary but not sufficient to protect the reputation of the Bureau. I also believe that he was under enormous pressure from the President/AG to limit the scope of the investigation. President Obama’s public commentary during his “60 minutes” interview gave us a preview of how this was all going to come out. He said HRC made a mistake but basically it was not a big deal. (Now we know that he was communicating with HRC on the unsecured server using a pseudonym). We are supposed to be a Nation of Laws/not men. It is often said that No man (or woman) is above the law. This ideal was abandoned in this case. Anyone else would have been prosecuted. Expediency rather than honor was the winner here.
By refusing to convene a Federal Grand Jury, DOJ placed the FBI into a World Series Game without a bat and a glove. This eliminated sworn witness testimony and subpoena power (as you are well aware, these are some of the absolute main investigative methods necessary to break open a case where cooperation is limited or non existent/It allows recalcitrant witnesses to be brought before a Federal Judge and be held in contempt and jailed for refusal to cooperate after an immunity grant). Have FBI Agents conducting a major investigation ever in Bureau history been so handcuffed in conducting that investigation?
Director Comey was faced with a very difficult choice. He could either send his team onto the field without bats and gloves in front of the entire nation/world or tell Lynch to go to hell and threaten to resign. He chose the former. He should have chosen the latter and called their bluff.----I am sorry that he did not do so. His resignation, if required, would have preserved the integrity and reputation of the FBI. The reputation of the FBI has been severely damaged in the process not just among many xagents but also many outside the FBI family as well.
Copyright © 2016 Boston Chapter-Former Special Agents of the FBI
Mike Callahan, among FBI positions he held, was the Principle Legal Adviser (PLA) to the Special Agent in Charge of each FBI Division.
Part One:
1. The statute that was used to judge HRC’s actions, makes it a criminal felony violation to mishandle classified information intentionally OR with gross negligence. Director Comey stated that HRC acted with “extreme carelessness” in the handling of classified info. Extreme Carelessness is Gross Negligence. She violated this statute which Congress, not Director Comey created. As an executive branch member, he has no authority to ignore the express language of a statute created by Congress. His mission is to follow the law, not abolish congressional statutory language that he does not like. He decided to arbitrarily modify the statute by de facto elimination of the “Gross Negligence portion of the statute. By doing so, he acted outside the scope of his authority.
2. In my 30 yrs in the FBI and total of 44 yrs in Law enforcement, I was never involved in or even heard of an investigation which ignored evidence of “other crimes” uncovered while investigating the original crime under investigation.` But in this case, the FBI began by investigating mishandling of classified info on a private email system – then recovered thousands of emails that HRC and her team destroyed (recovered from recipients' computers). Some of those emails disclosed that certain donors to the Clinton Foundation gave huge amts of money to the Foundation and in return rec’d meetings with HRC at the State Dept. Many of the donors were from Foreign Countries. While access alone is not criminal, it provides a “Reasonable Indication” (which is sufficient to open a new investigation under DOJ Guidelines,) into the likelihood of Quid Pro Quo/Bribery.
No one donates thousands/millions of dollars to a Private Foundation for a meeting with the Secretary of State to talk about the NFL football season/ or the weather forecast. What deals were made or discussed in those meetings? The FBI had blinders on and refused to widen the investigation when there was clear probable cause to do so. This my friends never happened when I was in the FBI. In my career, if we started with a stolen property case and it lead to drugs, guns and murder, we expanded to include all the new crimes. It is unprecedented that it did not happen with the HRC investigation. This is wrong. I don’t know whether DOJ ordered the FBI to ignore other avenues of investigation or whether the Bureau restricted itself to ignore these obvious avenues of inquiry.
3.) In all my 44 yrs of service, I never saw a case where deliberate destruction of evidence was ignored instead of thoroughly investigated. Deliberate destruction of evidence is not only felonious in and of itself (i.e. felonious per se) but also indicative of Knowledge that the original conduct of HRC and her Aides was intentional/deliberate. (This goes back to my point in section one above and is indicative of the fact that the handling of classified info was even more than gross negligent and was instead likely deliberate/intentional).--- Nevertheless when you find evidence that HRC’s lawyer Cheryl Mills called one of the private server operators after a Congressional subpoena was issued for the emails and ordered him to destroy thousands of emails relevant to the subpoena, this is prima facie evidence of obstruction of justice. Moreover, there is evidence that 13 of HRC’s phones were deliberately destroyed and /or “missing”—some of the phones were smashed with a hammer/ and bleach bit was used to destroy 33,000 emails.
I have never seen a case like this in all my yrs where deliberate destruction of evidence was simply ignored by the FBI and not investigated. Again, I don’t know whether this was ordered by DOJ or whether the FBI restricted itself. Either way, it is totally inappropriate.
4.) The DOJ/ apparently with FBI concurrence/ gave Cheryl Mills and HRC’s other lawyer so called “Act of Production” immunity for their computers which contained highly classified information. “Act of Production” immunity is strictly limited to the very act of turning over the computers. It is never given to include what is actually found on the computers –It is only given for the act of turning them over. In all other cases that I am aware of when this is done, the FBI agent receiving the computer cannot take the stand and testify that he/she rec’d the computer from the person receiving the immunity. If the FBI wants to use the info they find on the computer against the provider, they have to show that it belonged to the provider by means unrelated to the Act of Production. In the HRC investigation, the immunity grant, as I understand it was all encompassing, not limited to the act of production but extended to the contents of the computer and even included any contents the lawyers may have destroyed. This is both incredible and unprecedented.—I have never seen a case handled in this fashion. Immunity grants should be limited to what is necessary to obtain the needed evidence and not extended beyond what is absolutely necessary. The fact that there was no grand jury, subpoena power and Federal judge controlling the grand jury to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt probably contributed to these broad immunity grants. Ask yourself why no grand jury was convened?
5.DOJ/apparently with FBI acquiescence agreed to limit the scope of their inquiry to a date prior to when the major destruction of evidence occurred. How could this be agreed to unless the fix was in? There was reason to believe that massive obstruction occurred and the FBI/DOJ not only declined to investigate it but also inexplicably agreed to stop the investigation before the dates when the destruction occurred. I have never seen or heard of anything like it. Moreover, knowing full well that a multitude of Congressional inquiries were ongoing with respect to these matters, the FBI agreed to destroy the contents of the computers rec’d from HRC’s 2 lawyers. When have you ever seen or heard of anything like this?
6. The DOJ/apparently with FBI acquiescence refused to use a grand jury to investigate this case. The FGJ could have issued subpoenas and compelled witness testimony under oath. It was not done here. With respect to gathering evidence from HRC’s Private Server Company, the State Dept and HRC’s staff, including her lawyers, search warrants could have been obtained before critical evidence was destroyed. None of this was done. All of these steps would have been taken in every other case but not this one.
7.) According to published news reports, President Obama, using a pseudonym was the sender/receiver of several emails containing classified info that went thru HRC’s non secure set up. Even Cheryl Mills was horrified when she read one of the emails without knowing it came from Obama.
8.) DOJ or the FBI decided to permit Cheryl Mills to be present during the questioning of HRC. Mills at that time was an immunized Subject of the investigation. Probable cause existed to believe that Mills had ordered the destruction of numerous HRC emails. This decision was simply amazing and beyond the pale.
My guess is that a lot more negative info will trickle out before this is over. I am upset with Director Comey for allowing the apolitical reputation of the FBI to come under question. What happened is a severe blight upon the reputation of an agency that we served with distinction for so many years. It will take many years to reconstruct our reputation.
Part Two:
I appreciate that Director Comey held a press conference in July, explaining the FBI investigative findings, which was unprecedented. What he did was necessary but not sufficient to protect the reputation of the Bureau. I also believe that he was under enormous pressure from the President/AG to limit the scope of the investigation. President Obama’s public commentary during his “60 minutes” interview gave us a preview of how this was all going to come out. He said HRC made a mistake but basically it was not a big deal. (Now we know that he was communicating with HRC on the unsecured server using a pseudonym). We are supposed to be a Nation of Laws/not men. It is often said that No man (or woman) is above the law. This ideal was abandoned in this case. Anyone else would have been prosecuted. Expediency rather than honor was the winner here.
By refusing to convene a Federal Grand Jury, DOJ placed the FBI into a World Series Game without a bat and a glove. This eliminated sworn witness testimony and subpoena power (as you are well aware, these are some of the absolute main investigative methods necessary to break open a case where cooperation is limited or non existent/It allows recalcitrant witnesses to be brought before a Federal Judge and be held in contempt and jailed for refusal to cooperate after an immunity grant). Have FBI Agents conducting a major investigation ever in Bureau history been so handcuffed in conducting that investigation?
Director Comey was faced with a very difficult choice. He could either send his team onto the field without bats and gloves in front of the entire nation/world or tell Lynch to go to hell and threaten to resign. He chose the former. He should have chosen the latter and called their bluff.----I am sorry that he did not do so. His resignation, if required, would have preserved the integrity and reputation of the FBI. The reputation of the FBI has been severely damaged in the process not just among many xagents but also many outside the FBI family as well.
Copyright © 2016 Boston Chapter-Former Special Agents of the FBI
Mike Callahan, among FBI positions he held, was the Principle Legal Adviser (PLA) to the Special Agent in Charge of each FBI Division.
THE NEXT 10 YEARS WILL BE UGLY FOR YOUR 401(K)
We’re about to pay the price for all the good times
By Suzanne Woolley | Bloomber | October 26, 2016
It doesn’t seem like much to ask for—a 5 percent return. But the odds of making even that on traditional investments in the next 10 years are slim, according to a new report from investment advisory firm Research Affiliates.
The company looked at the default settings of 11 retirement calculators, robo-advisers, and surveys of institutional investors. Their average annualized long-term expected return? 6.2 percent. After 1.6 percent was shaved off to allow for a decade of inflation1, the number dropped to 4.6 percent, which was rounded up. Voilà.
So on average we all expect a 5 percent; the report tells us we should start getting used to disappointment. To show how a mainstream stock and bond portfolio would do under Research Affiliates’ 10-year model, the report looks at the typical balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds. An example would be the $29.6 billion Vanguard Balanced Index Fund (VBINX). For the decade ended Sept. 30, VBINX had an average annual performance of 6.6 percent, and that’s before inflation. Over the next decade, according to the report, “the ubiquitous 60/40 U.S. portfolio has a 0% probability of achieving a 5% or greater annualized real return.”
One message that John West, head of client strategies at Research Affiliates and a co-author of the report, hopes people will take away is that the high returns of the past came with a price: lower returns in the future.
“If the retirement calculators say we’ll make 6 percent or 7 percent, and people saved based on that but only make 3 percent, they’re going to have a massive shortfall,” he said. “They’ll have to work longer or retire with a substantially different standard of living than they thought they would have.”
Research Affiliates’ forecasts for the stock market rely on the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio, known as the CAPE or Shiller P/E. It looks at P/Es over 10 years, rather than one, to account for volatility and short-term considerations, among other things.
The firm’s website lets people enter their portfolio’s asset allocation into an interactive calculator and see what their own odds are, as well as how their portfolio might fare if invested in less-mainstream assets (which the company tends to specialize in). The point isn’t to steer people to higher risk, according to West. To get higher returns, you have to take on what the firm calls “maverick” risk, and that means holding a portfolio that can look very different from those of peers. “It’s hard to stick with being wrong and alone in the short term,” West said.
At least as hard though is seeing the level of return the calculator spits out for traditional asset classes. Splitting a portfolio evenly among U.S. large-cap equities, U.S. small-cap equities, emerging-market equities, short-term U.S. Treasuries, and a global core bond portfolio produced an expected return of 2.3 percent. Taking 20 percent out of short-term U.S. Treasuries and putting 10 percent of that into emerging-market currencies, and 10 percent into U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, lifted the return to 2.7 percent. Shifting the 20 percent U.S. large-cap chunk into 10 percent commodities and 10 percent high-yield pushed the expected return up to 2.9 percent. Not a pretty picture.
Moral of the story: Since most people’s risk tolerance isn’t likely to change dramatically, the amount you save may have to.
By Suzanne Woolley | Bloomber | October 26, 2016
It doesn’t seem like much to ask for—a 5 percent return. But the odds of making even that on traditional investments in the next 10 years are slim, according to a new report from investment advisory firm Research Affiliates.
The company looked at the default settings of 11 retirement calculators, robo-advisers, and surveys of institutional investors. Their average annualized long-term expected return? 6.2 percent. After 1.6 percent was shaved off to allow for a decade of inflation1, the number dropped to 4.6 percent, which was rounded up. Voilà.
So on average we all expect a 5 percent; the report tells us we should start getting used to disappointment. To show how a mainstream stock and bond portfolio would do under Research Affiliates’ 10-year model, the report looks at the typical balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds. An example would be the $29.6 billion Vanguard Balanced Index Fund (VBINX). For the decade ended Sept. 30, VBINX had an average annual performance of 6.6 percent, and that’s before inflation. Over the next decade, according to the report, “the ubiquitous 60/40 U.S. portfolio has a 0% probability of achieving a 5% or greater annualized real return.”
One message that John West, head of client strategies at Research Affiliates and a co-author of the report, hopes people will take away is that the high returns of the past came with a price: lower returns in the future.
“If the retirement calculators say we’ll make 6 percent or 7 percent, and people saved based on that but only make 3 percent, they’re going to have a massive shortfall,” he said. “They’ll have to work longer or retire with a substantially different standard of living than they thought they would have.”
Research Affiliates’ forecasts for the stock market rely on the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio, known as the CAPE or Shiller P/E. It looks at P/Es over 10 years, rather than one, to account for volatility and short-term considerations, among other things.
The firm’s website lets people enter their portfolio’s asset allocation into an interactive calculator and see what their own odds are, as well as how their portfolio might fare if invested in less-mainstream assets (which the company tends to specialize in). The point isn’t to steer people to higher risk, according to West. To get higher returns, you have to take on what the firm calls “maverick” risk, and that means holding a portfolio that can look very different from those of peers. “It’s hard to stick with being wrong and alone in the short term,” West said.
At least as hard though is seeing the level of return the calculator spits out for traditional asset classes. Splitting a portfolio evenly among U.S. large-cap equities, U.S. small-cap equities, emerging-market equities, short-term U.S. Treasuries, and a global core bond portfolio produced an expected return of 2.3 percent. Taking 20 percent out of short-term U.S. Treasuries and putting 10 percent of that into emerging-market currencies, and 10 percent into U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, lifted the return to 2.7 percent. Shifting the 20 percent U.S. large-cap chunk into 10 percent commodities and 10 percent high-yield pushed the expected return up to 2.9 percent. Not a pretty picture.
Moral of the story: Since most people’s risk tolerance isn’t likely to change dramatically, the amount you save may have to.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
TOMI LAHREN EXCORIATES COLIN KAEPERNICK
Tomi tells Kaepernick that "if this country disgusts you so much, leave!"
In November 2015, three months after moving to Texas, Tomi began a new show with TheBlaze.
In February 2016, Lahren's criticism of Beyoncé's performance at the Super Bowl 50 halftime show as supporting the Black Panthers caused controversy. In July 2016, Lahren issued a tweet comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the Ku Klux Klan. As a result, tens of thousands of people signed a Change.org petition asking for her to be fired from TheBlaze.
Tomi is my kind of gal!
In November 2015, three months after moving to Texas, Tomi began a new show with TheBlaze.
In February 2016, Lahren's criticism of Beyoncé's performance at the Super Bowl 50 halftime show as supporting the Black Panthers caused controversy. In July 2016, Lahren issued a tweet comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the Ku Klux Klan. As a result, tens of thousands of people signed a Change.org petition asking for her to be fired from TheBlaze.
