The Russia collusion hoax was a disgraceful fake news witch-hunt that shames all of Trump’s deranged enemies in the media, the FBI and Hollywood and has probably ensured their worst nightmare - his re-election
By Piers Morgan
Daily Mail
March 25, 2019
So it was all fake news…
The entire two-year Russia collusion frenzy was based on an absolute falsehood that Donald Trump and his team had colluded with Russians to fix the 2016 election.
It’s hard to imagine a worse thing to say about someone than that they betrayed their country, that they were traitors to their own people.
Yet that was the charge levelled at Trump in an obsessively unrelenting campaign to bring him down as President.
Today, he stands completely vindicated.
The long-awaited report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller sensationally cleared Trump of any collusion.
After an intensive investigation, Mueller concluded that neither the President nor any of his campaign team conspired with any Russians to interfere with the election.
Trump is jubilant, understandably.
But whilst I am pleased for him that he was finally exonerated of a high crime I never thought he could possibly have committed, my overwhelming feeling today is one of fury that he had to endure such a disgraceful, deceitful and concerted attack on his presidency based on nothing but a fervent desire to destroy him and his family.
Make no mistake, this was a ‘Get Trump’ mission driven by a collection of people who just couldn’t stomach the thought that he won the White House.
The Democrats, led by the demented Adam Schiff, screamed ‘COLLUSION!’ so often I’m amazed their larynxes didn’t explode.
But at least they had an obvious political motive for wanting Trump gone.
What is far worse is the way so many mainstream US media networks, newspapers and individual journalists fuelled the fake frenzy.
They let all the normal rules of balanced reporting fly out the window as they competed with each other over who could land the biggest Pulitzer prize-winning Trump/Russia sucker punch that would KO the President they loathe.
Only it turned out they were all punching thin air.
There was no collusion.
None.
Nada.
And today, all the people who’ve spent the past two years telling the world ‘Trump’s going down for Russia collusion’ look very stupid and have their reputations for impartiality irrevocably ruined.
Once revered newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post are effectively finished as credible purveyors of fair and balanced news.
Their sustained, often viciously partisan Russiagate coverage has been dictated not by any ‘higher purpose’ journalistic rigour but by commercial greed: the more they hammer the President, the more copies they sell and website clicks they attract, and the more money they make.
And the ‘Trump’s a traitor’ narrative has been their biggest money-spinner.
The Times has seen subscriptions and profits skyrocket since it erupted and has boasted about its success ad nauseam - but at what cost to its integrity?
Meanwhile, on the internet, websites have behaved like they were back in the unregulated, unlicensed wild west.
Buzzfeed, keen to show the world it’s a serious news organisation and not a trivia-led click-baiting gossip sheet, recklessly published the infamous dossier from ex-British spy Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson that claimed among other outlandish things that Trump paid prostitutes to urinate on him in a Moscow hotel room.
This revelation was designed to humiliate Trump personally, and also to infer that Vladimir Putin’s intelligence operatives had tapes of the incident, which is why Trump was so badly compromised by Russia.
It was also untrue.
I wrote at the time that most of the dossier – commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democrats - sounded like nonsense, and sure enough all the more lurid revelations have never been proven.
Yet that terrible journalistic decision to run a completely unverified document full of obvious bullshit poured a million tons of fuel onto the small Russia collusion fire burning slowly away in Washington and turned it into a furnace that threatened to engulf and destroy the Trump presidency.
Cable TV news has arguably been even worse than the press, feeding off every tiny scrap of unsubstantiated Russia-related gossip to drive headlines and ratings.
CNN anchors like Anderson Cooper can’t hide their sneering disdain for Trump, which is entirely their prerogative.
But when, like Cooper, that disdain compels you to spend night after night, month after month, devoting almost your entire ‘news’ show to what has turned out to be a fake news story, your reputation as an unbiased, fair-minded journalist is finished.
Why should any CNN viewer ever trust the likes of Cooper again given how badly he’s burned himself on this bogus Russia collusion story?
At MSNBC, hugely popular anchors like Rachel Maddow pumped out the Russia line with increasingly intense, emotional nightly detail, convincing themselves and their viewers in the process that they were exposing the new Watergate.
But they weren’t.
They were just exposing their own bias and news-judgement-twisting hatred of Trump.
Late night hosts, too, all eagerly embraced the Russia collusion line, led by Stephen Colbert who turned round his ailing Late Late Show’s ratings fortunes by making it a Trump-whacking forum featuring the constant subliminal message, ‘Don’t worry folks, Mueller’s coming for him!’
Ironically, Fox News, which is routinely attacked by the left in America for its often undeniably slavish support for Trump, emerges with by far the most credit on this story.
Their much-vilified prime time anchors Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have repeatedly picked apart and rubbished the Russia collusion claims - and they were right.
The collective impact of all this hysteria was that 95% of America’s media was actively colluding - oh the irony! - to turn the false Russia collusion story into a presidency-ending scandal.
As Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi wrote in an excoriating attack, it has been this media generation’s equivalent of the WMD fiasco that led to the Iraq War being fought on an entirely bogus pretext, aided and abetted by a woefully supine and deluded media.
Taibbi said: ‘As a purely journalistic exercise, WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations this time dwarfs the last mess. Worse, it’s led to most journalists adopting a radical change in mission. We’ve become side-choosers, obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.’
Exactly.
As for other big losers in all this, the list is long and illustrious:
Hillary Clinton, who never got over being beaten by a candidate with zero political experience, has been shrieking away ever since about Trump colluding with Russians in the desperate hope it would be proven true and she should rise again in glory as the true winner in 2016.
Today, she just looks an even bigger loser.
And what about the FBI, supposedly the very byword of discretion and unimpeachable integrity?
The bureau’s former boss turned self-aggrandising secret-revealing lawman celebrity James Comey posted a moody photo of himself in woodland on Sunday and the caption: ‘So many questions..’
Yes, there are – like: ‘What the hell was the FBI doing on Comey’s watch while Russia was aggressively hacking away to try to fix the last election?
The shocking answer is that they were more fixated with trying to stop Trump becoming President and wrecking his presidency if he did.
There should now be a proper investigation into Comey’s role in forcing the Mueller investigation into life in the first place, by leaking misinformation to the media when there was no hard evidence to support any collusion.
Such a new probe should also examine how Comey’s FBI colleagues like Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok all conspired to compromise the democratically elected president of the United States.
They are all heavily implicated in numerous acts of alleged crimes involving the misuse of the dodgy Steele dossier, which they used as an excuse to get FISA warrants to spy on an associate of Trump’s campaign, without any mention of Hillary and the Democrats financing it.
Their treachery, and Trump-hating motivation for it, is all there in their own words.
Strzok texted Page, his secret lover, before the 2016 election, and after he had just helped get Hillary off the email scandal rap, to say a newly-opened FBI investigation against Trump was an ‘insurance policy’ against him in case he won.
McCabe, who succeeded Comey as FBI Director, confirmed to CBS after his own departure that he not only launched a counter-intelligence operation against President Trump, but also discussed with FBI colleagues whether it was possible to remove him from office using the 25th Amendment.
What the hell were all these FBI agents, who took an oath to serve the President, doing by plotting against him in such a disgraceful way?
The full scale of their behaviour must be properly investigated and those involved, if proven to have acted illegally, should be jailed.
And then, of course, we’ve got the Trump-bashing liberal celebrities who’ve been hollering ‘COLLUSION’ for two years and more recently been salivating on social media about the President’s impending day of reckoning at the hands of their hero, Mueller.
Today, this preening, posturing collection of ridiculous Hollywood creatures from Bette Midler, Sarah Silverman and Chelsea Handler to Alyssa Milano, Rob Reiner and George Takei have all been left in a state of shock, distress and denial – unable to believe that their knight in shining armour didn’t just spare their target but exonerated him.
Of all the many terrible things about this Russia collusion farce, the worst is the open, excited craving by so many Americans to WANT to believe their President was a corrupt agent of a foreign enemy, and their undisguised disappointment now it turns out he wasn’t.
This scandal has exposed many of America’s politicians, journalists and celebrities for the hysterical Trump-deranged fools that they have become.
By obsessing about the fake saga of Russia collusion, they have done immeasurable harm to their country and their own reputations.
Trump is no angel, and faces other investigations that may or may not uncover bad stuff. That remains to be seen.
But on Russia, he has been absolutely consistent in repeatedly crying ‘NO COLLUSION”, and he’s called the probe a ‘witch hunt’ more than 170 times.
He was right: there was NO collusion, and it WAS a witch-hunt.
The result of this appalling episode in modern American history is that Trump emerges vindicated, emboldened and with a massive stick to beat his many critics in the 2020 election campaign.
And his opponents have once again shown their horrible tendency to believe their supposed moral superiority justifies anything they do, however venal.
I can see him now on the stump, declaring: ‘I delivered on defeating ISIS, I delivered on the economy - and I crushed the fake news attempt to destroy me on Russia collusion.’
It’s a powerful vote-winning cocktail.
I tweeted last year that my bet was Mueller would find no collusion.
