Warren And Harris Accuse Cleared Ferguson Officer Of Murder

Facts are often strangers to politicians who want to trigger emotive responses in targeted groups. The problem is when good politics make for bad law. That seems to be the case with Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren who have declared that Michael Brown was murdered five years ago in Ferguson, Missouri. The problem is that their statements would mean that Officer Darren Wilson is a murderer. However, Wilson was cleared in the shooting, including an exoneration by the Obama Administration. Wilson could conceivably claim defamation but the standard is quite high for a public figure.

Three months after the shooting, a grand jury rejected an indictment of Wilson. Later a report released by President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice found that Wilson most likely had reason to fear for his life in using lethal force. That latter conclusion followed a controversial decision by Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder to intervene before the completion of the local investigation. Some of us raised the concern that the intervention of Obama and Holder signaled a strong desire for federal charges. However, the Justice Department found no credible evidence of murder.

The DOJ concluded:

Department of Justice Report Regarding the Criminal Investigation into the Shooting Death of Michael Brown by Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson, March 4, 2015: As detailed throughout this report, the evidence does not establish that the shots fired by Wilson were objectively unreasonable under federal law. The physical evidence establishes that Wilson shot Brown once in the hand, at close range, while Wilson sat in his police SUV, struggling with Brown for control of Wilson’s gun. Wilson then shot Brown several more times from a distance of at least two feet after Brown ran away from Wilson and then turned and faced him. There are no witness accounts that federal prosecutors, and likewise a jury, would credit to support the conclusion that Wilson fired at Brown from behind. With the exception of the two wounds to Brown’s right arm, which indicate neither bullet trajectory nor the direction in which Brown was moving when he was struck, the medical examiners’ reports are in agreement that the entry wounds from the latter gunshots were to the front of Brown’s body, establishing that Brown was facing Wilson when these shots were fired. This includes the fatal shot to the top of Brown’s head. The physical evidence also establishes that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he turned around to face him. The physical evidence is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses.

Nevertheless, Harris wrote: “Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement. We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system.”

Warren tweeted that “5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.”

The non-profit website factcheck.org and the Washington Post have both chastised Warren and Harris for their statements.

While both Harris and Warren have criticized Trump for ignoring his own Justice Department and politicizing the legal process, these allegations of murder would seem to raise the same concerns. What would be interesting is if Wilson elects to sue for defamation. This could be defended as opinion. However, even under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, there are cases to be made for “actual malice,” which is defined as either knowing falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth.Wilson could claim that the statements constitute reckless disregard of the truth as established by the Obama Administration and the grand jury.

What is interesting is that both Warren and Harris are rejecting the results of the state and federal legal systems, including the judgment of professionals at the Justice Department in the case. They have criticized Trump for the same type of dismissive approach to legal standards.

What do you think?

268 thoughts on “Warren And Harris Accuse Cleared Ferguson Officer Of Murder”

  1. Officer Wilson should sue Harris and Warren. It’s the only way to stop these political liars who are pushing hatred and division between the races and between the police and the public. Harris and Warren’s sick ambition and desire for power overrides what is good for country and our fellow citizens. How low and disgusting can they get with their hateful lies.

  2. Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

    Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.

    – A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

    – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

    – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

    – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

    – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

    – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations,1758, did.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

    Book 1, Ch. 19

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

    “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

    From John Jay

    New York 25 July 1787

    Dear Sir

    I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

    Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

    Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

    which sailed Yesterday.

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

    provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

    administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

    of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

    Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

    I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

    John Jay

  3. Oh No, The ‘Inverted Yield Curve’!

    ECONOMY UNLIKELY TO ASSIST TRUMP’S REELECTION

    Managing the economy, to the extent that a president is capable of doing so, has been quite a bit harder than Trump thought. Though unemployment has continued to fall on the same trajectory that began when Barack Obama was president (in fact, jobs were created at a faster pace during the last 2½ years of Obama’s term than in the first 2½ years of Trump’s), there are some worrying signs for both the short and long term.

    Let’s take a quick look around at some recent economic news:

    Yesterday, the administration announced it was delaying a planned round of tariffs on Chinese goods until after shelves are stocked for the holiday season in order to avoid price spikes in consumer goods that might make people angry. This was a tacit acknowledgment Trump has been lying in his repeated insistence that China pays the tariffs, when in fact they’re paid by American importers, who usually pass the cost increase on to consumers.

    American taxpayers are spending tens of billions of dollars to support U.S. farmers whose access to the Chinese market has been shut off by the trade war.
    Economists are increasingly worried that the trade war could set off a recession. Meanwhile, although some Chinese manufacturers have been hurt by U.S. tariffs, rather than bringing jobs to the United States, they’re looking to relocate to other low-wage countries such as Vietnam.

    The stock market tumbled today on fears that the “inverted yield curve” is signaling a coming recession: “For the first time since 2007, the yields on short-term U.S. bonds eclipsed those of long-term bonds. This phenomenon, which suggests investors’ faith in the economy is faltering, has preceded every recession in the past 50 years. It isn’t a sure thing, but it’s one of the more reliable signs that something is amiss in the economy. Recessions typically come within 18 to 24 months after the yield curve inverts, according to research from Credit Suisse.”

    A new report from the Economic Policy Institute shows that over the past 40 years, inflation-adjusted compensation for CEOs has increased by 940 percent, while compensation for the typical worker has increased only 12 percent.

