The older I get the more I long for a return to the good old days of kicking ass and taking names
BarkGrowlBite
July 31, 2017
When I was a criminal justice professor I was dedicated to teaching my students the modern ways of restrictive policing. However after retiring, and the older I get, the more I long for the good old days of policing where we kicked ass and took names.
Back when I was a cop law abiding citizens respected the police and criminals both respected and feered us cops. Today hardly anyone respects the police anymore. Of course, the proliferation of cellphone videos and the media frenzy they cause play a large part in creating disrespect for the police.
Up into the mid-sixties the police had a free hand in how they dealt with criminals. Yes, we did kick a lot of ass and took names, but it was rarely ever with a law abiding citizen. In those days most suspects did not resist arrest. They did not give us a lot of shit. If they did, it was because they were either drunk or high on drugs.
We also conducted searches of cars and dwellings without a search warrant and when we did so, it rarely involved a law abiding citizen.
If someone killed a cop back then, he was dead meat. When we caught up with him he was Swiss-cheesed. No negotiating for his surrender. And unless a criminal was a nutjob, he knew better than to take an officer’s life.
We had the electric chair and those condemned to death did not linger on death row any longer than it took for one or two appeals to run their course. And ‘Old Sparky’ was so frightening that it also acted as a deterrent to murder..
Back then we had shotguns instead of military assault rifles. We were not equipped with uniforms that made us look like Robocop.
In those days we had a pretty good handle on crime. While one crime is one too many, the crime rate was fairly low.
All that began to disappear with the Miranda decision. In 1966 the Supreme Court handed down a decision which required the police to warn everyone taken into custody that they had a right to remain silent, that they had a right to an attorney and that anything they said could be used against them in court. The case involved a Mexican rapist whose conviction was overturned because the cops failed to warn him before he confessed to the crime.
The Miranda decision itself was really not the big deal cops and their supporters made out of it. The FBI had been using similar warnings for years. But it was followed by a stream of restrictive decisions handed down by a liberal Supreme Court. The police complained they were being handcuffed, but that was a ridiculous complaint. The police were not handcuffed. It just made their job harder and a criminal’s life easier. Convictions were reversed because someone forgot to cross a T or dot an I And the crime rate began to rise in the wake of each restrictive ruling by the courts.
The courts also ordered police agencies to become more diverse. Racial, ethnic and gender diversity in the police force is desirable. But mixing diversity with affirmative action was nearly disastrous. In order to meet court ordered goals police agencies had to lower their literacy standards in the case of minority hiring and their physical standards for women recruits. Minorities, in a number of cases, were promoted over more deserving white officers. Police morale was at an all-time low and racially biased resentment manifested itself in many law enforcement agencies.
So where are we today? Criminals no longer fear the police. Resisting arrest seems to be the order of the day. The crime rate is much higher than back in my time. Prisons which had become overcrowded are being downsized by early releases to meet court ordered standards. Crimes which were at one time classified as felonies were reclassified as misdemeanors to keep criminals from being sent to prisons.
Today every arrest seems to be videoed by cell phones. Every questionable or wrongful police action shows up on the internet and fuels a media frenzy. Almost every police shooting of a black man leads to anti-police demonstrations and in some cases rioting, looting and burning. That has led to a rush in indicting cops for murder even when ths shooting was justified.
In 2014, two NYPD cops were ambushed and assassinated in Brooklyn by a black man in revenge for the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown at the hands of the police. In 2016, five Dallas police officers were assassinated and nine were wounded in an ambush by a black Afghan War veteran who was inspired by the rabble rousing of Black Lives Matter. Just this month a female NYPD cop was ambushed and assassinated in the Bronx by a black parolee.
With the rush to prosecute cops who shoot some on, the police are facing a terrible predicament. Police officers can choose to save their jobs or to save their lives, but they can’t do both.
Today, when the police find a cop killer, instead of shooting him down, they call a SWAT team and have a 3-hour or a 6-hour or a 24-hour stand off during which a police negotiator tries to sweet-talk the scumbag into giving himself up.
The death penalty has become a farce. We have 2,900 cold blooded murderers lingering on death rows for 10, 20 and even more than30 years – 749 in California alone - while their lawyers file endless appeals. There’s a good chance many of them will die of natural causes. And when we finally do execute these murderers, we put them to sleep like a beloved pet dog.
Today with cops subjected to so much hatred and fearful of doing their jobs, police agencies are losing officers through early retirement and are having a hard time recruiting new cops. I worry about my cop granddaughter having to shoot some piece of shit and then facing prosecution for trying to keep herself from being killed or seriously injured.
Of course we will always have some bad cops doing some terrible things, but they are very few in numbers. It was the same in my day. But in my day cops were respected. Nowadays they are not. In my day there were no targeted assassinations of police officers. Then the crime rate was relatively low. Today the crime rate is high.
For the politically correct crowd a little head thumping is just too brutal to contemplate, but it sure works well with the criminal element.
When I retired in 1993, I never imagined that I would ever call for a return to the good old days of kicking ass and taking names. Bad cops aside, in those days the police got the job done and were respected for it.
Monday, July 31, 2017
POLITICALLY CORRECT POLICE ADMINISTRATORS UNHAPPY WITH TRUMPS CALL FOR COPS TO ROUGH UP THUGS
Speaking in front of a group of cops about cracking down on gangs, Trump half-jokingly seemed to be calling for a return to the kick ass era of policing
BarkGrowlBite
July 31, 2017
Speaking Friday on Long Island before a large group of police officers about cracking down on gangs, President Trump seemed to be calling for a return to the kick ass era of policing when he half-jokingly said:
"When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon. You see them thrown in rough. I said, 'Please don't be too nice. Like, don't hit their head and they've just killed somebody. I said, 'You can take the hand away, OK?'"
"I have to tell you, you know, the laws are so horrendously stacked against us, because for years and years, they've been made to protect the criminal. Totally made to protect the criminal. Not the officers. You do something wrong, you're in more jeopardy than they are,"
The cops laughed at Trump’s remarks about not being nice to arrestees and applauded his complaint about the rights of criminals.
However, politically correct police administrators across the country immediately accused Trump of encouraging police brutality.
Obviously unhappy that its own officers laughed and applauded, the Suffolk County Police Department, which has jurisdiction over the location where Trump spoke, released a statement which said, "As a department, we do not and will not tolerate 'rough(ing)' up prisoners. The Suffolk County Police Department has strict rules and procedures relating to the handling of prisoners, and violations of those rules and procedures are treated extremely seriously."
A Boston Police Department statement said, "[our] priority has been and continues to be building relationships and trust with the community we serve. As a police department we are committed to helping people, not harming them."
New York, Police Commissioner James O'Neill said, "to suggest that police officers apply any standard in the use of force other than what is reasonable and necessary is irresponsible, unprofessional and sends the wrong message to law enforcement as well as the public."
The Gainesville, Florida, police department said “The President of the United States has no business endorsing or condoning cops being rough with arrestees and suggesting that we should slam their heads onto the car while putting them in. The men and women of GPD absolutely reject those remarks and will continue to serve and protect this great community with respect. The President's remarks today have set modern policing back and erased a lot of the strides we have made to build trust in our community. …It's certainly possible to enforce laws and arrest very bad folks and do it with respect.”
Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole said, “Seattle’s police officers have embraced reform and have worked incredibly hard to build community trust. We do not intend to go backwards. It is truly unfortunate that in today’s toxic environment, politicians at both ends of the spectrum have sought to inflame passions by politicizing what we do. We remain committed to our principles and reject irresponsible statements that threaten to undermine our relationship with the community.”
Similary complaints about Trumps remarks were made by law enforcement officials in Los Angeles, Houston, Baltimore and other cities.
While the politically correct police chiefs and sheriff s are expressing alarm over Trump’s remarks, the rank-and-file cops who have to work the mean streets in protecting the public, probably support the president wholeheartedly.
Blue Lives Matter said, "Trump didn’t tell police to go out and brutalize people as the media would have you believe. It was a joke. Do these people actually realize that this was a joke and not a policy change? It seems not.”
Refuting his own department, John Becker, head of the Suffolk County Deputy Sheriff's Police Benevolent Association, said "For the first time in many years we feel we have a president who supports law enforcement."
All of you who have read the post ahead of this one know that I long for the good old days of kick ass and take names. For the politically correct crowd a little head thumping is just too brutal to contemplate, but it sure works well with the criminal element. If Trump was joking, it was only a half-joke in my estimation. All the kindness cops are now supposed to show to criminals has only increased assaults on and the murder of police officers.
BarkGrowlBite
July 31, 2017
Speaking Friday on Long Island before a large group of police officers about cracking down on gangs, President Trump seemed to be calling for a return to the kick ass era of policing when he half-jokingly said:
"When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon. You see them thrown in rough. I said, 'Please don't be too nice. Like, don't hit their head and they've just killed somebody. I said, 'You can take the hand away, OK?'"
"I have to tell you, you know, the laws are so horrendously stacked against us, because for years and years, they've been made to protect the criminal. Totally made to protect the criminal. Not the officers. You do something wrong, you're in more jeopardy than they are,"
The cops laughed at Trump’s remarks about not being nice to arrestees and applauded his complaint about the rights of criminals.
However, politically correct police administrators across the country immediately accused Trump of encouraging police brutality.
Obviously unhappy that its own officers laughed and applauded, the Suffolk County Police Department, which has jurisdiction over the location where Trump spoke, released a statement which said, "As a department, we do not and will not tolerate 'rough(ing)' up prisoners. The Suffolk County Police Department has strict rules and procedures relating to the handling of prisoners, and violations of those rules and procedures are treated extremely seriously."
A Boston Police Department statement said, "[our] priority has been and continues to be building relationships and trust with the community we serve. As a police department we are committed to helping people, not harming them."
New York, Police Commissioner James O'Neill said, "to suggest that police officers apply any standard in the use of force other than what is reasonable and necessary is irresponsible, unprofessional and sends the wrong message to law enforcement as well as the public."
The Gainesville, Florida, police department said “The President of the United States has no business endorsing or condoning cops being rough with arrestees and suggesting that we should slam their heads onto the car while putting them in. The men and women of GPD absolutely reject those remarks and will continue to serve and protect this great community with respect. The President's remarks today have set modern policing back and erased a lot of the strides we have made to build trust in our community. …It's certainly possible to enforce laws and arrest very bad folks and do it with respect.”
Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole said, “Seattle’s police officers have embraced reform and have worked incredibly hard to build community trust. We do not intend to go backwards. It is truly unfortunate that in today’s toxic environment, politicians at both ends of the spectrum have sought to inflame passions by politicizing what we do. We remain committed to our principles and reject irresponsible statements that threaten to undermine our relationship with the community.”
Similary complaints about Trumps remarks were made by law enforcement officials in Los Angeles, Houston, Baltimore and other cities.
While the politically correct police chiefs and sheriff s are expressing alarm over Trump’s remarks, the rank-and-file cops who have to work the mean streets in protecting the public, probably support the president wholeheartedly.
Blue Lives Matter said, "Trump didn’t tell police to go out and brutalize people as the media would have you believe. It was a joke. Do these people actually realize that this was a joke and not a policy change? It seems not.”
Refuting his own department, John Becker, head of the Suffolk County Deputy Sheriff's Police Benevolent Association, said "For the first time in many years we feel we have a president who supports law enforcement."
All of you who have read the post ahead of this one know that I long for the good old days of kick ass and take names. For the politically correct crowd a little head thumping is just too brutal to contemplate, but it sure works well with the criminal element. If Trump was joking, it was only a half-joke in my estimation. All the kindness cops are now supposed to show to criminals has only increased assaults on and the murder of police officers.
Sunday, July 30, 2017
SOMETHING TRULY REMARKABLE...FEDERAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW
by Bob Walsh
Something truly noteworthy is about to happen in the People's Republic of San Francisco. The federal government is about to comply with the law.
Most of you no doubt recall the name Kate Steinle. She was murdered on San Francisco by a multiple-deported illegal alien who used San Francisco's sanctuary city policy to avoid punishment.
The pistol he shot and killed Steinle with had been stolen three days prior from the locked car of a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) park ranger. The ranger is going to testify, and that is the remarkable part. Apparently the BLM has an official policy that prohibits it's employees from complying with either polite requests or subpoenas for either official records or personal testimony.
The shyster for the murderous criminal illegal alien believes that the range, John Woychowski, is a critical witness to establish the history and condition of the stolen weapon. Presumably the shyster is going to try to make out the weapon was either defective or poorly maintained and that the criminal illegal alien just happened to be walking down Pier 39 with the stolen gun in his hand when it discharged, killing Ms. Steinle.
The Steinle family has a civil action pending against the BLM, asserting that the act of leaving the gun in the car (which was completely legal at the time) led to Ms. Steinle's death. I guess there is no point in suing the illegal alien criminal, he has no money.
Something truly noteworthy is about to happen in the People's Republic of San Francisco. The federal government is about to comply with the law.
Most of you no doubt recall the name Kate Steinle. She was murdered on San Francisco by a multiple-deported illegal alien who used San Francisco's sanctuary city policy to avoid punishment.
The pistol he shot and killed Steinle with had been stolen three days prior from the locked car of a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) park ranger. The ranger is going to testify, and that is the remarkable part. Apparently the BLM has an official policy that prohibits it's employees from complying with either polite requests or subpoenas for either official records or personal testimony.
The shyster for the murderous criminal illegal alien believes that the range, John Woychowski, is a critical witness to establish the history and condition of the stolen weapon. Presumably the shyster is going to try to make out the weapon was either defective or poorly maintained and that the criminal illegal alien just happened to be walking down Pier 39 with the stolen gun in his hand when it discharged, killing Ms. Steinle.
The Steinle family has a civil action pending against the BLM, asserting that the act of leaving the gun in the car (which was completely legal at the time) led to Ms. Steinle's death. I guess there is no point in suing the illegal alien criminal, he has no money.
POT HEAD FAILS TO REALIZE CAR HE WAS TRYING TO STEAL WAS MARKED POLICE CAR WITH COP INSIDE
Man Tries to Steal Fort Pierce Police Patrol Car With Officer Inside
Treasure Coast Newspapers
July 28, 2017
FORT PIERCE, Florida -- A 20-year-old man was arrested after police say he tried to steal a car.
Not just any old car.
A Fort Pierce police patrol vehicle. At the Fort Pierce Police Department. With a Fort Pierce police officer in it.
Because who would ever notice?
It happened about 5 a.m. July 17 as Officer Robie Troutman was in his patrol vehicle at the main police station on South U.S. 1 writing a report, according to his report.
"While in my vehicle, I heard the rear passenger side door handle make noise and then the front passenger side door handle make noise, where I was positioned seated in the driver seat of my clearly marked Fort Pierce Police Department Patrol vehicle," the report states.
Troutman opened his door and reported seeing a man later identified as Aaron Orlando Rodriguez III run away and hide behind another vehicle.
Troutman and another officer detained Rodriguez and found two cell phones, a portable speaker, a $20 bill and a pipe with marijuana residue.
"Rodriguez said he saw my vehicle was running so he attempted to steal the vehicle so he had a ride home," the report states.
Rodriguez, of Okeechobee, was arrested on charges including attempted grand theft of a motor vehicle, loitering and prowling and possession of drug equipment.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ain’t marijuana great? If you’re stoned, pot will make a marked police car with a uniformed officer in the driver’s seat look just like an ordinary unoccupied car.
Treasure Coast Newspapers
July 28, 2017
FORT PIERCE, Florida -- A 20-year-old man was arrested after police say he tried to steal a car.
Not just any old car.
A Fort Pierce police patrol vehicle. At the Fort Pierce Police Department. With a Fort Pierce police officer in it.
Because who would ever notice?
It happened about 5 a.m. July 17 as Officer Robie Troutman was in his patrol vehicle at the main police station on South U.S. 1 writing a report, according to his report.
"While in my vehicle, I heard the rear passenger side door handle make noise and then the front passenger side door handle make noise, where I was positioned seated in the driver seat of my clearly marked Fort Pierce Police Department Patrol vehicle," the report states.
Troutman opened his door and reported seeing a man later identified as Aaron Orlando Rodriguez III run away and hide behind another vehicle.
Troutman and another officer detained Rodriguez and found two cell phones, a portable speaker, a $20 bill and a pipe with marijuana residue.
"Rodriguez said he saw my vehicle was running so he attempted to steal the vehicle so he had a ride home," the report states.
Rodriguez, of Okeechobee, was arrested on charges including attempted grand theft of a motor vehicle, loitering and prowling and possession of drug equipment.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ain’t marijuana great? If you’re stoned, pot will make a marked police car with a uniformed officer in the driver’s seat look just like an ordinary unoccupied car.
I CALL ON ALLAH TO LIBERATE THE AL-AQSA MOSQUE FROM THE FILTH OF THE JEWS AND TO ANNIHILATE THEN DOWN TO THE VERY LAST ONE ….. OOPS, I REALLY DID NOT MEAN THAT
California Muslim leader apologizes for anti-semitic sermon calling for the 'liberation' of holy Islamic site in Jerusalem from the 'filth of the Jews'
By Jessica Finn
Daily Mail
July 29, 2017
A California imam who came under fire for a sermon that has been translated to condone the annihilation of Jews, has apologized.
