|
When being an undercover provocateur goes wrong:
St. Louis police officers allegedly beat an undercover officer and then tried to cover it up, a federal indictment says
CNN)Four Missouri police officers have been indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the assault of a fellow officer who was working undercover.
Officers Dustin Boone, Randy Hays and Christopher Myers with St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) are accused of beating the undercover officer with a riot baton and tampering with witnesses to cover up the incident, according to the Department of Justice. Myers was also charged with destroying evidence. Officer Bailey Colletta was indicted on a charge of providing false statements to a federal grand jury in connection with the incident.
The indictment also details text messages between Myers and Boone in which they talk about how much fun it will be to beat "the hell out of these s**theads once the sun goes down and no one can tell us" apart.
CNN attempted to reach the city of St. Louis, the SLMPD and associations representing the officers, but has not received a response.
In September 2017, all four officers were assigned to a Civil Disobedience Team, which conducts crowd control, in anticipation of a protest against the acquittal of Officer Jason Stockley, the US Department of Justice said in a news release.
Stockley was a St. Louis police officer in 2011 when he fatally shot a black driver, Anthony Lamar Smith, after a police chase. Stockley, who is white, claimed he was acting in self-defense because he believed Smith was reaching for a gun. Prosecutors argued that Stockley planted the gun to justify the shooting.
www.cnn.com
It should be obvious that they don't screw this up this bad every time. Most of the time the provocateurs and the uniformed officers are better coordinated.
|
On December 01 2018 02:07 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2018 00:28 Danglars wrote:You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.
Hillary Clinton, one month ago This came to mind on the topic of political tribes. Civility, but only once and if my team comes back into power. Because you see these other guys... Come on Mueller report, show down your cards soon, sir! Yeah. It'd be great if your guys believed in the same idea, though, wouldn't it? The closest Trump's ever come to stirring civility was his inauguration speech. And the rest of the party's followed suit.
Civility has become totemistic word to evoke some bygone era where Republicans and Democrats worked together that everyone believes existed. But that wasn’t the 2000s, unless you count the patriot act and everything modern democrats run from. That shit was back in like 1980s or earlier. Even then, it wasn’t sunshine and roses. But it was just farm state representatives fighting the representatives from the manufacturing states, or whatever. It is bullshit and no one really wants it. They claim they do, but Republicans and Democrats are not rewarded by their voters to compromising. And there are plenty of rich donors who love it that way.
The Republicans know what is coming, which is a fist fight in congress and a bunch of very damning reports about a compromised President who is more interested in making money for himself than anything else. The democrats main focus is going to be oversight and keeping their majority. And considering that majority was powered by independent voters, they are going to have to pass some bills. Because polling shows the independent voters hate gridlock(but don’t vote in the primaries, which is the cause of the gridlock).
|
On December 01 2018 04:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2018 02:07 iamthedave wrote:On December 01 2018 00:28 Danglars wrote:You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.
Hillary Clinton, one month ago This came to mind on the topic of political tribes. Civility, but only once and if my team comes back into power. Because you see these other guys... Come on Mueller report, show down your cards soon, sir! Yeah. It'd be great if your guys believed in the same idea, though, wouldn't it? The closest Trump's ever come to stirring civility was his inauguration speech. And the rest of the party's followed suit. Civility has become totemistic word to evoke some bygone era where Republicans and Democrats worked together that everyone believes existed. But that wasn’t the 2000s, unless you count the patriot act and everything modern democrats run from. That shit was back in like 1980s or earlier. Even then, it wasn’t sunshine and roses. But it was just farm state representatives fighting the representatives from the manufacturing states, or whatever. It is bullshit and no one really wants it. They claim they do, but Republicans and Democrats are not rewarded by their voters to compromising. And there are plenty of rich donors who love it that way. The Republicans know what is coming, which is a fist fight in congress and a bunch of very damning reports about a compromised President who is more interested in making money for himself than anything else. The democrats main focus is going to be oversight and keeping their majority. And considering that majority was powered by independent voters, they are going to have to pass some bills. Because polling shows the independent voters hate gridlock(but don’t vote in the primaries, which is the cause of the gridlock).
That your way of saying they are going to pass Republican legislation despite having a majority in the house? Like funding a wall, making medicare for all virtually impossible (with their new rules), stuff like that?
|
On December 01 2018 00:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.