Today, I bet that Trump, if nothing serious emerges in any other investigation, will now be re-elected President – and his enemies will have only themselves to blame.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And yet the witch hunt goes on.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
TEXAS MOM KILLED BY HER OWN PIT BULLS AT ANIMAL HOSPITAL
I Guess They REALLY Didn't Want To Go To The Vet
by Bob Walsh
Johana Villafane, 33, was visiting her two pits bulls at the animal hospital when the dogs attacked and killed her.
The dogs had been under quarantine since escaping from their yard and attacking one of her neighbors. They were under observation for signs of rabies. (I guess she doesn't believe in rabies vaccinations.) She was visiting with the critters in an outside exercise area when they attacked her.
The hospital staff called 911. The officers were forced to shoot the dogs as they prevented them from assisting Villafane.
The dogs were described by her friends as "aggressively friendly." I guess they got it half right.
by Bob Walsh
Johana Villafane, 33, was visiting her two pits bulls at the animal hospital when the dogs attacked and killed her.
The dogs had been under quarantine since escaping from their yard and attacking one of her neighbors. They were under observation for signs of rabies. (I guess she doesn't believe in rabies vaccinations.) She was visiting with the critters in an outside exercise area when they attacked her.
The hospital staff called 911. The officers were forced to shoot the dogs as they prevented them from assisting Villafane.
The dogs were described by her friends as "aggressively friendly." I guess they got it half right.
AND THIS CROOK INTENDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT
Michael Avenatti arrested and charged with trying to extort $20M from Nike
By Andrew Denney and Bruce Golding
New York Post
March 25, 2019
Lawyer Michael Avenatti is facing coast-to-coast charges in separate extortion and fraud schemes, the feds announced Monday.
Avenatti — who shot to fame representing porn star Stormy Daniels over her claims of an affair with President Trump and more recently the parents of Azriel Clary, one of R. Kelly’s alleged “sex slaves” — was arrested in Manhattan on charges that he tried to shake down the sneaker giant Nike for $20 million last week, authorities said.
“I’ll go take $10 billion off your client’s market cap … I’m not fucking around,” court papers say he told Nike lawyers during a conference call Wednesday.
That conversation came a day after Avenatti met with Nike’s lawyers and “threatened to release damaging information” if the company didn’t pay off Avenatti and an unidentified co-conspirator, according to a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court.
The Wall Street Journal identified the alleged co-conspirator as lawyer Mark Geragos, citing two people familiar with the matter.
Avenatti’s alleged “not fucking around” threat allegedly came on the eve of Nike’s quarterly earnings report, and two days before the start of the NCAA’s “March Madness” college basketball tournament.
The charges against him were revealed just minutes after Avenatti — who recently flirted with a Democratic presidential campaign — tweeted that he would be holding a Tuesday morning news conference about “a major high school/college basketball scandal perpetrated by @Nike that we have uncovered.”
“This criminal conduct reaches the highest levels of Nike and involves some of the biggest names in college basketball,” he claimed.
During an afternoon news conference, Manhattan US Attorney Geoffrey Berman said Avenatti told Nike that if his demands weren’t met, the company would be “inflicted with cut after cut after cut after cut.”
“A suit and tie doesn’t mask the fact that at its core this was an old-fashioned shakedown,” Berman said.
As for the charges against him in California, prosecutors in the Golden State allege that Avenatti stole a client’s $1.6 million settlement and spent the cash on personal expenses and debts, and to run his law firm and former coffee business, Tully’s Coffee, which had stores in Los Angeles and Seattle.
Avenatti is also accused of defrauding a bank in Mississipi by using fake tax returns to borrow $4.1 million, even though he never filed personal tax returns for 2011, 2012 and 2013 — and still owes the IRS more than $850,000 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest for 2009 and 2010, the feds said.
EDITOR’S NOTE: According to the Daily Mail, Avenatti said that he had proof Nike had made illegal payments to at least three high school basketball player's families.
Mark Geragos is a celebrity lawyer who has represented child molester Michael Jackson among other Hollywood stars, as well as flag-disrespecting Colin Kaepernick and lately hoaxer Jussie Smollett.
__________
MICHAEL AVENATTI IN DEEP DOO-DOO
by Bob Walsh
Michael Avenatti, 48, sometimes known as The Creepy Porn Lawyer for his representation of "Stormy Daniels" in a lawsuit against Donald Trump (which she lost and had to pay costs), was arrested on both coasts.
It seems, if the prosecutors got it right, that he engaged in an incredibly heavy-handed and stupid shakedown of Nike. He is alleged to have approached them with an assertion that he had dirt on them and that if they did not hire him to do an "internal investigation" of their company for $20 million he would let the dirt out. An unindicted co-conspirator was mentioned, he is supposed to be another very high profile lawyer who MAY have ratted him out.
In addition to these charges filed in New York he was also the subject of a complaint alleging embezzlement of a client's money in L.A.
Ordinarily I would say this shoots down his shot at the Democrat nomination for President, but with Democrats you never know.
By Andrew Denney and Bruce Golding
New York Post
March 25, 2019
Lawyer Michael Avenatti is facing coast-to-coast charges in separate extortion and fraud schemes, the feds announced Monday.
Avenatti — who shot to fame representing porn star Stormy Daniels over her claims of an affair with President Trump and more recently the parents of Azriel Clary, one of R. Kelly’s alleged “sex slaves” — was arrested in Manhattan on charges that he tried to shake down the sneaker giant Nike for $20 million last week, authorities said.
“I’ll go take $10 billion off your client’s market cap … I’m not fucking around,” court papers say he told Nike lawyers during a conference call Wednesday.
That conversation came a day after Avenatti met with Nike’s lawyers and “threatened to release damaging information” if the company didn’t pay off Avenatti and an unidentified co-conspirator, according to a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court.
The Wall Street Journal identified the alleged co-conspirator as lawyer Mark Geragos, citing two people familiar with the matter.
Avenatti’s alleged “not fucking around” threat allegedly came on the eve of Nike’s quarterly earnings report, and two days before the start of the NCAA’s “March Madness” college basketball tournament.
The charges against him were revealed just minutes after Avenatti — who recently flirted with a Democratic presidential campaign — tweeted that he would be holding a Tuesday morning news conference about “a major high school/college basketball scandal perpetrated by @Nike that we have uncovered.”
“This criminal conduct reaches the highest levels of Nike and involves some of the biggest names in college basketball,” he claimed.
During an afternoon news conference, Manhattan US Attorney Geoffrey Berman said Avenatti told Nike that if his demands weren’t met, the company would be “inflicted with cut after cut after cut after cut.”
“A suit and tie doesn’t mask the fact that at its core this was an old-fashioned shakedown,” Berman said.
As for the charges against him in California, prosecutors in the Golden State allege that Avenatti stole a client’s $1.6 million settlement and spent the cash on personal expenses and debts, and to run his law firm and former coffee business, Tully’s Coffee, which had stores in Los Angeles and Seattle.
Avenatti is also accused of defrauding a bank in Mississipi by using fake tax returns to borrow $4.1 million, even though he never filed personal tax returns for 2011, 2012 and 2013 — and still owes the IRS more than $850,000 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest for 2009 and 2010, the feds said.
EDITOR’S NOTE: According to the Daily Mail, Avenatti said that he had proof Nike had made illegal payments to at least three high school basketball player's families.
Mark Geragos is a celebrity lawyer who has represented child molester Michael Jackson among other Hollywood stars, as well as flag-disrespecting Colin Kaepernick and lately hoaxer Jussie Smollett.
__________
MICHAEL AVENATTI IN DEEP DOO-DOO
by Bob Walsh
Michael Avenatti, 48, sometimes known as The Creepy Porn Lawyer for his representation of "Stormy Daniels" in a lawsuit against Donald Trump (which she lost and had to pay costs), was arrested on both coasts.
It seems, if the prosecutors got it right, that he engaged in an incredibly heavy-handed and stupid shakedown of Nike. He is alleged to have approached them with an assertion that he had dirt on them and that if they did not hire him to do an "internal investigation" of their company for $20 million he would let the dirt out. An unindicted co-conspirator was mentioned, he is supposed to be another very high profile lawyer who MAY have ratted him out.
In addition to these charges filed in New York he was also the subject of a complaint alleging embezzlement of a client's money in L.A.
Ordinarily I would say this shoots down his shot at the Democrat nomination for President, but with Democrats you never know.
NARCOTICS OFFICER: THE WAR ON DRUGS IS NOT A FAILURE
by Howie Katz
Law Enforcement Today
March 25, 2019
Local and state police, the DEA, Customs and Border Patrol agents, and the U.S. Coast Guard are in the front lines of the war on drugs. These agencies seize illegal drugs that were intended to be sold on this nation’s streets. And our drug warriors are not just fighting the illegal drug distributors, but they are also confronted by a ‘fifth column’ in our country.