Imam Ammar Shahin, of the Islamic Center of Davis, held a news conference Friday admitting his emotions clouded his judgement during the sermon on July 21.
Shahin's sermon focused on the al-Aqsa Mosque, a holy site for both Muslims and Jews alike.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), translated Shahin's remarks as calling for God to 'liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews' and to 'annihilate them down to the very last one.'
A recent turn of events at the highly contested site prompted Shahin to give the sermon after Israeli officials put metal detectors at the site for Muslims to pass through following a recent shooting of two Israeli guards there by Arab-Israeli gunmen.
During Friday's press conference, Shahin said: I am deeply sorry for the pain that I have caused. The last thing I would do is intentionally hurt anyone, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise. It is not in my heart, nor does my religion allow it.'
However the Islamic Center of Davis said in a statement to the Washington Post Wednesday that Sharin's statements were taken out of context by MEMRI.
'In the context of the full sermon, it becomes clear that the theme of the sermon was against oppression, and not against Jews or any religion,' the mosque statement said.
'If MEMRI and company sincerely followed Imam Ammar Shahin's work and did not just cut and paste what suits their cause, they would have come across the countless lectures and sermons he has given regarding treating all people, especially non-Muslims, with kindness and giving them their full rights, supporting them when they are oppressed.'
During Friday's news conference, Shahin said 'Commitment to defending religious rights in Jerusalem should not cause division or fan the flames of anti-semitism.'
He added 'Today, I commit to working harder and will join efforts for mutual understanding and building bridges. As a young religious leader, this has humbled me.'
Shahin was flanked by Davis Rabbi Seth Castleman and other interfaith leaders to ease tensions over his comments that some feared could result in violence.
'I said things that were hurtful to Jews. This was unacceptable,' Shahin said. 'I hope to grow and develop as a more worthy leader in the community,' he added.
Rabbi Castleman thanked Shahin for his apologies and called for action. 'Apologies are only as worthy as the actions that follow, so I call upon you. I implore you to follow those words with actions,' Castleman said.
As soon as the hour long sermon hit the Internet the mosque put out statements including the one admonishing MEMRI for only taking it as a portion. A second appeared under the YouTube clip of the sermon.
In the posted YouTube clip the statement said: 'The ICD (Islamic Center of Davis) will always stand against anti-semitism similarly to how the Jewish community has always stood against Islamophobia in our close knit community. We have zero tolerance for anti-semitism or any other form of bigotry.'
Hamza El-Nakhal, a member of the Muslim community in Davis told The Enterprise 'Some people like Imam Ammar Shahin become angry for injustices. He spoke while angry. He should not have given this sermon while angry.'
EDITOR’S NOTE: He didn’t mean it. Yeah, right. Words bellowed in anger reveal the true feelings of the speaker. And in this case, the apology will not undo the harm caused by Shahin’s tirade.
By Jessica Finn
Daily Mail
July 29, 2017
A California imam who came under fire for a sermon that has been translated to condone the annihilation of Jews, has apologized.
Imam Ammar Shahin, of the Islamic Center of Davis, held a news conference Friday admitting his emotions clouded his judgement during the sermon on July 21.
Shahin's sermon focused on the al-Aqsa Mosque, a holy site for both Muslims and Jews alike.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), translated Shahin's remarks as calling for God to 'liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews' and to 'annihilate them down to the very last one.'
A recent turn of events at the highly contested site prompted Shahin to give the sermon after Israeli officials put metal detectors at the site for Muslims to pass through following a recent shooting of two Israeli guards there by Arab-Israeli gunmen.
During Friday's press conference, Shahin said: I am deeply sorry for the pain that I have caused. The last thing I would do is intentionally hurt anyone, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise. It is not in my heart, nor does my religion allow it.'
However the Islamic Center of Davis said in a statement to the Washington Post Wednesday that Sharin's statements were taken out of context by MEMRI.
'In the context of the full sermon, it becomes clear that the theme of the sermon was against oppression, and not against Jews or any religion,' the mosque statement said.
'If MEMRI and company sincerely followed Imam Ammar Shahin's work and did not just cut and paste what suits their cause, they would have come across the countless lectures and sermons he has given regarding treating all people, especially non-Muslims, with kindness and giving them their full rights, supporting them when they are oppressed.'
During Friday's news conference, Shahin said 'Commitment to defending religious rights in Jerusalem should not cause division or fan the flames of anti-semitism.'
He added 'Today, I commit to working harder and will join efforts for mutual understanding and building bridges. As a young religious leader, this has humbled me.'
Shahin was flanked by Davis Rabbi Seth Castleman and other interfaith leaders to ease tensions over his comments that some feared could result in violence.
'I said things that were hurtful to Jews. This was unacceptable,' Shahin said. 'I hope to grow and develop as a more worthy leader in the community,' he added.
Rabbi Castleman thanked Shahin for his apologies and called for action. 'Apologies are only as worthy as the actions that follow, so I call upon you. I implore you to follow those words with actions,' Castleman said.
As soon as the hour long sermon hit the Internet the mosque put out statements including the one admonishing MEMRI for only taking it as a portion. A second appeared under the YouTube clip of the sermon.
In the posted YouTube clip the statement said: 'The ICD (Islamic Center of Davis) will always stand against anti-semitism similarly to how the Jewish community has always stood against Islamophobia in our close knit community. We have zero tolerance for anti-semitism or any other form of bigotry.'
Hamza El-Nakhal, a member of the Muslim community in Davis told The Enterprise 'Some people like Imam Ammar Shahin become angry for injustices. He spoke while angry. He should not have given this sermon while angry.'
EDITOR’S NOTE: He didn’t mean it. Yeah, right. Words bellowed in anger reveal the true feelings of the speaker. And in this case, the apology will not undo the harm caused by Shahin’s tirade.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
FUN AND GAMES ACROSS THE BORDER FROM LAREDO, TEXAS
9 bodies found piled in Mexican border city Nuevo Laredo
By Maria Verza
Associated Press
July 28, 2017
MEXICO CITY -- Nine bodies were found in a bloody pile in the border city of Nuevo Laredo, across from Laredo, Texas, Mexican authorities reported.
A Tamaulipas state official said Thursday the dead include five women and four men. The official was not authorized to be quoted by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The official said a hand-lettered sign was left atop the bodies, which were found in front of a house near a border bridge. Such messages are frequently left by drug cartels as warnings to rivals.
"This is not a joke, nephew," read the sign, according to photos published in local media.
The state prosecutors' office said in a statement it was investigating the killings.
Nuevo Laredo has long been dominated by the Zetas cartel, which has splintered into factions following the arrest or killing of top leaders.
By Maria Verza
Associated Press
July 28, 2017
MEXICO CITY -- Nine bodies were found in a bloody pile in the border city of Nuevo Laredo, across from Laredo, Texas, Mexican authorities reported.
A Tamaulipas state official said Thursday the dead include five women and four men. The official was not authorized to be quoted by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The official said a hand-lettered sign was left atop the bodies, which were found in front of a house near a border bridge. Such messages are frequently left by drug cartels as warnings to rivals.
"This is not a joke, nephew," read the sign, according to photos published in local media.
The state prosecutors' office said in a statement it was investigating the killings.
Nuevo Laredo has long been dominated by the Zetas cartel, which has splintered into factions following the arrest or killing of top leaders.
ONE SERIOUSLY FUCKED UP WHITE HOUSE
What the hell is going on within the Trump administration?
BarkGrowlBite
July, 29, 2017
First the president publicly embarrassed his Attorney General by criticizing Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russian investigation.
Then Trump hires Anthony Scaramucci as his communications director. Scaramucci, known as Mooch, promptly told a reporter for the New Yorker that Trump’s chief of staff Reince Priebus was a “fucking paranoid schizophrenic” and accused chief strategist Steve Bannon of “sucking his own cock.”
I’ll bet Saturday Night Live is going to have blast mocking the Mooch blasting Priebus and Bannon.
And the Mooch probably gave Jared Kushner and wife Ivanka Trump a big laugh because it’s no secret they much prefer a White House cleansed of Priebus and Bannon.
Om Friday Trump dumped Priebus and replaced him with homeland security secretary John Kelly.
The White House is looking more and more like a Three Stooges comedy.
BarkGrowlBite
July, 29, 2017
First the president publicly embarrassed his Attorney General by criticizing Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russian investigation.
Then Trump hires Anthony Scaramucci as his communications director. Scaramucci, known as Mooch, promptly told a reporter for the New Yorker that Trump’s chief of staff Reince Priebus was a “fucking paranoid schizophrenic” and accused chief strategist Steve Bannon of “sucking his own cock.”
I’ll bet Saturday Night Live is going to have blast mocking the Mooch blasting Priebus and Bannon.
And the Mooch probably gave Jared Kushner and wife Ivanka Trump a big laugh because it’s no secret they much prefer a White House cleansed of Priebus and Bannon.
Om Friday Trump dumped Priebus and replaced him with homeland security secretary John Kelly.
The White House is looking more and more like a Three Stooges comedy.
GOAT FUCKER LAUNCHES FATAL ATTACK IN HAMBURG
by Bob Walsh
A jihadist goat fucker armed with a kitchen knife attacked seven people in a grocery store in Hamburg, Germany on Friday.
The goat fucker was yelling Allahu Akbar while he was on his rampage. For some reason the authorities in Germany are unable (or unwilling) to assign a motive to his actions. I guess the notion that he is a terrorist goat fucker doesn't occur to them.
His victims were one woman and six men. One of the men died and others are in serious condition.
The goat fucker is a "foreigner" who was supposed to have been deported but was not due to lack of documentation. I guess if you are an alien terrorist goat fucker in Germany all you have to do is lose your documents and they can't deport your happy ass. Somehow I see a flaw in that.
The goat fucker is a 26-year old born in the United Arab Emirates.
Just as an aside, for no particular reason. Are residents of Hamburg referred to as "hamburgers?" I have often wondered about that.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Regarding your aside Bob, maybe he really wasn't a jihadist terrorist, but slashed all those people up in that grocery store because he believed they were Hamburgers.
A jihadist goat fucker armed with a kitchen knife attacked seven people in a grocery store in Hamburg, Germany on Friday.
The goat fucker was yelling Allahu Akbar while he was on his rampage. For some reason the authorities in Germany are unable (or unwilling) to assign a motive to his actions. I guess the notion that he is a terrorist goat fucker doesn't occur to them.
His victims were one woman and six men. One of the men died and others are in serious condition.
The goat fucker is a "foreigner" who was supposed to have been deported but was not due to lack of documentation. I guess if you are an alien terrorist goat fucker in Germany all you have to do is lose your documents and they can't deport your happy ass. Somehow I see a flaw in that.
The goat fucker is a 26-year old born in the United Arab Emirates.
Just as an aside, for no particular reason. Are residents of Hamburg referred to as "hamburgers?" I have often wondered about that.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Regarding your aside Bob, maybe he really wasn't a jihadist terrorist, but slashed all those people up in that grocery store because he believed they were Hamburgers.
DAMN, WE OUGHT TO CHECK THOSE DAMN DAMS
by Bob Walsh
The formerly great state of California has decided that 93 of the 1,250 dams overseen by the Dept. of Water Resources are in need of a close inspection. Closer than had been given to, say, the Oroville Dam, the near-catastrophic failure of which could have been remarkable unpleasant for a couple of hundred thousand people immediately downstream. Among them is the New Don Pedro dam, which retains the 6th largest reservoir in CA. (Of course if New Don Pedro Dam failed it is possible that the Old Dan Pedro dam, which was left in place when the new dam was built. MIGHT retain a significant portion of the lake. Or not.)
This exam will include checking the geological condition of the substrate beneath these dams. These checks are supposed to be completed by the rainy season, typically beginning on November 1.
I guess if you are going to have a lot of water behind a big pile of dirt in behooves you to check on the condition of that pile of dirt every now and then.
The formerly great state of California has decided that 93 of the 1,250 dams overseen by the Dept. of Water Resources are in need of a close inspection. Closer than had been given to, say, the Oroville Dam, the near-catastrophic failure of which could have been remarkable unpleasant for a couple of hundred thousand people immediately downstream. Among them is the New Don Pedro dam, which retains the 6th largest reservoir in CA. (Of course if New Don Pedro Dam failed it is possible that the Old Dan Pedro dam, which was left in place when the new dam was built. MIGHT retain a significant portion of the lake. Or not.)
This exam will include checking the geological condition of the substrate beneath these dams. These checks are supposed to be completed by the rainy season, typically beginning on November 1.
I guess if you are going to have a lot of water behind a big pile of dirt in behooves you to check on the condition of that pile of dirt every now and then.
HILLARY'S NEW BOOK
by Bob Walsh
"Fuck All You People"
Yes, that is (allegedly) the title of Hillary's new book. She wants to tell why she failed to become the second female president of the United States (after Edith Wilson) and arguably the first switch-hitter to hold the office.
I am told by those in-the-know (my non-English speaking Croatian barber) that Hillary believes that it is the fault of the voters who were all too stupid to appreciate how absolutely fucking wonderful she is and she is going to tell them what she thinks of them. It could be epic.
If memory serves me correctly H. L. Mencken once ran for congress. He lost. HIs comment to the press was, "The public has spoken, the bastards."
Hillary and Chelsey in 2020. You go girls.
"Fuck All You People"
Yes, that is (allegedly) the title of Hillary's new book. She wants to tell why she failed to become the second female president of the United States (after Edith Wilson) and arguably the first switch-hitter to hold the office.
I am told by those in-the-know (my non-English speaking Croatian barber) that Hillary believes that it is the fault of the voters who were all too stupid to appreciate how absolutely fucking wonderful she is and she is going to tell them what she thinks of them. It could be epic.
If memory serves me correctly H. L. Mencken once ran for congress. He lost. HIs comment to the press was, "The public has spoken, the bastards."
Hillary and Chelsey in 2020. You go girls.
YOUR WORK, YOUR SIGNATURE
BarkGrowlBite
July 29, 2017
Sanjiv Singh was the captain of a container ship on which I took a 42 day cruise in 2003. He and I became good friends.
Sanjiv has a blog entitled “Force 12” directed primarily at seafarers. I was browsing through his blog when I came across a post entitled “Your Work, Your Signature” which he posted on May 15 this year, and in which he described how a messman in his crew went way beyond the standard of work for his position.
In that post Sanjiv, who lives in India, made the following statement:
Performing work way above the standard expected of you is not just a matter of competence. It’s about the pleasure you derive from doing the same job clearly better in quality than the rest [of the workers]. It’s about the price you put on each task, notwithstanding how mundane or menial. This becomes your signature.
Now that’s a great statement!
I once had an elderly parolee who fit that bill. He worked as a dishwasher in a small nondescript restaurant. He always arrived early for work and usually left well beyond quitting time. Both his boss and I tried to get him to look for a better job but he said he was happy in what he was doing. That was his signature.
On the other hand, a police officer here doing his job that way would soon find himself scorned by his fellow cops and facing a pile of citizen complaints accusing him of racial profiling and using excessive force. His signature would not be appreciated. Both his fellow cops and the public would probably describe him as an asshole.
It’s too bad the signature Sanjiv described fails to be appreciated in every workplace.
July 29, 2017
Sanjiv Singh was the captain of a container ship on which I took a 42 day cruise in 2003. He and I became good friends.
Sanjiv has a blog entitled “Force 12” directed primarily at seafarers. I was browsing through his blog when I came across a post entitled “Your Work, Your Signature” which he posted on May 15 this year, and in which he described how a messman in his crew went way beyond the standard of work for his position.
In that post Sanjiv, who lives in India, made the following statement:
Performing work way above the standard expected of you is not just a matter of competence. It’s about the pleasure you derive from doing the same job clearly better in quality than the rest [of the workers]. It’s about the price you put on each task, notwithstanding how mundane or menial. This becomes your signature.
Now that’s a great statement!
I once had an elderly parolee who fit that bill. He worked as a dishwasher in a small nondescript restaurant. He always arrived early for work and usually left well beyond quitting time. Both his boss and I tried to get him to look for a better job but he said he was happy in what he was doing. That was his signature.
On the other hand, a police officer here doing his job that way would soon find himself scorned by his fellow cops and facing a pile of citizen complaints accusing him of racial profiling and using excessive force. His signature would not be appreciated. Both his fellow cops and the public would probably describe him as an asshole.
It’s too bad the signature Sanjiv described fails to be appreciated in every workplace.
EX-CONVICTS HELP COMPANIES FILL NEED FOR SKILLED LABOR
As jobless rate declines, employers increasingly find qualified workers among recently released prisoners
By Jeffrey Sparshott
The Wall Street Journal
July 27, 2017
Erickson Cos., a Chandler, Ariz., based construction firm, has hired almost 30 former inmates from Arizona state prisons over the past year to build frames for new homes, an effort to cope with skilled-labor scarcity.