Hillary Clinton, one month ago This came to mind on the topic of political tribes. Civility, but only once and if my team comes back into power. Because you see these other guys... Come on Mueller report, show down your cards soon, sir!
Please don't take a quote from her and apply it to democrats as a party. She doesn't know what the F she's talking about.
Aside from the fact that her quote is stupid at face value, the correct thing for her to say on the topic was nothing.
She really needs to fall off the face of the earth.
|
George H. W. Bush has died. I'll remember him as he lived, a despicable war criminal and serial groper.
|
|
|
My experience with the legal system tells me it was a DA who didn't actually read the case, rather than back down when that became apparent, he doubled down on the "but how abusive is this guy really?".
I was just talking with a couple of my Trump supporter buddies about something sorta like this not too long ago. Basically one of em has a fuck up brother that looks vaguely like him and my buddy got locked up and had a case pending because his brother used his name (before running from cops). Then when he was still in jail from that, his brother did it again and the DA was still bringing charges on my buddy despite being in jail for their first fuckup at the time the DA was alleging my buddy stole a car and a bunch of other shit. The DA's office had been notified multiple times that they had the wrong person including from the local police department that was familiar with my buddy's brother and the jail that was holding my innocent buddy.
The DA actually tried to get him to take a plea. No shit. Whether the DA knew he fucked up and just wanted to get out of it or was so unbelievably oblivious/incompetent that he still didn't know he was talking to the wrong person was never really clear though.
Eventually when they found his brother he got out (did like 2 weeks total) and the state tried to pretend they didn't do anything wrong. Last I heard he was going to try to sue but the first lawyers he called said he'd just lose anyway and wouldn't take it on a percentage.
TLDR: It's a terrible story but pretty much par for the US justice system.
|
Well, I have a few thoughts. First and foremost, this person is not very bright. Second, going to the police before departing to South Carolina was her biggest mistake. She needed to talk with an attorney first. I don't know what California's family law, divorce, and custody statutes look like, but she clearly ignored them, which is never wise. Even if what she did is legal (and I'm not positive about that), failing to account for how her boyfriend might respond was dumb. Finally, I wouldn't put much credence into her recitation of the judicial proceedings. Most lay people truly have no idea what is actually going on in a court room and why.
|
On November 30 2018 19:07 iamthedave wrote:
I thought Uranium One had already been stabbed to death and revealed to be nonsense?
And if you're going to mention the Clinton Foundation, you can't ignore the Trump Foundation, which is even more dubious. And at that point you're emphasising the dubious activities of a private citizen over the far more dubious activities of the President of the United States of America. Go after both, or go after neither, else you just look like you're engaging in typical partisan hackery.
Following on from the earlier back and forth; if Hitler had never ever declared war on the United States, do you think the US would have entered the European sphere of WW 2 at all or stayed out of it?
Well, apparently we're going to find out next week whether the investigations into Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation are nonsense. The DA tasked with the investigation the Clinton Foundation is set to testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. What is already known, however, is that there are two whistleblowers from the Clinton Foundation who are cooperating with the authorities.
|
On December 02 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 19:07 iamthedave wrote:
I thought Uranium One had already been stabbed to death and revealed to be nonsense?
And if you're going to mention the Clinton Foundation, you can't ignore the Trump Foundation, which is even more dubious. And at that point you're emphasising the dubious activities of a private citizen over the far more dubious activities of the President of the United States of America. Go after both, or go after neither, else you just look like you're engaging in typical partisan hackery.
Following on from the earlier back and forth; if Hitler had never ever declared war on the United States, do you think the US would have entered the European sphere of WW 2 at all or stayed out of it? Well, apparently we're going to find out next week whether the investigations into Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation are nonsense. The DA tasked with the investigation the Clinton Foundation is set to testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. What is already known, however, is that there are two whistleblowers from the Clinton Foundation who are cooperating with the authorities.
Yes. This doesn't sound at all like the usual overly optimistic reporting about the Mueller investigation you yourself have lambasted repeatedly... come on, Daunt. Your guys have been after Clinton for ages now. Do you really think this'll finally be the one that does it?
|
On December 02 2018 02:50 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 19:07 iamthedave wrote:
I thought Uranium One had already been stabbed to death and revealed to be nonsense?
And if you're going to mention the Clinton Foundation, you can't ignore the Trump Foundation, which is even more dubious. And at that point you're emphasising the dubious activities of a private citizen over the far more dubious activities of the President of the United States of America. Go after both, or go after neither, else you just look like you're engaging in typical partisan hackery.