Liberals have been declaring that we are fighting a failed war on drugs. It is true that the Mexican drug cartels have been successfully smuggling heroin, cocaine, meth and marijuana across the border and even control their distribution in a number of our cities. It is also true that Heroin and fentanyl have bee coming into this country by container ships from China. But to claim that the war on drugs is a failed war is a damn lie. If our law enforcement agencies were not making narcotic seizures, there would be tons more of illegal drugs available on the streets.
The problem in this country is that we are fighting a two-front war on drugs. On one front we are fighting the distributors of illegal drugs. On the other front we are fighting a ‘fifth column’ consisting of liberals with their soft-on-drugs approach and groups like the ‘National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws’ (NORML).
Before the Vietnam War there was no fifth column. Most illegal drug use occurred among poor blacks and Mexican- Americans. Whites were not the least bit concerned about the arrest of minorities for possession of pot and other drugs. But all that changed with the ant-war movement and counter culture revolution of white youths from the middle and upper class. When kids from good white families were being thrown in jail for illegal drug possession, their parents squealed like stuck pigs about their clean-cut kids being imprisoned.
A two-front war is difficult to fight. Just ask the surviving Germans about fighting the Russians on the eastern front and the Allies on the western front, both at the same time.
And then there is the problem of who we are not fighting … the users of illegal drugs. The Law of Supply and Demand tells us that when there is no demand for a product, it will no longer be produced. The insatiable hunger of Americans for illegal drugs keeps the Mexican Drug cartels and other distributors of illegal drugs busy meeting that demand.
Compared to us, Asian countries fight the War on Drugs not only against those who manufacture and distribute them, but also against the users of drugs. In Japan drug users are imprisoned if caught, including those who use marijuana, the possession of cannabis for personal use carrying a maximum prison sentence of five years. In China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, drug users are imprisoned and drug dealers or those found in possession of large quantities are executed.
According to Human Rights Watch, since taking office on June 30, 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has carried out a war on drugs that has led to the deaths of over 12,000 Filipinos. In July of last year, Duterte told the Philippine Congress: “Let me begin by putting it bluntly. The war against illegal drugs is far from over. It will be as relentless and chilling as on the day it began.”
Illegal drug use in those Asian countries is not nearly as bad as it is in the United States because the police go after the users who are severely punished when caught. That acts as a significant deterrent to illegal drug use.
Now let’s take a look at some significant victories in our war against drugs.
In December 2016, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy seized 26.5 tons of cocaine worth $2 billion and in November 2018, the Cost Guard seized 18.5 tons of cocaine worth $500 million.
In November 2017, Colombian police seized more than 12 tons of cocaine worth $360 million.
In August 2018, Mexican Marines raided an underground drug lab in Sinaloa and seized 50 tons of meth worth $7.5 billion.
In January, around 1.7 tons (3,800 pounds) of meth worth almost $1 billion was seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the Los Angeles/Long Beach port. The meth, as well as 55 pounds of cocaine and about 11 pounds of heroin which were also seized, were bound for Australia.
In January, the Mexican navy intercepted a speedboat off the Sinaloa coast from which they seized more than 1,300 pounds (630 kilograms) of cocaine. Of the 15 crew members taken into custody, eight were from Ecuador, four were Colombians and three were Mexicans.
In February the U.S. Coast guard offloaded 17 tons of cocaine seized by six Coast Guard cutters from 21 different smuggling vessels in the Pacific off the coasts of Mexico and Central and South America. The 17 tons was worth an estimated $466 million wholesale.
On February 28, authorities seized about 1.6 tons of cocaine from a shipping container in the port at Newark, N.J. The seizure resulted from a joint investigation by U.S. Customs, the U.S. Coast Guard, Homeland Security Investigations, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the New York Police Department and the New York State Police. The coke had an estimated street value of $77 million.
On March 2, the DEA seized more than 20 kilos of fentanyl and 5 kilos of heroin from a truck at a New Jersey highway rest stop. That amount of fentanyl was enough to kill more than the entire population of NJ. The next day, LAPD seized more than 100 pounds of meth worth about $1 million at a South Los Angeles motel. Two children, ages 8 and 10, had been left alone with the meth.
I’ve called attention to these seizures to show that the War on Drugs is not a failed war. The seized drugs, and the drugs in many more seizures too numerous to mention here, would have been sold on the streets of America were it not for the War on Drugs.
Our soft approach to the use of drugs and the legalization of marijuana for recreational use have made it harder for us to fight the war on drugs.
Make no mistake about it though, the war on drugs is protecting our society. Because we are winning many battles in this war, tons of illegal drugs are being kept off of our streets.
Law Enforcement Today
March 25, 2019
Local and state police, the DEA, Customs and Border Patrol agents, and the U.S. Coast Guard are in the front lines of the war on drugs. These agencies seize illegal drugs that were intended to be sold on this nation’s streets. And our drug warriors are not just fighting the illegal drug distributors, but they are also confronted by a ‘fifth column’ in our country.
Liberals have been declaring that we are fighting a failed war on drugs. It is true that the Mexican drug cartels have been successfully smuggling heroin, cocaine, meth and marijuana across the border and even control their distribution in a number of our cities. It is also true that Heroin and fentanyl have bee coming into this country by container ships from China. But to claim that the war on drugs is a failed war is a damn lie. If our law enforcement agencies were not making narcotic seizures, there would be tons more of illegal drugs available on the streets.
The problem in this country is that we are fighting a two-front war on drugs. On one front we are fighting the distributors of illegal drugs. On the other front we are fighting a ‘fifth column’ consisting of liberals with their soft-on-drugs approach and groups like the ‘National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws’ (NORML).
Before the Vietnam War there was no fifth column. Most illegal drug use occurred among poor blacks and Mexican- Americans. Whites were not the least bit concerned about the arrest of minorities for possession of pot and other drugs. But all that changed with the ant-war movement and counter culture revolution of white youths from the middle and upper class. When kids from good white families were being thrown in jail for illegal drug possession, their parents squealed like stuck pigs about their clean-cut kids being imprisoned.
A two-front war is difficult to fight. Just ask the surviving Germans about fighting the Russians on the eastern front and the Allies on the western front, both at the same time.
And then there is the problem of who we are not fighting … the users of illegal drugs. The Law of Supply and Demand tells us that when there is no demand for a product, it will no longer be produced. The insatiable hunger of Americans for illegal drugs keeps the Mexican Drug cartels and other distributors of illegal drugs busy meeting that demand.
Compared to us, Asian countries fight the War on Drugs not only against those who manufacture and distribute them, but also against the users of drugs. In Japan drug users are imprisoned if caught, including those who use marijuana, the possession of cannabis for personal use carrying a maximum prison sentence of five years. In China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, drug users are imprisoned and drug dealers or those found in possession of large quantities are executed.
According to Human Rights Watch, since taking office on June 30, 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has carried out a war on drugs that has led to the deaths of over 12,000 Filipinos. In July of last year, Duterte told the Philippine Congress: “Let me begin by putting it bluntly. The war against illegal drugs is far from over. It will be as relentless and chilling as on the day it began.”
Illegal drug use in those Asian countries is not nearly as bad as it is in the United States because the police go after the users who are severely punished when caught. That acts as a significant deterrent to illegal drug use.
Now let’s take a look at some significant victories in our war against drugs.
In December 2016, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy seized 26.5 tons of cocaine worth $2 billion and in November 2018, the Cost Guard seized 18.5 tons of cocaine worth $500 million.
In November 2017, Colombian police seized more than 12 tons of cocaine worth $360 million.
In August 2018, Mexican Marines raided an underground drug lab in Sinaloa and seized 50 tons of meth worth $7.5 billion.
In January, around 1.7 tons (3,800 pounds) of meth worth almost $1 billion was seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the Los Angeles/Long Beach port. The meth, as well as 55 pounds of cocaine and about 11 pounds of heroin which were also seized, were bound for Australia.
In January, the Mexican navy intercepted a speedboat off the Sinaloa coast from which they seized more than 1,300 pounds (630 kilograms) of cocaine. Of the 15 crew members taken into custody, eight were from Ecuador, four were Colombians and three were Mexicans.
In February the U.S. Coast guard offloaded 17 tons of cocaine seized by six Coast Guard cutters from 21 different smuggling vessels in the Pacific off the coasts of Mexico and Central and South America. The 17 tons was worth an estimated $466 million wholesale.
On February 28, authorities seized about 1.6 tons of cocaine from a shipping container in the port at Newark, N.J. The seizure resulted from a joint investigation by U.S. Customs, the U.S. Coast Guard, Homeland Security Investigations, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the New York Police Department and the New York State Police. The coke had an estimated street value of $77 million.
On March 2, the DEA seized more than 20 kilos of fentanyl and 5 kilos of heroin from a truck at a New Jersey highway rest stop. That amount of fentanyl was enough to kill more than the entire population of NJ. The next day, LAPD seized more than 100 pounds of meth worth about $1 million at a South Los Angeles motel. Two children, ages 8 and 10, had been left alone with the meth.
I’ve called attention to these seizures to show that the War on Drugs is not a failed war. The seized drugs, and the drugs in many more seizures too numerous to mention here, would have been sold on the streets of America were it not for the War on Drugs.
