Sirens: Emails Appear To Confirm That Stormy Daniels Was Selectively Targeted By Ohio Detective And Her Uncover Teams

1531390682941We earlier discussed the dropping of the highly dubious charges brought against Stormy Daniels in Columbus, Ohio.  The arresting officials insisted that they were at the Sirens strip club on an undercover mission entirely separate from the appearance of Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels. Emails now appear to contradict that account — raising not only the question of selective enforcement but political bias.  There is also the question of the false statements allegedly made to investigators.

According toThe Fayette AdvocateVice Detective Shana Keckley reportedly has emails that show that the team went to Sirens because of the announced appearance of Daniels.  Keckley sent herself announcements of Daniels’ appearance.  A whistleblower is quoted as saying that the team went to the club to arrest Daniels and relished the prospect.

The question is whether the sheriff’s department will hold these officers accountable for their alleged selective enforcement and lying to investigators.  If proven, should the officers be terminated or what should the punishment be?

97 thoughts on “Sirens: Emails Appear To Confirm That Stormy Daniels Was Selectively Targeted By Ohio Detective And Her Uncover Teams”

  1. people may wish to remember prostitution was essentially a lawful trade worldwide throughout the ancient and medieval world.

    when was it made largely illegal? in England, 1824

    largely a result of the spread of evangelical protestantism.

    with respect to Methodists, and whomever their intellectual heirs are today, please reconsider your zeal to outlaw normal human behavior

    1. Consider this: the woman engaged in this unlawful trade, that violates no rights, is protected by the law should she get pregnant and wants an abortion.

      How about this: The very same cities banning plastic straws are giving away hypodermic needles that are littering their sidewalks.

      1. Olly, do you have a source that can verify that plastic straw / needle claim?

        1. I should have posted my comment in a format you’d recognize and immediately consider legitimate:


          1. Olly, Those are good articles. But they don’t say that the same cities banning straws are handing out needles. Though you’re right about the needles becoming a nuisance in San Francisco.

            The plastic straw ban is important. Here’s an excerpt from that first piece:

            “Participants will use straws by one manufacturer, specifically, called Aardvark Straws. The foundation applauds Aardvark for making “flexible, customizable, durable and marine degradable paper straws that decompose in just 45-90 days.”

            More than 170 species of marine life are affected by ingesting debris, according to biologists.

            Researchers estimate that more than 70 percent of seabirds worldwide, for instance, have swallowed plastic at some point, according to a 2015 research paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

            Actor Adrian Grenier, who is known for playing Vincent Chase in HBO’s “Entourage” series, is a co-founder of the Lonely Whale Foundation.

            “We are living during a critical turning point for our ocean, and that’s why I’m excited to celebrate the city of Seattle as a true ocean health leader,” he said in a news release. The nonprofit is set to launch similar campaigns in cities elsewhere, too”.


          2. Olly,😊😄..
            But FF Sierra still holds the record for largest, and therefore most convincing, letter size.

          3. Banning plastic straws feels good. Giving hypos to junkies feels good. Dealing with the root cause of the problem…IT’S TRUMP’S FAULT.

            1. Seen on Twitter today:

              What would happen if an illegal immigrant were caught using a plastic straw in California?

      2. No voluntary free exchange between competent adults should be unlawful.

        And the contracts clause of the constitution says as much.

        Yes, we have made bad laws, and yes we have chosen to ignore the contracts clause.

        That does not mean either the principle or the constitution should actually be ignored.

  2. if any of you guys are interested in turley’s view on gay rights it is mentioned in this speech he gave at Congress about Obama’s nonenforcement of DOMA

    I would be interested to hear from Turley if he believes it is possible that within say 10 years there could be a case which trickles up to the US Sup Court challenging the constitutionality of prostitution laws. Possible but unlikely i suppose.

