Wheels Coming Off Mueller’s Clown Car and His Media Accomplices

 
If you rely on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or PBS for your news, you may not realize what an astonishing, discrediting week or two it’s been in the Media Left’s War on Trump.
 
Just to hit a few low points, it was recently reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had to fire a top aid in his boundless investigation, because the FBI’s Peter Strzok is a vehement anti-Trump, pro-Clinton partisan. The taint goes deeper. Not only was Strzok a key player for Team Mueller, but Forest Gump-like, he appears to have played a major role in every development and decision relating to investigating the Clinton and Trump campaigns. He was part of the Cliniton email investigation. He attended the interviews of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Hillary Clinton. He massaged James Comey’s get-out-of jail speech to lessen the legal implications for Clinton. He was part of the gang that investigated and cornered Michael Flynn.
 
The FBI and Mueller appear to have employed a regular Inspector Javert whose raison d’etre was to exonerate Hillary and incriminate Trump.
 
Former federal prosecutor Nick James explains why that news alone may be enough to end Mueller’s expedition. Short version: Because prosecutors are required to turn over to defendants all potentially exculpating information. That means to press forward, the Special Counsel would probably have to lay bare all of Strzok’s texts and emails about his hate of Trump and support for Hillary, and those communications probably spread further than the FBI agent girlfriend he reportedly was talking with. Congressman Jim Jordan delivers a scathing examination of FBI Director Wray here on the subject Strzok’s stench..
 
 The courts don’t want to be left out of the embarrassment. It was reported the judge overseeing the case against Michael Flynn was suddenly and mysteriously recused from the case. The unusual language in the announcement did not say he recused himself. Rather, he was recused. No explanation given. Hmmm.
 
 Meanwhile, major US media continues to beclown and disgrace itself in its frenzy to manufacture and hype dirt against Trump. Honest liberal Glenn Greenwald goes on a tour de force explanation of how badly and maliciously CNN, CBS, and MSNBC bothed a story on Friday that appeared to implicate Donald Trump Jr in shady dealings with suspected Russian operatives. It turns out networks, operating site unseen with anonymous sources misstated the date of an email by 10 days, which has the effect of turning a supposed bombshell revelation of secret and dirty dealing into a benign email about information that was already in the public domain. But, for sustained hours, the networks furiously peddled it as a nuclear disaster for Trump.
 
 
Greenwald makes the following devastating observation:
 
But what one should expect with journalistic “mistakes” is that they sometimes go in one direction, and other times go in the other direction. That’s exactly what has not happened here. Virtually every false story published goes only in one direction: to be as inflammatory and damaging as possible on the Trump/Russia story and about Russia particularly. At some point, once “mistakes” all start going in the same direction, toward advancing the same agenda, they cease looking like mistakes.
Surreal things have happened and keep happening and the major media shows no signs of reflecting on the lessons. Rather, it’s full speed ahead. Stay tuned.

Government is mostly malevolent–conscientious parent edition.

A Libertarian friend of mine, David K. Williams, likes to say: “Government is largely malevolent.” He posts this frequently on social media, along with a link to a story about some bureaucrat or petty tyrant making life harder, worse, or both for ordinary folks trying to do ordinary things. I think I will take after my friend David in this practice.

Today’s illustration is this outrage from a school district in Virginia. A mom has been criminally charged for the way she tried to protect her daughter from ongoing bullying at school. I’m confident this mom will not be convicted of anything. In a sane universe, which we may or may not inhabit, the charges will be dropped, and whoever decided to cite and or charge her will be tarred and feathered and humiliated.

But there is a more important point here. This is government. This is the mentality of government. A mom trying to protect her baby against bullying that school administrators were powerless or apathetic to remedy, puts a recording device in her daughter’s pack. It gets discovered.

Mom gets charged not only with felony wiretapping, but with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Let me be clear. This is not only outrageous rubbish, it is a manifestation of the controlling mentality. The mentality that exists mostly in government. Did any of the busy-bodies who reviewed this situation think: “Wow. Poor kid. Poor mom. What can we do to help solve this situation?” No. The execrable jackals were afraid of being embarrassed. They were ticked that a parent might permeate their sanctum. Someone went to the rule book and combed through, looking for ways to punish the rabble and make an example.

This is not unique. This is not rare. This is what happens when citizens challenge authority.