Our soft approach to the use of drugs and the legalization of marijuana for recreational use have made it harder for us to fight the war on drugs.
Make no mistake about it though, the war on drugs is protecting our society. Because we are winning many battles in this war, tons of illegal drugs are being kept off of our streets.
HIGH RATE OF SUICIDES AMONG COPS
Alarms Sound After 6 Chicago PD Suicides In 8 Months
LAPPL News Watch
March 25, 2019
A dozen or so police officers gather once every month in the basement of an office building and talk — about handling holidays with families, about nightmares so bad they are reluctant to share a bed at night.
Most of the officers were involved in a shooting while on duty, and here they share stories of what that has meant. Sometimes they cry. “This is what trauma looks like,” says Carrie Steiner, a former Chicago cop turned therapist who runs the counseling center. “This is what PTSD looks like.”
Responding to that trauma is now a top challenge for the Chicago Police Department, where alarms are sounding after six officers killed themselves over the last eight months.
Last week, after the most recent suicide, Superintendent Eddie Johnson convened a small meeting of command staff and told them officer wellness was now his priority.
LAPPL News Watch
March 25, 2019
A dozen or so police officers gather once every month in the basement of an office building and talk — about handling holidays with families, about nightmares so bad they are reluctant to share a bed at night.
Most of the officers were involved in a shooting while on duty, and here they share stories of what that has meant. Sometimes they cry. “This is what trauma looks like,” says Carrie Steiner, a former Chicago cop turned therapist who runs the counseling center. “This is what PTSD looks like.”
Responding to that trauma is now a top challenge for the Chicago Police Department, where alarms are sounding after six officers killed themselves over the last eight months.
Last week, after the most recent suicide, Superintendent Eddie Johnson convened a small meeting of command staff and told them officer wellness was now his priority.
POLICE BODY CAMERAS ARE NOT HAVING THE EFFECTS MANY EXPECTED
What’s likely the most comprehensive review of research on body cameras shows that they're most often used to prosecute citizens, not police. And while they've led to fewer citizen complaints, their impact on other aspects of policing, such as use of force, is less certain
By Mike Maciag
Governing
March 25, 2019
For years, many people hailed body-worn cameras as a potential key to improving police transparency and strengthening often-fractured relationships with the communities they serve. But so far, academic research suggests the technology largely hasn't lived up to those expectations.
That’s the conclusion of a new report from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
Researchers reviewed 70 empirical studies on body cameras' effects, ranging from officer and citizen behavior to influences on law enforcement agencies as a whole. While much of the research remains mixed, it counters some promised benefits of body cameras at a time when departments are increasingly adopting the technology.
"There is an incongruence between people’s expectations of cameras, police expectations of cameras and what they think they’re being used for," says Cynthia Lum, the center's director and a co-author of the report.
Mixed Results on Use of Force
One of the top-cited reasons behind the push for body cameras has been the potential to limit officers’ use of force. Six of the reviewed studies suggested officers wearing cameras were less likely to use force, but another eight studies found no statistically significant effects.
One study offered a possible explanation for the discrepancy: Officers required to wear and turn on their cameras used force less frequently than those given more discretion.
One impact the cameras do seem to have is a reduction in the number of citizen complaints. The vast majority of the studies reviewed show that officers wearing body cameras receive fewer complaints against them than those not being recorded.
The reasons for that remain unclear. It’s possible that officers change their behaviors, leading to fewer complaints. But officers have suggested that citizens are less likely to file unfounded complaints when they know incidents are recorded.
“Officers are liking body-worn cameras more and more because they see it as protection against frivolous complaints,” Lum says.
More Prosecutions, But Not For Police
The introduction of body cameras is also having an effect on criminal investigations. But while many anticipated that camera footage would lead to more prosecutions of police misconduct, they’re instead being used more often against citizens.
In one study, 93 percent of prosecutors’ offices used camera footage primarily in prosecutions of civilians. Findings from three British studies similarly suggest cameras might play a role in raising clearance rates and producing more guilty pleas. Other reports showed cameras were particularly useful in domestic violence cases, leading to increased arrests, charges, guilty pleas and guilty verdicts.
Still, there’s no strong evidence that body cameras reduce crime. The most rigorous study the George Mason University researchers reviewed didn’t find any “general deterrent effects.”
De-Policing Didn't Happen
Perhaps the most commonly cited potential drawback of body cameras has centered around claims that officers would pull back on enforcement activities, effectively leading to de-policing. But the majority of studies reviewed don’t support this concern. In fact, three studies suggested officers wearing cameras actually might initiate more total contacts than those without them.
Lum says the research suffers from a shortcoming, though, in that it doesn’t distinguish between all the different types of actions officers take. Little research, for instance, examines whether body cameras encourage types of activities that might promote community policing.
Many hoped the arrival of body cameras would foster greater accountability within departments. Research to date hasn’t concluded that any such shifts have occurred.
“Agencies influence technology, not the other way around,” Lum says. “The culture and other aspects of the agencies will really determine how it is used.”
One study, for example, concluded that cameras increased officer burnout and that better organizational support could help mitigate it.
Some officers may perceive cameras primarily as a punitive measure. Rather than only using camera footage for disciplinary reasons, Lum recommends departments employ it as a learning tool for officers and their supervisors.
“The body-worn camera footage could provide a forum that increases the communication between the supervisor and the officer. And that might be a lever to strengthen the accountability structure,” she says.
Citizen Interactions
One of the main goals of body cameras is to increase the public's trust in police. The research shows that hasn't happened.
One study reported no links between deployment of body cameras and citizens’ views of police legitimacy, professionalism or satisfaction with police interactions.
Meanwhile, studies examining their effects on resisting arrest or assaults on officers were mixed, and no definitive conclusions could be made about whether body cameras influenced numbers of arrests and citations.
Body Cameras Are Here to Stay
Despite their uncertain effects, body cameras will likely continue to proliferate across police departments. A Bureau of Justice Statistics survey published last year reported 47 percent of general-purpose law enforcement agencies had already acquired the technology as of 2016, and studies consistently show that officers' views of the cameras improve over time as they begin using them.
But Lum cautions that police departments shouldn’t pursue body cameras merely because other agencies are doing so.
“Agencies really have to think carefully about the goals they have for the cameras and whether they’re achieving those goals,” she says. “Just because it reduces frivolous complaints or helps prosecute crimes better may not necessarily do anything to the relationship between the citizens and police.”
By Mike Maciag
Governing
March 25, 2019
For years, many people hailed body-worn cameras as a potential key to improving police transparency and strengthening often-fractured relationships with the communities they serve. But so far, academic research suggests the technology largely hasn't lived up to those expectations.
That’s the conclusion of a new report from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
Researchers reviewed 70 empirical studies on body cameras' effects, ranging from officer and citizen behavior to influences on law enforcement agencies as a whole. While much of the research remains mixed, it counters some promised benefits of body cameras at a time when departments are increasingly adopting the technology.
"There is an incongruence between people’s expectations of cameras, police expectations of cameras and what they think they’re being used for," says Cynthia Lum, the center's director and a co-author of the report.
Mixed Results on Use of Force
One of the top-cited reasons behind the push for body cameras has been the potential to limit officers’ use of force. Six of the reviewed studies suggested officers wearing cameras were less likely to use force, but another eight studies found no statistically significant effects.
One study offered a possible explanation for the discrepancy: Officers required to wear and turn on their cameras used force less frequently than those given more discretion.
One impact the cameras do seem to have is a reduction in the number of citizen complaints. The vast majority of the studies reviewed show that officers wearing body cameras receive fewer complaints against them than those not being recorded.
The reasons for that remain unclear. It’s possible that officers change their behaviors, leading to fewer complaints. But officers have suggested that citizens are less likely to file unfounded complaints when they know incidents are recorded.
“Officers are liking body-worn cameras more and more because they see it as protection against frivolous complaints,” Lum says.
More Prosecutions, But Not For Police
The introduction of body cameras is also having an effect on criminal investigations. But while many anticipated that camera footage would lead to more prosecutions of police misconduct, they’re instead being used more often against citizens.
In one study, 93 percent of prosecutors’ offices used camera footage primarily in prosecutions of civilians. Findings from three British studies similarly suggest cameras might play a role in raising clearance rates and producing more guilty pleas. Other reports showed cameras were particularly useful in domestic violence cases, leading to increased arrests, charges, guilty pleas and guilty verdicts.
Still, there’s no strong evidence that body cameras reduce crime. The most rigorous study the George Mason University researchers reviewed didn’t find any “general deterrent effects.”
De-Policing Didn't Happen
Perhaps the most commonly cited potential drawback of body cameras has centered around claims that officers would pull back on enforcement activities, effectively leading to de-policing. But the majority of studies reviewed don’t support this concern. In fact, three studies suggested officers wearing cameras actually might initiate more total contacts than those without them.
Lum says the research suffers from a shortcoming, though, in that it doesn’t distinguish between all the different types of actions officers take. Little research, for instance, examines whether body cameras encourage types of activities that might promote community policing.