Tomi is my kind of gal!
RENEWED FBI EMAIL INVESTIGATION A DUD, NOT A BOMBSHELL
The renewed FNI email investigation is nothing more than a desperate attempt by James Comey to restore his tarnished reputation and that of the FBI
BarkGrowlBite | October 29, 2016
While investigating Anthony Weiner’s weenie-wave texting to an underage girl, FBI agents discovered what may have been classified State Department emails on his computer. Weenie waver Weiner happens to be the ex-hubby of Hillary’s closest chum, Huma Abedin. Apparently the computer was shared by Huma and her then-hubby and contains hundreds of messages between the Secretary of State and Abedin. Whether or not this involves classified information remains to be seen.
The media is referring to this latest twist in Hillary’s email scandal as a bombshell. Sorry, but for those of us who want to see Hillary’s quest for the presidency disappear in a ball of flames, this is not a bombshell, it’s a dud.
First of all, the renewed investigation is nothing more than a desperate attempt by James Comey to restore his tarnished reputation and that of the FBI.
Furthermore, there is no way this investigation can be completed before election day. Such investigations take weeks, if not months, and the election is less than two weeks away.
And suppose this go-around Comey finds sufficient evidence to seek a criminal indictment against Hillary, do you think Obama’s political hack, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, will allow the FBI to present its findings to a federal grand jury? No way, Jose! Remember, the Attorney General held a private meeting with Bill Clinton on her plane in Phoenix last June when she assured him his wife would not face criminal charges.
But let’s suppose Hillary wins the election and is actually indicted before the January 20 inauguration. That’s no biggie. President Obama, as one of his last acts in office, will simply pardon Hillary. Case closed. Hail to the first woman president.
Anyway, I do not see how this will affect the outcome of the election. Hillary’s supporters are going to vote for her even if she were to burn a baby to death live on TV.
So, Comey’s attempt at redemption is simply a dollar short and a day late.
BarkGrowlBite | October 29, 2016
While investigating Anthony Weiner’s weenie-wave texting to an underage girl, FBI agents discovered what may have been classified State Department emails on his computer. Weenie waver Weiner happens to be the ex-hubby of Hillary’s closest chum, Huma Abedin. Apparently the computer was shared by Huma and her then-hubby and contains hundreds of messages between the Secretary of State and Abedin. Whether or not this involves classified information remains to be seen.
The media is referring to this latest twist in Hillary’s email scandal as a bombshell. Sorry, but for those of us who want to see Hillary’s quest for the presidency disappear in a ball of flames, this is not a bombshell, it’s a dud.
First of all, the renewed investigation is nothing more than a desperate attempt by James Comey to restore his tarnished reputation and that of the FBI.
Furthermore, there is no way this investigation can be completed before election day. Such investigations take weeks, if not months, and the election is less than two weeks away.
And suppose this go-around Comey finds sufficient evidence to seek a criminal indictment against Hillary, do you think Obama’s political hack, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, will allow the FBI to present its findings to a federal grand jury? No way, Jose! Remember, the Attorney General held a private meeting with Bill Clinton on her plane in Phoenix last June when she assured him his wife would not face criminal charges.
But let’s suppose Hillary wins the election and is actually indicted before the January 20 inauguration. That’s no biggie. President Obama, as one of his last acts in office, will simply pardon Hillary. Case closed. Hail to the first woman president.
Anyway, I do not see how this will affect the outcome of the election. Hillary’s supporters are going to vote for her even if she were to burn a baby to death live on TV.
So, Comey’s attempt at redemption is simply a dollar short and a day late.
WILL FBI GET A DO-OVER?
By Bob Walsh
It was announced Friday that the FBI is taking another look at Hillary's emails. It seems that (if you believe the MSM) while investigating Anthony Weiner (aka Carlos Danger) for sex crimes and going thru his wife's electronic devices they found new emails that shed new light on the Hildebeast's conduct.
Wouldn't it be an absolute hoot if Huma Abadein's sleazeball husband turned out to be the downfall of the Hildebeast? I know that hope clouds reason, but still.......
If the election is close enough, this could push things over the edge. Or not. In eleven days we will know.
It was announced Friday that the FBI is taking another look at Hillary's emails. It seems that (if you believe the MSM) while investigating Anthony Weiner (aka Carlos Danger) for sex crimes and going thru his wife's electronic devices they found new emails that shed new light on the Hildebeast's conduct.
Wouldn't it be an absolute hoot if Huma Abadein's sleazeball husband turned out to be the downfall of the Hildebeast? I know that hope clouds reason, but still.......
If the election is close enough, this could push things over the edge. Or not. In eleven days we will know.
OBAMA ON A COMMUTATION RAMPAGE
Obama has commuted the sentences of 872 federal prisoners - more than the 11 previous Presidents combined
By Dave Burke | Daily Mail | October 28, 2016
Nearly 100 federal inmates are set to be released early after intervention from Barack Obama - meaning the outgoing President has commuted more sentences than his 11 predecessors combined.
A clemency push has sped up in recent months, and on Thursday 98 had their sentences reduced.
Obama has now cut short the sentences of 872 inmates, including 688 this year. The latest batch included 42 who were serving life sentences, the White House confirmed.
By comparison, George W. Bush granted 11 commutations, and Bill Clinton approved 61.
The previous 11 presidents, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush, issued 690 between them. Since 1900, the president to grant the most commutations was Woodrow Wilson, Justice Department figures reveal. He approved 264.
The administration has said the move recognizes the 'personal stories' behind the sentences, and reflects Obama's belief that onerous sentencing requirements put tens of thousands behind bars for far too long, largely as a result of the 'War on Drugs' in the 1980s and 90s.
But critics, including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, have attacked the policy, accusing Obama of being soft on crime.
At a campaign rally in August, Trump told supporters: 'Some of these people are bad dudes.
'And these are people who are out, they're walking the streets. Sleep tight, folks.'
The President's White House counsel, Neil Eggleston, said: 'These are individuals - many of whom made mistakes at a young age - who have diligently worked to rehabilitate themselves while incarcerated.'
Most of the prisoners had been convicted of nonviolent drug crimes, mostly involving cocaine or methamphetamine.
Some were also serving time for firearms violations in connection to drug trafficking, possession or sales. Almost all are men who come from every corner of the US.
Earlier this month 102 sentences of mostly nonviolent drug offenders were commuted.
These included Lancell Maurice Harris, from Arkansas, who had been jailed for 421 months in 1993 for drug and firearm charges. He is now set to be released in February.
Some of the prisoners will be released early next year, while some will not be freed until as far forward as October 2018.
Among those listed for early release is Massachusetts drug dealer Alberto Lopez, who was serving a life term plus six years' supervised release after being convicted of possession and conspiracy charges related to distribution of heroin and cocaine.
He is due to be set free in February next year.
Obama has used the aggressive pace of his commutations to increase pressure on Congress to pass a broader fix to the justice system while using his executive powers to address individual cases where possible.
Though both parties in Congress have called for a criminal justice overhaul, momentum has mostly petered out, although both Republicans and Democrats agree the issue needs fixing.
Obama has been calling for years for phasing out strict sentences for drug offenses, arguing they lead to excessive punishment and incarceration rates unseen in other developed countries.
With Obama's support, the Justice Department in recent years directed prosecutors to rein in the use of harsh mandatory minimums.
The Obama administration has also expanded criteria for inmates applying for clemency, prioritizing nonviolent offenders who have behaved well in prison, aren't closely tied to gangs and would have received shorter sentences if they had been convicted a few years later.
COMMUTATIONS ISSUED BY THE LAST 11 PRESIDENTS
George W. Bush (2001-2009) - 11
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) - 61
George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) - 3
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) - 13
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) - 29
Gerald Ford (1974-1977) - 22
Richard Nixon (1969-1974) - 60
Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) - 226
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) - 100
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) - 47
Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) - 118
EDITOR’S NOTE: You can bet that many of the convicts whose sentences Obama commuted were involved in other crimes in addition to drug crimes, some even committing violent crimes, charges for which were dismissed in plea agreements.
As for those non-violent criminals liberals keep weeping and wailing for, a ‘non-violent’ criminal in jail is one less criminal on the streets!
By Dave Burke | Daily Mail | October 28, 2016
Nearly 100 federal inmates are set to be released early after intervention from Barack Obama - meaning the outgoing President has commuted more sentences than his 11 predecessors combined.
A clemency push has sped up in recent months, and on Thursday 98 had their sentences reduced.
Obama has now cut short the sentences of 872 inmates, including 688 this year. The latest batch included 42 who were serving life sentences, the White House confirmed.
By comparison, George W. Bush granted 11 commutations, and Bill Clinton approved 61.
The previous 11 presidents, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush, issued 690 between them. Since 1900, the president to grant the most commutations was Woodrow Wilson, Justice Department figures reveal. He approved 264.
The administration has said the move recognizes the 'personal stories' behind the sentences, and reflects Obama's belief that onerous sentencing requirements put tens of thousands behind bars for far too long, largely as a result of the 'War on Drugs' in the 1980s and 90s.
But critics, including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, have attacked the policy, accusing Obama of being soft on crime.
At a campaign rally in August, Trump told supporters: 'Some of these people are bad dudes.
'And these are people who are out, they're walking the streets. Sleep tight, folks.'
The President's White House counsel, Neil Eggleston, said: 'These are individuals - many of whom made mistakes at a young age - who have diligently worked to rehabilitate themselves while incarcerated.'
Most of the prisoners had been convicted of nonviolent drug crimes, mostly involving cocaine or methamphetamine.
Some were also serving time for firearms violations in connection to drug trafficking, possession or sales. Almost all are men who come from every corner of the US.
Earlier this month 102 sentences of mostly nonviolent drug offenders were commuted.
These included Lancell Maurice Harris, from Arkansas, who had been jailed for 421 months in 1993 for drug and firearm charges. He is now set to be released in February.
Some of the prisoners will be released early next year, while some will not be freed until as far forward as October 2018.
Among those listed for early release is Massachusetts drug dealer Alberto Lopez, who was serving a life term plus six years' supervised release after being convicted of possession and conspiracy charges related to distribution of heroin and cocaine.
He is due to be set free in February next year.
Obama has used the aggressive pace of his commutations to increase pressure on Congress to pass a broader fix to the justice system while using his executive powers to address individual cases where possible.
Though both parties in Congress have called for a criminal justice overhaul, momentum has mostly petered out, although both Republicans and Democrats agree the issue needs fixing.
Obama has been calling for years for phasing out strict sentences for drug offenses, arguing they lead to excessive punishment and incarceration rates unseen in other developed countries.
With Obama's support, the Justice Department in recent years directed prosecutors to rein in the use of harsh mandatory minimums.
The Obama administration has also expanded criteria for inmates applying for clemency, prioritizing nonviolent offenders who have behaved well in prison, aren't closely tied to gangs and would have received shorter sentences if they had been convicted a few years later.
COMMUTATIONS ISSUED BY THE LAST 11 PRESIDENTS
George W. Bush (2001-2009) - 11
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) - 61
George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) - 3
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) - 13
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) - 29
Gerald Ford (1974-1977) - 22
Richard Nixon (1969-1974) - 60
Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) - 226
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) - 100
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) - 47
Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) - 118
EDITOR’S NOTE: You can bet that many of the convicts whose sentences Obama commuted were involved in other crimes in addition to drug crimes, some even committing violent crimes, charges for which were dismissed in plea agreements.
As for those non-violent criminals liberals keep weeping and wailing for, a ‘non-violent’ criminal in jail is one less criminal on the streets!
AT LEAST IT WASN’T FOR A TRIVIAL REASON
By Bob Walsh
Miranda Kay Rader, 19, managed to tail-end a stopped police car a night or two ago in the city of Bryan, Texas. The Texas A&M student was drunk, and was taking a topless selfie of herself while driving to send to her boyfriend.
Ms. Rader was released on $200 bond and is being charged with DUI and possession of alcohol by a minor. I guess driving topless isn't a violation in Texas. I wonder if she actually got to send her picture and if they used it as her booking photo. Probably not, but still......
Neither car was badly damaged and nobody was hurt.
EDITOR’S NOTE: New Aggie joke. How does an Aggie coed take a selfie of her bare boobs while driving? By crashing into a cop car.
Miranda Kay Rader, 19, managed to tail-end a stopped police car a night or two ago in the city of Bryan, Texas. The Texas A&M student was drunk, and was taking a topless selfie of herself while driving to send to her boyfriend.
Ms. Rader was released on $200 bond and is being charged with DUI and possession of alcohol by a minor. I guess driving topless isn't a violation in Texas. I wonder if she actually got to send her picture and if they used it as her booking photo. Probably not, but still......
Neither car was badly damaged and nobody was hurt.
EDITOR’S NOTE: New Aggie joke. How does an Aggie coed take a selfie of her bare boobs while driving? By crashing into a cop car.
Friday, October 28, 2016
THE POLITICALIZED FBI
The initials ‘FBI’ now stand for the “Fix Be In”
By Debra J. Saunders | San Francisco Chronicle | October 26, 2016
The FBI’s reputation has sunk so low under the Obama administration that its initials seem to stand for: The Fix Be In. The bureau’s no-hurry investigation into Hillary Clinton’s deleted State Department emails seemed engineered to see no evil. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is replacing FBI agents and prosecutors who oppose charging New York police in the choke-hold death of Eric Garner (because they aren’t sure the police committed a crime and don’t think they can get a conviction) with staff who want to throw the book at the NYPD.
Pundits have voiced their fear that Trump would use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies — and rightly so after Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton and send her to jail. (So much for the presumption of innocence.) How can these same critics not see how the Obama Department of Justice has turned into a political arm of the Democratic Party?
Consider the Clinton investigation. The FBI granted limited immunity to five Clinton aides, including Paul Combetta, who deleted Clinton emails in March 2015 after Congress had subpoenaed her records. FBI agents waited a year before they questioned Clinton in July for an hour and a half. Shortly thereafter, Director James Comey said there would be no indictment in the case; even though Clinton did not hand over “several thousand” work emails to the State Department, there was no proof of “intentional misconduct.”
Lynch didn’t help herself when she met privately with former President Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac on July 2, while the investigation was under way. Lynch later admitted the meeting “cast a shadow” on her decision-making on the case, but assured the public she would “be accepting” the FBI prosecutors’ recommendation.
New York Police should be so lucky. As the Times reported, FBI officials in New York oppose bringing charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo and others involved in the 2014 arrest of Eric Garner, 43, for selling bootleg cigarettes. Pantaleo wrapped an arm around Garner’s neck. Garner protested, “I can’t breathe.” (After an ambulance arrived, Garner had a heart attack.)
It is painful to watch video of the fateful arrest, but a state grand jury saw the video, heard Pantaleo testify that he did not mean to use a choke hold, and chose not to bring charges in December 2014. The grand jury did not see intentional misconduct.
Brooklyn FBI officials who investigated Garner’s death oppose prosecuting Pantaleo and his fellow officers. Rather than heed them, Lynch is steering the case toward Washington staff in the Justice Department’s civil rights division who want to prosecute the arresting officers.
Clinton gets every consideration, NYPD gets every doubt. Pantaleo’s attorney Stuart London told the Times, “In our system of justice, politics should never take the place of rule of law.” That’s a quaint thought, but in this Obama administration there is a clear double standard. The bar is so unreasonably high there is no way prosecutors can establish if Clinton meant to break the law, but the Justice Department has few qualms about presuming the worst about beat cops.