Following on from the earlier back and forth; if Hitler had never ever declared war on the United States, do you think the US would have entered the European sphere of WW 2 at all or stayed out of it? Well, apparently we're going to find out next week whether the investigations into Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation are nonsense. The DA tasked with the investigation the Clinton Foundation is set to testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. What is already known, however, is that there are two whistleblowers from the Clinton Foundation who are cooperating with the authorities. Yes. This doesn't sound at all like the usual overly optimistic reporting about the Mueller investigation you yourself have lambasted repeatedly... come on, Daunt. Your guys have been after Clinton for ages now. Do you really think this'll finally be the one that does it?
Considering that there was no real investigation into her until Trump came into office, let's see what happens (and this is presuming that Huber is actually doing something, which I think is a big presumption). There's a ton of evidence that the officials from the previous administration covered for the Clintons on at least the email scandal, ranging from Comey's prematurely drafted statement exonerating her to the burying of evidence that multiple foreign actors had hacked into her server.
|
On December 02 2018 02:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2018 02:50 iamthedave wrote:On December 02 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 19:07 iamthedave wrote:
I thought Uranium One had already been stabbed to death and revealed to be nonsense?
And if you're going to mention the Clinton Foundation, you can't ignore the Trump Foundation, which is even more dubious. And at that point you're emphasising the dubious activities of a private citizen over the far more dubious activities of the President of the United States of America. Go after both, or go after neither, else you just look like you're engaging in typical partisan hackery.
Following on from the earlier back and forth; if Hitler had never ever declared war on the United States, do you think the US would have entered the European sphere of WW 2 at all or stayed out of it? Well, apparently we're going to find out next week whether the investigations into Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation are nonsense. The DA tasked with the investigation the Clinton Foundation is set to testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. What is already known, however, is that there are two whistleblowers from the Clinton Foundation who are cooperating with the authorities. Yes. This doesn't sound at all like the usual overly optimistic reporting about the Mueller investigation you yourself have lambasted repeatedly... come on, Daunt. Your guys have been after Clinton for ages now. Do you really think this'll finally be the one that does it? Considering that there was no real investigation into her until Trump came into office, let's see what happens (and this is presuming that Huber is actually doing something, which I think is a big presumption). There's a ton of evidence that the officials from the previous administration covered for the Clintons on at least the email scandal, ranging from Comey's prematurely drafted statement exonerating her to the burying of evidence that multiple foreign actors had hacked into her server.
Clinton was never 'really' investigated during the umpteen BENGHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZI hearings?
I find it suspicious that when I google this issue all I get are conservative hits and tiny pieces from centrish and left sources. That suggests to me it's probably not got much teeth to it. But yes, we'll see what the investigative folk say next week. I'd suggest you temper your enthusiasm though, because it'll very likely add up to exactly nothing like all the other attempts to sink Clinton via investigations into alleged dubious behaviour.
|
Happy siege tank level-up!
|
On December 02 2018 05:30 LegalLord wrote:
Happy siege tank level-up!
Oh shit, I didn't even notice that! Thanks 
|
I mean I've said this before but the Clintons and UBS or them and Haiti would be much clearer examples than the uranium one story.
Also gratz on the tank dave
|
Gotta love the US's propensity to arm criminals out of naked self interest.
|
On December 02 2018 05:16 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2018 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2018 02:50 iamthedave wrote:On December 02 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 19:07 iamthedave wrote:
I thought Uranium One had already been stabbed to death and revealed to be nonsense?
And if you're going to mention the Clinton Foundation, you can't ignore the Trump Foundation, which is even more dubious. And at that point you're emphasising the dubious activities of a private citizen over the far more dubious activities of the President of the United States of America. Go after both, or go after neither, else you just look like you're engaging in typical partisan hackery.