    So what does all this tell us? Most obviously, Trump could not have been more wrong than when he insisted in 2018 that “trade wars are good, and easy to win.” His trade war is somewhere between a failure and a disaster, precisely because he thought it would be easy to win. “We’re learning that maybe China has a higher pain threshold than we thought here,” said Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore. You mean they wouldn’t just knuckle under and give us back all our jobs? Who could have predicted such a thing?

    Edited from: “Could Managing The Economy Be More Complicated Than Donald Trump Thought?”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Regarding Above:

      The Inverted Yield Curve story is getting a lot of coverage today. It was bound to happen. We’re now 10 years into this economic expansion. They don’t go on forever. But bad timing for Trump. The economy stands a good chance of souring just in time for next year’s campaign.

      1. Also just in time for next year’s campaign: release of Trump’s tax returns and possibly release of the redacted portions of Mueller’s report.

        Vlad better get busy figuring out how to hack into the databases of more states.

          1. Tabby, no comment on the Inverted Yield Index?

            For Trump the economy could become that fickle cat who does the opposite of what its owner wants.

        1. Oh, I see. Throw everything you can at the opponent is your strategy.
          Michael Brown died that way.
          So will the political careers of the shameful cadre recruited for this desperate grasp for power.
          Hope you weren’t hoping for patronage.

    2. The Washington Post has zero credibility. They turned a once great newspaper into a partisan rag that is the mouthpiece for the Socialist Democratic haters. The Post’s reputation was flushed down the toilet a long time ago.

      1. Galvis, you’ll find mentions of the Inverted Yield Index in all the financial papers. The Post didn’t just make this up.

        One would be wise to adjust their investment portfolios with a recession in mind.

        1. Peter, since I have been on the blog I have heard your economic forecasts at an interval of a week or two. Each time your statements were inaccurate so by the law of averages we expect something you say to actually happen by accident. Your predictive abilities are near nil.

          There are a lot of things to evaluate when one is dealing with economies especially since we do not occupy the world alone and presently there are major economic slowdowns in the global economy.

          1. Alan, look at the financial journals. The Inverted Yield Curve is a big story today.

            And I don’t post financial forecast every week. That’s just ‘you’ lying again.

            1. Peter invariably you have one or more comments “at an interval of a week or two” and invariably you are wrong. You throw out a lot of sh1t so I can understand you not remembering. Everyone else can judge for themselves or we can go into the archives and look at all your postings.

              The important fact is that mostly you are wrong. I personally don’t know what will happen to the economy even though it affects me greatly. The financial journals make money off of publishing so they have to keep publishing stories that influence you so you keep purchasing their product. Too much emotion in the investing world so I wouldn’t rely on all the guesses that we read.

              The economy is cyclical so we can expect a downturn. The question is when. Anyone that could predict these things would be fabulously wealthy but most make their money by knowing what they are investing in

                1. “It is said…”, what does that even mean? Yes a recession will probably be more likely when certain things occur but if you listen to what everyone says, what you remember are the outliers and not the rest.

                    1. The inverted yield curve has predicted every recession in the past 50 years. It’s not just economists.

                    2. “The inverted yield curve…”

                      There are a lot of indicators of a reduction of the growth of economies. If you paid attention you would note the global slowdown and that Germany has been slowing down for awhile so you were warned long ago. That tells you a lot along with the slow down in China. The inverted yield curve is merely a number that is a result of other factors and recessions don’t immediately the yield curve. Is it worrisome? Yes. But rapid expansions are worrisome as well for they produce bubbles. All sorts of things effect the economy and based on the cycles we are probably overdue for a recession.

                      But take note the first predicted recession of the Trump years was by Paul Krugman when he said one would immediately occur if Trump was elected. Since then we have heard the same things over and over again. Eventually they will be right. The important thing is how one manages an economy during a recession for that predicts the well being of the people thereafter.

                      Look at the recent debacle ending Bush’s term and look at how the states handled the recession. Compare 4 states New Jersey, Illinois, Texas and Florida. Florida was the worst hit yet Florida and Texas handled their economies well while NJ and Illinois didn’t which left those two states growing and the other two in tremendous debt. Economic conservatives ran Florida and the Texas economies while the more progressive type managed the other two.

                1. That’s his point numb nuts: pivot, shift, talk about something else. Um, it’s in the Federalist Papers

                  !!!

                  1. You guys do the same crap on every post, never anything related to the post.

                    You guys need to get yourselves a room so you can just play the dozens, or maybe exchange phone numbers, that way you can talk to each other without the rest of us having to wade through your nonsense.

                    And remember, you don’t know me, and I don’t know you, so don’t provoke me into not being civil!

                    1. The mensuration of the faculties of the mind has, I believe, no place in the catalogue of known arts. An attempt to fix the boundary between the regions of ability and inability, would much oftener give scope to personal and party attachments and enmities than advance the interests of justice or the public good. The result, except in the case of insanity, must for the most part be arbitrary; and insanity, without any formal or express provision, may be safely pronounced to be a virtual disqualification.