By Debra J. Saunders | San Francisco Chronicle | October 26, 2016
The FBI’s reputation has sunk so low under the Obama administration that its initials seem to stand for: The Fix Be In. The bureau’s no-hurry investigation into Hillary Clinton’s deleted State Department emails seemed engineered to see no evil. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is replacing FBI agents and prosecutors who oppose charging New York police in the choke-hold death of Eric Garner (because they aren’t sure the police committed a crime and don’t think they can get a conviction) with staff who want to throw the book at the NYPD.
Pundits have voiced their fear that Trump would use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies — and rightly so after Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton and send her to jail. (So much for the presumption of innocence.) How can these same critics not see how the Obama Department of Justice has turned into a political arm of the Democratic Party?
Consider the Clinton investigation. The FBI granted limited immunity to five Clinton aides, including Paul Combetta, who deleted Clinton emails in March 2015 after Congress had subpoenaed her records. FBI agents waited a year before they questioned Clinton in July for an hour and a half. Shortly thereafter, Director James Comey said there would be no indictment in the case; even though Clinton did not hand over “several thousand” work emails to the State Department, there was no proof of “intentional misconduct.”
Lynch didn’t help herself when she met privately with former President Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac on July 2, while the investigation was under way. Lynch later admitted the meeting “cast a shadow” on her decision-making on the case, but assured the public she would “be accepting” the FBI prosecutors’ recommendation.
New York Police should be so lucky. As the Times reported, FBI officials in New York oppose bringing charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo and others involved in the 2014 arrest of Eric Garner, 43, for selling bootleg cigarettes. Pantaleo wrapped an arm around Garner’s neck. Garner protested, “I can’t breathe.” (After an ambulance arrived, Garner had a heart attack.)
It is painful to watch video of the fateful arrest, but a state grand jury saw the video, heard Pantaleo testify that he did not mean to use a choke hold, and chose not to bring charges in December 2014. The grand jury did not see intentional misconduct.
Brooklyn FBI officials who investigated Garner’s death oppose prosecuting Pantaleo and his fellow officers. Rather than heed them, Lynch is steering the case toward Washington staff in the Justice Department’s civil rights division who want to prosecute the arresting officers.
Clinton gets every consideration, NYPD gets every doubt. Pantaleo’s attorney Stuart London told the Times, “In our system of justice, politics should never take the place of rule of law.” That’s a quaint thought, but in this Obama administration there is a clear double standard. The bar is so unreasonably high there is no way prosecutors can establish if Clinton meant to break the law, but the Justice Department has few qualms about presuming the worst about beat cops.
A LAWYER’S MURDER MAKES A WEIRD HOUSTON DIVORCE CASE A LOT WEIRDER
By Craig Malisow | Houston Press | August 19, 2016
The lawyers representing a Pakistani native in a high-profile Houston divorce case say the man's estranged wife's family may be behind the murder of a witness scheduled to testify in Houston next week.
In one of the most bizarre motions we've ever seen, lawyers for Mohammad Ali Choudhri claimed Wednesday that attorney Fahad Malik — who was shot to death in his car in Islamabad on Monday — was killed because he planned to testify that Choudhri's wife, Hira Azhar, was already married to a different man when she wedded Choudhri in 2008.
Malik was representing Azhar's alleged first husband, who had already gone into hiding over death threats from Azhar's relatives, according to the emergency motion written in hardboiled-detective-story prose (and we mean that as a compliment) by lawyer Doug York.
But first, let's back up a bit: Choudhri, a wealthy real estate magnate who spends a great amount of time suing people and being sued, married Azhar in Pakistan, when she was 18 and he was 28. (The marriage was arranged, as many are in Pakistan.)
Choudhri returned to Houston shortly afterwards, and Azhar followed in 2010. But Choudhri claims that he divorced Azhar in 2012 by invoking a Muslim ritual of "talaq" — saying "I divorce you" three times in a row — on the day she flew to Pakistan to visit family.
Choudhri later filed a formal divorce petition in Pakistan, and Azhar filed her own petition in Houston. Now, courts in Texas and Pakistan are trying to hash out who has jurisdiction.
In a 17-page affidavit, Azhar describes Choudhri as a monstrous man-child who not only lived with his parents, but preferred to sleep between them in bed, rather than sleep with his wife.
She accuses Choudhri of hitting, kicking and choking her; of isolating her from friends; and of treating her like a servant. According to Azhar, Choudhri's sense of superiority knew no bounds; he allegedly made her kiss his feet and once beat her after she confronted him with evidence of an affair that she found on his cell phone.
Choudhri argues that the Pakistan court has jurisdiction, and, in a surprise move just weeks before the scheduled August 23 hearing, Choudhri's lawyers say they found documentation showing that Azhar had married another man six months before meeting Choudhri.
Azhar denies the allegation, and her lawyers say the marriage license is a fake.
Enter Fahad Malik, an Islamabad attorney who allegedly represented the alleged first husband, which we realize is a lot of allegedlies, but since there's a vast amount of alleged hogwash being slung in this case, it's difficult to tell what's what.
Malik was scheduled to testify he did indeed represent Faisal Zafar Malik (no relation, as far as we know), the man who claimed to be the first husband, and that his client was in fact married to Azhar.
In an affidavit, Faisal Malik, who was born in the U.K. and is a British citizen, swore that he married Azhar in front of witnesses in May 2008, and that she wanted to move to England. He alleged that "on or near 2009," she cut off contact with him. But that's not all; Faisal Malik also offers relevant details like "I used to drive a 7 series blue BMW" and "on many occasions, I picked up [Azhar] and she rode in my BMW." (In a twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan, the affidavit also states that he also once drove her in a Honda Civic.)
According to the emergency motion filed Wednesday, Faisal Malik was going to testify, but was scared after "men with guns" went to his home and threatened him. The man "had to flee the area in fear of his life."
As York notes in the motion, "it was reported that Hira Azhar's uncle had gang type ties and was capable of carrying out deadly threats." Exactly who "reported" this is unclear, as is much of the emergency motion, which is thoroughly unencumbered by supporting evidence for these threats, and contains passages like this:
"The first husband's attorney reported that it was getting extremely 'hot' for his client, that the intimidation of death was accompanied with a bribe request of $300,000 for either stating that he was never married to Hira Azhar, or...'disappear' and never testify against Hira Azhar."
That's some shrewd planning by these "gang-type" men — they threaten to kill a dude while simultaneously offering him a boatload of cash. That's what's known, in gang-type parlance, as covering your bases. But we digress.
Pakistani news reports of Malik's murder are light on details. Ary News reported that Malik and an associate were shot as they left a police station, shortly after Malik tried to mediate a skirmish between the associate and a rival group. The skirmish was allegedly "over a girl." (According to Propakistani, the skirmish started over a comment posted on Facebook.)
York stops just short of formally saying Azhar's family did the whacking or paid for it; he just allows the reader to connect the dots. This gives enough room to throw in other potential conspirators, like long-time Choudhri nemesis Osama Abdullatif, with whom Choudhri has been embroiled in lengthy, convoluted litigation. (Choudhri's lawyers say that Abdullatif helped Azhar return to Houston and has been supporting her financially.)
The motion alleges that Choudhri won a multimillion-dollar judgment against Abdullatif, which was "the proverbial 'last straw'" for Abdullatif, who "sought out ways to recoup his monies and 'get Mr. Choudhri.'"
To wit:
"It should be noted that during a time when Ali Choudhri and Osama Abdullatif were going through a civil lawsuit, it is well documented that [Abdullatif] employed the same tactics when approximately ten persons with guns stormed into [Choudhri's] office making threats."
However, Lloyd Kelley, another lawyer representing Choudhri, told the Houston Press that while it's not clear if Malik's murder was connected to the Choudhri case, Malik had recently said he was concerned about his safety.
"He told me last week that people were following him and he was very worried," Kelley said. "...He believed that he was in danger and that [Faisal Malik] was in danger."
Kelley said that the emergency motion (which he said he didn't read) was a response to Azhar's attorneys' request to conduct depositions in Pakistan, and that the main purpose was to show Judge David Farr that it would be dangerous to drag Houston lawyers into Pakistani court proceedings.
The lawyers representing a Pakistani native in a high-profile Houston divorce case say the man's estranged wife's family may be behind the murder of a witness scheduled to testify in Houston next week.
In one of the most bizarre motions we've ever seen, lawyers for Mohammad Ali Choudhri claimed Wednesday that attorney Fahad Malik — who was shot to death in his car in Islamabad on Monday — was killed because he planned to testify that Choudhri's wife, Hira Azhar, was already married to a different man when she wedded Choudhri in 2008.
Malik was representing Azhar's alleged first husband, who had already gone into hiding over death threats from Azhar's relatives, according to the emergency motion written in hardboiled-detective-story prose (and we mean that as a compliment) by lawyer Doug York.
But first, let's back up a bit: Choudhri, a wealthy real estate magnate who spends a great amount of time suing people and being sued, married Azhar in Pakistan, when she was 18 and he was 28. (The marriage was arranged, as many are in Pakistan.)
Choudhri returned to Houston shortly afterwards, and Azhar followed in 2010. But Choudhri claims that he divorced Azhar in 2012 by invoking a Muslim ritual of "talaq" — saying "I divorce you" three times in a row — on the day she flew to Pakistan to visit family.
Choudhri later filed a formal divorce petition in Pakistan, and Azhar filed her own petition in Houston. Now, courts in Texas and Pakistan are trying to hash out who has jurisdiction.
In a 17-page affidavit, Azhar describes Choudhri as a monstrous man-child who not only lived with his parents, but preferred to sleep between them in bed, rather than sleep with his wife.
She accuses Choudhri of hitting, kicking and choking her; of isolating her from friends; and of treating her like a servant. According to Azhar, Choudhri's sense of superiority knew no bounds; he allegedly made her kiss his feet and once beat her after she confronted him with evidence of an affair that she found on his cell phone.
Choudhri argues that the Pakistan court has jurisdiction, and, in a surprise move just weeks before the scheduled August 23 hearing, Choudhri's lawyers say they found documentation showing that Azhar had married another man six months before meeting Choudhri.
Azhar denies the allegation, and her lawyers say the marriage license is a fake.
Enter Fahad Malik, an Islamabad attorney who allegedly represented the alleged first husband, which we realize is a lot of allegedlies, but since there's a vast amount of alleged hogwash being slung in this case, it's difficult to tell what's what.
Malik was scheduled to testify he did indeed represent Faisal Zafar Malik (no relation, as far as we know), the man who claimed to be the first husband, and that his client was in fact married to Azhar.
In an affidavit, Faisal Malik, who was born in the U.K. and is a British citizen, swore that he married Azhar in front of witnesses in May 2008, and that she wanted to move to England. He alleged that "on or near 2009," she cut off contact with him. But that's not all; Faisal Malik also offers relevant details like "I used to drive a 7 series blue BMW" and "on many occasions, I picked up [Azhar] and she rode in my BMW." (In a twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan, the affidavit also states that he also once drove her in a Honda Civic.)
According to the emergency motion filed Wednesday, Faisal Malik was going to testify, but was scared after "men with guns" went to his home and threatened him. The man "had to flee the area in fear of his life."
As York notes in the motion, "it was reported that Hira Azhar's uncle had gang type ties and was capable of carrying out deadly threats." Exactly who "reported" this is unclear, as is much of the emergency motion, which is thoroughly unencumbered by supporting evidence for these threats, and contains passages like this:
"The first husband's attorney reported that it was getting extremely 'hot' for his client, that the intimidation of death was accompanied with a bribe request of $300,000 for either stating that he was never married to Hira Azhar, or...'disappear' and never testify against Hira Azhar."
That's some shrewd planning by these "gang-type" men — they threaten to kill a dude while simultaneously offering him a boatload of cash. That's what's known, in gang-type parlance, as covering your bases. But we digress.
Pakistani news reports of Malik's murder are light on details. Ary News reported that Malik and an associate were shot as they left a police station, shortly after Malik tried to mediate a skirmish between the associate and a rival group. The skirmish was allegedly "over a girl." (According to Propakistani, the skirmish started over a comment posted on Facebook.)
York stops just short of formally saying Azhar's family did the whacking or paid for it; he just allows the reader to connect the dots. This gives enough room to throw in other potential conspirators, like long-time Choudhri nemesis Osama Abdullatif, with whom Choudhri has been embroiled in lengthy, convoluted litigation. (Choudhri's lawyers say that Abdullatif helped Azhar return to Houston and has been supporting her financially.)
The motion alleges that Choudhri won a multimillion-dollar judgment against Abdullatif, which was "the proverbial 'last straw'" for Abdullatif, who "sought out ways to recoup his monies and 'get Mr. Choudhri.'"
To wit:
"It should be noted that during a time when Ali Choudhri and Osama Abdullatif were going through a civil lawsuit, it is well documented that [Abdullatif] employed the same tactics when approximately ten persons with guns stormed into [Choudhri's] office making threats."
However, Lloyd Kelley, another lawyer representing Choudhri, told the Houston Press that while it's not clear if Malik's murder was connected to the Choudhri case, Malik had recently said he was concerned about his safety.
"He told me last week that people were following him and he was very worried," Kelley said. "...He believed that he was in danger and that [Faisal Malik] was in danger."
Kelley said that the emergency motion (which he said he didn't read) was a response to Azhar's attorneys' request to conduct depositions in Pakistan, and that the main purpose was to show Judge David Farr that it would be dangerous to drag Houston lawyers into Pakistani court proceedings.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
HOW TO BITE YOURSELF ON THE ASS
By Bob Walsh
Bayzle Dylan Morgan, 25, is currently a guest of the people of Clark County, Nevada. He is currently undergoing trial for capital murder. He wants to wear makeup at his trial. Clark County District Court Judge Michelle Leavitt just recently told him to pound sand.
He doesn’t want to hide an acne scare or enhance his eyes. He wants to cover up the Nazi tattoos on his face.
Morgan has a swastika and clover under his left eye and the words MOST WANTED across his forehead. He has BABY NAZI on his neck and has various white supremacist tattoos in place of normal eyebrows.
During another trial when Morgan was found guilty of threatening a man and ripping off his motorcycle the judge ordered Morgan to cover the tattoos. He is awaiting sentencing on that case.
Morgan is undergoing trial for beating and shooting to death a 75-year old woman in her home. He pistol-whipped her so vigorously he broke the trigger guard of his pistol, then shot the woman in the back of the head.
Morgan’s getaway driver, who never entered the house, has been sentenced to 4-10 years on burglary.
The judge has said she believes Morgan can get a fair trial despite his unusual personal decorations, which some people may find offensive.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s see now. If Morgan were to be tried by a jury of his peers, his jury would be composed of white supremacists and neo-Nazis who would acquit him as fast as O.J. Simpson’s jury acquitted that scumbag.
Bayzle Dylan Morgan, 25, is currently a guest of the people of Clark County, Nevada. He is currently undergoing trial for capital murder. He wants to wear makeup at his trial. Clark County District Court Judge Michelle Leavitt just recently told him to pound sand.
He doesn’t want to hide an acne scare or enhance his eyes. He wants to cover up the Nazi tattoos on his face.
Morgan has a swastika and clover under his left eye and the words MOST WANTED across his forehead. He has BABY NAZI on his neck and has various white supremacist tattoos in place of normal eyebrows.
During another trial when Morgan was found guilty of threatening a man and ripping off his motorcycle the judge ordered Morgan to cover the tattoos. He is awaiting sentencing on that case.
Morgan is undergoing trial for beating and shooting to death a 75-year old woman in her home. He pistol-whipped her so vigorously he broke the trigger guard of his pistol, then shot the woman in the back of the head.
Morgan’s getaway driver, who never entered the house, has been sentenced to 4-10 years on burglary.
The judge has said she believes Morgan can get a fair trial despite his unusual personal decorations, which some people may find offensive.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s see now. If Morgan were to be tried by a jury of his peers, his jury would be composed of white supremacists and neo-Nazis who would acquit him as fast as O.J. Simpson’s jury acquitted that scumbag.