Many hoped the arrival of body cameras would foster greater accountability within departments. Research to date hasn’t concluded that any such shifts have occurred.
“Agencies influence technology, not the other way around,” Lum says. “The culture and other aspects of the agencies will really determine how it is used.”
One study, for example, concluded that cameras increased officer burnout and that better organizational support could help mitigate it.
Some officers may perceive cameras primarily as a punitive measure. Rather than only using camera footage for disciplinary reasons, Lum recommends departments employ it as a learning tool for officers and their supervisors.
“The body-worn camera footage could provide a forum that increases the communication between the supervisor and the officer. And that might be a lever to strengthen the accountability structure,” she says.
Citizen Interactions
One of the main goals of body cameras is to increase the public's trust in police. The research shows that hasn't happened.
One study reported no links between deployment of body cameras and citizens’ views of police legitimacy, professionalism or satisfaction with police interactions.
Meanwhile, studies examining their effects on resisting arrest or assaults on officers were mixed, and no definitive conclusions could be made about whether body cameras influenced numbers of arrests and citations.
Body Cameras Are Here to Stay
Despite their uncertain effects, body cameras will likely continue to proliferate across police departments. A Bureau of Justice Statistics survey published last year reported 47 percent of general-purpose law enforcement agencies had already acquired the technology as of 2016, and studies consistently show that officers' views of the cameras improve over time as they begin using them.
But Lum cautions that police departments shouldn’t pursue body cameras merely because other agencies are doing so.
“Agencies really have to think carefully about the goals they have for the cameras and whether they’re achieving those goals,” she says. “Just because it reduces frivolous complaints or helps prosecute crimes better may not necessarily do anything to the relationship between the citizens and police.”
Monday, March 25, 2019
IT AIN’T OVER TILL THE FAT LADY SINGS
Exonerated, but the witch hunt continues unabated
After 22 months and $25 million, the Mueller report exonerated Trump and his campaign of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians and Attorney General William Barr says there was no obstruction of justice.
A significant victory for Trump, yes, but it ain’t over till the fat lady sings. The Mueller report may have exonerated Trump, but the witch hunt continues unabated.
The Democrats continue to be relentless in their efforts to destroy the Trump presidency. Investigation after investigation after investigation will be conducted in the House of Representatives where the Democrats intend to look into everything Trump has ever done and how many times he shit-stained his underwear.
And the US Attorneys for Southern New York, Virginia and D.C. are investigating the Trump family business dealings, both before and since he became president. So are the NY state Attorney General and the Manhattan DA, both Democrats of course.
It looks like it is going to take quite a while before the fat lady sings.
After 22 months and $25 million, the Mueller report exonerated Trump and his campaign of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians and Attorney General William Barr says there was no obstruction of justice.
A significant victory for Trump, yes, but it ain’t over till the fat lady sings. The Mueller report may have exonerated Trump, but the witch hunt continues unabated.
The Democrats continue to be relentless in their efforts to destroy the Trump presidency. Investigation after investigation after investigation will be conducted in the House of Representatives where the Democrats intend to look into everything Trump has ever done and how many times he shit-stained his underwear.
And the US Attorneys for Southern New York, Virginia and D.C. are investigating the Trump family business dealings, both before and since he became president. So are the NY state Attorney General and the Manhattan DA, both Democrats of course.
It looks like it is going to take quite a while before the fat lady sings.
NO OBSTRUCTION, NO COLLUSION
by Bob Walsh
The Barr letter on the Mueller Report was released yesterday. The President was happy, and rightfully so. It said no collusion occurred, no obstruction occurred. It did NOT say that there was inadequate evidence to convict. It did NOT say there was inadequate evidence to charge. It said there was no crime. It DIDN'T happen. We spent two years and 25 million dollars investigating something that did not happen.
is Trump off the hook? No. There are still people who hate his guts who want to destroy him and have positions of power. His political enemies will attempt to tie him up for the next two years, and four years after that if possible and necessary. Much of this effort is being spent to ensure that no outsider ever again even CONSIDERS running for president, lest the deep state destroy them.
Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. One thing for sure, Trump is entitled to a victory lap, maybe even two. Shit, the A.G. may even spend some time now looking at the Clinton Crime Family Foundation and taking an HONEST look at the email situation.
The fight isn't over, but the anti-Trumpers are running on two flats and 1/8 a tank of gas.
The Barr letter on the Mueller Report was released yesterday. The President was happy, and rightfully so. It said no collusion occurred, no obstruction occurred. It did NOT say that there was inadequate evidence to convict. It did NOT say there was inadequate evidence to charge. It said there was no crime. It DIDN'T happen. We spent two years and 25 million dollars investigating something that did not happen.
is Trump off the hook? No. There are still people who hate his guts who want to destroy him and have positions of power. His political enemies will attempt to tie him up for the next two years, and four years after that if possible and necessary. Much of this effort is being spent to ensure that no outsider ever again even CONSIDERS running for president, lest the deep state destroy them.
Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. One thing for sure, Trump is entitled to a victory lap, maybe even two. Shit, the A.G. may even spend some time now looking at the Clinton Crime Family Foundation and taking an HONEST look at the email situation.
The fight isn't over, but the anti-Trumpers are running on two flats and 1/8 a tank of gas.
THREE MORE SHOT, TWO DEAD, IN STOCKTON
by Bob Walsh
Yes, it looks like the bad old days may be coming back in Stockton.
A 30-year old woman was shot to death in the street in front of her home. A couple was shot in their car in the drive-thru at McDonalds on Charter Way. The woman survived, the man didn't.
That makes five dead in less than 48 hours. It is not Chicago, but it is noteworthy.
So far the local constabulary has no leads, no suspects and no known motive (other than the obvious).
Yes, it looks like the bad old days may be coming back in Stockton.
A 30-year old woman was shot to death in the street in front of her home. A couple was shot in their car in the drive-thru at McDonalds on Charter Way. The woman survived, the man didn't.
That makes five dead in less than 48 hours. It is not Chicago, but it is noteworthy.
So far the local constabulary has no leads, no suspects and no known motive (other than the obvious).
MAJOR ANTI-BREXIT DEMONSTRATION IN OLD LONDON TOWN
by Bob Walsh
Several hundred thousand anti-Brexit demonstrators showed their irritation on Saturday, wasting their own time and pissing off a lot of people.
Protesting against Brexit now is sort of like holding a demonstration against Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Its all over. It is a done deal. There is only one question now. Will Brexit occur on April 12 or May 22? That's it. If Parliament agrees to some sort of a "divorce deal" the E. U. will give it until May 22. (That day is important because of E. U. elections on May 23.) If Parliament can not agree, the ties get cut on April 12 and everybody will then see what happens.
It will take an action by the Speaker to even bring the issue up for a third vote as there is a parliamentary rule against repeatedly voting on the same thing.
It is at least theoretically possible for the P. M. to shitcan the original Brexit vote but she has said repeatedly that she will not invalidate the will of the people as expressed by the original Brexit vote nearly three years ago. In addition the E. U. has indicated (though not necessarily stated outright) that they will not consider any action by the U. K. to stay with the E. U., at least at this time.
Several hundred thousand anti-Brexit demonstrators showed their irritation on Saturday, wasting their own time and pissing off a lot of people.
Protesting against Brexit now is sort of like holding a demonstration against Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Its all over. It is a done deal. There is only one question now. Will Brexit occur on April 12 or May 22? That's it. If Parliament agrees to some sort of a "divorce deal" the E. U. will give it until May 22. (That day is important because of E. U. elections on May 23.) If Parliament can not agree, the ties get cut on April 12 and everybody will then see what happens.
It will take an action by the Speaker to even bring the issue up for a third vote as there is a parliamentary rule against repeatedly voting on the same thing.
It is at least theoretically possible for the P. M. to shitcan the original Brexit vote but she has said repeatedly that she will not invalidate the will of the people as expressed by the original Brexit vote nearly three years ago. In addition the E. U. has indicated (though not necessarily stated outright) that they will not consider any action by the U. K. to stay with the E. U., at least at this time.
NEW JERSEY GOES AFTER CALIFORNIA GHOST GUN PRODUCER
by Bob Walsh
U. S. Patriot Armory is based in Apple Valley, CA. They produce unfinished AR-15 receivers. Under current law these are considered gun parts and not guns. They can be sold to anybody with no record keeping. They are not serialized. They can be turned into a functional receiver by drilling a few holes in the right places.
New Jersey does not like that. They have sued the company under consumer fraud laws for selling an unfinished AR-15 receiver to an A. G. investigator.
It is illegal under state law for a New Jersey resident to buy or possess an unfinished receiver. It is not illegal for a CA company to sell them. Many other sellers have stopped shipping these items to New Jersey. U. S. Patriot Armory has not.
U. S. Patriot Armory is based in Apple Valley, CA. They produce unfinished AR-15 receivers. Under current law these are considered gun parts and not guns. They can be sold to anybody with no record keeping. They are not serialized. They can be turned into a functional receiver by drilling a few holes in the right places.
New Jersey does not like that. They have sued the company under consumer fraud laws for selling an unfinished AR-15 receiver to an A. G. investigator.