                      –publius, federalist 79

                      this means he doesnt want judges who are insane because of menstruation. i think.

                      https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed79.asp

                2. It looks like Hill’s daily columns cover a variety of areas he feels should be covered, but that Jonathan Turley is not covering. A few people are chronic complainers about what Turley does, or does not, cover.
                  Hill writes multiple daily columns right here, and is not bound or limited by the topic of the column. He tells everybody what he thinks they should know and what they should believe.

                    1. Peter Hill – Trump will have to fight but look who he is up against. Right now Creepy Joe is in the lead and if he can get through the first primaries, will waltz into the nomination.

    3. The DOW dropped 800 points today. Who’s pressing the sell button?

      No human intervention is needed when those casino computers kick in just like loaded dice. The SEC is out to lunch on this.

  4. An act of defamation, whether it be libel or slander, should not be tolerated, especially by Politicians who have no dog in the fight that they are making their defamative stamens about.

    But, no matter how you slice it, these comments fit directly in the category of the mischievous effects of Factions, and should not be tolerated, especially when they are made solely for Political advantage to influence the outcome of an election process.

    But, it’s just Politics! There is nothing out of bounds in Politics!

  5. I would definitely take the officer’s case for defamation and slander. I do not believe he is a public figure per NY Times case.

  6. The left is rabidly racist and sexist. They are dangerous…this is why I left the left. This is why my lefty brothers have also left the left.

  7. What do I think? I think police are trained to claim they feared for their life when they kill an unarmed (usually black male) who is dead cannot tell his side of things. Realistically, when someone is unarmed and the police officer is armed and there is a confrontation ending with the death of the unarmed person, such fear is, per se, not objectively reasonable. Why would you fear for your life if the other person didn’t have a weapon? Why did you end someone’s life? Were you upset that he didn’t cower in fear when you demanded that he stop, or did you cower in fear when this person approached you? Why not break off the confrontation? Why not just wound them? Is it always necessary to kill someone who doesn’t stop when the police demand it or when they struggle? Lethal force should be rare, reserved only for situations in which the loss of someone’s life is the clear and unequivocal alternative, but it is not. Police are trained to make (mostly bogus, IMHO) claim that they feared for their life. The Aaron Bailey case is an example. He was shot in the back 11 times while running away from the cops who “feared for their lives”. Statistically, police kill more black suspects than white suspects, even when the police officer is black. Statistically, more black people are stopped, frisked, arrested and killed by police “fearing for their life” than white people engaging in the same conduct. The truth is, that black people don’t matter as much as white people, especially to cops.

    Turley uses the word “cleared” to mean justified and these concepts are not synonymous in this context. A grand jury never gets to hear the victim’s perspective, and the prosecutor is really not looking to indict cops who kill unarmed black men. It is a pro forma exercise, which is why so many people do not respect it. I don’t know that I would use the word “murder”, but manslaughter or negligent homicide might fit.

    1. Natacha doesn’t do any thinking.

      Again. the officer’s account is corroborated by the autopsy report.

      If you wish to avoid being shot to death by a police officer (1) obey lawful instructions, (2) don’t attack him and try to take his duty gun away from him, (3) don’t charge him, and (4) when you’ve been hit in the arm and the deltoid, quit charging.

      Real simple.

      1. “the officer’s account”? Of what? Fear for his life? What autopsy can corroborate the existence of fear that justifies killing another person based on allegations of a living person? How can someone rationally fear for their life if the other person is unarmed?

        1. What it corroborated was the sequence of events as related by the officer, which is that Brown tried to grab his duty gun and then charged him. This isn’t that difficult.

          1. The “clearing” was based on the so-called “reasonableness” of his claim that he feared for his life. So what if he “charged”? He was still unarmed. How could it ever be reasonable to kill an unarmed person?

            1. So what if he “charged”? He was still unarmed. How could it ever be reasonable to kill an unarmed person?

              Can you seriously not think of any scenarios where it would be reasonable for someone to kill an unarmed person?

            2. Natacha – do a ride-along with your local police. An unarmed person who is 20 years younger and 100 pounds heavier can do major damage to you. It is not your job to take a beating for the job.

  8. TRUTH TRUMPERS CAN’T ACKNOWLEDGE:

    OBAMA WAS ‘NO’ LEFTIST RADICAL

    Professor Turley accurately informs us that Obama’s Justice Department carefully examined Ferguson and found no wrong-doing by Officer Wilson. And I don’t recall that Obama ever jumped to any conclusions. Obama was, however, under immense pressure by the left to condemn police in those weeks following Ferguson.

    Ferguson was politically disastrous to Democrats. The incident played out in the media amid the 2014 Midterm Election campaigns. Polls taken around Labor Day showed that Democrats had a strong chance of holding the Senate. But the media stayed zealously focused on Ferguson while ignoring Midterm races. The Democrat’s liberal base perceived Obama was ‘ignoring’ police abuse. That, in turn, tempered the left’s enthusiasm for the Midterm races. By October polls were showing Democrats could lose the Senate.

    Even ‘after’ the Midterm Elections, the media’s focus remained on police abuse throughout much of 2015. There were, in fact, high profile cases to keep police abuse on front pages. This became a no-win situation for Obama and mainstream Democrats. The liberal base felt Obama was ‘not’ addressing their outrage towards police. But during this same period White conservatives felt the media was more concerned with busting cops than criminals.

    I believe that Ferguson, and the media’s focus on police abuse, largely shaped dynamics for the 2016 Election. Those dynamics favored Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as the right / left divide grew wider than ever.

