|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Anyone who says that the way forward is to ignore race isn't paying any fucking attention.
(CNN)The recently retired chief of police of a New Jersey township was arrested Wednesday by the FBI and charged with a federal hate crime for allegedly slamming a handcuffed African-American suspect into a doorjamb during a 2016 arrest.
According to a criminal complaint against Frank Nucera Jr., who resigned in January, the former chief espoused violence toward African-Americans, using the N-word and other epithets.
He allegedly told an officer in his Bordentown police department that "The n-----s are like ISIS, they have no value."
"They should line them all up and mow 'em down," he said, according to an affidavit accompanying the complaint.
Nucera also is charged with deprivation of rights by using excessive force during an arrest in September of last year.
CNN attempted to reach Nucera's attorney but was unsuccessful.
The affidavit says Nucera talked of using police dogs in a "racially discriminatory" way to intimidate African-Americans.
The chief worked for Bordentown Township, a southern New Jersey town of 12,000 residents, since 1983, the Trenton Times reported. The township is a mostly white suburb of Trenton.
"The conduct alleged is shocking," acting US Attorney William E. Fitzpatrick said at a news conference. "It's a shocking breach of the duty of every police officer to provide equal justice under the law and to never mistreat a person in their custody."
Nucera appeared in court Wednesday afternoon in Camden and waived his right to a preliminary hearing. He was released on a bail of $500,000.
On September 1, 2016, the former chief responded as backup to a scene where two African-American teenagers were being arrested for using a hotel room without paying.
One of the suspects was handcuffed and being led from the room. According to the FBI, Nucera approached the teen from behind and slammed his head into a metal door jamb.
An officer at the scene recorded the chief making racist remarks, the complaint says.
"I'm f-----g tired of them, man. I'll tell you what, it's gonna get to the point where I could shoot one of these m----rf-----s. And that n----r b---h lady, she almost got it," the chief said, according to the complaint.
If convicted of each count, Nucera faces up to 20 years in prison.
The court filing says the officer had recorded the chief for about a one year period. The officer eventually reported the alleged crimes to the US Department of Justice, officials said.
The town's mayor called the charges "abhorrent."
"The township appreciates the comments by the US Attorney ... which reinforced what we already knew: that these charges are limited to one person, and are not indicative of the Bordentown Township Police Department, or the Township as a whole," Mayor Steve Benowitz said in a statement. "It is important to note that these charges began from a self-reported complaint from within the township police department. The township has moved forward with new leadership that promotes community, inclusion, and equality."
Nucera retired in mid-January, just after the New Jersey Attorney General was informed of the investigation into Nucera's alleged racially motivated use of excessive force.
Source
|
Shout out to the officer who spent a full year collecting evidence to get his shitty racist boss fired. And fuck all those other officers who didn't do shit.
|
On November 02 2017 19:22 Plansix wrote:
I don't get it. Why? He will be judged by a jury of his peers, in a trial arbitrated by a member of the Judiciary Branch. What Trump thinks of him should not be of any relevance, except as the boss of the prosecutors. But insofar as I know, there are about a million layers between a criminal court of the state of NY, and the president, and I don't think the NY DA is too worried about what Trump will think of him if he doesn't ask for the death sentence... particularly because NY state doesn't even have the death sentence?
|
Of course, the way forward is to ignore race, but at the same time to pay attention to the ones, who don't, especially if they are doing some hating.
|
On November 02 2017 19:36 Acrofales wrote:I don't get it. Why? He will be judged by a jury of his peers, in a trial arbitrated by a member of the Judiciary Branch. What Trump thinks of him should not be of any relevance, except as the boss of the prosecutors. But insofar as I know, there are about a million layers between a criminal court of the state of NY, and the president, and I don't think the NY DA is too worried about what Trump will think of him if he doesn't ask for the death sentence... particularly because NY state doesn't even have the death sentence?
I suppose it's about getting unbiased jurors. It's a bit of nonsense though, I imagine it's true legally but it's not like the jurors were going to have a completely unbiased opinion of the terrorist if Trump hadn't tweeted that.
|
On November 02 2017 19:35 Plansix wrote:
Shout out to the officer who spent a full year collecting evidence to get his shitty racist boss fired. And fuck all those other officers who didn't do shit.