It is illegal under state law for a New Jersey resident to buy or possess an unfinished receiver. It is not illegal for a CA company to sell them. Many other sellers have stopped shipping these items to New Jersey. U. S. Patriot Armory has not.
THE GIANT RODENTS ARE IN FACT HERE
by Bob Walsh
The Fish and Wildlife Department has located 65 nutria here in beautiful San Joaquin County. Two of the little bastards were found in the Lathrop area. The other 63 were all trapped in Walthall Slough in Manteca.
These things are very rough on native plants and can damage levees so the county and the state are aggressively going after them. The state has over 150% of normal snow pack and it is anticipated that runoff this year could be substantial. Nobody wants flooded property due to non-native critters.
The Fish and Wildlife Department has located 65 nutria here in beautiful San Joaquin County. Two of the little bastards were found in the Lathrop area. The other 63 were all trapped in Walthall Slough in Manteca.
These things are very rough on native plants and can damage levees so the county and the state are aggressively going after them. The state has over 150% of normal snow pack and it is anticipated that runoff this year could be substantial. Nobody wants flooded property due to non-native critters.
FOUR ARRESTED AT VIGIL FOR TRIPLE MURDER VICTIMS
by Bob Walsh
Four young men were arrested by the Stockton P. D. Friday evening at a vigil for three young adults murdered in east Stockton about 22 hours earlier.
Arrested were Alexis Herrera, 19, Rigoberto Maya, 21, Rudy Garcia, 19 and Alfonso Jardon, 25. The young men were drinking in public and when the cops approached them they "located" two handguns.
Herrera is still in custody on charges of gang membership, carrying a loaded firearm and possession of a large capacity magazine.
Four young men were arrested by the Stockton P. D. Friday evening at a vigil for three young adults murdered in east Stockton about 22 hours earlier.
Arrested were Alexis Herrera, 19, Rigoberto Maya, 21, Rudy Garcia, 19 and Alfonso Jardon, 25. The young men were drinking in public and when the cops approached them they "located" two handguns.
Herrera is still in custody on charges of gang membership, carrying a loaded firearm and possession of a large capacity magazine.
HERE YOU BUM, EAT SHIT
San Antonio police officer who lost his job for trying to feed a feces sandwich to a homeless person wins an appeal to get his dismissal overturned
By Michael Nam
Daily Mail
March 24, 2019
A police officer in Texas who had been fired after he gave a homeless person a fecal sandwich had his dismissal overturned on a technicality.
San Antonio Police Officer Matthew Luckhurst argued that the timeline of the incident fell outside the window for allowing him to be indefinitely suspended, and an arbitrator agreed with him earlier this month, KSAT reported.
'The indefinite suspension is overturned due to the violation of the 180-days prohibition,' the arbitrator wrote in his decision based on the rule that Luckhurst's discipline fell outside of the time limit on punishing his behavior.
The arbitrator did note that while the suspension was overturned, the punishment was ''reasonable based on just cause for Luckhurst's action whether intentionally or grossly inappropriate, regarding the fecal sandwich being placed in a container close to a homeless person.'
Luckhurst had initially testified that the incident had occurred on May 6, 2016, when he had picked up some dog feces, put it on a piece of bread before placing the 'sandwich' in a Styrofoam container of a 'half-eaten meal' provided by a local religious group for the homeless in the area of the I-35 overpass in San Antonio.
He had placed it next to a sleeping homeless man who would wake up, pick up the container before smelling the contents and throwing it away.
Another bike officer reported that he told Luckhurst, a five-year veteran of the force, that he could not just leave the container next to the homeless person, and told him to go back and dispose of it.
The officer said he watched Luckhurst bike back and assumed that he threw it away, but it's not confirmed that he did.
Luckhurst was notified of his dismissal on October 28 of that year which fell within the 180-day window if the incident happened in May as originally believed, but the officer reviewed his medical records that would challenge the assumption.
According to his records, the officer had suffered an injury during a martial arts class that left him on light duty between April 6 and June 14, 2016, and would not have been able to ride his bicycle in May.
Witness and hearsay testimony in the record also provided vague or contradictory dates regarding the incident, there was no body cam or video footage to corroborate the date and authorities were unable to identify or locate the homeless man referenced.
His suspension was reduced to five days by the arbitrator for another incident where he failed to arrest another homeless person who had a warrant.
While he won this particular appeal, the former officer has yet another feces related claim he needs to address from 2016.
Luckhurst was given a second indefinite suspension in December of 2016 over an allegation that he and another male officer had defecated in a toilet assigned to women in the bike patrol office.
'The toilet was left unflushed by both officers intentionally,' the suspension document states.
'Officer Luckhurst and the other officer also obtained a brown substance with the consistency of tapioca and spread it on the seay,' the report continued. 'Officer Luckhurst then boasted of these actions to fellow officers. This inappropriate behavior was done after a female officer requested the women's restroom be kept clean.'
By Michael Nam
Daily Mail
March 24, 2019
A police officer in Texas who had been fired after he gave a homeless person a fecal sandwich had his dismissal overturned on a technicality.
San Antonio Police Officer Matthew Luckhurst argued that the timeline of the incident fell outside the window for allowing him to be indefinitely suspended, and an arbitrator agreed with him earlier this month, KSAT reported.
'The indefinite suspension is overturned due to the violation of the 180-days prohibition,' the arbitrator wrote in his decision based on the rule that Luckhurst's discipline fell outside of the time limit on punishing his behavior.
The arbitrator did note that while the suspension was overturned, the punishment was ''reasonable based on just cause for Luckhurst's action whether intentionally or grossly inappropriate, regarding the fecal sandwich being placed in a container close to a homeless person.'
Luckhurst had initially testified that the incident had occurred on May 6, 2016, when he had picked up some dog feces, put it on a piece of bread before placing the 'sandwich' in a Styrofoam container of a 'half-eaten meal' provided by a local religious group for the homeless in the area of the I-35 overpass in San Antonio.
He had placed it next to a sleeping homeless man who would wake up, pick up the container before smelling the contents and throwing it away.
Another bike officer reported that he told Luckhurst, a five-year veteran of the force, that he could not just leave the container next to the homeless person, and told him to go back and dispose of it.
The officer said he watched Luckhurst bike back and assumed that he threw it away, but it's not confirmed that he did.
Luckhurst was notified of his dismissal on October 28 of that year which fell within the 180-day window if the incident happened in May as originally believed, but the officer reviewed his medical records that would challenge the assumption.
According to his records, the officer had suffered an injury during a martial arts class that left him on light duty between April 6 and June 14, 2016, and would not have been able to ride his bicycle in May.
Witness and hearsay testimony in the record also provided vague or contradictory dates regarding the incident, there was no body cam or video footage to corroborate the date and authorities were unable to identify or locate the homeless man referenced.
His suspension was reduced to five days by the arbitrator for another incident where he failed to arrest another homeless person who had a warrant.
While he won this particular appeal, the former officer has yet another feces related claim he needs to address from 2016.
Luckhurst was given a second indefinite suspension in December of 2016 over an allegation that he and another male officer had defecated in a toilet assigned to women in the bike patrol office.
'The toilet was left unflushed by both officers intentionally,' the suspension document states.
'Officer Luckhurst and the other officer also obtained a brown substance with the consistency of tapioca and spread it on the seay,' the report continued. 'Officer Luckhurst then boasted of these actions to fellow officers. This inappropriate behavior was done after a female officer requested the women's restroom be kept clean.'
TOO MANY TEAHERS GET FIRED FOR REACTING TO THE DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT OF PUPILS
Why aren't our school teachers wearing body cameras?
By Trey Rusk
Running Code 3
March 22, 2019
It's fairly common place to read a news story about a misbehaving student or teacher. Cell phones sometimes record these events or capture text messages that substantiate the wrong doing.
I think it would be fairly easy to equip teachers and school bus drivers with body cameras. Students and teachers would automatically adjust the way they speak to each other and assaults would drop dramatically. Just think of all the lying and bad behavior that would stop.
As soon as a complaint was reported, the principal could review the footage. If something criminal had occurred, then the footage would be stored for trial. Simple.
There is just one problem. The cost. Each camera would run a minimum of $300 and the storage of the footage would run in the millions for a medium to large school district.
There is another way. Teachers could buy their own body cams that can be activated as needed. I can buy a body cam on Amazon today for $30. In fact, I own one. That's cheap insurance for any situation.
Of course, you probably won't catch any video of a teacher having sex with a student because they control the recorder. But incidents in the classroom or on a school bus can be documented as evidence.
Several years ago in Los Angeles, citizens complained about police brutality and insisted that officers should wear body cameras to record the violence. The police began wearing the body cams. It wasn't long before people complained that the body cams were intrusive. Maybe what they actually saw was their own criminal behavior.
I wore a body camera on the job. They can come in handy.
That's the way I see it.
By Trey Rusk
Running Code 3
March 22, 2019
It's fairly common place to read a news story about a misbehaving student or teacher. Cell phones sometimes record these events or capture text messages that substantiate the wrong doing.