    1. Obama was a fairly ordinary national Democratic politician, and administration policy was the resultant of the various vectors at work in the Democratic Party. He had a few signatures (the green energy bushwah) which you’d expect of someone of his vintage and disposition and a few others that reflected his personal pathologies (the petty spite and abuse of power). The Democratic Party is dominated by career politicians and lawyers, with some academics thrown in, and you’re never surprised when the resulting policy provides for politicians to broker politically-determined benefits, allows lawyers to harass people more than they already do, or substitutes the opinions and preferences of the academy for people who pay the price.

      The problem, of course, is the intramural culture of the Democratic Party. It stinks.

    1. I’m very surprised that you listen to either. They are both in the party of liars and the one you’re surprised about cheated her way to everything she has by lying about her ancestry, for God’s sake.

  9. Why does JT think Wilson can not go after Warren and Harris for Defamation ?

    Wilson does NOT meet the definition of a public figure – to the limited extent he was thrust into the public eye it was NOT by choice.

    This is defamation of a private individual BY public figures – not the other way arround.

  10. Michael Brown’s stepfather, says lets burn this place down

    Notice Rev Al Sharpton’s body language @ the 1:00 mark in this video.

    1. He’s like, these N is steppin on mah new shooz! GET OFF MY SHOES FOOL. Deyz gonna muss mah suit too. Hold on now, don’t be pushin the Reverand!

  11. OT: What is Google doing? A dramatic change occurred in 2016 and here is the explanation.
    Can’t find a certain article on Google? Here is why.

    Will this video remain on You Tube? Similar videos were removed.

  12. This is terrible. Why would anyone want to be a police officer anymore? Politicians will call a justified shooting murder to get votes, ruining your life. Activists will call you a murderer without looking at the facts. Why even get out of your patrol car?

    Murder rates skyrocketed when police officers stopped proactive policing, and criminals became emboldened. Playing politics like this has led to more murders. There are people who would be walking the Earth right now, were it not for this. Police officers pulled back, more died, and how did that help the communities? Happy now? You’ve got more crime, and more jobs fled.

    The highest murder rates in our country occur in Baltimore, DC, Detroit, and Chicago. Baltimore’s rates rent way up after they pulled back after Freddie Gray. There is even a name for it, “The Ferguson Effect.” How many times are people going to vote in politicians from the same party, who promise to solve all their problems, while they end up with a third world country here in the US? Ready to try something different yet?

    Instead of a just system that would punish those few officers who abuse their positions of authority, use bad judgement, or commit crimes, now there are armchair quarterbacks insisting to parse every second of body cam footage. Police officers in New York are getting buckets of water dumped on their heads while trying to arrest people.

    This is another example of how Leftism is damaging the Democratic Party. Their actions are against law and order, with extreme positions like open borders, opposing the deportation of people who were ordered so by a court of law, claiming detaining illegal aliens is akin to concentration camps, and some even call for the abolition of ICE and BP entirely. The rhetoric from the Democratic Party is increasingly becoming anti police, and against law and order, and if there is a shooting of a minority, quick to call it racist. This is nothing like the Democratic Party of just a few decades ago. It’s alienating. I really wish that moderate Democrats would wrest control back of their party, but this is the inevitable result of allowing the public education system to become infested with political activists, bringing far Left indoctrination into the classroom, from pre-K to graduate school. We have turned out a generation of Oktoberists, many of whom believe the murderous philosophy of Socialism is a grand idea. Those whom I know to be moderate Democrats just don’t talk politics to their other Democrat friends anymore. It’s unsafe to disagree with them. But what options do they have for voting? The whole field is tipping farther left, and I don’t know that they would vote Republican.

    There are consequences to this.

      1. Anon, perhaps you should go talk to police officers, and ask how they have changed their policing since one officer after another has been pilloried in the court of public opinion.

        Take a hands off approach, get criticized for not doing your job. Do your job, then the mobs will attack you as racist. You can’t win.

        Left leaning USA today on Baltimore’s increasing murder rate in a very troubled city:
        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/25/baltimore-homicide-murder-rate-fbi-statistics-death-crime-killings/1426739002/

        “The main reasons for Baltimore’s violent crime problems are the subject of endless interpretation.

        Some attribute the increase to the fallout of the opioid epidemic and Baltimore’s longstanding status as a heroin market, or to systemic failures like segregated neighborhoods, unequal justice and a scarcity of decent opportunities for many citizens. Others have pointed the finger at police, accusing them of taking a hands-off approach to fighting crime since six officers were charged in connection with the 2015 death of Gray, a black man whose mysterious fatal spinal cord injury in police custody triggered the city’s worst riots in decades.

        In addition, there’s been serious instability at the top of the police force and scandals and missteps have worsened a trust deficit in city neighborhoods. Baltimore is also struggling to implement a consent decree mandating reforms after federal investigators detailed longstanding patterns of unconstitutional policing and excessive force in the eighth largest municipal police department in the United States.”

        I read a good paper on the Ferguson effect indicating that there is insufficient reporting data to prove it one way or another, and that it depends upon reporting from police. I would say there is insufficient evidence to prove it, the reporting structure is inadequate, and there is significant evidence that police are more hesitant to do their jobs. Other papers look at a national scale, rather than drilling down to affected areas. There are numerous design flaws. In addition, emphasis has been on a theory called “depolicing” rather than looking at a more subtle disinterest in noticing or interceding in crimes. In addition, part of the effect may be due to the increased hatred of cops leading to more crime.