BY ALL MEANS, TAKE MOSUL BUT …..
ISIS, like the matador’s red cape, distracts from the truly mortal danger—a nuclear Iran chanting ‘Death to America.’
By Mark Helprin | The Wall Street Journal | October 23, 2016
By all means, take Mosul, and continue on until ISIS is no more.
But ISIS, also known as Islamic State, is and has been the wrong focus. Were it not holding hostage the scattered populations it controls in urban areas, a properly directed military coalition of two or three Western powers, or the United States alone, could roll it up in a week. Even as things are, and despite the chaos and cross-loyalties in the present theater of war, with competent diplomacy and military force ISIS could be crushed in a matter of months. The key is NATO’s activation under Article 5 in behalf of alliance member Turkey, which, if only technically, has nonetheless come sufficiently under attack to do so.
With air support from American and French carriers in the Mediterranean, the U.S. Air Force at Incirlik and Gulf bases, and the Turkish, Saudi, and Gulf States air forces, in very short order Turkish divisions from the north could link up with Saudi, Jordanian and an Egyptian expeditionary force from the south, stiffened by American, British, and other NATO units where needed, to cut Syria in half. With Kurds and Iraqis closing from the east, this would simultaneously surround ISIS and confine the Syrian regime in a truncated enclave shielded by its Russian patrons.
The primary purpose of such action, however, would not be to defeat ISIS. Though at the moment ISIS is undeniably the most publicity-rich and barbaric of the jihadist movements, in relation to its structure and resources its ambition to unify the Islamic world has—as in the case of bin Laden, Nasser, and the Mahdi of the Sudan—doomed it from the start. While much has been made of its links to other jihadists in Africa and elsewhere, these alliances have little practical effect, being little more than the distant salutes from one group of psychotics to another. That ISIS has survived for years is less a testament to it than an indictment of the quaking West.
Much more befitting of the power and history of the U.S. and its allies would be to sever and destroy the toxic, threatening bridge that Iran has built from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, with, astoundingly, the patronage of the president of the United States. Anchored by soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, an integrated politico-religious-military front including Shiite-directed Iraq, Syria and Lebanon will emerge in the near future if current trajectories remain undisturbed.
This entity will have a population almost half that of the United States; the immense oil wealth of Iran and Iraq; ports on the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean; nuclear weapons; ICBMs; and, until it will no longer need Russia, for which it has no brief, the mischievous and destructive cooperation of Vladimir Putin.
If, under the discipline of an Iran drunk with its successful bamboozling of the West, this power turns its eyes south to Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the Middle East will be entirely transformed. When Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, so will Saudi Arabia. The Shiite population of the Gulf States will be emboldened. Egypt will have to choose appeasement or standing with its Sunni co-religionists. How these elements would sort themselves out cannot be known in advance, but keep in mind that the cultures and governments of the Islamic world are hardly shy about violence and war.
The particular irony here is that during the Cold War the U.S. and Britain created the toothless and ineffective Central Treaty Organization (Cento), known, until 1959 when Iraq dropped out, as the Baghdad Pact. Cento was created to throw the same east-west bar across the Middle East (then including Pakistan) that Iran is in the latter stages of securing. The purpose was to block Soviet expansion southward toward warm-water ports. Despite the efforts of Eisenhower and Dulles, Cento quickly became an alliance just in name.
President Obama has succeeded where they could not, in building that structure—for Iran. For the leading state sponsor of terrorism. For a fanatical nation that in 10 years or less will possess nuclear warheads and ICBMs. For a nation that captures and humiliates our citizens, diplomats and sailors, that supplied the focused charges that killed our soldiers in Iraq, and that chants “Death to America” at the opening of its parliament.
Iran need not fulfill any part of the nuclear agreement it has not even signed and that in the view of our State Department is not legally binding. Even if it were, who knows how the Farsi text might be interpreted? Yet, despite Iran’s violations of United Nations resolutions and its ongoing depredations across the Middle East, we honor and exceed our “obligations,” and shower the Iranians with money, ransom, access, encouragement, and protection. Only the genius of Barack Obama and the cunning of John Kerry (in his presence the Iranians understandably smiled with joy) were capable of achieving this while simultaneously bringing about the reintroduction of Russia into the region, in force—a feat that over 42 years and 10 administrations, Republican and Democrat, no one else was able to accomplish.
Before World War I, the U.S. was focused on Pancho Villa, and sent a much heralded expedition that failed to catch him. But even as he was fading away, he captured the American imagination. All the while, Germany was rising, and because we were unable to see how this would play out, and because some saw Germany as our natural ally, we were blind to it.
Now we are blinded to Iran in favor of ISIS—in its horror and sensationalism the matador’s red cape that distracts from the truly mortal threat, the sword. We know that the Iranians are skillfully using this dynamic. The question is, given Mr. Obama’s seemingly inexplicable yet indefatigable sponsorship of Iran, and his slow-motion approach to ISIS, is he using it as well?
By Mark Helprin | The Wall Street Journal | October 23, 2016
By all means, take Mosul, and continue on until ISIS is no more.
But ISIS, also known as Islamic State, is and has been the wrong focus. Were it not holding hostage the scattered populations it controls in urban areas, a properly directed military coalition of two or three Western powers, or the United States alone, could roll it up in a week. Even as things are, and despite the chaos and cross-loyalties in the present theater of war, with competent diplomacy and military force ISIS could be crushed in a matter of months. The key is NATO’s activation under Article 5 in behalf of alliance member Turkey, which, if only technically, has nonetheless come sufficiently under attack to do so.
With air support from American and French carriers in the Mediterranean, the U.S. Air Force at Incirlik and Gulf bases, and the Turkish, Saudi, and Gulf States air forces, in very short order Turkish divisions from the north could link up with Saudi, Jordanian and an Egyptian expeditionary force from the south, stiffened by American, British, and other NATO units where needed, to cut Syria in half. With Kurds and Iraqis closing from the east, this would simultaneously surround ISIS and confine the Syrian regime in a truncated enclave shielded by its Russian patrons.
The primary purpose of such action, however, would not be to defeat ISIS. Though at the moment ISIS is undeniably the most publicity-rich and barbaric of the jihadist movements, in relation to its structure and resources its ambition to unify the Islamic world has—as in the case of bin Laden, Nasser, and the Mahdi of the Sudan—doomed it from the start. While much has been made of its links to other jihadists in Africa and elsewhere, these alliances have little practical effect, being little more than the distant salutes from one group of psychotics to another. That ISIS has survived for years is less a testament to it than an indictment of the quaking West.
Much more befitting of the power and history of the U.S. and its allies would be to sever and destroy the toxic, threatening bridge that Iran has built from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, with, astoundingly, the patronage of the president of the United States. Anchored by soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, an integrated politico-religious-military front including Shiite-directed Iraq, Syria and Lebanon will emerge in the near future if current trajectories remain undisturbed.
This entity will have a population almost half that of the United States; the immense oil wealth of Iran and Iraq; ports on the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean; nuclear weapons; ICBMs; and, until it will no longer need Russia, for which it has no brief, the mischievous and destructive cooperation of Vladimir Putin.
If, under the discipline of an Iran drunk with its successful bamboozling of the West, this power turns its eyes south to Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the Middle East will be entirely transformed. When Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, so will Saudi Arabia. The Shiite population of the Gulf States will be emboldened. Egypt will have to choose appeasement or standing with its Sunni co-religionists. How these elements would sort themselves out cannot be known in advance, but keep in mind that the cultures and governments of the Islamic world are hardly shy about violence and war.
The particular irony here is that during the Cold War the U.S. and Britain created the toothless and ineffective Central Treaty Organization (Cento), known, until 1959 when Iraq dropped out, as the Baghdad Pact. Cento was created to throw the same east-west bar across the Middle East (then including Pakistan) that Iran is in the latter stages of securing. The purpose was to block Soviet expansion southward toward warm-water ports. Despite the efforts of Eisenhower and Dulles, Cento quickly became an alliance just in name.
President Obama has succeeded where they could not, in building that structure—for Iran. For the leading state sponsor of terrorism. For a fanatical nation that in 10 years or less will possess nuclear warheads and ICBMs. For a nation that captures and humiliates our citizens, diplomats and sailors, that supplied the focused charges that killed our soldiers in Iraq, and that chants “Death to America” at the opening of its parliament.
Iran need not fulfill any part of the nuclear agreement it has not even signed and that in the view of our State Department is not legally binding. Even if it were, who knows how the Farsi text might be interpreted? Yet, despite Iran’s violations of United Nations resolutions and its ongoing depredations across the Middle East, we honor and exceed our “obligations,” and shower the Iranians with money, ransom, access, encouragement, and protection. Only the genius of Barack Obama and the cunning of John Kerry (in his presence the Iranians understandably smiled with joy) were capable of achieving this while simultaneously bringing about the reintroduction of Russia into the region, in force—a feat that over 42 years and 10 administrations, Republican and Democrat, no one else was able to accomplish.
Before World War I, the U.S. was focused on Pancho Villa, and sent a much heralded expedition that failed to catch him. But even as he was fading away, he captured the American imagination. All the while, Germany was rising, and because we were unable to see how this would play out, and because some saw Germany as our natural ally, we were blind to it.
Now we are blinded to Iran in favor of ISIS—in its horror and sensationalism the matador’s red cape that distracts from the truly mortal threat, the sword. We know that the Iranians are skillfully using this dynamic. The question is, given Mr. Obama’s seemingly inexplicable yet indefatigable sponsorship of Iran, and his slow-motion approach to ISIS, is he using it as well?
JUST ASK A LITTLE KID
If you want a good answer, just ask a little kid. Here is what some little kids wrote down when asked questions about personal relationships.
HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHOM TO MARRY?
You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if you like sports, she should like it that you like sports, and she should keep the chips and dip coming.
-- Alan, age 10
No person really decides before they grow up who they're going to marry. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later who you're stuck with.
-- Kristen, age 10
WHAT IS THE RIGHT AGE TO GET MARRIED?
Twenty-three is the best age because you know the person FOREVER by then..
-- Camille, age 10
HOW CAN A STRANGER TELL IF TWO PEOPLE ARE MARRIED?
You might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be yelling at the same kids.
-- Derrick, age 8
WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR MOM AND DAD HAVE IN COMMON?
Both don't want any more kids.
-- Lori, age 8
WHAT DO MOST PEOPLE DO ON A DATE?
Dates are for having fun, and people should use them to get to know each other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough.
-- Lynnette, age 8 (Give her an A+)
On the first date, they just tell each other lies and that usually gets them interested enough to go for a second date.
-- Martin, age 10
WHEN IS IT OKAY TO KISS SOMEONE?
When they're rich.
-- Pam, age 7 (Give her an A+ too)
The law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn't want to mess with that.
- - Curt, age 7
The rule goes like this: If you kiss someone, then you should marry them and have kids
with them. It's the right thing to do.
-- Howard, age 8
IS IT BETTER TO BE SINGLE OR MARRIED?
It's better for girls to be single but not for boys. Boys need someone to
clean up after them.
-- Anita, age 9 (Another A+)
HOW WOULD THE WORLD BE DIFFERENT IF PEOPLE DIDN'T GET MARRIED?
There sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn't there?
-- Kelvin, age 8
HOW WOULD YOU MAKE A MARRIAGE WORK?
Tell your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a dump truck.
-- Ricky, age 9 (Give him an A++ for the best answer)
HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHOM TO MARRY?
You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if you like sports, she should like it that you like sports, and she should keep the chips and dip coming.
-- Alan, age 10
No person really decides before they grow up who they're going to marry. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later who you're stuck with.
-- Kristen, age 10
WHAT IS THE RIGHT AGE TO GET MARRIED?
Twenty-three is the best age because you know the person FOREVER by then..
-- Camille, age 10
HOW CAN A STRANGER TELL IF TWO PEOPLE ARE MARRIED?
You might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be yelling at the same kids.
-- Derrick, age 8
WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR MOM AND DAD HAVE IN COMMON?
Both don't want any more kids.
-- Lori, age 8
WHAT DO MOST PEOPLE DO ON A DATE?
Dates are for having fun, and people should use them to get to know each other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough.
-- Lynnette, age 8 (Give her an A+)
On the first date, they just tell each other lies and that usually gets them interested enough to go for a second date.
-- Martin, age 10
WHEN IS IT OKAY TO KISS SOMEONE?
When they're rich.
-- Pam, age 7 (Give her an A+ too)
The law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn't want to mess with that.
- - Curt, age 7
The rule goes like this: If you kiss someone, then you should marry them and have kids
with them. It's the right thing to do.
-- Howard, age 8
IS IT BETTER TO BE SINGLE OR MARRIED?
It's better for girls to be single but not for boys. Boys need someone to
clean up after them.
-- Anita, age 9 (Another A+)
HOW WOULD THE WORLD BE DIFFERENT IF PEOPLE DIDN'T GET MARRIED?
There sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn't there?
-- Kelvin, age 8
HOW WOULD YOU MAKE A MARRIAGE WORK?
Tell your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a dump truck.
-- Ricky, age 9 (Give him an A++ for the best answer)
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
AMERICANS’ RESPECT FOR POLICE SURGES
80% of whites and 67% of nonwhites say they have "a great deal" of respect for the police in their area
by Justin McCarthy | Gallup | October 24, 2016
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Three in four Americans (76%) say they have "a great deal" of respect for the police in their area, up 12 percentage points from last year.
In addition to the large majority of Americans expressing "a great deal" of respect for their local police, 17% say they have "some" respect while 7% say they have "hardly any."
Gallup has asked this question nine times since 1965. The percentage who say they respect the police is significantly higher now than in any measurement taken since the 1990s and is just one point below the high of 77% recorded in 1967. Solid majorities of Americans have said they respect their local law enforcement in all polls conducted since 1965.
The latest figures, from Gallup's Oct. 5-9 annual poll on crime, show Americans' respect for police increased as the number of on-duty police officers who were shot and killed was on the rise.
Americans' confidence in police has also increased after falling to a 22-year low in 2015 and recovering in this year's poll. The latter was conducted in early June, before police officers were shot and killed in separate incidents in Texas and Louisiana.
Respect for Police Up Sharply Among Both Whites and Nonwhites
The increase in shootings of police coincided with high-profile incidents of law enforcement officials shooting and killing unarmed black men. Despite the flaring of racial tensions after these incidents, respect for local police has increased among both whites and nonwhites.
Four in five whites (80%) say they have a great deal of respect for police in their area, up 11 points from last year. Meanwhile, two in three nonwhites (67%) report having the same level of respect, an increase of 14 points from last year.
Since 2000, whites have been more likely than nonwhites to say they respect local law enforcement.
Respect for Police Up Among Age and Party Groups in 2016
In addition to the increases across racial groups, respect for local law enforcement has increased among most political party, ideological and age groups. It has also improved among city, suburban and rural area residents. Liberals, rural residents and young adults saw the sharpest increases -- of 19 to 21 points -- from 2015 to 2016.
Respect for police remains highest among Republicans (86%) and conservatives (85%), but solid majorities of Democrats (68%) and liberals (71%) report the same level of respect.
Adults aged 55 and older (81%) are more likely than those aged 18 to 34 (69%) to have a great deal of respect for police.
About four in five Americans who say they live in a suburb (82%) or a town or rural area (80%) report having a great deal of respect for local police officers, higher than the percentage of those who live in small or large cities (68%) who say the same.