I think it would be fairly easy to equip teachers and school bus drivers with body cameras. Students and teachers would automatically adjust the way they speak to each other and assaults would drop dramatically. Just think of all the lying and bad behavior that would stop.
As soon as a complaint was reported, the principal could review the footage. If something criminal had occurred, then the footage would be stored for trial. Simple.
There is just one problem. The cost. Each camera would run a minimum of $300 and the storage of the footage would run in the millions for a medium to large school district.
There is another way. Teachers could buy their own body cams that can be activated as needed. I can buy a body cam on Amazon today for $30. In fact, I own one. That's cheap insurance for any situation.
Of course, you probably won't catch any video of a teacher having sex with a student because they control the recorder. But incidents in the classroom or on a school bus can be documented as evidence.
Several years ago in Los Angeles, citizens complained about police brutality and insisted that officers should wear body cameras to record the violence. The police began wearing the body cams. It wasn't long before people complained that the body cams were intrusive. Maybe what they actually saw was their own criminal behavior.
I wore a body camera on the job. They can come in handy.
That's the way I see it.
UN AS RELENTLESS AGAINST ISRAEL AS DEMOCRATS AGAINST TRUMP
UN human rights body asks for larger presence in PA territories
By Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff
Israel Hayom
March 24, 2019
The top U.N. human rights body on Friday requested a larger presence in Palestinian areas following a report alleging Israeli soldiers may have committed war crimes in a deadly response to Gaza protests last year.
The U.N. Human Rights Council made the request to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet in a resolution that passed 23-8 with 15 abstentions, a vote loaded with political implications that quickly drew accusations of bias from the Israeli government.
Five central and eastern European countries joined Australia, Fiji and Brazil in opposing the measure. Britain and many EU countries abstained. Several Persian Gulf states, with which Israel has claimed warming ties, voted in favor.
The resolution was the strongest among five considered by the council focusing on Israel and "occupied Palestinian territory," the only such "country situation" discussed at every council meeting. The issue made up more than one-sixth of the 29 resolutions considered as the four-week session ended Friday.
Last summer, U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States, long one of Israel's strongest backers at the 47-member Geneva body, from the council, in part due to its anti-Israel bias.
The resolution comes after a three-person team of investigators commissioned by the council late last month issued an extensive report on violence during a string of Palestinian riots along Israel's border with the Gaza Strip that started nearly a year ago.
In it, the Independent Commission of Inquiry said Israeli soldiers intentionally fired on civilians and could have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The panel said over 6,000 people had been shot by military snipers using live ammunition to repel protesters.
Jerusalem officials did not cooperate with the investigation.
On Friday, the Foreign Ministry said, "The Human Rights Council repeated today its absurd and hypocritical ritual of creating a Commission of Inquiry singling out Israel, whose findings against Israel are predetermined, and then adopting them, all the while ignoring the reality on the ground," Israel's Foreign Ministry said Friday.
"Israel will continue to exercise its right of self-defense and will protect its citizens against terror and aggression," it said.
By Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff
Israel Hayom
March 24, 2019
The top U.N. human rights body on Friday requested a larger presence in Palestinian areas following a report alleging Israeli soldiers may have committed war crimes in a deadly response to Gaza protests last year.
The U.N. Human Rights Council made the request to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet in a resolution that passed 23-8 with 15 abstentions, a vote loaded with political implications that quickly drew accusations of bias from the Israeli government.
Five central and eastern European countries joined Australia, Fiji and Brazil in opposing the measure. Britain and many EU countries abstained. Several Persian Gulf states, with which Israel has claimed warming ties, voted in favor.
The resolution was the strongest among five considered by the council focusing on Israel and "occupied Palestinian territory," the only such "country situation" discussed at every council meeting. The issue made up more than one-sixth of the 29 resolutions considered as the four-week session ended Friday.
Last summer, U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States, long one of Israel's strongest backers at the 47-member Geneva body, from the council, in part due to its anti-Israel bias.
The resolution comes after a three-person team of investigators commissioned by the council late last month issued an extensive report on violence during a string of Palestinian riots along Israel's border with the Gaza Strip that started nearly a year ago.
In it, the Independent Commission of Inquiry said Israeli soldiers intentionally fired on civilians and could have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The panel said over 6,000 people had been shot by military snipers using live ammunition to repel protesters.
Jerusalem officials did not cooperate with the investigation.
On Friday, the Foreign Ministry said, "The Human Rights Council repeated today its absurd and hypocritical ritual of creating a Commission of Inquiry singling out Israel, whose findings against Israel are predetermined, and then adopting them, all the while ignoring the reality on the ground," Israel's Foreign Ministry said Friday.
"Israel will continue to exercise its right of self-defense and will protect its citizens against terror and aggression," it said.
THE CRYING OF LOT 330
San Francisco’s leaders prepare to site a large homeless shelter in the heart of the city
By Erica Sandberg
City Journal
March 21, 2019
The prospect of a 225-bed homeless shelter on the Embarcadero, one of San Francisco’s most scenic and economically vital areas, took residents by surprise. Only eight days earlier, the proposal had been unveiled to turn what is now a parking lot—Seawall Lot 330—into the largest homeless shelter of its type in the city. Neighbors arrived en masse at the Port Commission hearing to express their views. It was standing-room only, with people crowded on floors and in aisles, and spilling out the door.
After a brief presentation by Jeff Kositsky, executive director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, who touted the merits of the “Navigation Center”—as the new shelters are called—local homeowners, renters, and workers were granted two minutes each at the mic. All spoke passionately about their ties to the neighborhood and how the shelter would erode safety and quality of life. They worried that it would intensify drug use and other illegal activity and draw additional homeless people onto their property, leaving more needles and feces behind. Several described how their toddlers have already been poked by discarded syringes and had to take HIV tests. A father explained that his baby stroller was stolen as he was placing her in her car seat; a senior citizen recounted being chased by “a crazy person.”
Their testimonies were often agonizing. A few broke down as they pleaded with the commissioners to reject the proposal. Many emphasized that the waterfront is a jewel of the city. Placing an enormous homeless shelter in the center of it, in such close proximity to the prized Ferry Building, is bizarre. The location, they pointed out, is also a poor choice because few amenities like hospitals or grocery stores are nearby, and police response time in the area is slow. With no requirement for shelter residents to be sober, drug dealing, overdoses, and crime would proliferate.
Port Commissioners Kimberly Brandon, Willie Adams, and Doreen Woo Ho sat poker-faced. The Port of San Francisco owns Lot 330, and the proposal depends on their consent, which seems likely. Mayor London Breed supports the idea. The site itself was likely chosen for expediency, because the Port of San Francisco oversees the location, and commissioners are appointed by the mayor and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
“The community is feeling blindsided and shortchanged in regard to public process or a sincere desire for public input,” says Jamie Whitaker, who lives a block away from the site. “They cast us as millionaires who don’t care about the homeless, which is completely wrong. We just do not have faith in the city to provide the right kind of place for them and us. For example, there should be serious talk of building a mental hospital. It’s clear we have schizophrenic people in this city and they need help.”
After community members expressed their objections, a small contingent of homeless-rights activists spoke, trivializing their neighbors’ concerns as NIMBYism, and, predictably, accusing them of hating the poor. Most of the residents, however expressed compassion and praised the nearby Delancey Street Foundation, a self-supporting residential community for ex-convicts, addicts, and homeless people, because it provides vocational and social skills training in a drug and alcohol free setting. It’s a critical difference but the activists are deaf to nuance and unconcerned about anyone with homes, children, or businesses.
More crucial, though, is the attitude of city leaders and the media. The San Francisco Chronicle ran an editorial headlined, “San Francisco Neighbors are Wrong to Fight A New Homeless Facility,” dismissing the concerns of residents as “the magnetizing fear of a homeless influx,” and implying that elitism fueled their protest. But the Chronicle also admitted that those living on the streets are “often struggling with addiction or mental illness.” The proposed Navigation Centers are neither psychiatric hospitals nor substance-abuse facilities, both of which the city desperately needs.
Further, the Navigation Centers have not reduced homelessness. At last count, approximately 7,500 people were living on the city’s streets on any given night; shelters aren’t making a dent because so many homeless people are “service-resistant.” No one is required to go or stay, and many don’t. Tents and illegal activity mushroom around the shelters, despite so-called good-neighbor policies that are supposed to maintain a modicum of safety in the surrounding area.
The city, however, refuses to guarantee that there will be no uptick in crime and vagrancy. “We feel swindled,” says Wallace Lee, a retiree living in the area. “Something strange is going on. I used to be a lawyer and how this city works is confusing even to me. What I do know is that city officials don’t care about our concerns. I’ve been coordinating people to show up at these meetings. We will challenge the legislation. I’ve made this my full-time job, I stay up until midnight. I heard from a lot of people who want to continue to fight and I’m encouraged.”
And now Mayor Breed claims that she is “ready for battle over housing, homeless.” Her attitude is making enemies of tens of thousands of San Franciscans. An us-versus-them approach is counterproductive. At worst, she’ll get what she’s preparing for: a war with the people who care most profoundly about the city. The commission vote is expected on April 23.