        There is also data on what happened in NY after proactive policing was scaled back.

        “We have allowed our police department to get fetal, and it is having a direct consequence,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said at a meeting in 2015.

        “One prominent official with a different view is Malik Aziz, who heads the National Black Police Association. Following the recent shootings, Aziz has seen and heard of officers not injecting themselves into situations that could provoke controversy. “It was only after the murder of Freddie Gray in Baltimore that police were being charged with crimes, and it set a new narrative,” he says. “They fear a type of engagement that may have some backlash to it.”

        1. Thanks for agreeing that the “Ferguson Effect” is an hypothesis only. I’m sure we could learn something talking to police about the difficulties of their work, just as we could speaking to residents of predominantly black neighborhood. More importantly, those two groups should be speaking too each other regularly.

    1. Yawn. You again. 1. Democrats are NOT in favor of open borders. You heard that on Hannity and Tucker, as part of the indoctrination to cause you to continue being a disciple; 2. If you are so all-fired supportive of “law and order”, what about the laws making it illegal to hire undocumented people? The only reason they come here is for the jobs. If you want them to stop coming, enforce the laws against hiring them. 3. The detention camps ARE concentration camps, which are defined as a place where people who are identified by their group or status are held against their will when they have not been convicted of any criminal offense. Hannity and Tucker equate “concentration camps” with the Nazi death camps as part of your indoctrination to convince you disciples that Trump’s camps aren’t concentration camps and that people who call them this are bad and are trying to open the borders, but Nazis had camps that were work camps or where people were just held while they worked at factories but were not killed. Maybe if you read some books you’d know this. You might start with Elie Wiesel’s books. He survived a work camp. “Schindler’s List” is another suggestion. How about Eva Kor’s books? She survived Mengele’s twin experiments.

      The reason Faux News preaches against education, calling it “far Left indoctrination”, is because with education you can see through the lies, see Trump for the dangerous, narcissistic liar he is, see Pence for the hypocrite he is, and recognize how far the Republican party has slipped from its moorings since the days of Eisenhower and Reagan. Faux News harps about AOC and Omar, but ignores the moderate Democrats and their positions. This is to keep reeling in people like you, enforcing your hatred and fear.

      1. Sorry, in the future please drop all statements that include the words “people like you” in the circular file.
        My hatred is poorly written thoughts, my fear is that ANY Dem gets close to the executive for a good long while.
        BTW, I don’t recall a moderate Dem during the Kavanaugh hearings.
        It appears you are slipped from your moorings into the tide.

        1. The allegations against Kavanaugh were serious and substantial and verified by credible witnesses. There were many more witnesses who demanded the opportunity to provide corroborating evidence, but Republicans silenced them by pushing the nomination process ahead. Kavanaugh’s main qualification was his extreme conservatism, especially as to abortion, which is to reel in the gullible Evangelicals, not his jurisprudence or character. Democrats were denied a SCOTUS nominee because of political posturing by Mitch McConnell. Kavanaugh will ALWAYS be viewed as controversial because he doesn’t belong on the SCOTUS.

          1. You say he doesn’t ‘belong’. No one has ever used that criteria for anything concerning law. Grow up.
            Revisionist history is accepted where actual history of events is unknown (ignorance) or propaganda (agenda lies) is needed to sell ads.
            Good luck.

            1. Kavanaugh does NOT belong. Trump cheated, with the help of Russians, to “win the victory”. He lost the popular vote, so nothing he does reflects the will of the majority of Americans. Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump. McConnell and Republicans thwarted the investigation process by pushing ahead and forcing a vote and not allowing multiple victims to testify. But for cheating and partisan political posturing, Kavanaugh would not be on the SCOTUS. Like Trump, he’ll always be viewed with skepticism.

              1. Natacha – there is a report out that Google changed the votes of over 2.6 million people to Hillary. We know they are still at it. Google is your overlord. Are you happy about that?

                1. “there is a report out”? So what? Where’s the proof? Mueller’s team obtained thousands of documents, took testimony of hundreds of witnesses, and obtained dozens of indictments and guilty pleas. Russia did help Trump cheat to “win the victory”. Not only that, but Trump continues to set records for Presidential disapproval. He has never broken 50%, much less exceeded it. Shoving someone on the SCOTUS whose views are far right of mainstream is yet another blow to democracy.

                  Obama was elected fairly, and was entitled to a SCOTUS nomination, reflecting the will of the American people who elected him. Moscow Mitch McConnell deprived Americans of their voice on the SCOTUS. Kavanaugh will always be viewed with skepticism, even if he didn’t have the baggage of his conduct and the fact that Moscow Mitch and the Republicans denied other witnesses their opportunity to testify.

                  1. I think the person who made that calculation had the last name of Epstein and the 2.6 million was the low end.

                    Peter, you are a no nothing.

          2. These allegations were light on facts (she couldn’t remember the date or location) and had zero collaborating witnesses. The individuals listed as being present at the party by her (one was even a close friend of the complainant) had zero knowledge of the alleged incident. Those are the facts. All the other “allegations” were absolutely insane and obviously partisan.