“We’re searching for every alternative avenue that we possibly can to help solve this labor shortage,” Rich Gallagher, Erickson’s chief executive, said in an interview.
Erickson is part of what appears to be a nationwide trend. As the jobless rate falls, employers in places including Arizona, Indiana and Maryland are scouring the fringes of the labor market for able-bodied workers, including ex-offenders.
Erickson, which has about 250 employees in Arizona and roughly 1,000 nationwide, has been recruiting directly from corrections department job fairs for prisoners nearing release. Karen Hellman, director of inmate programs and re-entry, said there has been a noticeable uptick in companies looking to hire inmates this year.
National data on hiring of ex-offenders isn’t available, but other state correctional systems across the U.S. and training programs for ex-offenders report similar experiences.
“I’ve never dealt with employers who are more willing to hire ex-felons,” said John Nally, who started working at the Indiana Department of Correction in 1967 and is now its director of education. “It is a totally different landscape when you have an unemployment rate of 3.6%. We have all these people in construction who are literally begging for workers.”
Indiana’s unemployment rate was 3.6% in April and fell to 3.2% in May.
The U.S. unemployment rate fell to a 16-year low in May and the number of job openings climbed to a record in April, according to separate Labor Department reports, underscoring tightness in the labor market. In a recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business, nearly half of small businesses said they could find few or no qualified workers for the positions they were trying to fill.
“Contacts across a broad range of industries reported a shortage of qualified workers which had limited hiring,” the Federal Reserve said in its most recent summary of economic conditions.
More than 600,000 sentenced prisoners nationwide are released from state or federal prisons each year. Research shows that most struggle to find steady work and stable housing—and frequently end up offending again.
The vast majority—nearly 90% in the Indiana study—of ex-offenders have a high-school diploma or less, putting them at a distinct disadvantage among a population that already has higher unemployment and lower participation rates than those with at least some college.
But as the labor market tightens, their fortunes improve.
A review of Indiana state prisoners released in 2005 found that nearly half were rearrested within five years. “Ex-offenders would likely become recidivists if they were unemployed after release from prison,” the study said. “At its core, postrelease employment was the major predictor of recidivism.”
Of those released in 2005, 92% to 97% didn’t hold a job during the year they got out of prison, the Indiana study found. That fell to more than 60% by 2007, when the national unemployment rate was also low and the labor market tight. Unemployment among those released in 2005 was back up to 80% by 2009, after the recession hit. Americans with criminal records still face significant barriers to finding a job.
Many employers, for example, won’t hire someone without at least a high-school diploma. More than one-third of the ex-offenders in the Indiana study lacked such a credential. Businesses also are often leery of hiring anyone with a criminal background, sometimes because of regulations, legal liability concerns or worries a person will repeat past criminal behavior. Employers frequently complain potential workers can’t pass a drug test.
The right and left are making efforts toward criminal justice reform.
That includes initiatives to promote hiring as a means of rehabilitation, to lower crime rates and save money on incarceration costs.
“Slowly but surely there’s a mind shift about people who come out of prison,” said Mark Holden, general counsel at Koch Industries, the Wichita, Kan., manufacturing conglomerate perhaps better known for the conservative activism of its owners, Charles and David Koch. One priority for the group is criminal justice reform. “Hopefully we will see more opportunity [for people with criminal records] going forward.”
The situation shows signs of improving for ex-offenders in some parts of the country.
“What we’ve found is that employers are beginning to open up to individuals with criminal backgrounds,” said Kent Kramer, president and chief executive of Goodwill of Central and Southern Indiana. He said former inmates need stable housing, health care, a track record of employment and some marketable skill if they want a steady job with a living wage.
Timothy Phillips was released from Maryland’s prison system in February 2016 after 17 years behind bars for murder. The 48-year-old quickly found a job at a retailer but was later let go after a background check turned up his criminal history.
He participated in Baltimore’s Jump Start program, an 87-hour construction pre-apprenticeship. Job placement director Kate McShane estimates three-quarters of its enrollees have criminal records.
Mr. Phillips graduated from the program in February and the same month started working at Kogok Corp., an Upper Marlboro, Md., company that manufactures and installs commercial duct work. His work as a sheet metal mechanic feels like a career, not just a job, he said.
“It seems that you do have companies like Kogok that may not mind hiring someone with a criminal background—it seems like companies out there do exist,” Mr. Phillips said. “It isn’t that hard if you’re determined.”
In the Baltimore metropolitan area, which includes more suburban Columbia and Towson, the unemployment rate is 4.1%, leaving some companies scrambling for workers.
Daniel Warner, president of Loganville, Penn.-based Structural Restoration Services Inc., said his company since May has hired seven Jump Start graduates for jobs in the region, its first experience with the program.
“The labor market’s really tight,” he said. “We have tried just about every avenue of hiring we can figure out.”
So far, five have stuck with the building repair company—not much different than other hires off the street—and Mr. Warner said when he needs additional workers, he would consider recruiting from the program again.
“These are guys who have really made a decision to change their life,” Mr. Warner said.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If employers are really hiring skilled ex-cons that is real good news. A good job is the most critical factor in keeping an ex-con from returning to prison. I hope this isn’t too good to be true.
Ex-cons who are not skilled will have a hard time finding any jobs other than working in a car wash or some other such low paying menial work.
By Jeffrey Sparshott
The Wall Street Journal
July 27, 2017
Erickson Cos., a Chandler, Ariz., based construction firm, has hired almost 30 former inmates from Arizona state prisons over the past year to build frames for new homes, an effort to cope with skilled-labor scarcity.
“We’re searching for every alternative avenue that we possibly can to help solve this labor shortage,” Rich Gallagher, Erickson’s chief executive, said in an interview.
Erickson is part of what appears to be a nationwide trend. As the jobless rate falls, employers in places including Arizona, Indiana and Maryland are scouring the fringes of the labor market for able-bodied workers, including ex-offenders.
Erickson, which has about 250 employees in Arizona and roughly 1,000 nationwide, has been recruiting directly from corrections department job fairs for prisoners nearing release. Karen Hellman, director of inmate programs and re-entry, said there has been a noticeable uptick in companies looking to hire inmates this year.
National data on hiring of ex-offenders isn’t available, but other state correctional systems across the U.S. and training programs for ex-offenders report similar experiences.
“I’ve never dealt with employers who are more willing to hire ex-felons,” said John Nally, who started working at the Indiana Department of Correction in 1967 and is now its director of education. “It is a totally different landscape when you have an unemployment rate of 3.6%. We have all these people in construction who are literally begging for workers.”
Indiana’s unemployment rate was 3.6% in April and fell to 3.2% in May.
The U.S. unemployment rate fell to a 16-year low in May and the number of job openings climbed to a record in April, according to separate Labor Department reports, underscoring tightness in the labor market. In a recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business, nearly half of small businesses said they could find few or no qualified workers for the positions they were trying to fill.
“Contacts across a broad range of industries reported a shortage of qualified workers which had limited hiring,” the Federal Reserve said in its most recent summary of economic conditions.
More than 600,000 sentenced prisoners nationwide are released from state or federal prisons each year. Research shows that most struggle to find steady work and stable housing—and frequently end up offending again.
The vast majority—nearly 90% in the Indiana study—of ex-offenders have a high-school diploma or less, putting them at a distinct disadvantage among a population that already has higher unemployment and lower participation rates than those with at least some college.
But as the labor market tightens, their fortunes improve.
A review of Indiana state prisoners released in 2005 found that nearly half were rearrested within five years. “Ex-offenders would likely become recidivists if they were unemployed after release from prison,” the study said. “At its core, postrelease employment was the major predictor of recidivism.”
Of those released in 2005, 92% to 97% didn’t hold a job during the year they got out of prison, the Indiana study found. That fell to more than 60% by 2007, when the national unemployment rate was also low and the labor market tight. Unemployment among those released in 2005 was back up to 80% by 2009, after the recession hit. Americans with criminal records still face significant barriers to finding a job.
Many employers, for example, won’t hire someone without at least a high-school diploma. More than one-third of the ex-offenders in the Indiana study lacked such a credential. Businesses also are often leery of hiring anyone with a criminal background, sometimes because of regulations, legal liability concerns or worries a person will repeat past criminal behavior. Employers frequently complain potential workers can’t pass a drug test.
The right and left are making efforts toward criminal justice reform.
That includes initiatives to promote hiring as a means of rehabilitation, to lower crime rates and save money on incarceration costs.
“Slowly but surely there’s a mind shift about people who come out of prison,” said Mark Holden, general counsel at Koch Industries, the Wichita, Kan., manufacturing conglomerate perhaps better known for the conservative activism of its owners, Charles and David Koch. One priority for the group is criminal justice reform. “Hopefully we will see more opportunity [for people with criminal records] going forward.”
The situation shows signs of improving for ex-offenders in some parts of the country.
“What we’ve found is that employers are beginning to open up to individuals with criminal backgrounds,” said Kent Kramer, president and chief executive of Goodwill of Central and Southern Indiana. He said former inmates need stable housing, health care, a track record of employment and some marketable skill if they want a steady job with a living wage.
Timothy Phillips was released from Maryland’s prison system in February 2016 after 17 years behind bars for murder. The 48-year-old quickly found a job at a retailer but was later let go after a background check turned up his criminal history.
He participated in Baltimore’s Jump Start program, an 87-hour construction pre-apprenticeship. Job placement director Kate McShane estimates three-quarters of its enrollees have criminal records.
Mr. Phillips graduated from the program in February and the same month started working at Kogok Corp., an Upper Marlboro, Md., company that manufactures and installs commercial duct work. His work as a sheet metal mechanic feels like a career, not just a job, he said.
“It seems that you do have companies like Kogok that may not mind hiring someone with a criminal background—it seems like companies out there do exist,” Mr. Phillips said. “It isn’t that hard if you’re determined.”
In the Baltimore metropolitan area, which includes more suburban Columbia and Towson, the unemployment rate is 4.1%, leaving some companies scrambling for workers.
Daniel Warner, president of Loganville, Penn.-based Structural Restoration Services Inc., said his company since May has hired seven Jump Start graduates for jobs in the region, its first experience with the program.
“The labor market’s really tight,” he said. “We have tried just about every avenue of hiring we can figure out.”
So far, five have stuck with the building repair company—not much different than other hires off the street—and Mr. Warner said when he needs additional workers, he would consider recruiting from the program again.
“These are guys who have really made a decision to change their life,” Mr. Warner said.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If employers are really hiring skilled ex-cons that is real good news. A good job is the most critical factor in keeping an ex-con from returning to prison. I hope this isn’t too good to be true.
Ex-cons who are not skilled will have a hard time finding any jobs other than working in a car wash or some other such low paying menial work.
Friday, July 28, 2017
TO GET COLLEGE BENEFITS OR GENDER ASSIGNMENT SURGERY ….. BUT NOT TO FIGHT
Anyone entering the military service should do so because they want to fight for their country
BarkGrowlBite
July 28, 2017
A lot of soldiers squealed like stuck pigs when they found themselves headed toward Iraq or Afghanistan. You’d hear something like this: “I didn’t join up for this, I’m here to get a college education.” That was too bad because they joined up for the wrong reason.
The purpose of our armed forces is to fight a war in defense of our country, not to provide educational benefits for its members. Anyone entering the military service should do so because they want to fight for their country.
This brings up President Trump’s declaration that transgenders would no longer be allowed to serve in the military. LGBT advocacy groups claim there are 15,000 transgenders serving in our armed forces. I have no idea where they got that number. For all I know, there could be less than 1,000 or maybe as many as 25,000. The question is why did they join up? Apparently a significant number of transgenders joined the armed forces to obtain gender assignment surgery at Uncle Sam’s expense.
Personally I have no objection to transgenders in the military provided their presence does not disrupt life in the barracks and showers, and does not diminish the fighting ability of a combat unit. I suspect that transgender soldiers are just as effective as gay soldiers who have served with distinction. But I do object to the government paying for gender assignment surgery. Let them get that surgery before they join the military and if afterwards they want to fight for our country, welcome them into the service.
As for those college benefit seeking soldiers having a conniption on the way to Iraq or Afghanistan, tough shit, you joined up for the wrong reason!
Of course, I salute all the combat veterans, including transgenders, who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other wars our armed forces have been engaged in, regardless of the reason they joined the military.
BarkGrowlBite
July 28, 2017
A lot of soldiers squealed like stuck pigs when they found themselves headed toward Iraq or Afghanistan. You’d hear something like this: “I didn’t join up for this, I’m here to get a college education.” That was too bad because they joined up for the wrong reason.
The purpose of our armed forces is to fight a war in defense of our country, not to provide educational benefits for its members. Anyone entering the military service should do so because they want to fight for their country.
This brings up President Trump’s declaration that transgenders would no longer be allowed to serve in the military. LGBT advocacy groups claim there are 15,000 transgenders serving in our armed forces. I have no idea where they got that number. For all I know, there could be less than 1,000 or maybe as many as 25,000. The question is why did they join up? Apparently a significant number of transgenders joined the armed forces to obtain gender assignment surgery at Uncle Sam’s expense.
Personally I have no objection to transgenders in the military provided their presence does not disrupt life in the barracks and showers, and does not diminish the fighting ability of a combat unit. I suspect that transgender soldiers are just as effective as gay soldiers who have served with distinction. But I do object to the government paying for gender assignment surgery. Let them get that surgery before they join the military and if afterwards they want to fight for our country, welcome them into the service.
As for those college benefit seeking soldiers having a conniption on the way to Iraq or Afghanistan, tough shit, you joined up for the wrong reason!
Of course, I salute all the combat veterans, including transgenders, who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other wars our armed forces have been engaged in, regardless of the reason they joined the military.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
QUICK, CALL THE DIVERSITY POLICE, NO WOMEN OR BLACK LEAD ACTORS IN ‘DUNKIRK’
Shameless Ignoramus Complains About Lack of 'Women' and 'No Lead Actors of Color' in Movie 'Dunkirk'
By John Nolte
Daily Wire
July 20, 2017
USA Today's Brian Truitt describes himself as a "shameless geek," but oddly enough omits the fact that he is also just as shamelessly ignorant when it comes to the signaling of his own CorrectThink virtue. In his review of Dunkirk, director Christopher Nolan's big-budget look (opening this weekend) at an actual historical event that took place in the early days of World War II, Truitt offers potential ticket-buyers the following trigger warning:
The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way.
Where in the world do these freaks come from?
Did Truitt do any homework about the background of this movie? He does appear to know that Nolan's latest is based on a true story, which I guess is a start, but he probably learned that from the trailer. The real question, though, is just how clueless about history, about the biggest world event of the 20th century are you when you find it "jarring" that Wesley Snipes doesn't show up to save the day or that Sandra Bullock is not driving a tank that will explode if it goes under 50 miles per hour?
Complaining about the lack of women and minority actors in a movie about Dunkirk is like complaining about the lack of Sinatra music in Straight Outta Compton or wondering why cancer failed to get equal time in Philadelphia or hectoring Hollywood over the omission of realistic sex scenes in the Toy Story trilogy.
And we cannot only blame Truitt, who is probably a victim of public schools. How did his trigger warning, one so feeble-minded it ranks as a non sequitur, make it past the USA Today editors? Are they all half-wits or does someone personally dislike Truitt so much they have stopped protecting him from himself?
Sorry if the following is inconvenient to your McCarthyistic desire to bully filmmakers into thinking and believing a certain way, but the settled science tells us the following: Trapped at Dunkirk were young, white males. Saving those young, white males were other white males. Trying to kill those young, white males were other white males.
Journalism is dead, and it was a suicide.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I don’t see why Denzel Washington could not have played General Lord Gort, Commander-in-Chief of the trapped British Expeditionary Force or Samuel L. Jackson as General Von Kuechler, commander of all the German forces at Dunkirk. And why couldn’t they have a sex pot like Jessica Biel or J.Lo play a lead role as a French nurse bravely attending to wounded and dying allied troops under heavy German gunfire. Where were the diversity police?
By John Nolte
Daily Wire
July 20, 2017
USA Today's Brian Truitt describes himself as a "shameless geek," but oddly enough omits the fact that he is also just as shamelessly ignorant when it comes to the signaling of his own CorrectThink virtue. In his review of Dunkirk, director Christopher Nolan's big-budget look (opening this weekend) at an actual historical event that took place in the early days of World War II, Truitt offers potential ticket-buyers the following trigger warning:
The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way.
Where in the world do these freaks come from?
Did Truitt do any homework about the background of this movie? He does appear to know that Nolan's latest is based on a true story, which I guess is a start, but he probably learned that from the trailer. The real question, though, is just how clueless about history, about the biggest world event of the 20th century are you when you find it "jarring" that Wesley Snipes doesn't show up to save the day or that Sandra Bullock is not driving a tank that will explode if it goes under 50 miles per hour?
Complaining about the lack of women and minority actors in a movie about Dunkirk is like complaining about the lack of Sinatra music in Straight Outta Compton or wondering why cancer failed to get equal time in Philadelphia or hectoring Hollywood over the omission of realistic sex scenes in the Toy Story trilogy.