Bottom Line
The sharp increase over the past year in professed respect for local law enforcement comes as many police say they feel they are on the defensive -- both politically and for their lives while they are on duty -- amid heated national discussions on police brutality and shootings. After an officer was killed by a gunman in Harlem last year, then-New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton warned that the U.S. has fostered "an anti-police attitude that has grown" and that the national dialogue on police-community relations needs to discourage individuals who "exhibit anti-police behavior or attitudes."
Louisiana became the first state to pass a bill that treats acts targeted against police officers as a hate crime. Other states are discussing passing similar laws. It's unclear whether the spike in respect for police will have staying power or if it reflects mostly a reaction to the retaliatory killings against police officers last summer.
Although confidence in police varies among subgroups, majorities of all groups say they have a great deal of respect for their local police. And the percentage of national adults who say they have "hardly any" respect for local law enforcement remains small.
EDITORS NOTE: I believe the surge of respect for the police results from the Black Lives Matter-inspired cop killings.
With 67% of nonwhites saying they have "a great deal" of respect for the police, this Gallup poll belies the media fed perception that minorities distrust the police.
by Justin McCarthy | Gallup | October 24, 2016
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Three in four Americans (76%) say they have "a great deal" of respect for the police in their area, up 12 percentage points from last year.
In addition to the large majority of Americans expressing "a great deal" of respect for their local police, 17% say they have "some" respect while 7% say they have "hardly any."
Gallup has asked this question nine times since 1965. The percentage who say they respect the police is significantly higher now than in any measurement taken since the 1990s and is just one point below the high of 77% recorded in 1967. Solid majorities of Americans have said they respect their local law enforcement in all polls conducted since 1965.
The latest figures, from Gallup's Oct. 5-9 annual poll on crime, show Americans' respect for police increased as the number of on-duty police officers who were shot and killed was on the rise.
Americans' confidence in police has also increased after falling to a 22-year low in 2015 and recovering in this year's poll. The latter was conducted in early June, before police officers were shot and killed in separate incidents in Texas and Louisiana.
Respect for Police Up Sharply Among Both Whites and Nonwhites
The increase in shootings of police coincided with high-profile incidents of law enforcement officials shooting and killing unarmed black men. Despite the flaring of racial tensions after these incidents, respect for local police has increased among both whites and nonwhites.
Four in five whites (80%) say they have a great deal of respect for police in their area, up 11 points from last year. Meanwhile, two in three nonwhites (67%) report having the same level of respect, an increase of 14 points from last year.
Since 2000, whites have been more likely than nonwhites to say they respect local law enforcement.
Respect for Police Up Among Age and Party Groups in 2016
In addition to the increases across racial groups, respect for local law enforcement has increased among most political party, ideological and age groups. It has also improved among city, suburban and rural area residents. Liberals, rural residents and young adults saw the sharpest increases -- of 19 to 21 points -- from 2015 to 2016.
Respect for police remains highest among Republicans (86%) and conservatives (85%), but solid majorities of Democrats (68%) and liberals (71%) report the same level of respect.
Adults aged 55 and older (81%) are more likely than those aged 18 to 34 (69%) to have a great deal of respect for police.
About four in five Americans who say they live in a suburb (82%) or a town or rural area (80%) report having a great deal of respect for local police officers, higher than the percentage of those who live in small or large cities (68%) who say the same.
Bottom Line
The sharp increase over the past year in professed respect for local law enforcement comes as many police say they feel they are on the defensive -- both politically and for their lives while they are on duty -- amid heated national discussions on police brutality and shootings. After an officer was killed by a gunman in Harlem last year, then-New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton warned that the U.S. has fostered "an anti-police attitude that has grown" and that the national dialogue on police-community relations needs to discourage individuals who "exhibit anti-police behavior or attitudes."
Louisiana became the first state to pass a bill that treats acts targeted against police officers as a hate crime. Other states are discussing passing similar laws. It's unclear whether the spike in respect for police will have staying power or if it reflects mostly a reaction to the retaliatory killings against police officers last summer.
Although confidence in police varies among subgroups, majorities of all groups say they have a great deal of respect for their local police. And the percentage of national adults who say they have "hardly any" respect for local law enforcement remains small.
EDITORS NOTE: I believe the surge of respect for the police results from the Black Lives Matter-inspired cop killings.
With 67% of nonwhites saying they have "a great deal" of respect for the police, this Gallup poll belies the media fed perception that minorities distrust the police.
THE MYTH OF THE RACIST COP
Four studies out this year show that if police are biased, it’s in favor of blacks
By Heather Mac Donald | The Wall Street Journal | October 24, 2016
FBI Director James Comey has again defied the official White House line on policing and the
Black Lives Matter movement. The “narrative that policing is biased and violent and unfair” is
resulting in “more dead young black men,” Mr. Comey warned in an Oct. 16 address to the
International Association of Chiefs of Police in San Diego. That narrative, he added, also
“threatens the future of policing.”
Mr. Comey has spoken out before. In October 2015, after he observed that rising violent crime
was likely the result of officers backing off proactive policing, President Obamaobliquely
accused the FBI director of “cherry-pick[ing] data” and “feed[ing] political agendas.”
But as much as Mr. Obama has tried to dismiss the violent crime increase that began after the
2014 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., the data are clear.
Last year’s 12% increase in homicides reported to the FBI is the largest one-year homicide
increase in nearly half a century. The primary victims have been black. An additional 900 black
males were killed last year compared with the previous year, resulting in a homicide
victimization rate that is now nine times greater for black males than for white males, according
to a Guardian study. The brutality of these killings can be shocking. Over the weekend of Sept.
16, a 15-year-old boy in Chicago was burned alive in a dumpster.
More police are being killed this year too. Gun murders of police officers are up 47% nationally
through Oct. 21, compared with the same period the previous year. In Chicago gun assaults on
officers are up 100%. In New York City attacks on officers are up 23%. In the last two weeks,
four California officers have been deliberately murdered.
Gangbanger John Felix prepared for his lethal attack on two Palm Springs officers on Oct. 8 by
setting a trap and ambushing them as they stood outside his door. Two days earlier,
parolee Trenton Trevon Lovell shot Los Angeles Sheriff’s Sgt. Steve Owen in the face as he
investigated a burglary call. Lovell then stood over Sgt. Owen and fired four additional rounds
into his body. A planned assassination of two officers on coffee break in Vallejo, Calif., on Oct.
17 failed only when the assault rifle used in the attack jammed. In Indianapolis on Oct. 13, police
headquarters were sprayed with bullets by a car that then fled, echoing a similar attack on Oct. 4
against the same police station.
Officers are second-guessing their own justified use of force for fear of being labeled racist and
losing their jobs, if not their freedom. On Oct. 5 a female officer in Chicago was beaten
unconscious by a suspect in a car crash, who repeatedly bashed her face into the concrete and
tore out chunks of her hair. She refrained from using her gun, she said, because she didn’t want
to become the next viral video in the Black Lives Matter narrative.
The Chicago Police Department now wants to institutionalize such dangerous second-guessing.
Its proposed guidelines for using force would require cops to consider the “impact that even a
reasonable use of force may have on those who observe” it.
A Los Angeles police officer recently described to me his current thought process in deciding
whether to intervene in suspicious or criminal behavior. A man high on meth was violently
accosting pedestrians around a Santa Monica bike path. The cops were “very hesitant to arrest,”
the officer said, because “we knew we would be on YouTube before we could get back to the
station.” That reluctance to make contact intensifies when the suspect is black, he added.
The Black Lives Matter narrative about an epidemic of racially biased police shootings is false:
Four studies published this year showed that if there is a bias in police shootings, it works in
favor of blacks and against whites. Officers’ use of lethal force following an arrest for a violent
felony is more than twice the rate for white as for black arrestees, according to one study.
Another study showed that officers were three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects
than unarmed whites.
We are at a crucial juncture on law and order. Police officers unquestionably need more hands-on tactical training that will help them make split-second shoot-don’t shoot decisions. Some officers develop obnoxious attitudes toward civilians that must be eradicated. But as Mr. Comey said in San Diego, “Police officers are overwhelmingly good people . . . who took exhausting,
dangerous jobs because they want to help people.”
No government agency is more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the
police. If the next administration continues to disregard that truth in favor of a false narrative
about systemic law-enforcement racism, the next four years will see more urban violence and
race riots, and more dead cops.
By Heather Mac Donald | The Wall Street Journal | October 24, 2016
FBI Director James Comey has again defied the official White House line on policing and the
Black Lives Matter movement. The “narrative that policing is biased and violent and unfair” is
resulting in “more dead young black men,” Mr. Comey warned in an Oct. 16 address to the
International Association of Chiefs of Police in San Diego. That narrative, he added, also
“threatens the future of policing.”
Mr. Comey has spoken out before. In October 2015, after he observed that rising violent crime
was likely the result of officers backing off proactive policing, President Obamaobliquely
accused the FBI director of “cherry-pick[ing] data” and “feed[ing] political agendas.”
But as much as Mr. Obama has tried to dismiss the violent crime increase that began after the
2014 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., the data are clear.
Last year’s 12% increase in homicides reported to the FBI is the largest one-year homicide
increase in nearly half a century. The primary victims have been black. An additional 900 black
males were killed last year compared with the previous year, resulting in a homicide
victimization rate that is now nine times greater for black males than for white males, according
to a Guardian study. The brutality of these killings can be shocking. Over the weekend of Sept.
16, a 15-year-old boy in Chicago was burned alive in a dumpster.
More police are being killed this year too. Gun murders of police officers are up 47% nationally
through Oct. 21, compared with the same period the previous year. In Chicago gun assaults on
officers are up 100%. In New York City attacks on officers are up 23%. In the last two weeks,
four California officers have been deliberately murdered.
Gangbanger John Felix prepared for his lethal attack on two Palm Springs officers on Oct. 8 by
setting a trap and ambushing them as they stood outside his door. Two days earlier,
parolee Trenton Trevon Lovell shot Los Angeles Sheriff’s Sgt. Steve Owen in the face as he
investigated a burglary call. Lovell then stood over Sgt. Owen and fired four additional rounds
into his body. A planned assassination of two officers on coffee break in Vallejo, Calif., on Oct.
17 failed only when the assault rifle used in the attack jammed. In Indianapolis on Oct. 13, police
headquarters were sprayed with bullets by a car that then fled, echoing a similar attack on Oct. 4
against the same police station.
Officers are second-guessing their own justified use of force for fear of being labeled racist and
losing their jobs, if not their freedom. On Oct. 5 a female officer in Chicago was beaten
unconscious by a suspect in a car crash, who repeatedly bashed her face into the concrete and
tore out chunks of her hair. She refrained from using her gun, she said, because she didn’t want
to become the next viral video in the Black Lives Matter narrative.
The Chicago Police Department now wants to institutionalize such dangerous second-guessing.
Its proposed guidelines for using force would require cops to consider the “impact that even a
reasonable use of force may have on those who observe” it.
A Los Angeles police officer recently described to me his current thought process in deciding
whether to intervene in suspicious or criminal behavior. A man high on meth was violently
accosting pedestrians around a Santa Monica bike path. The cops were “very hesitant to arrest,”
the officer said, because “we knew we would be on YouTube before we could get back to the
station.” That reluctance to make contact intensifies when the suspect is black, he added.
The Black Lives Matter narrative about an epidemic of racially biased police shootings is false:
Four studies published this year showed that if there is a bias in police shootings, it works in
favor of blacks and against whites. Officers’ use of lethal force following an arrest for a violent
felony is more than twice the rate for white as for black arrestees, according to one study.
Another study showed that officers were three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects
than unarmed whites.
We are at a crucial juncture on law and order. Police officers unquestionably need more hands-on tactical training that will help them make split-second shoot-don’t shoot decisions. Some officers develop obnoxious attitudes toward civilians that must be eradicated. But as Mr. Comey said in San Diego, “Police officers are overwhelmingly good people . . . who took exhausting,
dangerous jobs because they want to help people.”
No government agency is more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the
police. If the next administration continues to disregard that truth in favor of a false narrative
about systemic law-enforcement racism, the next four years will see more urban violence and
race riots, and more dead cops.
MANY CALIFORNIA COUNTIES CHARGE PARENTS HIGH FEES WHILE KIDS ARE LOCKED UP
By Sukey Lewis | KQED News | October 24, 2016
If your kid gets arrested and locked up, it turns out you (the parent) might end up footing the bill.
This might seem strange — after all, the state doesn’t charge adults for the cost of incarcerating them — but there is a little-known law that allows counties to collect money from parents for the cost of upkeep while their kids are in custody.
One such parent is M.C., an Antioch resident who didn’t want her full name used because she worries for her and her son’s safety. Her 16-year-old son was charged with homicide in 2013 and was locked up in Contra Costa County’s juvenile hall.
“I told the detective that my son didn’t commit that crime,” M.C. said in Spanish, through a translator. “But that if he was sure, then I’d trust the police to prove that my son was guilty. And if my son did do it, then he should be responsible and he should pay.”
On the day he turned 18, he was transferred to adult detention in Martinez, and M.C. was sent a bill for 313 days in juvenile custody.
Contra Costa, like many other counties, collects money from parents for the cost of upkeep while their kids are in custody.
But recent research shows that kids from low-income families are likelier than kids from wealthier families to end up in the justice system, and advocates say these fees are unfair and bad policy. On Tuesday, the county’s Board of Supervisors will vote on whether to place a moratorium on these fees, or ban them altogether.
In fact, Contra Costa has some of the highest fees in the state — up to $30 per day for juvenile hall detention and $17 per day for ankle monitoring. That means M.C. could have been billed more than $9,000 for the cost of holding her son.
She works as a house cleaner and was already struggling to make ends meet. M.C. told the probation department she couldn’t pay the full amount, and they reduced her bill to $939.
M.C. started paying it off when she could, about $50 a month, but she says the fees felt like an injustice. It made her “angry to see these letters arrive charging me money, and my son was locked up, and still they wanted to blame him for something he never did.”
After more than two years, all charges against her son were dropped, and he came home.
But M.C. still had to pay the probation department.
Under state law, the county had every right to do this. The California Welfare and Institutions Code holds parents financially responsible for their kids even while in custody. The logic goes that if M.C.’s son were at home she would have to pay for the cost of clothing him and feeding him, so she should have to reimburse the county for those same costs.
“The main idea is to kind of create a sense of shared responsibility between the parents and the probation department,” said John Keene, chair of the legislative committee for the Chief Probation Officers of California, and chief probation officer for San Mateo County. “Because when we step in, in most instances, we are stepping into that capacity as a parent when the kid become wards of the court.”
Candace Andersen, chair of Contra Costa County’s Board of Supervisors, said her hope was that the fees would encourage parents to do a better job keeping their kids out of trouble.
“But what I’m finding is the studies are not supporting that,” she added.
A group of students at the UC Berkeley School of Law have been studying these fees for the past three years. Their research, which will be presented to the county on Tuesday, includes an analysis of Contra Costa in particular.
“We don’t think there are many compelling arguments to support these fees,” said Tim Kline, one of the Berkeley law students studying the fines. “Counties don’t make money. They’re bad for families. They don’t help kids rehabilitate and get back on track.”
One of the more startling statistics Kline’s group found is the disproportionate racial aspect of these fees. For example, African-American kids are 23 times more likely than their white counterparts to be locked up.
Dan Macallair, executive director of the nonprofit Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, said disproportionate impacts are present statewide.
“Who ends up in the juvenile justice system?” he said. “It’s kids from poverty, who grew up in poverty, who grow up in the margins of society, who come from fractured families, often disproportionately African-American, or in California, Latino. So yes, it [juvenile fees] falls heavily on the kids whose families can least afford it.”
John Keene, of the Chief Probation Officers union, said the fees aren’t meant to target any particular group or be a burden on struggling families, and points out that counties do take into account a parent’s “ability to pay” when determining how much to charge them.