It is a mentality that can thrive only in the public sector. In the realm of free exchange, when a company abuses you, you can look to a competitor. In the realm of regulated living, when the bureaucrat takes an interest in you, you can only pray that he’ll apply a little soap as he goes about his business. Please read the story linked below and get mad, then take action.

The phone number for Norfolk Public Schools is (757) 670-3945

The phone number for the Norfolk Police Department Chief’s Office is (7575) 664-3277

The phone number for the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office is (757) 664-4444

 

Mom charged after putting recording device in daughter’s backpack

Denver DA Stretches Logic with No Charges in Cheerleader Stretching Incident.

Something about the Denver DA’s decision not to file charges in the case of Denver East High cheerleaders being forced into the splits stretches credulity. Last summer, a disturbing phone video hit social media and then news channels showing a high school coach, helped by team members, forcing young women in obvious pain down into a split position. One athlete, 13-year old Ally Wakefield was in obvious agony, and cried out “please stop” nine times. The forced stretching tore ligaments and muscle tissue. She required medical treatment and months of physical therapy. This disturbing 30-second video shows her ordeal.

 

 

A parent’s letter of complaint to Denver Public Schools took months to prompt DPS to investigate. Only after news stations got involved did officials take action against several involved parties. Five East High and DPS employees, including one of the district’s lawyers, were placed on leave. Ultimately, the coach was fired, and East High’s principal and athletic director resigned. Three ousters and administrative disciple of a district lawyer raise obvious and still unanswered questions about the chain of events and the far reaching ripple effects.

The Denver Police Department and DA’s office opened an investigation last August. On Saturday, October 14, the DA’s office released a statement on its website that no charges would be filed.  If Friday night is the traditional dumping ground for releasing embarrassing political stories, Saturday must really be the hoped for graveyard of bad news. DA Beth McCann’s full statement announced:

The video of the incident involving the injured student that has been widely disseminated is painful to watch. However, after a very thorough and careful review of all of the evidence gathered in the investigation and the statements of many members of the cheerleading squad, I have concluded that the evidence does not support the filing of criminal charges. In order to prove a charge of criminal behavior, the case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

There are differing opinions regarding the use of this technique of cheerleading training. While I believe the technique should not be used, that is not the standard of proof for a criminal case. Most of the cheerleading squad participated in the technique that day, and there are differing accounts of the circumstances.

 

The individual involved should not be a coach in high school sports and he no longer is. The principal and athletic director of the school have retired and resigned. The message should be clear that this type of technique has no place in high school cheerleading coaching. The bad judgment of the coach, however, does not constitute a prosecutable crime.

Several things are remarkable about the statement. First, it asserts that use of the technique in the video is subject to opinion and debate. However, she asserts, the man who committed the acts should not be a coach, and now, she reassures, he’s not. Two other jobs also were ended for good measure. These sound like dire consequences for something that ostensibly is debatable.

DA McCann allows in her own view the stretching technique was inappropriate, but then asserts that that is not the legal standard, which is, that evidence must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is an illogical connection. First, despite McCann’s reference to “differing accounts, the evidence of what happened is irrefutable. It was witnessed by millions. Second, the patent unreasonableness of what happened in the gym that day is evidenced by public outrage and three terminations. Further, it’s unclear what differing opinions McCann might have received, but if prosecutors want expert opinion on the reasonableness of the actions, they can consult NFL cheerleader Bria Petty who says this is awful and in all her years in the sport, she has never seen anything close to it. Or they can consult Dr. David Jewison, a team physician for several Division I college sport teams, who says it is absolutely wrong and inappropriate.

Finally, if the DA’s office wants to trifle with something as technical and irrelevant as the applicable law, they should peruse Colorado’s statutory definition of assault, which occurs when “a person knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person.”

This disturbing case raises several questions that need answers from DPS and the the Denver DA. Why were the athletic director and the principal implicated in the supposedly isolated bad judgment of a coach? How did a district lawyer fall under suspicion and scrutiny? Why is the video evidence of what happened and an athlete’s documented injury insufficient to charge a case and take it to a jury?

 

Stay Armed My Friends, Especially Against Intellectual Muggings

New York Times columnist Brett Stephens, long of the Wall Street Journal, appeals: “Repeal the Second Amendment.” The Federalist’s David Harsanyi answers: “Come and get them, Brett Stephens.”

This is a fantastic clash. Stephens makes a seemingly plausible case for sweeping gun control here. Harsanyi demolishes it here.

Harsanyi shows why it’s always good to carry solid ammunition. You never know where you might be mugged, by whom.