And we cannot only blame Truitt, who is probably a victim of public schools. How did his trigger warning, one so feeble-minded it ranks as a non sequitur, make it past the USA Today editors? Are they all half-wits or does someone personally dislike Truitt so much they have stopped protecting him from himself?
Sorry if the following is inconvenient to your McCarthyistic desire to bully filmmakers into thinking and believing a certain way, but the settled science tells us the following: Trapped at Dunkirk were young, white males. Saving those young, white males were other white males. Trying to kill those young, white males were other white males.
Journalism is dead, and it was a suicide.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I don’t see why Denzel Washington could not have played General Lord Gort, Commander-in-Chief of the trapped British Expeditionary Force or Samuel L. Jackson as General Von Kuechler, commander of all the German forces at Dunkirk. And why couldn’t they have a sex pot like Jessica Biel or J.Lo play a lead role as a French nurse bravely attending to wounded and dying allied troops under heavy German gunfire. Where were the diversity police?
SEVERRELY MENTALLY DISABLED MAN RUNS FOR MAYOR OF MINNEAPOLIS
by Bob Walsh
Raymond Dehn is running for Mayor of the city of Minneapolis. Raymond Dehn is severely mentally disabled and is currently a state representative from district 59B of the glorious state of Minnesota.
The reason I assert that Dehn is severely mentally disabled is that as of right now, his primary policy position is to disarm the Minneapolis police department.
If Dehn gets his way (I am guessing this might require a change in state law) Minneapolis police officers would have to stash their firearms securely in their vehicles. They would be able to retrieve them if they REALLY need them. And of course if they know they really need them far enough in advance and in close enough proximity to their vehicles in order to do so effectively.
None of this means that the electorate of Minneapolis won't actually vote for this shithead. Voters sometimes do some really creative (i.e. stupid) shit.
Raymond Dehn is running for Mayor of the city of Minneapolis. Raymond Dehn is severely mentally disabled and is currently a state representative from district 59B of the glorious state of Minnesota.
The reason I assert that Dehn is severely mentally disabled is that as of right now, his primary policy position is to disarm the Minneapolis police department.
If Dehn gets his way (I am guessing this might require a change in state law) Minneapolis police officers would have to stash their firearms securely in their vehicles. They would be able to retrieve them if they REALLY need them. And of course if they know they really need them far enough in advance and in close enough proximity to their vehicles in order to do so effectively.
None of this means that the electorate of Minneapolis won't actually vote for this shithead. Voters sometimes do some really creative (i.e. stupid) shit.
STUDY CLAIMS DRIVING LONG HOURS MAKES YOU DUMBER
We all know how boring some stretches of highway can be, or how infuriating traffic is when you’re a professional driver with a load to deliver – a study out of the UK suggests these bugbears might actually be making you dumber
By: Cobey Bartels
Owner Driver
July 26, 2017
The study of more than 500,000 people looks closely at 93,000 of the participants who drive for more than two hours a day, finding that long stints behind the wheel could steadily reduce your IQ.
Medical epidemiologist at Leicester University and lead author of the study Kishan Bakrania told The Sunday Times a less active mind and factors such as stress could contribute to the mental decline.
"We know that regularly driving for more than two to three hours a day is bad for your heart," he said.
"This research suggests it is bad for your brain, too, perhaps because your mind is less active in those hours.
"Driving causes stress and fatigue, with studies showing the links between them and cognitive decline."
Bakrania said the results were similar to those of people that watched TV for more three hours daily, although computer use actually boosted intelligence.
"Cognitive skills were boosted in people who used computers up to two to three hours a day.
"When watching TV, your brain is less active, but using a computer is stimulating," he said.
Heavy vehicle drivers certainly have more to concentrate on than car drivers, so whether this study tells us much about truckies specifically isn’t known.
Do you think long periods of time on the road lower your IQ?
By: Cobey Bartels
Owner Driver
July 26, 2017
The study of more than 500,000 people looks closely at 93,000 of the participants who drive for more than two hours a day, finding that long stints behind the wheel could steadily reduce your IQ.
Medical epidemiologist at Leicester University and lead author of the study Kishan Bakrania told The Sunday Times a less active mind and factors such as stress could contribute to the mental decline.
"We know that regularly driving for more than two to three hours a day is bad for your heart," he said.
"This research suggests it is bad for your brain, too, perhaps because your mind is less active in those hours.
"Driving causes stress and fatigue, with studies showing the links between them and cognitive decline."
Bakrania said the results were similar to those of people that watched TV for more three hours daily, although computer use actually boosted intelligence.
"Cognitive skills were boosted in people who used computers up to two to three hours a day.
"When watching TV, your brain is less active, but using a computer is stimulating," he said.
Heavy vehicle drivers certainly have more to concentrate on than car drivers, so whether this study tells us much about truckies specifically isn’t known.
Do you think long periods of time on the road lower your IQ?
RICK PERRY HOLDS HIGH LEVEL TALKS WITH UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER ….. BUT UNKNOWN TO HIM HE WAS TALKING TO RUSSIAN PRANKSTER
Russian comics dupe U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry with prank call
By Timothy Gardner
Reuters
July 25, 2017
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry optimistically discussed expanding American coal exports to Ukraine and other energy matters during a lengthy phone call this month with a Russian prankster who Perry thought was Ukraine’s prime minister.
Perry actually was talking with comedians known in Russia for targeting celebrities and politicians with audacious stunts, Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes said in a written statement.
“These individuals are known for pranking high-level officials and celebrities, particularly those who are supportive of an agenda that is not in line with their governments. In this case, the energy security of Ukraine,” Hynes said.
Pranksters Vladimir Krasnov and Alexei Stolyarov are sometimes called the “Jerky Boys of Russia,” after an American duo who put out recordings of their prank phone calls in the 1990s. They have made faux calls to British singer Elton John, who thought he was speaking to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and others.
During the 22-minute call on July 19, Perry, whose department oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons program, discussed a range of topics in a business-like tone, including sanctions against Russia and helping Ukraine develop oil and gas.
Perry said the Trump administration opposes Nord Stream 2, a Russian project to bring natural gas to Europe across the Baltic and that U.S. technology could help Ukraine develop gas.
“Giving Ukraine more options with some of our technology is, I think, in everyone’s best interest with the exception of the Russians, but that’s OK,” he said.
Perry also discussed the Paris climate accord and coal exports on the call.
The call, first reported by E&E news, was recorded and posted online.
It happened about a month after Perry met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his delegation at the Energy Department.
President Donald Trump said last month that Washington plans to offer Ukraine more coal exports from the United States because the eastern European nation’s industrial sector has difficulty securing coal from separatist-held regions.
It is unclear how the United States would bring more coal to Ukraine but Perry hinted on the call that the Commerce Department was working on it.
“The coal conversation at this particular point in time is with (Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross) and I full well suspect it will go forward,” he said on the call.
News of the call came the same day the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to impose new sanctions on Russia.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And that was Rick’s biggest accomplishment as energy secretary to date.
By Timothy Gardner
Reuters
July 25, 2017
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry optimistically discussed expanding American coal exports to Ukraine and other energy matters during a lengthy phone call this month with a Russian prankster who Perry thought was Ukraine’s prime minister.
Perry actually was talking with comedians known in Russia for targeting celebrities and politicians with audacious stunts, Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes said in a written statement.
“These individuals are known for pranking high-level officials and celebrities, particularly those who are supportive of an agenda that is not in line with their governments. In this case, the energy security of Ukraine,” Hynes said.
Pranksters Vladimir Krasnov and Alexei Stolyarov are sometimes called the “Jerky Boys of Russia,” after an American duo who put out recordings of their prank phone calls in the 1990s. They have made faux calls to British singer Elton John, who thought he was speaking to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and others.
During the 22-minute call on July 19, Perry, whose department oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons program, discussed a range of topics in a business-like tone, including sanctions against Russia and helping Ukraine develop oil and gas.
Perry said the Trump administration opposes Nord Stream 2, a Russian project to bring natural gas to Europe across the Baltic and that U.S. technology could help Ukraine develop gas.
“Giving Ukraine more options with some of our technology is, I think, in everyone’s best interest with the exception of the Russians, but that’s OK,” he said.
Perry also discussed the Paris climate accord and coal exports on the call.
The call, first reported by E&E news, was recorded and posted online.
It happened about a month after Perry met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his delegation at the Energy Department.
President Donald Trump said last month that Washington plans to offer Ukraine more coal exports from the United States because the eastern European nation’s industrial sector has difficulty securing coal from separatist-held regions.
It is unclear how the United States would bring more coal to Ukraine but Perry hinted on the call that the Commerce Department was working on it.
“The coal conversation at this particular point in time is with (Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross) and I full well suspect it will go forward,” he said on the call.
News of the call came the same day the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to impose new sanctions on Russia.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And that was Rick’s biggest accomplishment as energy secretary to date.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
STARTING YOUNG AT NEW CAREER
by Bob Walsh
On Sunday afternoon a delivery man was delivering a bucket of chicken wings to an address in north Stockton in the early evening when he was robbed at gunpoint by two youngsters, ages approximately 10 and 14.
I guess the little fuckers were REALLY hungry and their parents had run out of food stamps. The victim gave a good description and, with any sort of luck, the little bastards will brag about their exploits and get caught.
What they really need is a good asswhooping, but you know that isn't going to happen or they wouldn't be out robbing delivery guys in the first place.
On Sunday afternoon a delivery man was delivering a bucket of chicken wings to an address in north Stockton in the early evening when he was robbed at gunpoint by two youngsters, ages approximately 10 and 14.
I guess the little fuckers were REALLY hungry and their parents had run out of food stamps. The victim gave a good description and, with any sort of luck, the little bastards will brag about their exploits and get caught.
What they really need is a good asswhooping, but you know that isn't going to happen or they wouldn't be out robbing delivery guys in the first place.
HOW O.J. BECAME BLACK AMERICA’S MR. BAD EXAMPLE
After 1994 his success was attributed to race betrayal. Now no one wants to be Jay Z’s ‘Story of O.J.’
By Jason Whitlock
The Wall Street Journal
July 25, 2017
Millions tuned in last week to see 70-year-old O.J. Simpson, inmate No. 1027820, ask a Nevada parole board to release him from prison. It was one more reminder of Mr. Simpson’s outsize influence on American culture.
After serving nine years of a 33-year sentence for robbery and kidnapping, Mr. Simpson, with the parole board’s blessing, will depart his cell in October for the comfort of a Florida condo. He’ll still be dogged, however, by the 1994 double homicide for which a star-studded defense team won him acquittal.
Whether we like it or not, O.J. Simpson is an important figure in American history. His life and murder trial exacerbated race relations, helped polarize the media, and established him as a reviled killer in mainstream popular culture—and a reviled martyr in black popular culture.
Before 1994, mainstream and black media alike celebrated Mr. Simpson as a shining example of the liberal ideals of integration and assimilation. But when he was accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend, the media flipped the narrative into one of black betrayal. His second marriage, to a young, white waitress; his refusal to address racial issues; and his abandonment of black social circles now explained how and why a black man was able to rise from poverty to football star to broadcaster and pitchman: Orenthal James Simpson sold out.
Over the course of two decades, Mr. Simpson’s story became the most powerful African-American tale since Alex Haley chronicled the life of Malcolm X. The Simpson saga continues to grow in importance. Last month rapper Jay Z released the song and video “The Story of O.J.,” warning blacks against trying to transcend race: “O.J. like, ‘I’m not black, I’m O.J.’ Okay.”
Mr. Simpson has become a negative standard-bearer for black athletes, celebrities and media figures—a sort of abusive, alcoholic father who serves as the example to avoid. This influence is omnipresent but seldom acknowledged. No black public figure wants to be “The Story of O.J.,” a contemporary equivalent of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”
That is why many black personalities have abandoned the racial middle ground, compromise and even logic in their discourse. Expressing a moderate position publicly will invite accusations of selling out. So we feel pressured into a strident, illogical posture, even though many of the most militant voices in the black media are more assimilated in their private lives than their angry diatribes would have you believe. The gap between what we say privately and publicly about race has never been wider.
Advertising outrage at police misconduct is an old tactic to establish black credibility. Mr. Simpson benefited from this phenomenon when he teamed up with lawyer Johnnie Cochran during his murder trial. The famed rap group N.W.A has a library of records that dehumanize and marginalize black people. But the song everyone remembers is “F— tha Police,” its only one on that subject.
Today the ultimate disguise for Simpson-like assimilation is proclaiming support for the Black Lives Matter movement. The mixed-race NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick struggled to connect with his black teammates until he took a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality. That made him a black hero.
If you are a black athlete, celebrity or media personality living, socializing, working, studying or dating in the white community, the easiest way to stop Twitter trolls from spamming your social media with accusations of race betrayal is to celebrate BLM. If you’re an educated, nerdy, proper-speaking black person who has been chastised for “acting white” by your black peers, supporting BLM salvages your black image. Call it the O.J. Effect.
Black men used to measure ourselves by how we compared to Martin Luther King Jr. He was the good dad we modeled our behavior after. Now for two decades, we’ve learned from Mr. Simpson’s negative example. We’ve tried to do the opposite of our bad dad. This has crippled black public figures when it comes to discussing race.
So has black guilt—an individual or collective feeling among successful black people who recognize we’ve harmed poor blacks by abandoning them. We soothe our consciences with hashtag activism and feigned disdain for a country we’d never dream of leaving.
Last week Mr. Simpson sounded like a man fit for a world he helped shape. During the parole hearing he relitigated his robbery trial, ignored his murder trial, and pretended his serial domestic violence didn’t impeach his claim of having lived a “conflict-free” life. He played the victim to an evil American criminal-justice system, and then smiled and laughed as if there’s no place he’d rather be than in America.
By Jason Whitlock
The Wall Street Journal
July 25, 2017
Millions tuned in last week to see 70-year-old O.J. Simpson, inmate No. 1027820, ask a Nevada parole board to release him from prison. It was one more reminder of Mr. Simpson’s outsize influence on American culture.
After serving nine years of a 33-year sentence for robbery and kidnapping, Mr. Simpson, with the parole board’s blessing, will depart his cell in October for the comfort of a Florida condo. He’ll still be dogged, however, by the 1994 double homicide for which a star-studded defense team won him acquittal.
Whether we like it or not, O.J. Simpson is an important figure in American history. His life and murder trial exacerbated race relations, helped polarize the media, and established him as a reviled killer in mainstream popular culture—and a reviled martyr in black popular culture.
Before 1994, mainstream and black media alike celebrated Mr. Simpson as a shining example of the liberal ideals of integration and assimilation. But when he was accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend, the media flipped the narrative into one of black betrayal. His second marriage, to a young, white waitress; his refusal to address racial issues; and his abandonment of black social circles now explained how and why a black man was able to rise from poverty to football star to broadcaster and pitchman: Orenthal James Simpson sold out.
Over the course of two decades, Mr. Simpson’s story became the most powerful African-American tale since Alex Haley chronicled the life of Malcolm X. The Simpson saga continues to grow in importance. Last month rapper Jay Z released the song and video “The Story of O.J.,” warning blacks against trying to transcend race: “O.J. like, ‘I’m not black, I’m O.J.’ Okay.”
Mr. Simpson has become a negative standard-bearer for black athletes, celebrities and media figures—a sort of abusive, alcoholic father who serves as the example to avoid. This influence is omnipresent but seldom acknowledged. No black public figure wants to be “The Story of O.J.,” a contemporary equivalent of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”
That is why many black personalities have abandoned the racial middle ground, compromise and even logic in their discourse. Expressing a moderate position publicly will invite accusations of selling out. So we feel pressured into a strident, illogical posture, even though many of the most militant voices in the black media are more assimilated in their private lives than their angry diatribes would have you believe. The gap between what we say privately and publicly about race has never been wider.
Advertising outrage at police misconduct is an old tactic to establish black credibility. Mr. Simpson benefited from this phenomenon when he teamed up with lawyer Johnnie Cochran during his murder trial. The famed rap group N.W.A has a library of records that dehumanize and marginalize black people. But the song everyone remembers is “F— tha Police,” its only one on that subject.
Today the ultimate disguise for Simpson-like assimilation is proclaiming support for the Black Lives Matter movement. The mixed-race NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick struggled to connect with his black teammates until he took a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality. That made him a black hero.
If you are a black athlete, celebrity or media personality living, socializing, working, studying or dating in the white community, the easiest way to stop Twitter trolls from spamming your social media with accusations of race betrayal is to celebrate BLM. If you’re an educated, nerdy, proper-speaking black person who has been chastised for “acting white” by your black peers, supporting BLM salvages your black image. Call it the O.J. Effect.
Black men used to measure ourselves by how we compared to Martin Luther King Jr. He was the good dad we modeled our behavior after. Now for two decades, we’ve learned from Mr. Simpson’s negative example. We’ve tried to do the opposite of our bad dad. This has crippled black public figures when it comes to discussing race.
So has black guilt—an individual or collective feeling among successful black people who recognize we’ve harmed poor blacks by abandoning them. We soothe our consciences with hashtag activism and feigned disdain for a country we’d never dream of leaving.