            This was a political hit job that the left is well known for.. the truth, the facts be damned. Only thing that matters is power and winning. Just look at what is being exposed daily of the DOJ, DOS, FBI and Obama administration’s conduct in 2016, 2017 and the “mueller” investigation. Things are going to get real interesting in the coming months.

            1. Kavanaugh’s gross behavior during his teenage years – established by printed record and verified by classmates – short of proof on the Ford accusation, should probably not have been disqualifying, but his lying about it and unhinged behavior before the senate should have been.

              As to witnesses, Ford asked for that of his wingman on the night in question, not the usual move of someone afraid of the truth.

                  1. Wherever I get them TIA – they’re numbered and a print out taped to my wrist – you can’t handle them.

            2. OK, so you don’t believe Dr. Ford (she did recall the location; sexual assaults don’t happen in front of other witnesses) but what about the dozens of other witnesses demanding to be heard, who were shut up by Republicans?

              What do Squi and donkey dong Doug have to say about all of this?

              1. Natacha – the vaunted FBI, investigators of the Mueller Report, vouchers of the FISA applications for Carter Page, investigated the “witnesses” and none were found to be reliable.

                1. Why not let the American people decide for themselves? And, we have yet to see the entire Mueller Report, much less the corroborating documentary evidence and testimony. Bear in mind that when Bill Clinton was on the hot seat, Republicans released all of the supporting documentary evidence immediately.

              2. What do Squi and donkey dong Doug have to say about all of this?

                1. She named Christopher Garret as the person who introduced her to Kavanaugh. (1) He offered a public statement that he had no knowledge relevant to her claims and (2) offered a confidential statement in writing to the FBI. You’ll notice that statement did not leak, because it wasn’t helpful to the Democrats’ propaganda campaign.

                2. She named three other persons as having been present at this event. All three drew a blank. That includes her chum, Leland Keyser.

                3. The committee had in its possession his 1982 appointment calendar. Neither her name nor her initials appear on it.

                4. There is not one person who attests that the two of them were acquainted. There is not one old Poloroid with the two of them in the frame.

                5. There weren’t any circumstances which would have made it likely they would meet. They did not attend school together. Her brother Ralph was not enrolled at the school attended by Kavanaugh and Mark Judge and Mark Judge’s sister was not enrolled at her school. (Kavanaugh is an only child). She lived about six miles from Mark Judge, about eight miles from the Kavanaughs. There were contentions in the papers that EE Kavanaugh belonged to the Burning Tree Club, of which Ralph Blasey was a prominent member. It’s members only; family are banned from the campus and Ralph Blasey never averred he was acquainted with EE Kavanaugh, much less his wife or his son. The Blasey’s did cross paths with Martha Kavanaugh, but that was 14 years later, when she presided over a foreclosure proceeding to which they were a party.

                What’s amusing about this is that you maintain this fiction that you’re an attorney, and you can’t engage in inductive reasoning to save your life.

              3. Maybe Natacha will provide a list of the dozens if people she claims we’re shut up by the Republic.
                And Schulte, if you think that credibility and reliability of witnesses is important, you too are guilty of shutting up every flake that might have claimed they had some actual knowledge about the allegations against Kavanaugh.
                Avenatti made a big issue of the Committee’s lack of reverence for that loon Julie Swetnuck’s crazy stories..
                The Committee did respond, and informed Avenatti that they were investgations only CREDIBKE accusations.

        2. I don’t like your odds Leon. The Democratic presidential candidate has won the vote in 6 of the last 7 Elections. With those results you probably shouldn’t be expecting to draw a royal flush in the EC again.

      2. Actions matter more than words.

        While it is, indeed, true that Democrats say they oppose open borders, they also do the following:
        1. Oppose a wall. Many say it is immoral. That means that physically preventing people from illegally crossing is immoral.
        2. They call the detention for processing of illegal immigrants concentration camps
        3. They have come out against the deportation of people who had their day in court, lost, and were issued deportation orders. That means that literally no one could be deported, and the court system is a waste of time and money
        4. They oppose the temporary separation of families at the border. That means that they oppose investigating if there is a familial relationship, or if it is trafficking. They have made a child into a ticket to go right on through, rendering immigration law meaningless
        5. They oppose decorations of anyone with children, for whatever reason
        6. They created sanctuary cities, many of which protect violent felons from deportation
        7. They create inducements for illegal immigration – CA extended free healthcare for illegals, free drivers licenses, low cost, lower liability coverage auto insurance than that required for legal residents and citizens, scholarships, in state tuition, benefits, housing, schooling…
        8. Calls to abolish ICE come from the Democratic Party
        9. Hostility to Border Patrol officers simply following the law come from the Democratic Party
        10. They oppose referring to those who break federal immigration law as illegal immigrants
        11. The overwhelming majority of asylum cases do not meet the requirements for asylum, and most skip out of deportation orders. Yet once someone stays here, either illegally or through the asylum process, Democrats oppose removing them when they are ordered deported. The process takes a while, and simply being here during that time satisfies the party that they should stay forever, again making federal immigration law meaningless and the court process a waste of time
        12. Any sincere criticism of illegal immigration is labeled racist and xenophobic
        13. They support the caravans, mass migrations of people who refuse to obey federal immigration laws or go through the legal process
        14. Democrats refuse to acknowledge that illegal immigration enriches the drug cartels that run it
        15. When kids die illegally immigrating, or they show up to BP too weak and sick to survive, Democrats do not blame illegal immigration. You cannot pay organized crime to drag kids across inhospitable deserts and think it will end okay.