    I just find it atrocious that paid sex is ok in front of a camera such like as Stormy was expert in doing– basically the porn industry has case law that says they have a First Amendment right to ply their trade– but if a poor woman wants to make a few dollars for bread in private that is suddenly a criminal act by virtue of there being no camera in the room. IT’s a perverse situation but one that suits the Holly wood and the film industry I am sure. They really are privileged in our society, arent they!

    1. Article 1 Section 10 No state shall pass laws that impair the obligations of contracts.

      Taken as written all laws constraining non-violent fully voluntary arrangements between competent adults are beyond the reach of government.

      We rely too much on the free speech clause of the constitution.

      We also forget that the design of our government (see 9th amendment as well as the text of the constitution), is that
      Whatever power is not granted to government belongs to the people, with respect to the people, whatever liberty is not explicitly denied them, is permitted.

      We constantly presume that government can do anything it is not explicitly barred from doing (and allow much of that too).

      This is wrong. If as many are likely to claim – the government needs more powers than the constitution explicitly grants – amend the constitution.
      That is the legitimate way to increase the power of govenrment and to decrease the liberty of citizens.

  3. Professor Turley, why are you evading the false FISA application, Rosenstein’s signature on at least one of the applications and the obvious insidious and deceptive “malicious prosecution” by a fraudulently appointed special counsel, Mueller, in the case of a routine FBI counter-intelligence investigation, all of which are designed to protect the anti-Trump conspiracy by Obama which was conducted to protect Obama from the irrefutable charges of mishandling classified material and being complicit in the same crimes of Hillary Clinton?

    Obama’s Coup D’etat in America has a profound purpose. If Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama. Obama attempted to defeat Trump then Obama went on offense to defend his crimes after Hillary’s loss. Hillary was supposed to win and cover all Obama’s nefarious and corrupt activities up.

    Obama’s theory: The best defense is a good offense.

    All roads lead to Obama.

  4. trust me this domino will fall, eventually. it’s inevitable that the logic which applies to legalizing homosexual conduct and marriage will not also apply to legalizing sex work. at some juncture people will put their thinking caps on with this issue.

    for now a lot of regular folks don’t want to advance the notion of legalizing sex work because of the same puerile nonsense that used to apply to advancing gay rights: oh are you queer or what?

    so just as we have seen people throw stones at me here, they say, “oh you must be a john too”


    and for the record I never advocated legalizing homosexual marriage i was against it.

    but now that we have that, so firmly issued as SCOTUS dictate, I think it’s time to be real about this other more compelling issue which comes down not only to basic fairness but law, order, public health, and ending corrupt police behavior which was the subject of the instant article on this blog

  5. this looks like an interesting article by a professor of bioethics advocating the legalization of sex work

    The Case for Legalizing Sex Work
    Nov 14, 2016 PETER SINGER
    Amnesty International’s appeal in May for governments to decriminalize sex work was met with a storm of protest. But most of the opposition reflects moralistic prejudices, whether based on religion or an idealistic form of feminism, not the best interests of sex workers or the public.

    PRINCETON – Sex work is, as the saying goes, the world’s oldest profession – except that the saying uses “prostitution” instead of “sex work.” The change to a less pejorative term is warranted by a shift in attitudes toward sex workers that contributed to Amnesty International’s decision in May to urge governments to repeal laws criminalizing the exchange of sex for money by consenting adults.1

    Amnesty International’s appeal was met by a storm of opposition – some of it from people who were evidently failing to distinguish between the sex industry as a whole and the human trafficking that, in many countries, is a tragic part of it. No one wants to legalize coercion, violence, or fraud in the sex industry, or the use of sex workers who are not adults. But some organizations campaigning against trafficking understand that when sex work is illegal, it is much riskier for sex workers to complain to the authorities when they are enslaved, beaten, or cheated. For that reason, the International Secretariat of the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women applauded Amnesty International for supporting decriminalization.

    There was also opposition from some feminist organizations, which accused Amnesty of protecting “the rights of pimps and johns.” Instead, they argued, we should “end the demand for paid sex” – but without explaining how this is to be done…..

Comments are closed.