Last week Mr. Simpson sounded like a man fit for a world he helped shape. During the parole hearing he relitigated his robbery trial, ignored his murder trial, and pretended his serial domestic violence didn’t impeach his claim of having lived a “conflict-free” life. He played the victim to an evil American criminal-justice system, and then smiled and laughed as if there’s no place he’d rather be than in America.
THIS CAT MUST HAVE NINE LIVES
Veteran New Orleans Officer Shot For 3rd Time
Los Angeles Police Protective League News Watch
July 25, 2017
A New Orleans police officer is recovering from a leg wound after being shot for the third time in his law enforcement career.
Police say Officer Christopher Abbott was in uniform working an off-duty private security patrol early Monday when someone fired a single round into the privately owned car he was in. The shooter was in a light colored SUV and was still at large. Spokesman Aaron Looney says Abbott was in good condition.
Archived news accounts show Abbott was on his way to a 2001 court appearance when he spotted a man with a gun and approached him. The man fired and hit Abbott.
In 1998, Abbott was wearing a protective vest when he was shot in the chest after stopping a suspect in a public housing project.
Los Angeles Police Protective League News Watch
July 25, 2017
A New Orleans police officer is recovering from a leg wound after being shot for the third time in his law enforcement career.
Police say Officer Christopher Abbott was in uniform working an off-duty private security patrol early Monday when someone fired a single round into the privately owned car he was in. The shooter was in a light colored SUV and was still at large. Spokesman Aaron Looney says Abbott was in good condition.
Archived news accounts show Abbott was on his way to a 2001 court appearance when he spotted a man with a gun and approached him. The man fired and hit Abbott.
In 1998, Abbott was wearing a protective vest when he was shot in the chest after stopping a suspect in a public housing project.
DNA COLLECTION FROM SEIZED GUNS
Gun Cases are Notoriously Hard to Make Stick. New York Thinks It Has the Answer. The city has launched an ambitious program to collect DNA from every gun recovered by police
By Ann Givens and Robert Lewis
The Trace
July 24, 2017
Two New York police officers were sitting in a patrol car one night last August when they saw Avree Lamar, a 19-year-old with an open arrest warrant, climb into a cab near a housing project in Red Hook, Brooklyn.
The officers followed the cab, pulled it over, and arrested Lamar. In the back of Lamar’s waistband, they found a loaded 9mm pistol, court papers said. He was charged with criminal possession of a loaded weapon, a felony.
It seemed like a straightforward case. But for all New York City’s success in reducing violent crime, only about half of the people arrested for carrying a loaded gun in the city get convicted. Juries like hard evidence, and often mistrust cases that hinge on police testimony. Prosecutors say cases like Lamar’s are not always easy wins.
To change that, the city is pursuing an ambitious and expensive plan to collect and test DNA from every gun recovered by police. The goal is to boost the number of successful prosecutions, and discourage carrying illegal weapons in the nation’s largest city.
The Trace and WNYC contacted eight other major police departments. None are attempting DNA collection and testing on this scale. Several said such an undertaking would be extremely difficult without adding staff, lab space, and expensive equipment. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, only deploy DNA tests for select gun cases — often shootings and murders.
The New York program, which began in the summer of 2015, is continuing to expand. Last year, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner performed DNA tests for 1,682 gun cases, nearly quadruple the number from 2014. Just this month, the city gave the office an additional $8 million to pay for 55 new employees to process gun swabs, plus training and equipment. That money amounts to about 10 percent of the office’s total annual budget.
Police officials and the medical examiner’s office said they could not estimate the total cost of the swabbing and testing program since it would include staff time for police, prosecutors, and scientists, as well as equipment and training in several different departments and agencies.
Lamar’s gun was swabbed at the police station, and sent to the medical examiner’s office.
Scientists in the M.E.’s office then compared a DNA sample from Lamar to the genetic mixture found on the pistol’s trigger guard. Their conclusion: the DNA retrieved from the weapon was 6.8 trillion times more likely to belong to Lamar than someone else.
Lamar pleaded guilty, and a judge sentenced him to three years in prison — a lengthy sentence for a first offense, lawyers said.
“That is the goal, to make it radioactive to even pick up a gun,” said Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, a nonprofit group that helped the city develop its strategy for using DNA in gun cases.
Some legal and forensic experts said that DNA testing, while more sophisticated than ever, is not foolproof. They say the science used to test small amounts of DNA isn’t perfect, and there are ways an innocent person’s genetic material could get on a gun he or she never touched.
“What we’ve seen in the last few years are real efforts to push the boundaries of DNA evidence,” said Clinton Hughes, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society of New York’s DNA unit. “DNA does not necessarily mean that there’s going to be a just result, or an accurate result in a particular case.”
Some civil liberty groups have also raised concerns about the expansion of DNA collection by local law enforcement agencies.
DNA that is deemed “abandoned” — left on the rim of a soda can or the end of a cigarette, for example — can legally be picked up by police and entered into a local database. People whose genetic information is stored in the database are almost never aware of it, legal experts said.
Expanded DNA testing on guns is part of a larger effort New York is making to crack down on illegal firearms and gun violence. In January of 2016, police formed a 200-officer gun-violence suppression division to focus on illegal firearms, shootings, and gangs. In Brooklyn, there are two courtrooms dedicated to expediting gun cases. Other boroughs are expected to follow suit.
The theory behind the push to make more successful gun cases is that certainty of punishment is more important in deterring crime than the severity of punishment. If would-be criminals believe police will get their DNA and there’ll be no way to avoid conviction, they’ll be less likely to break the law, Aborn said.
NYPD Deputy Chief Emanuel Katranakis said DNA evidence from firearms often helps police investigate suspects they might otherwise overlook. Last year, police linked genetic material from a gun to a person in an existing DNA database 309 times, he said. New York has made remarkable strides in reducing gun crime. Last year, police recorded 998 shootings — the fewest in recorded city history.
But there are still neighborhoods where violent crime is common, and people are frequently shot. In a one-month span this summer in the Bronx, a 5-year-old boy was shot in the head; a police officer was fatally shot while sitting in her patrol car, and a man was caught on surveillance video shooting three men on a city street.
Some other large cities have struggled to control rising levels of gun crime, the violence that spurred President Donald Trump to speak of “American carnage” in his inaugural address. Chicago, which has a third of New York’s population, reported 3,550 shooting incidents last year.
Benjamin Meda is a detective who heads the Los Angeles Police Department’s gun unit for gangs and narcotics. Los Angeles saw shootings rise slightly last year, and Meda said police can use all the investigative tools they can get.
“We are extremely interested in what New York is doing,” he said. “We want to see what their success is — what the return on their DNA hits are, what they’re doing that we aren’t doing.”
__________
It’s been almost 25 years since a drop of blood on the pavement at OJ Simpson’s ex-wife’s house brought DNA evidence into the public consciousness. Back then, scientists needed a sample of blood or other bodily fluid the size of a quarter to test for DNA.
As the science became more sophisticated, the New York M.E.’s office developed a method that it used to make DNA matches from a tiny amount of recovered genetic material. It also developed an algorithm that helped scientists identify a possible match even when someone’s DNA was mixed up with that of other people.
Both these technologies are key when it comes to testing firearms. Guns — especially crime guns — are often passed among several people before they are confiscated by police.
Many judges allowed DNA evidence that was obtained using those testing methods to be admitted in criminal cases. But in 2015, a Brooklyn judge tossed DNA evidence obtained using those protocols in two cases, saying it was not scientifically reliable.
Last year, the M.E.’s office turned to a widely used computer model called STRMix, which as of this spring was being used by 17 American crime laboratories and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to test mixed DNA samples.
In a chilly, sterile DNA lab on Manhattan’s East Side, scientists cut the cotton off the swabs mailed to them by police and drop them in test tubes. They then clean and measure those samples, running them through a giant whirring machine that looks like a high-tech microwave.
The lab needs 37.5 picograms — as little as six cells of genetic material — to test a sample against a suspect in a case. Police swab handguns in three places: The grip area, the trigger area, and, the slide area, which on a pistol needs to be pulled back before firing.
If enough DNA is recovered, scientists go on to do more tests. They add chemicals, some of which contain fluorescent tags, to each sample. They put the samples into what is essentially a DNA “Xerox machine.” The machine copies the DNA millions of times at the locations that the scientists are testing.
The samples are then run through another instrument which picks up the fluorescent tags and uses them to produce a color chart. This gives scientists a visual representation of the DNA found on the gun that they can compare with a suspect’s.
If a gun swab shows that a mixture of DNA from several people is on the gun, a scientist can enter information about the mixture into a computer, together with the suspect’s DNA profile. The computer produces a ratio showing how likely it is that the suspect’s DNA is part of the genetic mixture recovered from the firearm.
__________
A gun swab does not always produce a usable sample. Rachel Singer, chief of forensic science at the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, said that in about half of all cases, there is either too little DNA on a swab — or there’s genetic material from too many people — to produce a result that can be tested against a suspect’s DNA.
The medical examiner can determine whether someone’s DNA is part of a mix of as many as three biological samples, but if a fourth person’s DNA is detected on a weapon, the office will not make a determination.
Prosecutors say they are aware of the limitations of DNA evidence, but that they are using it responsibly to get more plea deals and longer sentences.
“We have found that when we do have DNA on a criminal possession of a weapons case, we either are able to negotiate a plea, or the defendant ultimately gets convicted,” Singer said.
Prosecutors said there is almost always other evidence in gun-possessions cases — like video footage or police testimony — to prevent wrongful convictions. In Lamar’s case, for example, DNA evidence was used to support the testimony of a police officer who said he pulled a gun out of the defendant’s waistband.
It can take weeks for the lab to come back with the results of a DNA test. Defense lawyers say that in the lag time, prosecutors often try to use the possibility of a DNA match to convince their clients to agree to a deal.
“When I’m having a conversation with a prosecutor, oftentimes DNA is used as a threat to exact a guilty plea,” said Scott Hechniger, a senior staff attorney at Brooklyn Defender Services, a public defense law firm. Hechniger said a prosecutor might offer his client a one-time deal before DNA results come back from the lab. If they come back and there’s a match, the deal is off.
Hechinger said New York’s initiative to increase DNA testing is part of a broader move toward a zero-tolerance, one-size-fits-all approach to guns — where prosecutors seek the stiffest sentences for everyone, even defendants with no prior record.
Still, there is room to challenge DNA evidence. Brooklyn attorney Douglas Rankin said that if his client’s DNA is not found on a gun, or the test is inconclusive, he can make a strong case for reasonable doubt. Even when there is DNA evidence, Rankin said he has sometimes had luck arguing that it can’t be relied upon. He recalled one case in which a man was charged with illegally possessing a loaded gun after police found it under a couch he was sleeping on in a friend’s apartment. At trial, Rankin argued that because of his client’s proximity to the weapon, it would have been easy for a tiny quantity of his client’s DNA to end up on it. The man was acquitted.
While it is impossible to tie conviction rates to any one factor, there is some evidence that the city’s push to swab all recovered guns for DNA is translating to more pleas and longer sentences.
In the first half of this year, about 56 percent of all gun-possession arrests ended in convictions. That’s higher than in any year in the last decade, according to data provided by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.
People who possess loaded guns illegally have also been slightly more likely to serve time for their offenses since DNA swabs became more commonplace. In the first half of 2017, almost 25 percent of people who were arrested on charges of possessing a loaded gun were sent to prison — a higher percentage than in any full year since 2007.
STRMix has yet to be put to the test in a New York City court. It was successfully challenged in one upstate murder trial last year, when a judge ruled that the state laboratory that collected the DNA samples was not approved to collect samples for the new STRMix analysis.
Now lawyers and scientists are waiting for a challenge to STRMix in a New York City gun case, likely to come within the next few months.
“I expect, as we have a very strong and robust defense community, that they will do their job and challenge us appropriately,” Timothy Kupferschmid, chief of laboratories for the New York Medical Examiner’s Office. “I look forward to those challenges and to showing them what we’re doing.”
By Ann Givens and Robert Lewis
The Trace
July 24, 2017
Two New York police officers were sitting in a patrol car one night last August when they saw Avree Lamar, a 19-year-old with an open arrest warrant, climb into a cab near a housing project in Red Hook, Brooklyn.
The officers followed the cab, pulled it over, and arrested Lamar. In the back of Lamar’s waistband, they found a loaded 9mm pistol, court papers said. He was charged with criminal possession of a loaded weapon, a felony.
It seemed like a straightforward case. But for all New York City’s success in reducing violent crime, only about half of the people arrested for carrying a loaded gun in the city get convicted. Juries like hard evidence, and often mistrust cases that hinge on police testimony. Prosecutors say cases like Lamar’s are not always easy wins.
To change that, the city is pursuing an ambitious and expensive plan to collect and test DNA from every gun recovered by police. The goal is to boost the number of successful prosecutions, and discourage carrying illegal weapons in the nation’s largest city.
The Trace and WNYC contacted eight other major police departments. None are attempting DNA collection and testing on this scale. Several said such an undertaking would be extremely difficult without adding staff, lab space, and expensive equipment. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, only deploy DNA tests for select gun cases — often shootings and murders.
The New York program, which began in the summer of 2015, is continuing to expand. Last year, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner performed DNA tests for 1,682 gun cases, nearly quadruple the number from 2014. Just this month, the city gave the office an additional $8 million to pay for 55 new employees to process gun swabs, plus training and equipment. That money amounts to about 10 percent of the office’s total annual budget.
Police officials and the medical examiner’s office said they could not estimate the total cost of the swabbing and testing program since it would include staff time for police, prosecutors, and scientists, as well as equipment and training in several different departments and agencies.
Lamar’s gun was swabbed at the police station, and sent to the medical examiner’s office.
Scientists in the M.E.’s office then compared a DNA sample from Lamar to the genetic mixture found on the pistol’s trigger guard. Their conclusion: the DNA retrieved from the weapon was 6.8 trillion times more likely to belong to Lamar than someone else.
Lamar pleaded guilty, and a judge sentenced him to three years in prison — a lengthy sentence for a first offense, lawyers said.
“That is the goal, to make it radioactive to even pick up a gun,” said Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, a nonprofit group that helped the city develop its strategy for using DNA in gun cases.
Some legal and forensic experts said that DNA testing, while more sophisticated than ever, is not foolproof. They say the science used to test small amounts of DNA isn’t perfect, and there are ways an innocent person’s genetic material could get on a gun he or she never touched.
“What we’ve seen in the last few years are real efforts to push the boundaries of DNA evidence,” said Clinton Hughes, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society of New York’s DNA unit. “DNA does not necessarily mean that there’s going to be a just result, or an accurate result in a particular case.”
Some civil liberty groups have also raised concerns about the expansion of DNA collection by local law enforcement agencies.
DNA that is deemed “abandoned” — left on the rim of a soda can or the end of a cigarette, for example — can legally be picked up by police and entered into a local database. People whose genetic information is stored in the database are almost never aware of it, legal experts said.
Expanded DNA testing on guns is part of a larger effort New York is making to crack down on illegal firearms and gun violence. In January of 2016, police formed a 200-officer gun-violence suppression division to focus on illegal firearms, shootings, and gangs. In Brooklyn, there are two courtrooms dedicated to expediting gun cases. Other boroughs are expected to follow suit.
The theory behind the push to make more successful gun cases is that certainty of punishment is more important in deterring crime than the severity of punishment. If would-be criminals believe police will get their DNA and there’ll be no way to avoid conviction, they’ll be less likely to break the law, Aborn said.
NYPD Deputy Chief Emanuel Katranakis said DNA evidence from firearms often helps police investigate suspects they might otherwise overlook. Last year, police linked genetic material from a gun to a person in an existing DNA database 309 times, he said. New York has made remarkable strides in reducing gun crime. Last year, police recorded 998 shootings — the fewest in recorded city history.
But there are still neighborhoods where violent crime is common, and people are frequently shot. In a one-month span this summer in the Bronx, a 5-year-old boy was shot in the head; a police officer was fatally shot while sitting in her patrol car, and a man was caught on surveillance video shooting three men on a city street.
Some other large cities have struggled to control rising levels of gun crime, the violence that spurred President Donald Trump to speak of “American carnage” in his inaugural address. Chicago, which has a third of New York’s population, reported 3,550 shooting incidents last year.
Benjamin Meda is a detective who heads the Los Angeles Police Department’s gun unit for gangs and narcotics. Los Angeles saw shootings rise slightly last year, and Meda said police can use all the investigative tools they can get.
“We are extremely interested in what New York is doing,” he said. “We want to see what their success is — what the return on their DNA hits are, what they’re doing that we aren’t doing.”
__________
It’s been almost 25 years since a drop of blood on the pavement at OJ Simpson’s ex-wife’s house brought DNA evidence into the public consciousness. Back then, scientists needed a sample of blood or other bodily fluid the size of a quarter to test for DNA.
As the science became more sophisticated, the New York M.E.’s office developed a method that it used to make DNA matches from a tiny amount of recovered genetic material. It also developed an algorithm that helped scientists identify a possible match even when someone’s DNA was mixed up with that of other people.