        In short, they oppose meaningful border security, openly seek to grant admittance to everyone who shows up, oppose processing them in detention centers or applying federal immigration law

        Also, accusing me of hating or fearing illegal immigrants is ignorant. I ride horses. I live in CA. We encounter illegal immigrants every day. I know and am friends with many. That is why I have stated, repeatedly that I do not blame illegal immigrants one little bit. Democratic policies and Republican refusal to commit has lead to policies that openly invite illegal immigration. It is not their fault that they took us up on it. However, it is irresponsible to continue in this manner, and must stop. Moving forward, we need to make illegal immigration harder and legal immigration smoother, and the logistics should be managed to coincide with housing and jobs markets. It’s not that hard to understand. But if you can’t address the facts, you go straight to the ad hominem and just start making stuff up.

        1. Honest to God, is watching Faux News and blogging all you have to do? 1. A wall is opposed because it is ineffective and expensive. Most illegals enter other ways, show up and ask for asylum or overstay visas. In some areas of Texas, landowners oppose government taking of their property for a wall. There are areas with historic villages and churches that the govt. would destroy to build the wall; 2. Trump’s concentration camps have been explained to you several times. You don’t understand the difference between Nazi death camps and concentration camps because you choose to believe Hannity’s rhetoric about this and pivoting to criticize Democrats who label such camps accurately; 3. No, the Democratic party is not against deportations. They do criticize the mass arrests in Mississippi wherein school children were left alone, without anyone to pick them up and no parents to go home to, and no notice to schools or social services that there would be young children whose parents were in custody. Why not arrest the owners of the chicken processing plants, too, if “law and order” was the goal? BTW: Obama set the record for deportations. Maybe if you watched something other than Faux News, you’d know this. 4. If you watched some outlet other than Faux News, you’d know that Jeff Sessions and Trump both stated that children were being taken from their parents solely as a DETERRENT–to send a message to other potential migrants. Then, after government-sanctioned kidnapping make them look bad, Kellyanne came up with the cover story of doing this to prevent trafficking. It’s a big fat lie, and the separations are not “temporary”, either. Many parents were deported and their children left behind to be put up for adoption by strangers. Also, some of these children have legal relatives in the US, but BP made no effort to at least reunite them with their relatives. 5. I don’t know how anyone can “decorate” a child, and can’t respond since it makes no sense. 6. Individual cities decide whether they will allow their taxpayer resources, such as police and jail facilities, to be used to help ICE and BP arrest and detain people who are merely here to work and not otherwise committing any crimes, which is their right. This is not a Democratic national platform position. A daily cost to house, guard, feed, clothe and provide medical care for each inmate can be calculated. It is up to an individual city whether to expend taxpayer monies in this manner, and many choose not to, especially if those who hire illegals aren’t also brought to justice. 7. The inducement for illegals is JOBS–this, too, has been explained to you numerous times, but it’s not soaking in. Most of the largest employers of illegals, such as hotels, restaurants, etc, are Republican-owned. Illegals don’t come here for any other reason, and don’t own cars, much less want or need discount auto insurance. More Faux News propaganda. 9 to 15: more of the same. Faux News propaganda to provide daily affirmation to the disciples: it’s all the fault of the Democrats that there are tens of millions of brown people here who are breaking the law.

          Wow! You ride horses. Well, so do I. So what? What does that have to do with anything? Do you want a cookie or something? I encounter illegals every day, too, because they are literally everywhere, and I have represented them as their attorney in civil cases. The invitation to illegal immigration is due to one major factor: refusal to enforce the laws against hiring them. If there were wide-scale arrests and prosecutions of those who hire them and help them break the law, they’d stop hiring them and there would be nothing here for them. You know what the biggest obstacle is? Republicans. They love this pool of slave labor– people who don’t demand workers compensation, overtime, fringe benefits, unemployment benefits and who don’t file civil rights and sexual harassment claims. Nevertheless, it’s easier for Trump and Faux News to stir up hatred and resentment against the migrants, because it works. The main reason it works is due to inducement of fear and resentment of people who are different, plus Trump calling them “murderers, rapists, animals, vermin and breeders”. You always brush off your lack of knowledge and blind discipleship to Faux News as ad hominem attacks, but you are ill-informed.

          1. Natacha – you seem obsessed with Fox News and Russia to an hysterical pitch. Almost all of your posts seem outraged that Fox exists, and you appear hyper fixated about what they might or might not be covering that day.

            Riding horses is relevant to illegal immigration, because a lot of equestrian labor, like all ag labor, consists of illegal immigrants. You falsely accused me of hating or fearing illegal immigrants. What do you think I do all day, walk around shrieking, like you do about Fox? I noticed you’ve dropped Russia, though, so your posts now consist of Fox and Trump screeds.

            You have no comprehension of my position on anything, and spend all of your exercise time leaping to the wrong conclusions.

            You just don’t get it.

            1. Well Karen, if you would only provide more information with your abbreviated and minimalist posts, we could better understand your thoughts.