Las Vegas and When Angry Emojis Turn Sad

So far there are 50 reported dead and hundreds injured. Sometimes when words fail, or an expression of emotion suffices, I will click on one of the emoticons on a friend’s post to express “happy” or “angry” or “sad.” It means someone saw their expression, and responded with his feeling about the subject.That’s what I often do regarding horrible events.
 
For some time, my reaction to news of an atrocity has been “angry.” How could someone do that to other people? This is ugly and outrageous. I want to express the resolve of defense, of resistance, of opposition. But, as the heedless coldness keeps spreading  around us, keeps taking more lives, my feeling is sliding toward sad. There isn’t just this bad guy or that to shake a fist at. There is a sick society.
 
Why do so many hate? What is producing this inhuman behavior? What can be done? Certainly there is place for anger, and it will be felt. But at some point, you have to look around at your fellow man and wonder with Gordon Lightfoot where the love of God goes. Not that it’s God’s fault, but where does the love go? Where does the darkness come from?

On the Rogue Cop and the Reasonable Nurse, Salt Lake City is Making the Bleeding Worse

So far, Salt Lake City’s response to the rogue cop, Jeff Payne, who manhandled Alex Wubbles, the professional and respectful nurse who refused him access to take the blood of an unconscious accident victim raises more questions than it answers.The questions are serious and go to the competence and integrity of the Police Department.
 
Salt Lake Mayor Jackie Biskupski and Police Chief Mike Brown gave puzzling and unsatisfactory explanations at their Friday press conference. Biskuski said she did not want  “an entire police department to be painted in a bad light due to the actions of one individual. Clearly we believe the actions of this individual were not justified.” But, in fact this episode does paint the entire department in a bad light, starting with the explanation offered by Chief Brown, who stated:
.
To date, we have suspended the officer from the blood draw program. We have already replaced our blood draw policy with a new policy. All remaining officers on the blood draw program have reviewed, and are operating under the new policy and protocol.
.The Chief’s statement raises at least the following questions:
.
Whether the arrest was lawful or not, the nurse was calm and professional. The cop escalated the situation with a sudden outburst of temper and force in a hospital ER room. Why was that not grounds for immediate suspension? What possible justification could any “investigation” uncover for his brutish behavior?
.
Removing Detective Payne from the blood-draw program seems like the merest of administrative wrist slaps. What assurance do Salt Lake residents have that Payne will not be in a position to abuse his authority in other ways? (Under mounting public pressure, Salt Lake City Police Department later announced that Payne has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation).
 
Payne spoke by phone or radio with his commanding officer, a lieutenant at the station who instructed Payne to arrest Wubbels if she did not allow him to draw blood. If Payne’s action was improper, so was the lieutenant’s direction. What accountability does he have? What consequences might he face?
.
Nurse Wubbels was on the phone with a hospital official who advised Payne “he was making a big mistake.” Wubbels further rehearsed to Payne the terms of an “agreement” between the hospital and the Department: Blood may only be withdrawn with a warrant, or with the person’s consent, or if the person is under arrest. Why were these communications not a very serious check on Payne and the lieutenant to make further inquiry before slapping cuffs on an on-duty nurse?
 
Is there a Memorandum of Understanding between the hospital and the Department on this issue? Did Wubbels accurately summarize its terms, demonstrating knowledge of the blood draw rules superior to the Department’s trained phlebotomist?
 
Announcing that the blood draw policy was immediately changed is problematic and raises further questions. Did the lieutenant’s orders, and Payne’s arrest comply with the policy, or did they violate it? If they complied, then the policy itself was seriously flawed. Is it reasonable to single out Payne for disapproval and sanction for obeying a direct order consistent with Department policy? What about the Department’s responsibility to have sound materials and training?
.
If they violated the policy, then what problems or errors it required amending? What changes were made? Will the department publicly release the former and revised versions of the policy? Will there be review or accountability for the authors of the policy? Or for the officials or City legal staff who approved the policy?
.
What training programs and review protocols does the Department have in place to ensure that officer knowledge and written policies and manuals reflect current legal and Constitutional standards?
.
Before public outrage forced Payne’s suspension, who made the decision to leave him on active duty, with removal from on-the-job phlebotomy as the only current consequence? This incident obviously touched a sensitive nerve for the viewing public, but appears initially to have triggered a lesser reaction with the brass. How can the public be confident that the Salt Lake City Police Department is mindful of and protective of the rights of all citizens?
 
 
Page 1 of 212