I worry for the safety of that cop and his/her family. Being a cop is like being in a fraternity (especially here in NJ) and they don't take kindly to traitors from within.
|
On November 02 2017 19:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 19:36 Acrofales wrote:I don't get it. Why? He will be judged by a jury of his peers, in a trial arbitrated by a member of the Judiciary Branch. What Trump thinks of him should not be of any relevance, except as the boss of the prosecutors. But insofar as I know, there are about a million layers between a criminal court of the state of NY, and the president, and I don't think the NY DA is too worried about what Trump will think of him if he doesn't ask for the death sentence... particularly because NY state doesn't even have the death sentence? I suppose it's about getting unbiased jurors. It's a bit of nonsense though, I imagine it's true legally but it's not like the jurors were going to have a completely unbiased opinion of the terrorist if Trump hadn't tweeted that.
The president is the state, so it can even be argued that he influences what charges are filed and penalties that are sought. They are fights that done need to happen in a criminal case.
|
On November 02 2017 19:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 19:36 Acrofales wrote:I don't get it. Why? He will be judged by a jury of his peers, in a trial arbitrated by a member of the Judiciary Branch. What Trump thinks of him should not be of any relevance, except as the boss of the prosecutors. But insofar as I know, there are about a million layers between a criminal court of the state of NY, and the president, and I don't think the NY DA is too worried about what Trump will think of him if he doesn't ask for the death sentence... particularly because NY state doesn't even have the death sentence? I suppose it's about getting unbiased jurors. It's a bit of nonsense though, I imagine it's true legally but it's not like the jurors were going to have a completely unbiased opinion of the terrorist if Trump hadn't tweeted that.
Properly empaneling a federal jury to hear a terrorism case is already a tall order; the Marathon Bomber Tsarnaev's voir dire was an incredible slog, for example, and his defense attorneys have a good shot at some kind of appellate relief given that the trial was still held in Boston. Add in public statements from the head of the country and it just gets worse, especially in an appeals friendly circuit like the 2nd.
Hyperbole aside, Trump made his prosecutors' job harder and that's dumb 
|
On November 02 2017 12:44 Wulfey_LA wrote:
From a ~Russia Collusion~ standpoint, the Ruskie media campaign is not that big of a deal. That the Ruskie's pushed ads in the USA is a form of free speech that voters should be smart enough to see through. If we are going to have broad protections for political speech in this country, then other countries will be able to sneak under that umbrella.
However, the geotargeting data and the adkeywords that the Ruskies used could be the keys to the Russian Collusion theory. The big question is why the Ruskies knew exactly where to target in the midwest. Was Cambridge Analytica piping data to friendly memesters in Russia? That is the big question of the Mueller investigation.
How do you see through a Russian ad so that you can ignore it?
Does it conveniently say "This ad was payed for by Russia" before you get to see it so you can click away before you see it and your mind is subconsciously effected?
|
On November 02 2017 19:18 warding wrote:It's kind of fun to look at the ads Russia placed on Facebook: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/1/16593346/house-russia-facebook-adsWhat strikes me though is how little was invested. I've read "more than $100,000" in ads on Facebook, which is is really nothing. Do you guys often see political ads on your fb feed?
I see a bunch of em, especially after I started following my governer, congressman, and senators. None of these though.
|
On November 02 2017 02:13 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +“We have to come up with punishment that’s far quicker and far greater than the punishment these animals are getting right now. They’ll go through court for years. At the end, they’ll be – who knows what happens. We need quick justice, and we need strong justice. Much quicker and much stronger than we have right now, because what we have right now is a joke, and it’s a laughing stock. And no wonder so much of this stuff takes place.”
It's pretty pointless, guantanamo bay was used for bending the law to keep people in jail because there wasn't definite proof. There is definitive proof to keep him in jail.
On November 02 2017 10:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Also because DOJ can win a desirable case
On November 02 2017 14:20 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 14:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 13:32 Danglars wrote:
What do you find notable about that? A huge number of Americans who either don't understand or don't like the 1st Amendment is pretty shocking to me. How is that not notable?