“We care about what happens to our young people. We care about what happens to the families,” he said. “We really work hard to try to engage the families in building and reconnecting the family.”
But while some argue these fees are meant to hold parents financially responsible for their kids’ behavior, Macallair added that these fees got their start back in the 1950s for a very different reason.
“It became kind of a practice for parents to, when they had an argument or heated disagreement with their kid, they could actually bring the child to the local detention center and tell the center, ‘I‘ve had enough!’ ” Macallair said.
The child would often spend the weekend in detention, and then parents would have a change of heart and come pick their kid up on Monday morning.
“So, administrative fees were originally instituted for the purpose of discouraging parents from misusing detention centers,” he said.
“A parent can’t just show up at our door and say, ‘he’s incorrigible, would you detain him?’ ” laughed Contra Costa Probation Chief Todd Billeci. Even legally, the state can lock up only kids who are suspected of criminal behavior.
But, Billeci said, it’s hard to advocate for a loss of revenue. If Contra Costa does do away with juvenile fees, his department stands to lose around $200,000 in net revenue. But an analysis of how much it costs to collect these fees shows that the cost is actually greater than the revenue they bring in. And the fees do little to offset the total cost of running the county’s juvenile hall, which is more than $19 million.
And that’s part of the problem statewide. The money that juvenile administrative fees bring in varies from county to county, and some counties don’t collect these fees at all. Macallair says county probation departments who are used to getting this revenue don’t want to see it go away, even if it is just a case of bureaucracy maintaining itself.
But Keene says counties need the flexibility to charge these fees, and that they are used to provide kids with recreation programs and educational opportunities.
Last year a bill sponsored by state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) would have banned counties from collecting these fees, but it stalled in the appropriations committee.
Now, some counties are moving forward with reform on their own.
After reviewing the practice, both Alameda and Santa Clara counties have repealed these fees. Los Angeles doesn’t charge juvenile fees and neither does San Francisco.
To Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, the juvenile fees aren’t so much a fiscal issue as a moral one. He says the goal of the juvenile justice system is to keep youth out of the criminal justice system.
“These fees don’t achieve that goal,” he said. “The policy doesn’t make any rational sense.”
EDITOR’S MOTE: Personally, I think charging parents for the keep of their wayward kids is a great idea. Of course, their ability to pay must be taken into consideration, with reduced payments for those unable to pay the full cost of keeping their little asshole locked up.
My problem is that well-off parents hire lawyer to get their kids released from juvenile detention while kids from poor families stay locked up, sometimes for a long time.
If your kid gets arrested and locked up, it turns out you (the parent) might end up footing the bill.
This might seem strange — after all, the state doesn’t charge adults for the cost of incarcerating them — but there is a little-known law that allows counties to collect money from parents for the cost of upkeep while their kids are in custody.
One such parent is M.C., an Antioch resident who didn’t want her full name used because she worries for her and her son’s safety. Her 16-year-old son was charged with homicide in 2013 and was locked up in Contra Costa County’s juvenile hall.
“I told the detective that my son didn’t commit that crime,” M.C. said in Spanish, through a translator. “But that if he was sure, then I’d trust the police to prove that my son was guilty. And if my son did do it, then he should be responsible and he should pay.”
On the day he turned 18, he was transferred to adult detention in Martinez, and M.C. was sent a bill for 313 days in juvenile custody.
Contra Costa, like many other counties, collects money from parents for the cost of upkeep while their kids are in custody.
But recent research shows that kids from low-income families are likelier than kids from wealthier families to end up in the justice system, and advocates say these fees are unfair and bad policy. On Tuesday, the county’s Board of Supervisors will vote on whether to place a moratorium on these fees, or ban them altogether.
In fact, Contra Costa has some of the highest fees in the state — up to $30 per day for juvenile hall detention and $17 per day for ankle monitoring. That means M.C. could have been billed more than $9,000 for the cost of holding her son.
She works as a house cleaner and was already struggling to make ends meet. M.C. told the probation department she couldn’t pay the full amount, and they reduced her bill to $939.
M.C. started paying it off when she could, about $50 a month, but she says the fees felt like an injustice. It made her “angry to see these letters arrive charging me money, and my son was locked up, and still they wanted to blame him for something he never did.”
After more than two years, all charges against her son were dropped, and he came home.
But M.C. still had to pay the probation department.
Under state law, the county had every right to do this. The California Welfare and Institutions Code holds parents financially responsible for their kids even while in custody. The logic goes that if M.C.’s son were at home she would have to pay for the cost of clothing him and feeding him, so she should have to reimburse the county for those same costs.
“The main idea is to kind of create a sense of shared responsibility between the parents and the probation department,” said John Keene, chair of the legislative committee for the Chief Probation Officers of California, and chief probation officer for San Mateo County. “Because when we step in, in most instances, we are stepping into that capacity as a parent when the kid become wards of the court.”
Candace Andersen, chair of Contra Costa County’s Board of Supervisors, said her hope was that the fees would encourage parents to do a better job keeping their kids out of trouble.
“But what I’m finding is the studies are not supporting that,” she added.
A group of students at the UC Berkeley School of Law have been studying these fees for the past three years. Their research, which will be presented to the county on Tuesday, includes an analysis of Contra Costa in particular.
“We don’t think there are many compelling arguments to support these fees,” said Tim Kline, one of the Berkeley law students studying the fines. “Counties don’t make money. They’re bad for families. They don’t help kids rehabilitate and get back on track.”
One of the more startling statistics Kline’s group found is the disproportionate racial aspect of these fees. For example, African-American kids are 23 times more likely than their white counterparts to be locked up.
Dan Macallair, executive director of the nonprofit Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, said disproportionate impacts are present statewide.
“Who ends up in the juvenile justice system?” he said. “It’s kids from poverty, who grew up in poverty, who grow up in the margins of society, who come from fractured families, often disproportionately African-American, or in California, Latino. So yes, it [juvenile fees] falls heavily on the kids whose families can least afford it.”
John Keene, of the Chief Probation Officers union, said the fees aren’t meant to target any particular group or be a burden on struggling families, and points out that counties do take into account a parent’s “ability to pay” when determining how much to charge them.
“We care about what happens to our young people. We care about what happens to the families,” he said. “We really work hard to try to engage the families in building and reconnecting the family.”
But while some argue these fees are meant to hold parents financially responsible for their kids’ behavior, Macallair added that these fees got their start back in the 1950s for a very different reason.
“It became kind of a practice for parents to, when they had an argument or heated disagreement with their kid, they could actually bring the child to the local detention center and tell the center, ‘I‘ve had enough!’ ” Macallair said.
The child would often spend the weekend in detention, and then parents would have a change of heart and come pick their kid up on Monday morning.
“So, administrative fees were originally instituted for the purpose of discouraging parents from misusing detention centers,” he said.
“A parent can’t just show up at our door and say, ‘he’s incorrigible, would you detain him?’ ” laughed Contra Costa Probation Chief Todd Billeci. Even legally, the state can lock up only kids who are suspected of criminal behavior.
But, Billeci said, it’s hard to advocate for a loss of revenue. If Contra Costa does do away with juvenile fees, his department stands to lose around $200,000 in net revenue. But an analysis of how much it costs to collect these fees shows that the cost is actually greater than the revenue they bring in. And the fees do little to offset the total cost of running the county’s juvenile hall, which is more than $19 million.
And that’s part of the problem statewide. The money that juvenile administrative fees bring in varies from county to county, and some counties don’t collect these fees at all. Macallair says county probation departments who are used to getting this revenue don’t want to see it go away, even if it is just a case of bureaucracy maintaining itself.
But Keene says counties need the flexibility to charge these fees, and that they are used to provide kids with recreation programs and educational opportunities.
Last year a bill sponsored by state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) would have banned counties from collecting these fees, but it stalled in the appropriations committee.
Now, some counties are moving forward with reform on their own.
After reviewing the practice, both Alameda and Santa Clara counties have repealed these fees. Los Angeles doesn’t charge juvenile fees and neither does San Francisco.
To Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, the juvenile fees aren’t so much a fiscal issue as a moral one. He says the goal of the juvenile justice system is to keep youth out of the criminal justice system.
“These fees don’t achieve that goal,” he said. “The policy doesn’t make any rational sense.”
EDITOR’S MOTE: Personally, I think charging parents for the keep of their wayward kids is a great idea. Of course, their ability to pay must be taken into consideration, with reduced payments for those unable to pay the full cost of keeping their little asshole locked up.
My problem is that well-off parents hire lawyer to get their kids released from juvenile detention while kids from poor families stay locked up, sometimes for a long time.
HILLARY ‘FUCKING’ CLINTON CURSES THOSE WHO KEEP HER SAFE
bullied her bodyguards — and with the worst language possible
By Deroy Murdock | National Review | October 22, 2016
Hillary Clinton’s “treatment of DS [Department of State] agents on her protective detail was so
contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,”
according to a just-released summary of an FBI interview with a former State Department
official. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective
detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end
of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find
senior agents willing to work for her.”
Clinton’s State Department agents are hardly the first to complain about her bullying. “She
derives pleasure from lording over other people who cannot do anything about it and who
are less powerful than she is,” author Ronald Kessler told Newsmax TV’s J. D. Hayworth.
In fact, Clinton’s well-documented history of profane, unhinged outbursts against those
who work for her spans decades.
While Clinton’s vulgarity is presented here in relatively family-friendly form, fill in the
blanks and imagine the pain that this woman inflicted when she uttered these words. “I’m
not voting for Clinton,” Air Force Staff Sergeant Eric Bonner posted on Facebook in July.
“It’s because she actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence,” wrote the Air Force K-9
handler. “I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors.” “One of my last details
was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State,” Bonner continued. “I helped with sweeps
of her DV quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me?”
According to Bonner, Clinton told him, “Get that fucking dog away from me.” “Then she
turns to her security detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in
her quarters,” Bonner added. “For the next 20 minutes, while I sit there waiting to be
released, she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she’s done. The
Detail lead walks over, apologizes, and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in
trouble. His words, ‘Happens every day, Brother.’” “Hillary doesn’t care about anyone but
Hillary.”
“Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck away from me!” the then-–First Lady screamed at her
Secret Service agents. “Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say,
okay!!?” Clinton demanded, according to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited
Access, page 139.
“If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!”
Hillary yelled at a Secret Service agent, as Joyce Milton reported in The First Partner, page
259. The officer explained in vain that he preferred to keep his hands free, in case a threat
arose.
“Good morning, ma’am,” a uniformed Secret Service officer once greeted Hillary Clinton.
“Fuck off!” she replied, as Ronald Kessler documented in First Family Detail, page 16.
“Put this back on the ground!” Hillary Clinton screamed at the pilot of presidential
helicopter Marine One. “I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need my sunglasses! We need to
go back!” Clinton so abused the chopper’s crew that they christened it Broomstick One.
Also in Dereliction of Duty, its author — Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz”
Patterson (Ret.), who carried the “nuclear football” — recalled hearing “volleys of
expletives” erupting from Hillary’s mouth. He also lamented “the Nazi-like edge that
emerged when she was around.”
“Where is the goddam fucking flag? I want the goddam fucking flag up every fucking
morning at fucking sunrise,” Hillary snapped at state trooper Larry Patterson at the
Arkansas governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991, according to Ronald Kessler’s Inside the
White House, page 246.
“Good morning,” an Arkansas state trooper said to Clinton, according to American Evita,
by Christopher Andersen, a former contributing editor with Time magazine.
“Fuck off!” Hillary told him and his fellow bodyguards. “It’s enough I have to see you shit-
kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your goddam job and keep your
mouth shut.”
If this is how Hillary Clinton handles those who have stood ready to take bullets for her,
how would she treat 325 million everyday Americans?
By Deroy Murdock | National Review | October 22, 2016
Hillary Clinton’s “treatment of DS [Department of State] agents on her protective detail was so
contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,”
according to a just-released summary of an FBI interview with a former State Department
official. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective
detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end
of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find
senior agents willing to work for her.”
Clinton’s State Department agents are hardly the first to complain about her bullying. “She
derives pleasure from lording over other people who cannot do anything about it and who
are less powerful than she is,” author Ronald Kessler told Newsmax TV’s J. D. Hayworth.
In fact, Clinton’s well-documented history of profane, unhinged outbursts against those
who work for her spans decades.
While Clinton’s vulgarity is presented here in relatively family-friendly form, fill in the
blanks and imagine the pain that this woman inflicted when she uttered these words. “I’m
not voting for Clinton,” Air Force Staff Sergeant Eric Bonner posted on Facebook in July.
“It’s because she actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence,” wrote the Air Force K-9
handler. “I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors.” “One of my last details
was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State,” Bonner continued. “I helped with sweeps
of her DV quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me?”
According to Bonner, Clinton told him, “Get that fucking dog away from me.” “Then she
turns to her security detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in
her quarters,” Bonner added. “For the next 20 minutes, while I sit there waiting to be
released, she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she’s done. The
Detail lead walks over, apologizes, and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in
trouble. His words, ‘Happens every day, Brother.’” “Hillary doesn’t care about anyone but
Hillary.”
“Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck away from me!” the then-–First Lady screamed at her
Secret Service agents. “Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say,
okay!!?” Clinton demanded, according to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited
Access, page 139.
“If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!”
Hillary yelled at a Secret Service agent, as Joyce Milton reported in The First Partner, page
259. The officer explained in vain that he preferred to keep his hands free, in case a threat
arose.
“Good morning, ma’am,” a uniformed Secret Service officer once greeted Hillary Clinton.
“Fuck off!” she replied, as Ronald Kessler documented in First Family Detail, page 16.
“Put this back on the ground!” Hillary Clinton screamed at the pilot of presidential
helicopter Marine One. “I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need my sunglasses! We need to
go back!” Clinton so abused the chopper’s crew that they christened it Broomstick One.
Also in Dereliction of Duty, its author — Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz”
Patterson (Ret.), who carried the “nuclear football” — recalled hearing “volleys of
expletives” erupting from Hillary’s mouth. He also lamented “the Nazi-like edge that
emerged when she was around.”
“Where is the goddam fucking flag? I want the goddam fucking flag up every fucking
morning at fucking sunrise,” Hillary snapped at state trooper Larry Patterson at the
Arkansas governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991, according to Ronald Kessler’s Inside the
White House, page 246.
“Good morning,” an Arkansas state trooper said to Clinton, according to American Evita,
by Christopher Andersen, a former contributing editor with Time magazine.
“Fuck off!” Hillary told him and his fellow bodyguards. “It’s enough I have to see you shit-
kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your goddam job and keep your
mouth shut.”
If this is how Hillary Clinton handles those who have stood ready to take bullets for her,
how would she treat 325 million everyday Americans?
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
HELMUT NORPOTH STILL CONFIDENT TRUMP WILL WIN
Professor Who Predicted Last Five Elections Says Trump Has 87% Chance of Winning despite polls showing Hillary ahead
By Paul Joseph Watson | INFOWARS | October 24, 2016
Political science professor Helmut Norpoth, who has accurately called the results of the last five presidential elections, still asserts that Donald Trump has an 87% chance of defeating Hillary Clinton despite Clinton being ahead in the polls.
Norpoth’s model has correctly predicted the outcome of the popular vote for every election since 1996, including the 2000 race where Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush took the presidency.
“It usually turns out that the candidate who does better in his party’s primary beats the other guy who does less well,” said Norpoth, adding that Trump’s margin of victory in New Hampshire and South Carolina compared to Clinton (who lost in New Hampshire) was crucial to his model.
The other factor is the “swing of the pendulum,” which makes it far more likely for a change of government if one party has been in power for two terms.