            2. Karen, your leader is a long time employer of illegal immigrants. You did not respond to Natacha’s reasonable proposal on helping solve the issue. Could that be why?

            3. Karen, Honey, I “get” you more than you realize. You love to co-opt cutesy phrases you heard in some movie or another, like Tia Carrere’s “Pity” line from “True Lies”, or Raymond Massey’s line about “first you lose blasted hand and then you lose your blasted arm” that you got from “East of Eden”. Most of the arguments you make on this blog you got directly from Faux News. You are un-original, not a free-thinker and a willing disciple. You don’t even understand how Tucker and Hannity appeal to white fear of brown people by blaming the migrants for coming here instead of blaming those who hire them and provide the inducement. It does not offend your sensibilities when Trump constantly lies, like trying to take credit for the Veterans Health bill Obama signed into law in 2014, or when he calls migrants “murderers, rapists, animals, vermin, breeders and criminals”. Caging little kids? Well, Faux News came up with an explanation for government-sanctioned kidnapping, and you bought it. Then, there’s the endless pivoting to blame Democrats for everything, which is a Faux News specialty. I call out your source of such thinking because I know where you got it. Yes, I do “get” you because I know lots of people just like you.

              1. Natacha,

                You’re so Racist against White People I bet even your Toilet Stool & Lid is Brown!

                So just keep Smearing it fool as it lets everyone see who you really are.

        2. Karen, “actions matter more than words”.

          The 2013 Immigration bill – passed in the GOP controlled Senate but killed on the GOP House floor, even though it would have passed a vote – included $46 billion for border security. It was written by Democrats and Obama promised to sign it.

  13. Pander, pander, pander, pander. Maybe if nominated one could chose Stacey Abrams as V.P. and then we’ll have double pander! It’s amazing what people do, think and say in order to pander to 12% of our population.

    1. Pander, pander, pander, pander.

      I agree Acromion. While I see a lot of people want to identify this as typical for a Democrat, I see this as typical for all politicians…period. Campaigning is all about selling whatever will get them elected. It is alarming how extreme the proposals are for all of the Democrat candidates, but there is not a whole lot for them to sell other than these extreme ideas. Most of these candidates have a record to compare what they are saying today is or is not consistent with their history. They also have a history of what they’ve said in previous campaigns and how that was reflected in their terms of office.

      I do believe what Warren and Harris are selling here is far more dangerous than some ridiculous policy position. They are specifically pandering to a constituency that will be reanimated by their words with the potential for violence.

  14. i think these pathetic women are setting an awful example. if you commit a felony and then try to wrestle a gun away from a cop, the cop has not murdered you for defending himself. the cop MUST SHOOT YOU or the cop and everyone else can fairly expect once the perp has the gun the perp will SHOOT THE COP

    this is a basic foundational “absolute chaos will ensue” type of question. they have failed the most basic law and order scenario in the book. this is so stupid the sane black folks will vote against them too. starting with all the black cops and shopkeepers and everyone that had their houses burned by the rioters and so forth.

    1. “i think these pathetic women are setting an awful example. ”

      Warren and Harris represent Democratic values and Democratic justice. They say and do what is convenient for them. That seems to be the mantra of the Democratic Party of today. F… the people.

  15. Fake democracy requires mob violence. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are therefore well qualified to serve as deluder-in-chief.

  16. “Hamilton Police Chief Russell Stevens, president of the chiefs group, wrote in his letter to Warren that what she tweeted was “based on false information” and the DOJ ruled “Michael Brown was not murdered.” He urged her to read the report.

    “Your reckless tweet will only serve to create hatred towards Police Officers and place them in danger of more assaults and perhaps death,” Stevens added in his letter. “Having had two Police Officers murdered in your own state, in the past 18 months, we expect our elected Officials to condemn the murder and assaults of Police Officers. Instead on multiple occasions, you choose to fan the fires of divide for you own political gains. Shame on you!”

    Warren’s campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.”

    https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/08/13/elizabeth-warrens-latest-reckless-knock-on-cops-angers-police-chiefs/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

  17. “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” was a lie. And I forget, how many Obama Administration officials were dispatched to attend Michael Brown’s funeral? Was it three? How many Obama officials attended Margart Thatcher’s funeral? Was it zero? Oh and let’s not forget Obama chose not to attend Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral either. But a thug like Michael Brown? He got three high level Obama officials. Imagine that.

    1. Scalia would be the first to admit he was no Saint but he tried to reflect the Catholic Faith as best he could. Attorneys who clerked for him have written glowingly of the man. Obama?

      “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations” – Barack Obama

      Obama would have been uncomfortable at Scalia’s Funeral Mass, a source of Light and God’s Graces, considering shunned these and had a visceral contempt for certain people.

      “No one is beneath you. Justice Scalia blended into the congregation at Mass as just another pilgrim. No special place. No special seat. It is hard for a Supreme Court Justice to avoid the special place and the special seat. If the nature of the office does not demand special treatment, security likely does. But the justice did not revel in special treatment. One time we tried to take him out for a steak. He wanted a hamburger. Another time we had a seat for him in a luxury box. He wanted a seat in the stands. The justice spoke with the same respect for those in the lowest station as for those in the highest.”

      Excerpt From: Scalia, Antonin. “Lessons from an American Believer.”

      Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, et al want a special place, a special seat, a luxury box just like Hillary

Leave a Reply