By Erica Sandberg
City Journal
March 21, 2019
The prospect of a 225-bed homeless shelter on the Embarcadero, one of San Francisco’s most scenic and economically vital areas, took residents by surprise. Only eight days earlier, the proposal had been unveiled to turn what is now a parking lot—Seawall Lot 330—into the largest homeless shelter of its type in the city. Neighbors arrived en masse at the Port Commission hearing to express their views. It was standing-room only, with people crowded on floors and in aisles, and spilling out the door.
After a brief presentation by Jeff Kositsky, executive director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, who touted the merits of the “Navigation Center”—as the new shelters are called—local homeowners, renters, and workers were granted two minutes each at the mic. All spoke passionately about their ties to the neighborhood and how the shelter would erode safety and quality of life. They worried that it would intensify drug use and other illegal activity and draw additional homeless people onto their property, leaving more needles and feces behind. Several described how their toddlers have already been poked by discarded syringes and had to take HIV tests. A father explained that his baby stroller was stolen as he was placing her in her car seat; a senior citizen recounted being chased by “a crazy person.”
Their testimonies were often agonizing. A few broke down as they pleaded with the commissioners to reject the proposal. Many emphasized that the waterfront is a jewel of the city. Placing an enormous homeless shelter in the center of it, in such close proximity to the prized Ferry Building, is bizarre. The location, they pointed out, is also a poor choice because few amenities like hospitals or grocery stores are nearby, and police response time in the area is slow. With no requirement for shelter residents to be sober, drug dealing, overdoses, and crime would proliferate.
Port Commissioners Kimberly Brandon, Willie Adams, and Doreen Woo Ho sat poker-faced. The Port of San Francisco owns Lot 330, and the proposal depends on their consent, which seems likely. Mayor London Breed supports the idea. The site itself was likely chosen for expediency, because the Port of San Francisco oversees the location, and commissioners are appointed by the mayor and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
“The community is feeling blindsided and shortchanged in regard to public process or a sincere desire for public input,” says Jamie Whitaker, who lives a block away from the site. “They cast us as millionaires who don’t care about the homeless, which is completely wrong. We just do not have faith in the city to provide the right kind of place for them and us. For example, there should be serious talk of building a mental hospital. It’s clear we have schizophrenic people in this city and they need help.”
After community members expressed their objections, a small contingent of homeless-rights activists spoke, trivializing their neighbors’ concerns as NIMBYism, and, predictably, accusing them of hating the poor. Most of the residents, however expressed compassion and praised the nearby Delancey Street Foundation, a self-supporting residential community for ex-convicts, addicts, and homeless people, because it provides vocational and social skills training in a drug and alcohol free setting. It’s a critical difference but the activists are deaf to nuance and unconcerned about anyone with homes, children, or businesses.
More crucial, though, is the attitude of city leaders and the media. The San Francisco Chronicle ran an editorial headlined, “San Francisco Neighbors are Wrong to Fight A New Homeless Facility,” dismissing the concerns of residents as “the magnetizing fear of a homeless influx,” and implying that elitism fueled their protest. But the Chronicle also admitted that those living on the streets are “often struggling with addiction or mental illness.” The proposed Navigation Centers are neither psychiatric hospitals nor substance-abuse facilities, both of which the city desperately needs.
Further, the Navigation Centers have not reduced homelessness. At last count, approximately 7,500 people were living on the city’s streets on any given night; shelters aren’t making a dent because so many homeless people are “service-resistant.” No one is required to go or stay, and many don’t. Tents and illegal activity mushroom around the shelters, despite so-called good-neighbor policies that are supposed to maintain a modicum of safety in the surrounding area.
The city, however, refuses to guarantee that there will be no uptick in crime and vagrancy. “We feel swindled,” says Wallace Lee, a retiree living in the area. “Something strange is going on. I used to be a lawyer and how this city works is confusing even to me. What I do know is that city officials don’t care about our concerns. I’ve been coordinating people to show up at these meetings. We will challenge the legislation. I’ve made this my full-time job, I stay up until midnight. I heard from a lot of people who want to continue to fight and I’m encouraged.”
And now Mayor Breed claims that she is “ready for battle over housing, homeless.” Her attitude is making enemies of tens of thousands of San Franciscans. An us-versus-them approach is counterproductive. At worst, she’ll get what she’s preparing for: a war with the people who care most profoundly about the city. The commission vote is expected on April 23.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
TRUMP DICKSUCKERS
My recent article on Trump’s foot-in-mouth disease drew thee expected comments defending Trump. But when I mentioned that Trump continued to bash the late Sen. John McCain even after Kenneth Starr said that if it was true that McCain’s office sent the questionable dossier of Trump’s alleged Russian ties to the FBI, it was a “very dark stain” on an “American hero,” all the comments turned into attacks on McCain.
That really pissed off ‘Semper Fi’. He wrote:
“Jesus, you Trump dicksuckers are dumb as shit and obviously not former military men, nor true conservatives. Debt & deficit have doubled in two years. You worship a 6-time draft dodging worthless shitbag like he’s a goddamn military genius. Fucking losers. Sad!”
My reply:
“Semper Fi, as a WW2 Army veteran, I know where you’re coming from. It’s hard to swallow attacks against a wounded war hero by a cowardly draft dodger and other McCain-haters. Thank you for your service in the Marine Corps.
While it is obvious that I do not care for Trump, I strongly disagree with you when you refer to him as a worthless shitbag. Trump comes across as a jerk, but when you look at his record, he’s actually been a fairly good president and better than his predecessor.”
NOTE: I sent in $15 to a search engine to see if they could ID Semper Fi. They identified him as – hold onto your hats - Gen. Robert Neller, Commandant of the US Marine Corps. He he, just kidding.
That really pissed off ‘Semper Fi’. He wrote:
“Jesus, you Trump dicksuckers are dumb as shit and obviously not former military men, nor true conservatives. Debt & deficit have doubled in two years. You worship a 6-time draft dodging worthless shitbag like he’s a goddamn military genius. Fucking losers. Sad!”
My reply:
“Semper Fi, as a WW2 Army veteran, I know where you’re coming from. It’s hard to swallow attacks against a wounded war hero by a cowardly draft dodger and other McCain-haters. Thank you for your service in the Marine Corps.
While it is obvious that I do not care for Trump, I strongly disagree with you when you refer to him as a worthless shitbag. Trump comes across as a jerk, but when you look at his record, he’s actually been a fairly good president and better than his predecessor.”
NOTE: I sent in $15 to a search engine to see if they could ID Semper Fi. They identified him as – hold onto your hats - Gen. Robert Neller, Commandant of the US Marine Corps. He he, just kidding.
ILLEGAL ALIEN MURDERER OF FOUR KILLED TO SUPPORT METH HABIT
by Bob Walsh
Wilber Ernesto Martinez-Guzman, 20, is an illegal alien from El Salvador. He has confessed to the murders of four people in Washoe County, Nevada to get money to fuel his meth habit.
Martinez-Guzman is facing four counts of murder, three counts of burglary while in possession of a firearm and numerous other charges.
Nevada wants to skrag the bastard. I wonder if CA Governor Gavin Newsom will call them names for that. I expect so, and I expect the authorities in Nevada won't much care.
Wilber Ernesto Martinez-Guzman, 20, is an illegal alien from El Salvador. He has confessed to the murders of four people in Washoe County, Nevada to get money to fuel his meth habit.
Martinez-Guzman is facing four counts of murder, three counts of burglary while in possession of a firearm and numerous other charges.
Nevada wants to skrag the bastard. I wonder if CA Governor Gavin Newsom will call them names for that. I expect so, and I expect the authorities in Nevada won't much care.
TRIPLE HOMICIDE SHOOTING IN STOCKTON
by Bob Walsh
It isn't even close to the record, but it does rate an honorable mention. At around midnight on Thursday night three people were sitting in a parked car near F St. and Finland Avenue in a residential area of east Stockton. Somebody came up behind the car and started blasting.
The dead, one female and two males, were all young adults, age 18 and 19. At least one of the victims was known to be gang involved and had recently been arrested in a carjacking.
That is the problem with hanging out with gang members. If you walk like a duck, talking like a duck, look like a duck and hang out with known and notorious ducks your ass is in some danger when duck season opens, whether you personally are a duck or not.
The cops don't think it was a random shooting. Massive surprise there. (Not.)
It isn't even close to the record, but it does rate an honorable mention. At around midnight on Thursday night three people were sitting in a parked car near F St. and Finland Avenue in a residential area of east Stockton. Somebody came up behind the car and started blasting.
The dead, one female and two males, were all young adults, age 18 and 19. At least one of the victims was known to be gang involved and had recently been arrested in a carjacking.
That is the problem with hanging out with gang members. If you walk like a duck, talking like a duck, look like a duck and hang out with known and notorious ducks your ass is in some danger when duck season opens, whether you personally are a duck or not.
The cops don't think it was a random shooting. Massive surprise there. (Not.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)