Norpoth said he has gone “all in” on a Donald Trump victory and is sticking with his bet.
“There are also quite a few colleagues of mine who have a prediction that Trump is going to make it,” added the professor.
Many Trump supporters are now claiming that the media narrative that the election result is a foregone conclusion is a trick designed to convince potential Trump voters to stay home on November 8.
A confidential memo allegedly obtained from Correct The Record, a Democratic Super PAC, reveals a plan to “barrage” voters with high frequency polls that show Hillary ahead in order to “declare election over,” while avoiding any mention of the Brexit vote (which completely contradicted polls that said Brexit would fail).
Emails revealed by Wikileaks show how Democratic operatives planned to encourage “oversamples for polling” in order to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.” In other words, sample more Democrats than Republicans in order to make people believe that Hillary’s lead is far greater than the reality of a tight race.
Norpoth’s forecast of a Trump victory mirrors what’s taking place in the betting markets, with British bookmakers William Hill revealing last week that 65% of all bets on the market have backed Trump to win the election, a similar phenomenon to what happened before the Brexit vote, where the polls were proven completely wrong.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I hope Prof. Norpoth’s prediction will come to pass, but I’m afraid he may have been smoking some funny tobacco.
By Paul Joseph Watson | INFOWARS | October 24, 2016
Political science professor Helmut Norpoth, who has accurately called the results of the last five presidential elections, still asserts that Donald Trump has an 87% chance of defeating Hillary Clinton despite Clinton being ahead in the polls.
Norpoth’s model has correctly predicted the outcome of the popular vote for every election since 1996, including the 2000 race where Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush took the presidency.
“It usually turns out that the candidate who does better in his party’s primary beats the other guy who does less well,” said Norpoth, adding that Trump’s margin of victory in New Hampshire and South Carolina compared to Clinton (who lost in New Hampshire) was crucial to his model.
The other factor is the “swing of the pendulum,” which makes it far more likely for a change of government if one party has been in power for two terms.
Norpoth said he has gone “all in” on a Donald Trump victory and is sticking with his bet.
“There are also quite a few colleagues of mine who have a prediction that Trump is going to make it,” added the professor.
Many Trump supporters are now claiming that the media narrative that the election result is a foregone conclusion is a trick designed to convince potential Trump voters to stay home on November 8.
A confidential memo allegedly obtained from Correct The Record, a Democratic Super PAC, reveals a plan to “barrage” voters with high frequency polls that show Hillary ahead in order to “declare election over,” while avoiding any mention of the Brexit vote (which completely contradicted polls that said Brexit would fail).
Emails revealed by Wikileaks show how Democratic operatives planned to encourage “oversamples for polling” in order to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.” In other words, sample more Democrats than Republicans in order to make people believe that Hillary’s lead is far greater than the reality of a tight race.
Norpoth’s forecast of a Trump victory mirrors what’s taking place in the betting markets, with British bookmakers William Hill revealing last week that 65% of all bets on the market have backed Trump to win the election, a similar phenomenon to what happened before the Brexit vote, where the polls were proven completely wrong.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I hope Prof. Norpoth’s prediction will come to pass, but I’m afraid he may have been smoking some funny tobacco.
TWO WEEKS UNTIL GOD KNOWS WHO
By Bob Walsh
God Knows Who (or maybe What). The polls are running anywhere from +1 for Trump to +11 for the Hildebeast. The "good" polls with an excellent track record and good procedures are running about 2-4% in favor of Hillary. There will, in my humble opinion, be a significant closet Trump vote. In addition most polls over-report on Democrats due to the way they are set-up and run. Further, at least according to the recent WickiLeaks dump, the Dems have a long track record of manipulating polling results and pressuring their allies in the media to over-report good results and ignore bad results in an effort to drive down Republican voters. After all, people like to vote for the winner and if they think the Hildebeast has it in the bag they may stay home. Or, if the Dems believe their own propaganda enough THEY might stay home. Such things have happened before.
I would be a lot happier if Trump could focus and quit distracting himself with crap like promising to sue the women who are allegedly slandering him. It's a personal problem. I don't care about it.
Hope clouds reason. I HOPE Trump can pull this off. Therefore I THINK he can pull it off. Maybe I am just whistling past the graveyard. Maybe not. Fortunately for me there are a few must-win Trump states in the east that will probably tell the story early. If Trump can carry Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio there is a real good chance he can pull this off. If he looses in all of them, he is toast.
I will no doubt sit around the television with my lady-friend (who is a Hildebeast supporter, or at least a Trump hater), eating pizza and may very well be cursing at the television. It may not be fun, but it will be interesting.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Enjoy your pizza by eating early on election eve, Bob – before the results start coming in. I’m afraid a better title would have been TWO WEEKS UNTIL DOOMSDAY.
God Knows Who (or maybe What). The polls are running anywhere from +1 for Trump to +11 for the Hildebeast. The "good" polls with an excellent track record and good procedures are running about 2-4% in favor of Hillary. There will, in my humble opinion, be a significant closet Trump vote. In addition most polls over-report on Democrats due to the way they are set-up and run. Further, at least according to the recent WickiLeaks dump, the Dems have a long track record of manipulating polling results and pressuring their allies in the media to over-report good results and ignore bad results in an effort to drive down Republican voters. After all, people like to vote for the winner and if they think the Hildebeast has it in the bag they may stay home. Or, if the Dems believe their own propaganda enough THEY might stay home. Such things have happened before.
I would be a lot happier if Trump could focus and quit distracting himself with crap like promising to sue the women who are allegedly slandering him. It's a personal problem. I don't care about it.
Hope clouds reason. I HOPE Trump can pull this off. Therefore I THINK he can pull it off. Maybe I am just whistling past the graveyard. Maybe not. Fortunately for me there are a few must-win Trump states in the east that will probably tell the story early. If Trump can carry Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio there is a real good chance he can pull this off. If he looses in all of them, he is toast.
I will no doubt sit around the television with my lady-friend (who is a Hildebeast supporter, or at least a Trump hater), eating pizza and may very well be cursing at the television. It may not be fun, but it will be interesting.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Enjoy your pizza by eating early on election eve, Bob – before the results start coming in. I’m afraid a better title would have been TWO WEEKS UNTIL DOOMSDAY.
LAPD OFFICER FATALLY SHOOTS TWO PEOPLE JUST DAYS APART
How quickly should officers who kill return to work?
By Kate Mather | Los Angeles Times | October 23, 2016
This summer, for the first time in his nearly five years as a Los Angeles police officer, Eden Medina shot someone.
Police say Medina opened fire July 28 as Omar Gonzalez fought with officers after a car chase ended in a Boyle Heights cul-de-sac. Police have released few details about the shooting, but said at least one witness saw the 36-year-old with a gun before Medina fatally shot him.
Twelve days later, the Hollenbeck Division gang officer fired his gun again, killing Jesse Romero two weeks shy of his 15th birthday. The Aug. 9 shooting prompted protests and criticism of the LAPD, amplified by the renewed national scrutiny over policing as well as conflicting accounts over whether Romero fired a gun at officers before he was shot.
The shootings offer a window into how the LAPD treats officers who fire their guns. While shootings by police have received much attention, they remain relatively rare events. In 2015, for example, the LAPD reported more than 1.5 million contacts between police and the public. Of those encounters, 21 ended with deadly gunfire from officers.
But it’s even more unusual for an officer to fatally shoot two people in such a short period of time.
The case raises questions about how much training and psychological help the LAPD provides officers who fire their weapons and whether they spend enough time away from the job after a deadly encounter.
LAPD spokesman Josh Rubenstein said Medina returned to the field six days after the first shooting. The officer was cleared by a department psychologist and the police chief, he said.
“We take every single instance very seriously,” he said. “Any officer-involved shooting is tragic for the community and for the officer. It’s very difficult.”
LAPD officers typically return to the field one to two weeks after a shooting and can do so even before they complete a training refresher course that usually lasts between 30 minutes and an hour, according to a recent report by the Police Commission’s inspector general.
It is unclear whether Medina finished that training before returning to work. Rubenstein declined to comment, saying it was part of the officer’s personnel file.
Police officers in Washington, D.C., and Dallas typically don’t return to their full duties for almost a month after a shooting, according to the inspector general’s report. Officers in Las Vegas spend as long as two or three months out of the field. Dallas and Las Vegas also send officers to a full day of individualized training before they’re back on the job.
Earlier this month, the civilian commission that oversees the LAPD directed the department to expand training for officers after they fire their guns and ensure they complete that training before returning to the field.
Matt Johnson, the commission’s president, told department brass he was concerned that LAPD officers generally spend less time off patrol after shootings than police at other agencies. Johnson also said he believed officers should be required to attend more than one session with a psychologist.
“These are traumatic events, and one mandatory session does not seem adequate to me,” he said. “Someone could have a great session and frankly, pull the wool over your eyes, and you don’t see the trauma that they’re going through.”
Rubenstein, the LAPD spokesman, said the department is willing to take another look at that approach as part of its broader review of how officers use force.
A lawyer representing Romero’s mother accused the LAPD of showing “complete gross negligence” by sending Medina back to the field within a week of the first shooting. Whether or not the officer was justified in firing his gun, attorney Humberto Guizar said, he should have spent more time away as a “cooling down” period.
“I have friends who are police officers — they worked for 35 years and they never shot a civilian,” Guizar said. “This is an officer who killed somebody 12 days before he killed our kid. How could that happen?”
Medina’s attorney insisted there was no connection between the two shootings, saying the officer reacted reasonably based on the circumstances of each situation. Both Gonzalez and Romero had a gun, attorney Larry Hanna noted. The timing, he added, was "just a coincidence.”
Hanna described Medina as a hard-working cop who, as a gang officer, worked a difficult assignment in a tough neighborhood.
“Being in one shooting was very hard on this officer. Being in two? It’s hard on them,” Hanna said. “They don’t want to be out there having to do this. They also don’t want people pointing guns at them.”
The LAPD puts officers through a “rigorous process” before returning them to work after a shooting, Hanna said. “This officer was ready,” he said.
Most law enforcement officers spend their entire careers without firing their guns in the line of duty. How departments treat officers who do, however, varies from agency to agency.
LAPD officers must meet with a psychologist within a week of firing their guns. Officers must be cleared by a psychologist before the chief decides whether they can return to work, though the psychologist may require officers to attend additional counseling sessions after they’re back on the job. Officers may request extra meetings.
Officers also receive what’s called a general training update — a refresher course that includes a review of the LAPD’s policy for using deadly force and time in a simulator where officers react to various real-life scenarios that could lead to using that deadly force.
Police in Dallas, however, must attend three mental health evaluations after a shooting — a week, three months and six months later. Las Vegas officers are required to attend at least two sessions and are then evaluated by a board of department officials before an undersheriff signs off on returning that officer to the field.
Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies who are involved in shootings — whether they pulled the trigger or not — must check in with a psychologist within days, then again two weeks and four months later, sheriff’s officials said. They generally return to work between a week and 10 days after a shooting.
Lou Turriaga, a director for the union that represents the LAPD’s rank and file, said he believed the department offered strong support for officers after shootings. It’s rare for police to fire their guns in the line of duty, he noted — Turriaga said he hasn’t during his 28 years as an LAPD officer — and each officer who does reacts differently.
“I’ve been out to shootings and you can see it in their eyes. Some of them, it’s not a problem,” he said. “Others look like a deer in headlights.”
On-duty LAPD officers have fatally shot 16 people this year, according to a Times analysis. Five of those shootings happened in Boyle Heights, including one where an LAPD officer was shot in the arm.
Conflicting accounts have emerged about the events that led up to Medina’s second shooting. The LAPD has said a witness told investigations that Romero fired a revolver at police after they chased him down the street. An officer then saw Romero crouched on the sidewalk, his arm extended. Fearing Romero was going to shoot, police said, Medina fired.
A woman who said she saw the shooting, however, told The Times she saw Romero throw the gun toward a fence. She said she heard the weapon fire when it hit the ground.
Medina is currently working an investigative assignment, the LAPD said. He hasn’t returned to the field since the second shooting. The department spokesman declined to say why, citing the ongoing inquiry and laws protecting a police officer’s personnel record.
By Kate Mather | Los Angeles Times | October 23, 2016
This summer, for the first time in his nearly five years as a Los Angeles police officer, Eden Medina shot someone.
Police say Medina opened fire July 28 as Omar Gonzalez fought with officers after a car chase ended in a Boyle Heights cul-de-sac. Police have released few details about the shooting, but said at least one witness saw the 36-year-old with a gun before Medina fatally shot him.
Twelve days later, the Hollenbeck Division gang officer fired his gun again, killing Jesse Romero two weeks shy of his 15th birthday. The Aug. 9 shooting prompted protests and criticism of the LAPD, amplified by the renewed national scrutiny over policing as well as conflicting accounts over whether Romero fired a gun at officers before he was shot.
The shootings offer a window into how the LAPD treats officers who fire their guns. While shootings by police have received much attention, they remain relatively rare events. In 2015, for example, the LAPD reported more than 1.5 million contacts between police and the public. Of those encounters, 21 ended with deadly gunfire from officers.
But it’s even more unusual for an officer to fatally shoot two people in such a short period of time.
The case raises questions about how much training and psychological help the LAPD provides officers who fire their weapons and whether they spend enough time away from the job after a deadly encounter.
LAPD spokesman Josh Rubenstein said Medina returned to the field six days after the first shooting. The officer was cleared by a department psychologist and the police chief, he said.
“We take every single instance very seriously,” he said. “Any officer-involved shooting is tragic for the community and for the officer. It’s very difficult.”
LAPD officers typically return to the field one to two weeks after a shooting and can do so even before they complete a training refresher course that usually lasts between 30 minutes and an hour, according to a recent report by the Police Commission’s inspector general.
It is unclear whether Medina finished that training before returning to work. Rubenstein declined to comment, saying it was part of the officer’s personnel file.
Police officers in Washington, D.C., and Dallas typically don’t return to their full duties for almost a month after a shooting, according to the inspector general’s report. Officers in Las Vegas spend as long as two or three months out of the field. Dallas and Las Vegas also send officers to a full day of individualized training before they’re back on the job.
Earlier this month, the civilian commission that oversees the LAPD directed the department to expand training for officers after they fire their guns and ensure they complete that training before returning to the field.
Matt Johnson, the commission’s president, told department brass he was concerned that LAPD officers generally spend less time off patrol after shootings than police at other agencies. Johnson also said he believed officers should be required to attend more than one session with a psychologist.
“These are traumatic events, and one mandatory session does not seem adequate to me,” he said. “Someone could have a great session and frankly, pull the wool over your eyes, and you don’t see the trauma that they’re going through.”
Rubenstein, the LAPD spokesman, said the department is willing to take another look at that approach as part of its broader review of how officers use force.
A lawyer representing Romero’s mother accused the LAPD of showing “complete gross negligence” by sending Medina back to the field within a week of the first shooting. Whether or not the officer was justified in firing his gun, attorney Humberto Guizar said, he should have spent more time away as a “cooling down” period.
“I have friends who are police officers — they worked for 35 years and they never shot a civilian,” Guizar said. “This is an officer who killed somebody 12 days before he killed our kid. How could that happen?”
Medina’s attorney insisted there was no connection between the two shootings, saying the officer reacted reasonably based on the circumstances of each situation. Both Gonzalez and Romero had a gun, attorney Larry Hanna noted. The timing, he added, was "just a coincidence.”
Hanna described Medina as a hard-working cop who, as a gang officer, worked a difficult assignment in a tough neighborhood.
“Being in one shooting was very hard on this officer. Being in two? It’s hard on them,” Hanna said. “They don’t want to be out there having to do this. They also don’t want people pointing guns at them.”