1st amendment is about government silencing people, private citizens can silence others though shaming as much as they desire. Hell the common gag clause in contracts is all about going around the 1st amendment because it's technically a deal between private bodies. That just means i won't support a law silencing racist remarks, but i'll fully shame anybody who defenends a racist remark. They can say what they want but if they want to say that shit they can get the f-out of my place. Which is where that question is ambiguous, it doesn't establish the context.
|
On November 02 2017 20:21 Gahlo wrote:I see a bunch of em, especially after I started following my governer, congressman, and senators. None of these though.
I didn't see any either (and I see an absurd amount), maybe the balcktivist one, but it was a message I saw many times long before this election cycle. Then again there's a long and recent history of this country and the FBI/CIA undermining black groups by claiming "it's all Russia putting them up to it!"
Most of them were terrible and they made up a tiny fraction of election posts. Which should be intuitive when we were looking at somewhere near $100k vs ~$81,000,000
Hard to imagine any of them would even remotely sway anyone in any direction.
EDIT: I think it's fair to keep in mind that foreign bots/accounts weren't just a Russia/Trump thing. Hillary's facebook had more than 2x more likes from Baghdad than it did from LA
|
|
|
If you are inside the “alt-right” information bubble, you might be preparing yourself for a civil war to commence this Saturday.
Since late September, the idea has been circulating on Facebook groups, subreddit message boards, Twitter, and leading conspiracy media outlets that on 4 November, anti-fascist groups will begin a violent insurrection.
Some websites are telling their readers that antifa groups are “planning to kill every single Trump voter, Conservative and gun owner” this weekend. Hundreds of Facebook posts show how seriously consumers of such media are taking the news, and comments like “One more threat against white people and I swear to God I’m going to take a goddamn car and run over every fucking one of them” are not unrepresentative of the response.
But antifa groups have no plans to protest that day, and the small leftist groups who are planning protests have only dubious connections to the antifa movement. So what gives?
The whole thing rests on some very slender reeds, according to Spencer Sunshine, who recently wrote a report on the theories for the far right-monitoring group Political Research Associates. In the conspiracy underground on YouTube, he explains, there has been talk that “there was going to be a civil war” starting in November for some months.
Beginning in late September, three things kicked it a into higher gear. First, Refuse Fascism, a small group linked to the Revolutionary Communist party, staged a visually spectacular protest in Los Angeles. They blocked the 101 freeway and held up signs that enigmatically spelled out “Nov 4 it begins”. This is the same group that is organizing a series of protests around the country against the “Trump-Pence regime” this weekend.
Second, a video posted on a Facebook page called Vets Before Illegals went viral. The video, entitled “Antifa sets a date for civil war”, claimed that “on their website, they are calling for an open civil war that will start in November”, and set out alleged plans for attacking police officers, then citizens and the government.
Last, but by no means least, the rumor was picked up and amplified by Alex Jones, the radio star with an audience of millions. As Sunshine explains, Jones “is a kind of meta-conspiracy theorist now” who “harvests other people’s theories” and repackages them to fit his narratives and his audience.
Once Jones had mentioned it, Sunshine explains, the rumor mill exploded: “Once Jones says something, even more people pick up on it and put their own spin on it.” Jones’s website was still running the story on Wednesday morning.
Why the far right believes a US civil war will start on Saturday
|
Remember when people tried to make it out like I was crazy for telling you guys this?
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
Source
The DNC wasn't just favoring Hillary, they were literally in her pocket. The funny thing is this is still the pro-Clinton spin but they are trying to put it on DWS.
This part too:
He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”
|
I really like that its Brazile who wrote the piece, it rehabilitates her image a bit in my mind. Took her long enough though
|
Holy shit...
On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.
“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”
“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”
|
On November 02 2017 21:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Holy shit... Show nested quote +
On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.
“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”
“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”
We fucking told you guys. Kwizach can eat a whole bag of em' on that one.
|
I just now saw at the bottom that Brazile has a book coming on the 7th. Damn good appetizer piece if I ever saw one lol.
|
The article also seems to underline trying to get the Bernie supporters to forgive her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