Both these technologies are key when it comes to testing firearms. Guns — especially crime guns — are often passed among several people before they are confiscated by police.
Many judges allowed DNA evidence that was obtained using those testing methods to be admitted in criminal cases. But in 2015, a Brooklyn judge tossed DNA evidence obtained using those protocols in two cases, saying it was not scientifically reliable.
Last year, the M.E.’s office turned to a widely used computer model called STRMix, which as of this spring was being used by 17 American crime laboratories and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to test mixed DNA samples.
In a chilly, sterile DNA lab on Manhattan’s East Side, scientists cut the cotton off the swabs mailed to them by police and drop them in test tubes. They then clean and measure those samples, running them through a giant whirring machine that looks like a high-tech microwave.
The lab needs 37.5 picograms — as little as six cells of genetic material — to test a sample against a suspect in a case. Police swab handguns in three places: The grip area, the trigger area, and, the slide area, which on a pistol needs to be pulled back before firing.
If enough DNA is recovered, scientists go on to do more tests. They add chemicals, some of which contain fluorescent tags, to each sample. They put the samples into what is essentially a DNA “Xerox machine.” The machine copies the DNA millions of times at the locations that the scientists are testing.
The samples are then run through another instrument which picks up the fluorescent tags and uses them to produce a color chart. This gives scientists a visual representation of the DNA found on the gun that they can compare with a suspect’s.
If a gun swab shows that a mixture of DNA from several people is on the gun, a scientist can enter information about the mixture into a computer, together with the suspect’s DNA profile. The computer produces a ratio showing how likely it is that the suspect’s DNA is part of the genetic mixture recovered from the firearm.
__________
A gun swab does not always produce a usable sample. Rachel Singer, chief of forensic science at the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, said that in about half of all cases, there is either too little DNA on a swab — or there’s genetic material from too many people — to produce a result that can be tested against a suspect’s DNA.
The medical examiner can determine whether someone’s DNA is part of a mix of as many as three biological samples, but if a fourth person’s DNA is detected on a weapon, the office will not make a determination.
Prosecutors say they are aware of the limitations of DNA evidence, but that they are using it responsibly to get more plea deals and longer sentences.
“We have found that when we do have DNA on a criminal possession of a weapons case, we either are able to negotiate a plea, or the defendant ultimately gets convicted,” Singer said.
Prosecutors said there is almost always other evidence in gun-possessions cases — like video footage or police testimony — to prevent wrongful convictions. In Lamar’s case, for example, DNA evidence was used to support the testimony of a police officer who said he pulled a gun out of the defendant’s waistband.
It can take weeks for the lab to come back with the results of a DNA test. Defense lawyers say that in the lag time, prosecutors often try to use the possibility of a DNA match to convince their clients to agree to a deal.
“When I’m having a conversation with a prosecutor, oftentimes DNA is used as a threat to exact a guilty plea,” said Scott Hechniger, a senior staff attorney at Brooklyn Defender Services, a public defense law firm. Hechniger said a prosecutor might offer his client a one-time deal before DNA results come back from the lab. If they come back and there’s a match, the deal is off.
Hechinger said New York’s initiative to increase DNA testing is part of a broader move toward a zero-tolerance, one-size-fits-all approach to guns — where prosecutors seek the stiffest sentences for everyone, even defendants with no prior record.
Still, there is room to challenge DNA evidence. Brooklyn attorney Douglas Rankin said that if his client’s DNA is not found on a gun, or the test is inconclusive, he can make a strong case for reasonable doubt. Even when there is DNA evidence, Rankin said he has sometimes had luck arguing that it can’t be relied upon. He recalled one case in which a man was charged with illegally possessing a loaded gun after police found it under a couch he was sleeping on in a friend’s apartment. At trial, Rankin argued that because of his client’s proximity to the weapon, it would have been easy for a tiny quantity of his client’s DNA to end up on it. The man was acquitted.
While it is impossible to tie conviction rates to any one factor, there is some evidence that the city’s push to swab all recovered guns for DNA is translating to more pleas and longer sentences.
In the first half of this year, about 56 percent of all gun-possession arrests ended in convictions. That’s higher than in any year in the last decade, according to data provided by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.
People who possess loaded guns illegally have also been slightly more likely to serve time for their offenses since DNA swabs became more commonplace. In the first half of 2017, almost 25 percent of people who were arrested on charges of possessing a loaded gun were sent to prison — a higher percentage than in any full year since 2007.
STRMix has yet to be put to the test in a New York City court. It was successfully challenged in one upstate murder trial last year, when a judge ruled that the state laboratory that collected the DNA samples was not approved to collect samples for the new STRMix analysis.
Now lawyers and scientists are waiting for a challenge to STRMix in a New York City gun case, likely to come within the next few months.
“I expect, as we have a very strong and robust defense community, that they will do their job and challenge us appropriately,” Timothy Kupferschmid, chief of laboratories for the New York Medical Examiner’s Office. “I look forward to those challenges and to showing them what we’re doing.”
ADMIRAL ‘ONE EAR’ INTERVIEWS CANDIDATES FOR HIS PERSONAL STAFF
A young Naval Officer was in a terrible car accident, but due to the heroics of the hospital staff the only permanent injury was the loss of one ear. Since he wasn't physically impaired he remained in the military and eventually became an Admiral. However, during his career he was alwayssensitive about his appearance.
One day the Admiral was interviewing two Navy Master Chiefs and a Marine Sergeant Major for his personal staff
The first Master Chief was a Surface Navy type and it was a great interview. At the end of the interview the Admiral asked him, "Do you notice anything different about me?"
The Master Chief answered, "Why yes. I couldn't help but notice you are missing your starboard ear, so I don't know whether this impacts your hearing on that side."
The Admiral got very angry at this lack of tact and threw him out of his office.
The next candidate, a Submarine Master Chief, when asked this same question, answered, "Well yes, you seem to be short one ear."
The Admiral threw him out also.
The third interview was with the Marine Sergeant Major. He was articulate, extremely sharp, and seemed to know more than the two Master Chiefs put together. The Admiral wanted this guy, but went ahead with the same question.
"Do you notice anything different about me?"
To his surprise the Sergeant Major said, "Yes sir, you wear contact lenses."
The Admiral was impressed and thought to himself, what an incredibly tactful Marine. "And how do you know that?" the Admiral asked.
The Sergeant Major replied, "Well sir, it's pretty hard to wear glasses with only one fucking ear."
One day the Admiral was interviewing two Navy Master Chiefs and a Marine Sergeant Major for his personal staff
The first Master Chief was a Surface Navy type and it was a great interview. At the end of the interview the Admiral asked him, "Do you notice anything different about me?"
The Master Chief answered, "Why yes. I couldn't help but notice you are missing your starboard ear, so I don't know whether this impacts your hearing on that side."
The Admiral got very angry at this lack of tact and threw him out of his office.
The next candidate, a Submarine Master Chief, when asked this same question, answered, "Well yes, you seem to be short one ear."
The Admiral threw him out also.
The third interview was with the Marine Sergeant Major. He was articulate, extremely sharp, and seemed to know more than the two Master Chiefs put together. The Admiral wanted this guy, but went ahead with the same question.
"Do you notice anything different about me?"
To his surprise the Sergeant Major said, "Yes sir, you wear contact lenses."
The Admiral was impressed and thought to himself, what an incredibly tactful Marine. "And how do you know that?" the Admiral asked.
The Sergeant Major replied, "Well sir, it's pretty hard to wear glasses with only one fucking ear."
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
DEAD PRISONERS CAN BE SERIOUSLY INCONVENIENT
by Bob Walsh
Danny Pham, 27, was a guest of the people of Orange County, CA earlier this month. He was hanging out at the main jail for 180 days due to some misunderstanding over possession of an automobile that wasn't his. He turned up dead and five jail staff are on paid leave.
It appears that the jail staff are not suspected of rehabilitating Pham but they possibly screwed the pooch in an administrative manner. Pham was celled up with an accused (but not convicted) double murderer. Maybe somebody stole his car at some point.
The S. O. isn't saying if the cellie is a suspect. The D A is conducting a homicide investigation and the jail is doing an internal affairs investigation. Following the rules may not set you free but it can protect your ass if things go sideways.
Danny Pham, 27, was a guest of the people of Orange County, CA earlier this month. He was hanging out at the main jail for 180 days due to some misunderstanding over possession of an automobile that wasn't his. He turned up dead and five jail staff are on paid leave.
It appears that the jail staff are not suspected of rehabilitating Pham but they possibly screwed the pooch in an administrative manner. Pham was celled up with an accused (but not convicted) double murderer. Maybe somebody stole his car at some point.
The S. O. isn't saying if the cellie is a suspect. The D A is conducting a homicide investigation and the jail is doing an internal affairs investigation. Following the rules may not set you free but it can protect your ass if things go sideways.
FUCK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE YOU OLD FART
Blind WW2 Veteran Injured While Protecting His American Flag
CBS DFW
July 22, 2017
KAUFMAN, Texas -- Police are seeking information on who pushed down an elderly veteran as he was protecting his American flag that’s been targeted before.
World War II veteran Howard Banks is legally blind, but his memory is sharp at age 92.
A day before his birthday on July 11, the veteran said he heard someone outside his home pulling down his American flag from its pole, so he went outside to investigate.
“I walked out, hanging onto the railing and stepped down. That must’ve startled them,” said Banks.
Banks was determined to protect his flag after someone shredded his previous American flag and ripped up his Marine flag about a year ago.
“They could see me. I couldn’t see them,” said Banks. “I turned and looked in the other direction, and about then – ‘wham!’ They knocked me down.”
The person trying to take the flag down ran off while neighbors rushed in to help Banks.
Banks has numerous bumps and bruises and he said he even twisted his knee. “On this forearm, it’s kind of sore and rough,” he said. “Both of them. I’ve still got soreness here, but I’m durable. I can take it.”
The injuries he suffered won’t stop him from his life’s mission to honor veterans who sacrifice and serve by displaying his American flag.
“I think we all had that same feeling, that the flag was our identity. We were Americans,” said Banks. “The fact that I’m getting older, and the less I can do… at least I can still do that.”
Banks said he didn’t hear the suspect’s voice so he is unsure if the person was a man or woman. In the meantime, his daughter, neighbors and officers are keeping a close eye on him and his flags.
CBS DFW
July 22, 2017
KAUFMAN, Texas -- Police are seeking information on who pushed down an elderly veteran as he was protecting his American flag that’s been targeted before.
World War II veteran Howard Banks is legally blind, but his memory is sharp at age 92.
A day before his birthday on July 11, the veteran said he heard someone outside his home pulling down his American flag from its pole, so he went outside to investigate.
“I walked out, hanging onto the railing and stepped down. That must’ve startled them,” said Banks.
Banks was determined to protect his flag after someone shredded his previous American flag and ripped up his Marine flag about a year ago.
“They could see me. I couldn’t see them,” said Banks. “I turned and looked in the other direction, and about then – ‘wham!’ They knocked me down.”
The person trying to take the flag down ran off while neighbors rushed in to help Banks.
Banks has numerous bumps and bruises and he said he even twisted his knee. “On this forearm, it’s kind of sore and rough,” he said. “Both of them. I’ve still got soreness here, but I’m durable. I can take it.”
The injuries he suffered won’t stop him from his life’s mission to honor veterans who sacrifice and serve by displaying his American flag.
“I think we all had that same feeling, that the flag was our identity. We were Americans,” said Banks. “The fact that I’m getting older, and the less I can do… at least I can still do that.”
Banks said he didn’t hear the suspect’s voice so he is unsure if the person was a man or woman. In the meantime, his daughter, neighbors and officers are keeping a close eye on him and his flags.
JARED KUSHNER INSISTS HE DID NOTHING WRONG
Kushner's statement to the congressional committee in which he admits four contacts with the Russians but denies collusion
I am voluntarily providing this statement, submitting documents, and sitting for interviews in order to shed light on issues that have been raised about my role in the Trump for President Campaign and during the transition period.
I am not a person who has sought the spotlight.
First in my business and now in public service, I have worked on achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public perception.
Because there has been a great deal of conjecture, speculation, and inaccurate information about me, I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.
My Role in the Trump for President Campaign
Before joining the administration, I worked in the private sector, building and managing companies.
My experience was in business, not politics, and it was not my initial intent to play a large role in my father-in-law's campaign when he decided to run for President.
However, as the campaign progressed, I was called on to assist with various tasks and aspects of the campaign, and took on more and more responsibility.
Over the course of the primaries and general election campaign, my role continued to evolve.
I ultimately worked with the finance, scheduling, communications, speechwriting, polling, data and digital teams, as well as becoming a point of contact for foreign government officials.
All of these were tasks that I had never performed on a campaign previously. When I was faced with a new challenge, I would reach out to contacts, ask advice, find the right person to manage the specific challenge, and work with that person to develop and execute a plan of action.
I was lucky to work with some incredibly talented people along the way, all of whom made significant contributions toward the campaign's ultimate success.
Our nimble culture allowed us to adjust to the ever-changing circumstances and make changes on the fly as the situation warranted.
I share this information because these actions should be viewed through the lens of a fast-paced campaign with thousands of meetings and interactions, some of which were impactful and memorable and many of which were not.
It is also important to note that a campaign's success starts with its message and its messenger.
Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered his message perfectly.
The results speak for themselves. Not only did President Trump defeat sixteen skilled and experienced primary opponents and win the presidency - he did so spending a fraction of what his opponent spent in the general election.
He outworked his opponent and ran one of the best campaigns in history using both modern technology and traditional methods to bring his message to the American people.
Campaign Contacts with Foreign Persons
When it became apparent that my father-in-law was going to be the Republican nominee for President, as normally happens, a number of officials from foreign countries attempted to reach out to the campaign.
My father-in-law asked me to be a point of contact with these foreign countries.
These were not contacts that I initiated, but, over the course of the campaign, I had incoming contacts with people from approximately 15 countries.
To put these requests in context, I must have received thousands of calls, letters and emails from people looking to talk or meet on a variety of issues and topics, including hundreds from outside the United States.
While I could not be responsive to everyone, I tried to be respectful of any foreign government contacts with whom it would be important to maintain an ongoing, productive working relationship were the candidate to prevail.
To that end, I called on a variety of people with deep experience, such as Dr Henry Kissinger, for advice on policy for the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what messaging would resonate.
In addition, it was typical for me to receive 200 or more emails a day during the campaign.
I did not have the time to read every one, especially long emails from unknown senders or email chains to which I was added at some later point in the exchange.
With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign, there were hardly any.
The first that I can recall was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC in April 2016.
This was when then candidate Trump was delivering a major foreign policy speech.
Doing the event and speech had been my idea, and I oversaw its execution.
I arrived at the hotel early to make sure all logistics were in order.
After that, I stopped into the reception to thank the host of the event, Dimitri Simes, the publisher of the bi-monthly foreign policy magazine, The National Interest, who had done a great job putting everything together.
Mr. Simes and his group had created the guest list and extended the invitations for the event.
He introduced me to several guests, among them four ambassadors, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
With all the ambassadors, including Mr Kislyak, we shook hands, exchanged brief pleasantries and I thanked them for attending the event and said I hoped they would like candidate Trump's speech and his ideas for a fresh approach to America's foreign policy.
The ambassadors also expressed interest in creating a positive relationship should we win the election.
Each exchange lasted less than a minute - some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies.
I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions.
Reuters news service has reported that I had two calls with Ambassador Kislyak at some time between April and November of 2016.
While I participated in thousands of calls during this period, I do not recall any such calls with the Russian Ambassador.
We have reviewed the phone records available to us and have not been able to identify any calls to any number we know to be associated with Ambassador Kislyak and I am highly skeptical these calls took place.
A comprehensive review of my land line and cell phone records from the time does not reveal those calls.
I had no ongoing relationship with the Ambassador before the election, and had limited knowledge about him then.
In fact, on November 9, the day after the election, I could not even remember the name of the Russian Ambassador.
When the campaign received an email purporting to be an official note of congratulations from President Putin, I was asked how we could verify it was real.
To do so I thought the best way would be to ask the only contact I recalled meeting from the Russian government, which was the Ambassador I had met months earlier, so I sent an email asking Mr Simes, 'What is the name of the Russian ambassador?'
Through my lawyer, I have asked Reuters to provide the dates on which the calls supposedly occurred or the phone number at which I supposedly reached, or was reached by, Ambassador Kislyak.
The journalist refused to provide any corroborating evidence that they occurred.
The only other Russian contact during the campaign is one I did not recall at all until I was reviewing documents and emails in response to congressional requests for information.
In June 2016, my brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr asked if I was free to stop by a meeting on June 9 at 3pm.
The campaign was headquartered in the same building as his office in Trump Tower, and it was common for each of us to swing by the other's meetings when requested.
He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4pm.
That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time.
As I did with most emails when I was working remotely, I quickly reviewed on my iPhone the relevant message that the meeting would occur at 4pm at his office.
Documents confirm my memory that this was calendared as 'Meeting: Don Jr.| Jared Kushner'. No one else was mentioned.