The LAPD puts officers through a “rigorous process” before returning them to work after a shooting, Hanna said. “This officer was ready,” he said.
Most law enforcement officers spend their entire careers without firing their guns in the line of duty. How departments treat officers who do, however, varies from agency to agency.
LAPD officers must meet with a psychologist within a week of firing their guns. Officers must be cleared by a psychologist before the chief decides whether they can return to work, though the psychologist may require officers to attend additional counseling sessions after they’re back on the job. Officers may request extra meetings.
Officers also receive what’s called a general training update — a refresher course that includes a review of the LAPD’s policy for using deadly force and time in a simulator where officers react to various real-life scenarios that could lead to using that deadly force.
Police in Dallas, however, must attend three mental health evaluations after a shooting — a week, three months and six months later. Las Vegas officers are required to attend at least two sessions and are then evaluated by a board of department officials before an undersheriff signs off on returning that officer to the field.
Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies who are involved in shootings — whether they pulled the trigger or not — must check in with a psychologist within days, then again two weeks and four months later, sheriff’s officials said. They generally return to work between a week and 10 days after a shooting.
Lou Turriaga, a director for the union that represents the LAPD’s rank and file, said he believed the department offered strong support for officers after shootings. It’s rare for police to fire their guns in the line of duty, he noted — Turriaga said he hasn’t during his 28 years as an LAPD officer — and each officer who does reacts differently.
“I’ve been out to shootings and you can see it in their eyes. Some of them, it’s not a problem,” he said. “Others look like a deer in headlights.”
On-duty LAPD officers have fatally shot 16 people this year, according to a Times analysis. Five of those shootings happened in Boyle Heights, including one where an LAPD officer was shot in the arm.
Conflicting accounts have emerged about the events that led up to Medina’s second shooting. The LAPD has said a witness told investigations that Romero fired a revolver at police after they chased him down the street. An officer then saw Romero crouched on the sidewalk, his arm extended. Fearing Romero was going to shoot, police said, Medina fired.
A woman who said she saw the shooting, however, told The Times she saw Romero throw the gun toward a fence. She said she heard the weapon fire when it hit the ground.
Medina is currently working an investigative assignment, the LAPD said. He hasn’t returned to the field since the second shooting. The department spokesman declined to say why, citing the ongoing inquiry and laws protecting a police officer’s personnel record.
HOW POLICE REFORM IS FAILING IN SAN FRANCISCO
Bay Area hip-hop artist Paris accuses SFPD of routinely exhibiting racial bias as it metes out justice
By Paris | VICE News | October 18, 2016
"All niggers must fucking hang."
"White power."
"Niggers should be spayed. I saw one an hour ago with 4 kids."
These words weren't uttered by Klansmen in 1960s Mississippi. They weren't a chant overheard at some racist skinhead revival. They weren't even spoken by average citizens in a spate of Donald Trump-induced bigotry.
These sentiments were privately shared among cops in San Francisco within the past five years.
Twice now—once in March 2015 and again this April—troves of texts and other communications from San Francisco police officers have revealed unsettling racism and homophobia in the rank and file. Add to that 11 police-involved fatalities between May 2013 and May 2016—nine of which involved people of color—and it's easy to see why the San Francisco Police Department was subject to a scathing Department of Justice review last week for allegedly discriminating against people of color in a systematic way.
For those of us who've had encounters with cops in San Francisco—deserved or otherwise—this comes as no surprise. We've long known the department was lacking; now it's official. The true test will be what happens in the non-binding report's wake, and given that the feds have been reluctant to even call the department's actions straight-up racist (as they did in Baltimore this summer), it's hard to be optimistic.
Needless to say, the sentiments espoused in those text messages don't inspire confidence that the SFPD can turn things around. "It's highly unlikely [the] SFPD can reform itself," as San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi said last week. Still, the DOJ review itself was conducted by its Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) and initiated at the behest of Mayor Ed Lee and former Chief Greg Suhr after the police killing of Mario Woods. And the report details 94 findings and well over 200 non-binding recommendations intended to help the department rectify its shortcomings.
According to the feds, the department has a myriad of problems, including those relating to issues with transparency and bias, accountability, data collection, and internal oversight and hiring. (The report also chronicles apparent efforts by the San Francisco Police Officers Association to thwart the implementation of reforms.) Perhaps most glaringly, even though blacks comprise less than 6 percent of San Francisco's population at this point, the DOJ report found that 37 percent of the department's nearly 550 use-of-force incidents over the last three years—and nearly 15 percent of its traffic stops—involved African Americans.
It's worth noting that the SFPD is nearly equal parts white and minority, which lends credence to the idea that racial prejudice is an inherent characteristic of policing in America. Indeed, if a diverse department in a diverse city (San Francisco is nearly half Asian and Latino) routinely exhibits racial bias as it metes out justice, what hope is there for the remaining 16,000 or more agencies nationwide—many of which are mostly white—to be any better?
Nevertheless, Mayor Lee and interim Police Chief Toney Chaplin maintain that the SFPD is committed to implementing every recommendation in the report, and cite the rollout of body cameras, a new use-of-force policy, and implicit bias training and sanctity of life practices as evidence the department is moving in the right direction.
The problem, according to the Police Body Worn Cameras Scorecard and as evidenced by individual cases where body-camera-toting cops shot and killed unarmed people, is that the adoption of new technology in departments nationwide is sporadic, and any attendant accountability less than automatic.
The SFPD's General Order on Body Worn Cameras explicitly requires officers to "activate their BWC equipment to record" detentions and arrests, consensual encounters, traffic and pedestrian stops, vehicle and foot pursuits, uses of force, searches, arrest warrants and more. However, that same order outlines no definitive penalty for officers who opt to not active their cameras, effectively rendering the entire exercise moot when attempting to measure officer culpability in matters of potential misconduct. Why not include a criminal penalty for officers accused of brutality (or worse) who don't activate their cameras? Or mandatory firing, at least?
We've all seen just how little progress has been made, with the killings of Keith Lamont Scott, Philando Castile and others serving as a constant reminder that police reform still has a long way to go in America. Even the police department in Ferguson, Missouri, which has supposedly binding reforms detailed in legal settlements as a result of the DOJ's civil rights division review (unaffiliated with the COPS Office that conducted the SFPD report), remains mired in racial tension and is dangerously understaffed. And the governor's race in Missouri is basically a fight between two white dudes about who's tougher on crime and who's more supportive of cops.
One would expect an assumed bastion of progressive ideals like San Francisco to do better. Sadly, it hasn't.
The recorded killing of Woods, a 26-year-old black man shot by several cops on the street after brandishing a knife, remains a point of contention for many concerned with police malfeasance, and was a key impetus for the COPS Office review. Even if the officers involved are never charged, I see the Woods killing as akin to murder—if someone who wasn't a cop did this, it would almost certainly be treated like one—as evidenced by unedited video documentation. The case has come to exemplify for many of us in the Bay Area just how unjust the justice system can be. The fact that no one has been made to answer for this man's death, and that the police who ended his life quickly went back on the job, only serves to deepen the sting of this latest flimsy report.
Besides, the San Francisco Police Officers Association—the group whose official positions are often reflexively conservative and unsympathetic to concerns of those citizens the SFPD routinely targets—has shown zero interest in attempting to mend relations with the minority community. Leadership even went so far as to formally denounce San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's protest of police misconduct.
There is at least a small ray of hope, though, as some officers nationwide seem to be waking up to the fact that past mistreatment by the police has helped fuel a deep mistrust of law enforcement within predominately black and Hispanic communities. The apology from the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police's on Monday, who nodded to the "role that our profession has played in society's historical mistreatment of communities of color," is an encouraging sign, at least.
But for many of us in the San Francisco Bay Area, it's hard to shake off a deeply pessimistic outlook about prospects for police reform. After all, the DOJ's review of the SFPD is non-binding, comprised of only recommendations. Without regulatory teeth that bite, the question of "who polices the police?" remains more relevant here than ever.
By Paris | VICE News | October 18, 2016
"All niggers must fucking hang."
"White power."
"Niggers should be spayed. I saw one an hour ago with 4 kids."
These words weren't uttered by Klansmen in 1960s Mississippi. They weren't a chant overheard at some racist skinhead revival. They weren't even spoken by average citizens in a spate of Donald Trump-induced bigotry.
These sentiments were privately shared among cops in San Francisco within the past five years.
Twice now—once in March 2015 and again this April—troves of texts and other communications from San Francisco police officers have revealed unsettling racism and homophobia in the rank and file. Add to that 11 police-involved fatalities between May 2013 and May 2016—nine of which involved people of color—and it's easy to see why the San Francisco Police Department was subject to a scathing Department of Justice review last week for allegedly discriminating against people of color in a systematic way.
For those of us who've had encounters with cops in San Francisco—deserved or otherwise—this comes as no surprise. We've long known the department was lacking; now it's official. The true test will be what happens in the non-binding report's wake, and given that the feds have been reluctant to even call the department's actions straight-up racist (as they did in Baltimore this summer), it's hard to be optimistic.
Needless to say, the sentiments espoused in those text messages don't inspire confidence that the SFPD can turn things around. "It's highly unlikely [the] SFPD can reform itself," as San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi said last week. Still, the DOJ review itself was conducted by its Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) and initiated at the behest of Mayor Ed Lee and former Chief Greg Suhr after the police killing of Mario Woods. And the report details 94 findings and well over 200 non-binding recommendations intended to help the department rectify its shortcomings.
According to the feds, the department has a myriad of problems, including those relating to issues with transparency and bias, accountability, data collection, and internal oversight and hiring. (The report also chronicles apparent efforts by the San Francisco Police Officers Association to thwart the implementation of reforms.) Perhaps most glaringly, even though blacks comprise less than 6 percent of San Francisco's population at this point, the DOJ report found that 37 percent of the department's nearly 550 use-of-force incidents over the last three years—and nearly 15 percent of its traffic stops—involved African Americans.
It's worth noting that the SFPD is nearly equal parts white and minority, which lends credence to the idea that racial prejudice is an inherent characteristic of policing in America. Indeed, if a diverse department in a diverse city (San Francisco is nearly half Asian and Latino) routinely exhibits racial bias as it metes out justice, what hope is there for the remaining 16,000 or more agencies nationwide—many of which are mostly white—to be any better?
Nevertheless, Mayor Lee and interim Police Chief Toney Chaplin maintain that the SFPD is committed to implementing every recommendation in the report, and cite the rollout of body cameras, a new use-of-force policy, and implicit bias training and sanctity of life practices as evidence the department is moving in the right direction.
The problem, according to the Police Body Worn Cameras Scorecard and as evidenced by individual cases where body-camera-toting cops shot and killed unarmed people, is that the adoption of new technology in departments nationwide is sporadic, and any attendant accountability less than automatic.
The SFPD's General Order on Body Worn Cameras explicitly requires officers to "activate their BWC equipment to record" detentions and arrests, consensual encounters, traffic and pedestrian stops, vehicle and foot pursuits, uses of force, searches, arrest warrants and more. However, that same order outlines no definitive penalty for officers who opt to not active their cameras, effectively rendering the entire exercise moot when attempting to measure officer culpability in matters of potential misconduct. Why not include a criminal penalty for officers accused of brutality (or worse) who don't activate their cameras? Or mandatory firing, at least?
We've all seen just how little progress has been made, with the killings of Keith Lamont Scott, Philando Castile and others serving as a constant reminder that police reform still has a long way to go in America. Even the police department in Ferguson, Missouri, which has supposedly binding reforms detailed in legal settlements as a result of the DOJ's civil rights division review (unaffiliated with the COPS Office that conducted the SFPD report), remains mired in racial tension and is dangerously understaffed. And the governor's race in Missouri is basically a fight between two white dudes about who's tougher on crime and who's more supportive of cops.
One would expect an assumed bastion of progressive ideals like San Francisco to do better. Sadly, it hasn't.
The recorded killing of Woods, a 26-year-old black man shot by several cops on the street after brandishing a knife, remains a point of contention for many concerned with police malfeasance, and was a key impetus for the COPS Office review. Even if the officers involved are never charged, I see the Woods killing as akin to murder—if someone who wasn't a cop did this, it would almost certainly be treated like one—as evidenced by unedited video documentation. The case has come to exemplify for many of us in the Bay Area just how unjust the justice system can be. The fact that no one has been made to answer for this man's death, and that the police who ended his life quickly went back on the job, only serves to deepen the sting of this latest flimsy report.
Besides, the San Francisco Police Officers Association—the group whose official positions are often reflexively conservative and unsympathetic to concerns of those citizens the SFPD routinely targets—has shown zero interest in attempting to mend relations with the minority community. Leadership even went so far as to formally denounce San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's protest of police misconduct.
There is at least a small ray of hope, though, as some officers nationwide seem to be waking up to the fact that past mistreatment by the police has helped fuel a deep mistrust of law enforcement within predominately black and Hispanic communities. The apology from the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police's on Monday, who nodded to the "role that our profession has played in society's historical mistreatment of communities of color," is an encouraging sign, at least.
But for many of us in the San Francisco Bay Area, it's hard to shake off a deeply pessimistic outlook about prospects for police reform. After all, the DOJ's review of the SFPD is non-binding, comprised of only recommendations. Without regulatory teeth that bite, the question of "who polices the police?" remains more relevant here than ever.
Monday, October 24, 2016
16-YEAR-OLD FLORIDA SPINA BIFIDA VICTIM PUTS ASSHOLES LIKE COLIN KAERPERNICK TO SHAME
When the American flag passed by during a homecoming parade in Leesburg, wheelchair-bound Arek Trenholm used all the strength he had to stand up in honor of Old Glory
BarkGrowlBite | October 24, 2016
16-year-old Arek Trenholm of Leesburg, Florida is a spina bifida victim. He has been wheelchair-bound for the past 10 years.
Earlier this month Arek was sitting in his wheelchair watching Leesburg’s high school homecoming parade. As the American flag approached, Arek used all the strength in his arms to force himself to stand up in honor of Old Glory.
His mother says that despite his debilitating illness, he’s been standing for national anthems, pledges of allegiance and flags since he was very young. You can’t get much more patriotic than that.
Compare Arek’s patriotism to the disloyalty of assholes like Colin Kaepernick. Compare Arek’s pride in our flag to the disgraceful performance of the national anthem by Denasia Lawrence before an NBA game in Miami where she knelt as she sang and ripped open her jacket to display her Black Lives Matter t-shirt.
Arek puts to shame all those assholes that are kneeling during the playing or singing of the anthem. Furthermore he also puts to shame NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the coaches of high school, college and pro teams who support the kneeling of their players during the national anthem.
God bless Arek Trenholm!
BarkGrowlBite | October 24, 2016
16-year-old Arek Trenholm of Leesburg, Florida is a spina bifida victim. He has been wheelchair-bound for the past 10 years.
Earlier this month Arek was sitting in his wheelchair watching Leesburg’s high school homecoming parade. As the American flag approached, Arek used all the strength in his arms to force himself to stand up in honor of Old Glory.
His mother says that despite his debilitating illness, he’s been standing for national anthems, pledges of allegiance and flags since he was very young. You can’t get much more patriotic than that.
Compare Arek’s patriotism to the disloyalty of assholes like Colin Kaepernick. Compare Arek’s pride in our flag to the disgraceful performance of the national anthem by Denasia Lawrence before an NBA game in Miami where she knelt as she sang and ripped open her jacket to display her Black Lives Matter t-shirt.
Arek puts to shame all those assholes that are kneeling during the playing or singing of the anthem. Furthermore he also puts to shame NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the coaches of high school, college and pro teams who support the kneeling of their players during the national anthem.
God bless Arek Trenholm!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)