I arrived at the meeting a little late.
When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on US adoptions of Russian children.
I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting.
Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote 'Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting'.
I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since.
I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently.
I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees.
No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted.
Finally, after seeing the email, I disclosed this meeting prior to it being reported in the press on a supplement to my security clearance form, even if that was not required as meeting the definitions of the form.
There was one more possible contact that I will note.
On October 30, 2016, I received a random email from the screenname 'Guccifer400'.
This email, which I interpreted as a hoax, was an extortion attempt and threatened to reveal candidate Trump's tax returns and demanded that we send him 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing that information.
I brought the email to the attention of a US Secret Service agent on the plane we were all travelling on and asked what he thought.
He advised me to ignore it and not to reply - which is what I did. The sender never contacted me again.
To the best of my recollection, these were the full extent of contacts I had during the campaign with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.
Transition Contacts with Foreign Persons
The transition period after the election was even more active than the campaign.
Starting on election night, we began to receive an incredible volume of messages and invitations from well-wishers in the United States and abroad.
Dozens of messages came from foreign officials seeking to set up foreign leader calls and create lines of communication and relationships with what would be the new administration.
During this period, I recall having over fifty contacts with people from over fifteen countries.
Two of those meetings were with Russians, neither of which I solicited.
On November 16, 2016, my assistant received a request for a meeting from the Russian Ambassador.
As I mentioned before, previous to receiving this request, I could not even recall the Russian Ambassador's name, and had to ask for the name of the individual I had seen at the Mayflower Hotel almost seven months earlier.
In addition, far from being urgent, that meeting was not set up for two weeks - on December 1.
The meeting occurred in Trump Tower, where we had our transition office, and lasted twenty- thirty minutes.
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (Ret), who became the President's National Security Advisor, also attended.
During the meeting, after pleasantries were exchanged, as I had done in many of the meetings I had and would have with foreign officials, I stated our desire for a fresh start in relations.
Also, as I had done in other meetings with foreign officials, I asked Ambassador Kislyak if he would identify the best person (whether the Ambassador or someone else) with whom to have direct discussions and who had contact with his President.
The fact that I was asking about ways to start a dialogue after Election Day should of course be viewed as strong evidence that I was not aware of one that existed before Election Day.
The Ambassador expressed similar sentiments about relations, and then said he especially wanted to address US policy in Syria, and that he wanted to convey information from what he called his 'generals'.
He said he wanted to provide information that would help inform the new administration.
He said the generals could not easily come to the US to convey this information and he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation.
General Flynn or I explained that there were no such lines.
I believed developing a thoughtful approach on Syria was a very high priority given the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and I asked if they had an existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would be comfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn.
The Ambassador said that would not be possible and so we all agreed that we would receive this information after the Inauguration.
Nothing else occurred. I did not suggest a 'secret back channel'.
I did not suggest an on-going secret form of communication for then or for when the administration took office.
I did not raise the possibility of using the embassy or any other Russian facility for any purpose other than this one possible conversation in the transition period.
We did not discuss sanctions.
Approximately a week later, on December 6, the Embassy asked if I could meet with the Ambassador on December 7. I declined.
They then asked if I could meet on December 6, I declined again.
They then asked when the earliest was that I could meet.
I declined these requests because I was working on many other responsibilities for the transition.
He asked if he could meet my assistant instead and, to avoid offending the Ambassador, I agreed.
He did so on December 12.
My assistant reported that the Ambassador had requested that I meet with a person named Sergey Gorkov who he said was a banker and someone with a direct line to the Russian President who could give insight into how Putin was viewing the new administration and best ways to work together.
I agreed to meet Mr Gorkov because the Ambassador has been so insistent, said he had a direct relationship with the President, and because Mr Gorkov was only in New York for a couple days.
I made room on my schedule for the meeting that occurred the next day, on December 13.
The meeting with Mr Gorkov lasted twenty to twenty-five minutes.
He introduced himself and gave me two gifts - one was a piece of art from Nvgorod, the village where my grandparents were from in Belarus, and the other was a bag of dirt from that same village. (Any notion that I tried to conceal this meeting or that I took it thinking it was in my capacity as a businessman is false. In fact, I gave my assistant these gifts to formally register them with the transition office).
After that, he told me a little about his bank and made some statements about the Russian economy.
He said that he was friendly with President Putin, expressed disappointment with US-Russia relations under President Obama and hopes for a better relationship in the future.
As I did at the meeting with Ambassador Kislyak, I expressed the same sentiments I had with other foreign officials I met.
There were no specific policies discussed.
We had no discussion about the sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration.
At no time was there any discussion about my companies, business transactions, real estate projects, loans, banking arrangements or any private business of any kind.
At the end of the short meeting, we thanked each other and I went on to other meetings.
I did not know or have any contact with Mr Gorkov before that meeting, and I have had no reason to connect with him since.
To the best of my recollection, these were the only two contacts I had during the transition with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.
Disclosure of Contacts on My Security Clearance Form
There has been a good deal of misinformation reported about my SF-86 form.
As my attorneys and I have previously explained, my SF-86 application was prematurely submitted due to a miscommunication and initially did not list any contacts (not just with Russians) with foreign government officials.
Here are some facts about that form and the efforts I have made to supplement it.
In the week before the Inauguration, amid the scramble of finalizing the unwinding of my involvement from my company, moving my family to Washington, completing the paper work to divest assets and resign from my outside positions and complete my security and financial disclosure forms, people at my New York office were helping me find the information, organize it, review it and put it into the electronic form.
They sent an email to my assistant in Washington, communicating that the changes to one particular section were complete; my assistant interpreted that message as meaning that the entire form was completed.
At that point, the form was a rough draft and still had many omissions including not listing any foreign government contacts and even omitted the address of my father-in-law (which was obviously well known).
Because of this miscommunication, my assistant submitted the draft on January 18, 2017.
That evening, when we realized the form had been submitted prematurely, we informed the transition team that we needed to make changes and additions to the form.
The very next day, January 19, 2017, we submitted supplemental information to the transition, which confirmed receipt and said they would immediately transmit it to the FBI.
The supplement disclosed that I had 'numerous contacts with foreign officials' and that we were going through my records to provide an accurate and complete list.
I provided a list of those contacts in the normal course, before my background investigation interview and prior to any inquiries or media reports about my form.
It has been reported that my submission omitted only contacts with Russians.
That is not the case. In the accidental early submission of the form, all foreign contacts were omitted.
The supplemental information later disclosed over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries that might be responsive to the questions on the form.
These included meetings with individuals such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more. All of these had been left off before.
Over the last six months, I have made every effort to provide the FBI with whatever information is needed to investigate my background.
In addition, my attorneys have explained that the security clearance process is one in which supplements are expected and invited.
The form itself instructs that, during the interview, the information in the document can be 'update[d], clarif[ied], and explain[ed]' as part of the security clearance process. A good example is the June 9 meeting.
For reasons that should be clear from the explanation of that meeting I have provided, I did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it as one with anyone who had to be included on an SF-86.
When documents reviewed for production in connection with committee requests reminded me that meeting had occurred, and because of the language in the email chain that I then read for the first time, I included that meeting on a supplement.
I did so even though my attorneys were unable to conclude that the Russian lawyer was a representative of any foreign country and thus fell outside the scope of the form.
This supplemental information was also provided voluntarily, well prior to any media inquiries, reporting or request for this information, and it was done soon after I was reminded of the meeting.
As I have said from the very first media inquiry, I am happy to share information with the investigating bodies.
I have shown today that I am willing to do so and will continue to cooperate as I have nothing to hide.
As I indicated, I know there has been a great deal of speculation and conjecture about my contacts with any officials or people from Russia.
I have disclosed these contacts and described them as fully as I can recall.
The record and documents I am providing will show that I had perhaps four contacts with Russian representatives out of thousands during the campaign and transition, none of which were impactful in any way to the election or particularly memorable.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I also have tried to provide context for my role in the campaign, and I am proud of the candidate that we supported, of the campaign that we ran, and the victory that we achieved.
It has been my practice not to appear in the media or leak information in my own defense.
I have tried to focus on the important work at hand and serve this President and this country to the best of my abilities.
I hope that through my answers to questions, written statements and documents I have now been able to demonstrate the entirety of my limited contacts with Russian representatives during the campaign and transition.
I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts.
I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.
I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above and beyond what is required. Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.
I am voluntarily providing this statement, submitting documents, and sitting for interviews in order to shed light on issues that have been raised about my role in the Trump for President Campaign and during the transition period.
I am not a person who has sought the spotlight.
First in my business and now in public service, I have worked on achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public perception.
Because there has been a great deal of conjecture, speculation, and inaccurate information about me, I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.
My Role in the Trump for President Campaign
Before joining the administration, I worked in the private sector, building and managing companies.
My experience was in business, not politics, and it was not my initial intent to play a large role in my father-in-law's campaign when he decided to run for President.
However, as the campaign progressed, I was called on to assist with various tasks and aspects of the campaign, and took on more and more responsibility.
Over the course of the primaries and general election campaign, my role continued to evolve.
I ultimately worked with the finance, scheduling, communications, speechwriting, polling, data and digital teams, as well as becoming a point of contact for foreign government officials.
All of these were tasks that I had never performed on a campaign previously. When I was faced with a new challenge, I would reach out to contacts, ask advice, find the right person to manage the specific challenge, and work with that person to develop and execute a plan of action.
I was lucky to work with some incredibly talented people along the way, all of whom made significant contributions toward the campaign's ultimate success.
Our nimble culture allowed us to adjust to the ever-changing circumstances and make changes on the fly as the situation warranted.
I share this information because these actions should be viewed through the lens of a fast-paced campaign with thousands of meetings and interactions, some of which were impactful and memorable and many of which were not.
It is also important to note that a campaign's success starts with its message and its messenger.
Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered his message perfectly.
The results speak for themselves. Not only did President Trump defeat sixteen skilled and experienced primary opponents and win the presidency - he did so spending a fraction of what his opponent spent in the general election.
He outworked his opponent and ran one of the best campaigns in history using both modern technology and traditional methods to bring his message to the American people.
Campaign Contacts with Foreign Persons
When it became apparent that my father-in-law was going to be the Republican nominee for President, as normally happens, a number of officials from foreign countries attempted to reach out to the campaign.
My father-in-law asked me to be a point of contact with these foreign countries.
These were not contacts that I initiated, but, over the course of the campaign, I had incoming contacts with people from approximately 15 countries.
To put these requests in context, I must have received thousands of calls, letters and emails from people looking to talk or meet on a variety of issues and topics, including hundreds from outside the United States.
While I could not be responsive to everyone, I tried to be respectful of any foreign government contacts with whom it would be important to maintain an ongoing, productive working relationship were the candidate to prevail.
To that end, I called on a variety of people with deep experience, such as Dr Henry Kissinger, for advice on policy for the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what messaging would resonate.
In addition, it was typical for me to receive 200 or more emails a day during the campaign.
I did not have the time to read every one, especially long emails from unknown senders or email chains to which I was added at some later point in the exchange.
With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign, there were hardly any.
The first that I can recall was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC in April 2016.
This was when then candidate Trump was delivering a major foreign policy speech.
Doing the event and speech had been my idea, and I oversaw its execution.
I arrived at the hotel early to make sure all logistics were in order.
After that, I stopped into the reception to thank the host of the event, Dimitri Simes, the publisher of the bi-monthly foreign policy magazine, The National Interest, who had done a great job putting everything together.
Mr. Simes and his group had created the guest list and extended the invitations for the event.
He introduced me to several guests, among them four ambassadors, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
With all the ambassadors, including Mr Kislyak, we shook hands, exchanged brief pleasantries and I thanked them for attending the event and said I hoped they would like candidate Trump's speech and his ideas for a fresh approach to America's foreign policy.
The ambassadors also expressed interest in creating a positive relationship should we win the election.
Each exchange lasted less than a minute - some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies.
I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions.
Reuters news service has reported that I had two calls with Ambassador Kislyak at some time between April and November of 2016.
While I participated in thousands of calls during this period, I do not recall any such calls with the Russian Ambassador.
We have reviewed the phone records available to us and have not been able to identify any calls to any number we know to be associated with Ambassador Kislyak and I am highly skeptical these calls took place.
A comprehensive review of my land line and cell phone records from the time does not reveal those calls.
I had no ongoing relationship with the Ambassador before the election, and had limited knowledge about him then.
In fact, on November 9, the day after the election, I could not even remember the name of the Russian Ambassador.
When the campaign received an email purporting to be an official note of congratulations from President Putin, I was asked how we could verify it was real.
To do so I thought the best way would be to ask the only contact I recalled meeting from the Russian government, which was the Ambassador I had met months earlier, so I sent an email asking Mr Simes, 'What is the name of the Russian ambassador?'
Through my lawyer, I have asked Reuters to provide the dates on which the calls supposedly occurred or the phone number at which I supposedly reached, or was reached by, Ambassador Kislyak.
The journalist refused to provide any corroborating evidence that they occurred.
The only other Russian contact during the campaign is one I did not recall at all until I was reviewing documents and emails in response to congressional requests for information.
In June 2016, my brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr asked if I was free to stop by a meeting on June 9 at 3pm.
The campaign was headquartered in the same building as his office in Trump Tower, and it was common for each of us to swing by the other's meetings when requested.
He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4pm.
That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time.
As I did with most emails when I was working remotely, I quickly reviewed on my iPhone the relevant message that the meeting would occur at 4pm at his office.
Documents confirm my memory that this was calendared as 'Meeting: Don Jr.| Jared Kushner'. No one else was mentioned.
I arrived at the meeting a little late.
When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on US adoptions of Russian children.
I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting.
Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote 'Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting'.
I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since.
I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently.
I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees.
No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted.
Finally, after seeing the email, I disclosed this meeting prior to it being reported in the press on a supplement to my security clearance form, even if that was not required as meeting the definitions of the form.
There was one more possible contact that I will note.
On October 30, 2016, I received a random email from the screenname 'Guccifer400'.
This email, which I interpreted as a hoax, was an extortion attempt and threatened to reveal candidate Trump's tax returns and demanded that we send him 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing that information.
I brought the email to the attention of a US Secret Service agent on the plane we were all travelling on and asked what he thought.
He advised me to ignore it and not to reply - which is what I did. The sender never contacted me again.
To the best of my recollection, these were the full extent of contacts I had during the campaign with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.
Transition Contacts with Foreign Persons
The transition period after the election was even more active than the campaign.
Starting on election night, we began to receive an incredible volume of messages and invitations from well-wishers in the United States and abroad.
Dozens of messages came from foreign officials seeking to set up foreign leader calls and create lines of communication and relationships with what would be the new administration.
During this period, I recall having over fifty contacts with people from over fifteen countries.
Two of those meetings were with Russians, neither of which I solicited.
On November 16, 2016, my assistant received a request for a meeting from the Russian Ambassador.
As I mentioned before, previous to receiving this request, I could not even recall the Russian Ambassador's name, and had to ask for the name of the individual I had seen at the Mayflower Hotel almost seven months earlier.
In addition, far from being urgent, that meeting was not set up for two weeks - on December 1.
The meeting occurred in Trump Tower, where we had our transition office, and lasted twenty- thirty minutes.
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (Ret), who became the President's National Security Advisor, also attended.
During the meeting, after pleasantries were exchanged, as I had done in many of the meetings I had and would have with foreign officials, I stated our desire for a fresh start in relations.
Also, as I had done in other meetings with foreign officials, I asked Ambassador Kislyak if he would identify the best person (whether the Ambassador or someone else) with whom to have direct discussions and who had contact with his President.
The fact that I was asking about ways to start a dialogue after Election Day should of course be viewed as strong evidence that I was not aware of one that existed before Election Day.
The Ambassador expressed similar sentiments about relations, and then said he especially wanted to address US policy in Syria, and that he wanted to convey information from what he called his 'generals'.
He said he wanted to provide information that would help inform the new administration.
He said the generals could not easily come to the US to convey this information and he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation.
General Flynn or I explained that there were no such lines.
I believed developing a thoughtful approach on Syria was a very high priority given the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and I asked if they had an existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would be comfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn.
The Ambassador said that would not be possible and so we all agreed that we would receive this information after the Inauguration.
Nothing else occurred. I did not suggest a 'secret back channel'.
I did not suggest an on-going secret form of communication for then or for when the administration took office.
I did not raise the possibility of using the embassy or any other Russian facility for any purpose other than this one possible conversation in the transition period.
We did not discuss sanctions.
Approximately a week later, on December 6, the Embassy asked if I could meet with the Ambassador on December 7. I declined.
They then asked if I could meet on December 6, I declined again.
They then asked when the earliest was that I could meet.
I declined these requests because I was working on many other responsibilities for the transition.
He asked if he could meet my assistant instead and, to avoid offending the Ambassador, I agreed.
He did so on December 12.
My assistant reported that the Ambassador had requested that I meet with a person named Sergey Gorkov who he said was a banker and someone with a direct line to the Russian President who could give insight into how Putin was viewing the new administration and best ways to work together.
I agreed to meet Mr Gorkov because the Ambassador has been so insistent, said he had a direct relationship with the President, and because Mr Gorkov was only in New York for a couple days.
I made room on my schedule for the meeting that occurred the next day, on December 13.
The meeting with Mr Gorkov lasted twenty to twenty-five minutes.
He introduced himself and gave me two gifts - one was a piece of art from Nvgorod, the village where my grandparents were from in Belarus, and the other was a bag of dirt from that same village. (Any notion that I tried to conceal this meeting or that I took it thinking it was in my capacity as a businessman is false. In fact, I gave my assistant these gifts to formally register them with the transition office).
After that, he told me a little about his bank and made some statements about the Russian economy.
He said that he was friendly with President Putin, expressed disappointment with US-Russia relations under President Obama and hopes for a better relationship in the future.
As I did at the meeting with Ambassador Kislyak, I expressed the same sentiments I had with other foreign officials I met.
There were no specific policies discussed.
We had no discussion about the sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration.
At no time was there any discussion about my companies, business transactions, real estate projects, loans, banking arrangements or any private business of any kind.
At the end of the short meeting, we thanked each other and I went on to other meetings.
I did not know or have any contact with Mr Gorkov before that meeting, and I have had no reason to connect with him since.
To the best of my recollection, these were the only two contacts I had during the transition with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.
Disclosure of Contacts on My Security Clearance Form
There has been a good deal of misinformation reported about my SF-86 form.
As my attorneys and I have previously explained, my SF-86 application was prematurely submitted due to a miscommunication and initially did not list any contacts (not just with Russians) with foreign government officials.
Here are some facts about that form and the efforts I have made to supplement it.
In the week before the Inauguration, amid the scramble of finalizing the unwinding of my involvement from my company, moving my family to Washington, completing the paper work to divest assets and resign from my outside positions and complete my security and financial disclosure forms, people at my New York office were helping me find the information, organize it, review it and put it into the electronic form.
They sent an email to my assistant in Washington, communicating that the changes to one particular section were complete; my assistant interpreted that message as meaning that the entire form was completed.
At that point, the form was a rough draft and still had many omissions including not listing any foreign government contacts and even omitted the address of my father-in-law (which was obviously well known).
Because of this miscommunication, my assistant submitted the draft on January 18, 2017.
That evening, when we realized the form had been submitted prematurely, we informed the transition team that we needed to make changes and additions to the form.
The very next day, January 19, 2017, we submitted supplemental information to the transition, which confirmed receipt and said they would immediately transmit it to the FBI.
The supplement disclosed that I had 'numerous contacts with foreign officials' and that we were going through my records to provide an accurate and complete list.
I provided a list of those contacts in the normal course, before my background investigation interview and prior to any inquiries or media reports about my form.
It has been reported that my submission omitted only contacts with Russians.
That is not the case. In the accidental early submission of the form, all foreign contacts were omitted.
The supplemental information later disclosed over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries that might be responsive to the questions on the form.
These included meetings with individuals such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more. All of these had been left off before.
Over the last six months, I have made every effort to provide the FBI with whatever information is needed to investigate my background.
In addition, my attorneys have explained that the security clearance process is one in which supplements are expected and invited.
The form itself instructs that, during the interview, the information in the document can be 'update[d], clarif[ied], and explain[ed]' as part of the security clearance process. A good example is the June 9 meeting.
For reasons that should be clear from the explanation of that meeting I have provided, I did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it as one with anyone who had to be included on an SF-86.
When documents reviewed for production in connection with committee requests reminded me that meeting had occurred, and because of the language in the email chain that I then read for the first time, I included that meeting on a supplement.
I did so even though my attorneys were unable to conclude that the Russian lawyer was a representative of any foreign country and thus fell outside the scope of the form.
This supplemental information was also provided voluntarily, well prior to any media inquiries, reporting or request for this information, and it was done soon after I was reminded of the meeting.
As I have said from the very first media inquiry, I am happy to share information with the investigating bodies.
I have shown today that I am willing to do so and will continue to cooperate as I have nothing to hide.
As I indicated, I know there has been a great deal of speculation and conjecture about my contacts with any officials or people from Russia.
I have disclosed these contacts and described them as fully as I can recall.
The record and documents I am providing will show that I had perhaps four contacts with Russian representatives out of thousands during the campaign and transition, none of which were impactful in any way to the election or particularly memorable.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I also have tried to provide context for my role in the campaign, and I am proud of the candidate that we supported, of the campaign that we ran, and the victory that we achieved.
It has been my practice not to appear in the media or leak information in my own defense.
I have tried to focus on the important work at hand and serve this President and this country to the best of my abilities.
I hope that through my answers to questions, written statements and documents I have now been able to demonstrate the entirety of my limited contacts with Russian representatives during the campaign and transition.
I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts.
I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.
I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above and beyond what is required. Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.
SCAMMED PARENTS IN TEXAS, CALIFORNIA AND IDAHO PAY RANSOM TO KEEP MEXICANS FROM CUTTING FINGERS OFF THEIR DAUGHTERS
Houston Woman Charged in "Virtual Kidnapping" Scam
By Craig Malisow
Houston Press
July 24, 2017
You're going about your day when you get a call from a stranger with a Mexican phone number, and the caller tells you your daughter has been kidnapped, and unless you pay a ransom, your child's fingers will be cut off.
What do you do?
Freaked-out parents in Texas, California and Idaho paid the ransom, which federal prosecutors say went into the pockets of a Houston woman named Yanette Rodriguez Acosta, aka Yanette Patino, and co-conspirators in Mexico.
Acosta last week was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to launder money in what prosecutors call "a virtual kidnapping for ransom," according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas.
The release also states:
"Victims were typically instructed to wire money to individuals in Mexico. However, two of those victims were directed to make money drops at specified locations in the Houston area on Sept. 17, and Sept. 30, 2015, respectively, according to the charges. Both victims were allegedly told their daughters had been kidnapped because they had witnessed a crime and that their fingers would be cut off if the parents did not comply with demands.
Acosta allegedly picked up the ransom payments following the victims’ money drops. The indictment alleges that after taking her portion of the ransom money, Acosta wired the remainder to her co-conspirators in Mexico. She also allegedly recruited others to send money to Mexico."
The two Houston victims paid a combined $28,000, according to prosecutors, who also claim that there were additional victims in Idaho and California.
Acting U.S. Attorney Abe Martinez stressed in the press release how the scam tricked victims "into believing their loved ones are in danger, and the horror and helplessness they feel as they scramble to secure what they think is their release. It is important for people to know about these scams and to be cautious and mindful when getting these types of calls.”
Multiple agencies conducted the investigation, including the Montgomery County Sheriff's office; the police departments of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills; ICE's Homeland Security Investigations; and FBI and IRS agents in Los Angeles.
By Craig Malisow
Houston Press
July 24, 2017
You're going about your day when you get a call from a stranger with a Mexican phone number, and the caller tells you your daughter has been kidnapped, and unless you pay a ransom, your child's fingers will be cut off.
What do you do?
Freaked-out parents in Texas, California and Idaho paid the ransom, which federal prosecutors say went into the pockets of a Houston woman named Yanette Rodriguez Acosta, aka Yanette Patino, and co-conspirators in Mexico.
Acosta last week was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to launder money in what prosecutors call "a virtual kidnapping for ransom," according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas.
The release also states:
"Victims were typically instructed to wire money to individuals in Mexico. However, two of those victims were directed to make money drops at specified locations in the Houston area on Sept. 17, and Sept. 30, 2015, respectively, according to the charges. Both victims were allegedly told their daughters had been kidnapped because they had witnessed a crime and that their fingers would be cut off if the parents did not comply with demands.
Acosta allegedly picked up the ransom payments following the victims’ money drops. The indictment alleges that after taking her portion of the ransom money, Acosta wired the remainder to her co-conspirators in Mexico. She also allegedly recruited others to send money to Mexico."
The two Houston victims paid a combined $28,000, according to prosecutors, who also claim that there were additional victims in Idaho and California.
Acting U.S. Attorney Abe Martinez stressed in the press release how the scam tricked victims "into believing their loved ones are in danger, and the horror and helplessness they feel as they scramble to secure what they think is their release. It is important for people to know about these scams and to be cautious and mindful when getting these types of calls.”
Multiple agencies conducted the investigation, including the Montgomery County Sheriff's office; the police departments of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills; ICE's Homeland Security Investigations; and FBI and IRS agents in Los Angeles.
Monday, July 24, 2017
BUSTED PREACHER WAS ONLY PLANNING TO HAVE ONE-ON-ONE BAPTISM FOR HOOKER TO COME TO JESUS
Pastor of Woodlands First Baptist Church charged with prostitution
By Mayra Moreno
KTRK
July 29, 2017
THE WOODLANDS, Texas - -A Montgomery County religious leader has been charged with prostitution.
According to charging documents, 52-year-old Eddie Hilburn was taken into custody after he agreed to pay for sex.
Officials at The Woodlands First Baptist Church confirmed that Hilburn is an associate pastor. According to the church's website, Hilburn has been with the church since 2012 and had previously served at other churches across Texas and Wisconsin.
Hilburn appeared in court Thursday morning just hours after he had been arrested in a hotel.
Charging documents allege Hilburn paid an undercover Harris County Sheriff's deputy $80 for sexual activities. Soon after the alleged money exchange, deputies moved in to arrest him.
The Woodlands First Baptist Church issued the following statement following Hilburn's arrest:
The Woodlands First Baptist Church is still gathering information regarding our staff member Eddie Hilburn. We can assure you that a statement will be issued once all facts are known, and administration has had an opportunity to review them. We appreciate your patience in the meantime, and we continue to look to God for guidance.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Woodlands is an up-scale development just north of Houston.
By Mayra Moreno
KTRK
July 29, 2017
THE WOODLANDS, Texas - -A Montgomery County religious leader has been charged with prostitution.
According to charging documents, 52-year-old Eddie Hilburn was taken into custody after he agreed to pay for sex.
Officials at The Woodlands First Baptist Church confirmed that Hilburn is an associate pastor. According to the church's website, Hilburn has been with the church since 2012 and had previously served at other churches across Texas and Wisconsin.
Hilburn appeared in court Thursday morning just hours after he had been arrested in a hotel.
Charging documents allege Hilburn paid an undercover Harris County Sheriff's deputy $80 for sexual activities. Soon after the alleged money exchange, deputies moved in to arrest him.
The Woodlands First Baptist Church issued the following statement following Hilburn's arrest:
The Woodlands First Baptist Church is still gathering information regarding our staff member Eddie Hilburn. We can assure you that a statement will be issued once all facts are known, and administration has had an opportunity to review them. We appreciate your patience in the meantime, and we continue to look to God for guidance.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Woodlands is an up-scale development just north of Houston.
HE LOST IT ALL
I talked to a homeless man this morning and asked him how he ended up this way.
He said, "Up until last week, I still had it all. I had plenty to eat, my clothes were washed And pressed, I had a roof over my head, I had TV and Internet, and I went to the gym, The pool, and the library. I was working on my MBA on-line. I had no bills and no debt. I Even had full medical coverage."
I felt sorry for him, so I asked, "What happened? Drugs? Alcohol? Divorce?"
"Oh no, nothing like that," he said. "No, no.... I was paroled."
He said, "Up until last week, I still had it all. I had plenty to eat, my clothes were washed And pressed, I had a roof over my head, I had TV and Internet, and I went to the gym, The pool, and the library. I was working on my MBA on-line. I had no bills and no debt. I Even had full medical coverage."
I felt sorry for him, so I asked, "What happened? Drugs? Alcohol? Divorce?"
"Oh no, nothing like that," he said. "No, no.... I was paroled."
Sunday, July 23, 2017
7-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER TAKES WHEEL OF LEXUS WHEN DEAR OLD DAD OVERDOSES
Overdosing Brooklyn man’s 7-year-old daughter takes the wheel after he falls unconscious
By Ginger Adams Otis
New York Daily News
July 21, 2017
Daddy's little girl turned into a lifesaver.
The 7-year-old daughter of a drug-addled Brooklyn man climbed into his lap and steered their Lexus to safety after his opioid overdose while behind the wheel, police sources said Friday.
Eric Roman, 37, remained hospitalized Friday — one day after two astonished FDNY Emergency Medical Technicians spotted his small child steering the car on Ocean Ave. toward the busy Belt Parkway during rush hour on Thursday.
“We turned with the car and saw this little girl behind the wheel,” said EMT Arlene Garcia, a mother of three, ages 9, 10, and 11. “I’m a mom, so I was freaking out. I started yelling at her to pull over and stop the car.”
The diminutive driver seemed small for her age, Garcia told the Daily News.
“There’s no way her feet could reach the pedals. We were turning with her, telling her to pull over, waving our arms wildly at her, but she wasn’t pulling over.”
As the child kept a snail’s pace, the first responders came up with a plan.
“We said to ourselves, ‘How do you stop her?’ So we pulled right in front of her with the ambulance and that’s how we stopped it,” Garcia explained.
The slow-moving Lexus smacked the truck’s back bumper and came to a stop.
Garcia and her partner EMT Charles Zimring found a disturbing scene in the luxury vehicle.
“When we asked her what happened, she said ‘My dad was sleeping so I was going to finish driving him home,’ ” Garcia explained.
The quick thinking kid told the medics that she was in the back seat when her doped-up dad passed out.
So she unbuckled herself and took the wheel.
“She wasn’t scared at all. She was so great,” Garcia said. “All she was worried about was getting grounded for driving without permission.”
Police sources said first responders brought Roman back with a life-saving dose of the opioid antidote Naloxone.
He was taken to a Brooklyn hospital for treatment.
A relative who answered the door at the Roman home Friday declined to comment on the bizarre case. “I’ve got nothing to say,” the man said before closing the door.
Roman was due for arraignment in Brooklyn court Friday on charges of reckless endangerment, acting in a manner injurious to a child and driving while impaired by drugs.
Neighbors said the 7-year-old is the older of Roman’s two daughters, and expressed surprise about his alleged drug use.
“He seems very family-oriented. He’s a very nice guy,” said Brian Zheng, 39. He said Roman was complaining of tennis elbow, and his arm was in a sling last month.
“Probably he hurts very much,” Zheng said.
EMTs Garcia and Zimring were heralded for their efforts by their peers.
“Our members situational awareness training works, and this is a perfect example. They placed themselves at risk to prevent others from getting injured,” said EMS Local 2507 president Oren Barzilay.
By Ginger Adams Otis
New York Daily News
July 21, 2017
Daddy's little girl turned into a lifesaver.
The 7-year-old daughter of a drug-addled Brooklyn man climbed into his lap and steered their Lexus to safety after his opioid overdose while behind the wheel, police sources said Friday.
Eric Roman, 37, remained hospitalized Friday — one day after two astonished FDNY Emergency Medical Technicians spotted his small child steering the car on Ocean Ave. toward the busy Belt Parkway during rush hour on Thursday.
“We turned with the car and saw this little girl behind the wheel,” said EMT Arlene Garcia, a mother of three, ages 9, 10, and 11. “I’m a mom, so I was freaking out. I started yelling at her to pull over and stop the car.”
The diminutive driver seemed small for her age, Garcia told the Daily News.
“There’s no way her feet could reach the pedals. We were turning with her, telling her to pull over, waving our arms wildly at her, but she wasn’t pulling over.”
As the child kept a snail’s pace, the first responders came up with a plan.
“We said to ourselves, ‘How do you stop her?’ So we pulled right in front of her with the ambulance and that’s how we stopped it,” Garcia explained.
The slow-moving Lexus smacked the truck’s back bumper and came to a stop.
Garcia and her partner EMT Charles Zimring found a disturbing scene in the luxury vehicle.
“When we asked her what happened, she said ‘My dad was sleeping so I was going to finish driving him home,’ ” Garcia explained.
The quick thinking kid told the medics that she was in the back seat when her doped-up dad passed out.
So she unbuckled herself and took the wheel.
“She wasn’t scared at all. She was so great,” Garcia said. “All she was worried about was getting grounded for driving without permission.”
Police sources said first responders brought Roman back with a life-saving dose of the opioid antidote Naloxone.
He was taken to a Brooklyn hospital for treatment.
A relative who answered the door at the Roman home Friday declined to comment on the bizarre case. “I’ve got nothing to say,” the man said before closing the door.
Roman was due for arraignment in Brooklyn court Friday on charges of reckless endangerment, acting in a manner injurious to a child and driving while impaired by drugs.
Neighbors said the 7-year-old is the older of Roman’s two daughters, and expressed surprise about his alleged drug use.
“He seems very family-oriented. He’s a very nice guy,” said Brian Zheng, 39. He said Roman was complaining of tennis elbow, and his arm was in a sling last month.
“Probably he hurts very much,” Zheng said.
EMTs Garcia and Zimring were heralded for their efforts by their peers.
“Our members situational awareness training works, and this is a perfect example. They placed themselves at risk to prevent others from getting injured,” said EMS Local 2507 president Oren Barzilay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)