Following on from the earlier back and forth; if Hitler had never ever declared war on the United States, do you think the US would have entered the European sphere of WW 2 at all or stayed out of it? Well, apparently we're going to find out next week whether the investigations into Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation are nonsense. The DA tasked with the investigation the Clinton Foundation is set to testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. What is already known, however, is that there are two whistleblowers from the Clinton Foundation who are cooperating with the authorities. Yes. This doesn't sound at all like the usual overly optimistic reporting about the Mueller investigation you yourself have lambasted repeatedly... come on, Daunt. Your guys have been after Clinton for ages now. Do you really think this'll finally be the one that does it? Considering that there was no real investigation into her until Trump came into office, let's see what happens (and this is presuming that Huber is actually doing something, which I think is a big presumption). There's a ton of evidence that the officials from the previous administration covered for the Clintons on at least the email scandal, ranging from Comey's prematurely drafted statement exonerating her to the burying of evidence that multiple foreign actors had hacked into her server. Clinton was never 'really' investigated during the umpteen BENGHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZI hearings? I find it suspicious that when I google this issue all I get are conservative hits and tiny pieces from centrish and left sources. That suggests to me it's probably not got much teeth to it. But yes, we'll see what the investigative folk say next week. I'd suggest you temper your enthusiasm though, because it'll very likely add up to exactly nothing like all the other attempts to sink Clinton via investigations into alleged dubious behaviour.
No, they weren't really investigated. All of the congressional subpoenas were blown off by the Obama administration. The Obama DOJ did nothing other than protect Hillary. And if we look at the email scandal, Comey, et al. swept that thing under the rug as fast they could. Comey, Loretta Lynch, and Huber are all testifying this week about this stuff. Let's see what happens. Clearly something is going on given all of this stuff now surfacing about the Clinton Foundation whistleblowers. This stuff all looks incredibly dirty from the outside and needs to be investigated. There may be nothing there, but it needs to be investigated nonetheless.
|
It seems as though there's a strong probability Bernie runs in 2020. I'm to the left of Bernie but it's going to take quite some maneuvering to overcome his advantages.
The media/donors are trying hard with somewhat inexplicable hyping of Beto, likely because they'd really prefer not to have to run Kamala on the top of the ticket. The idea being that Bernie eats her progressive support and Beto eats her more conservative/pro israel/pro O&G support then he can eat Bernie's southern white support. It's the best plan they've come up with to split Bernie's support without just splitting their own. A Warren run is probably in the cards too as she's one of the few potential candidates that could legitimately pull some of Bernie's primary voters.
Overall I think it will be insufficient but they'll be a coordinated ganging up on Bernie as the season continues and it'll be up to Bernie to use it like Trump did and use the focus on his negatives as a strategy to dissuade people from listening to the press which are going to be pushing Kamala, Beto, Michelle speculation, and whomever else they think will pull ratings within the establishment range.
There's the lingering concern it will all be a sham but a lot depends on the reception the people I mentioned get when they raise their name recognition in both Iowa and nationally. Like I said before there aren't really any paths for anyone besides the people I mentioned beyond Super Tuesday so if Bernie runs that's pretty much the (serious contenders) field for 2020.
One problem I see them all having is they'll essentially just be making the same argument as Hillary (while conceding several arguments to Bernie that they refused to in 2016) with less experience and just banking on people giving them an undeserved benefit of the doubt and not being disappointed by a toothless Mueller report.
BURLINGTON, Vt. (AP) — An insurgent underdog no more, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is laying the groundwork to launch a bigger presidential campaign than his first, as advisers predict he would open the 2020 Democratic presidential primary season as a political powerhouse.
A final decision has not been made, but those closest to the 77-year-old self-described democratic socialist suggest that neither age nor interest from a glut of progressive presidential prospects would dissuade him from undertaking a second shot at the presidency. And as Sanders’ brain trust gathered for a retreat in Vermont over the weekend, some spoke openly about a 2020 White House bid as if it was almost a foregone conclusion.
“This time, he starts off as a front-runner, or one of the front-runners,” Sanders’ 2016 campaign manager Jeff Weaver told The Associated Press, highlighting the senator’s proven ability to generate massive fundraising through small-dollar donations and his ready-made network of staff and volunteers.
Weaver added: “It’ll be a much bigger campaign if he runs again, in terms of the size of the operation.”
Amid the enthusiasm — and there was plenty in Burlington as the Sanders Institute convened his celebrity supporters, former campaign staff and progressive policy leaders — there were also signs of cracks in Sanders’ political base. His loyalists are sizing up a prospective 2020 Democratic field likely to feature a collection of ambitious liberal leaders — and not the establishment-minded Hillary Clinton.
Instead, a new generation of outspoken Democrats such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and California Sen. Kamala Harris are expected to seek the Democratic nomination. All three have embraced Sanders’ call for “Medicare for All” and a $15 minimum wage, among other policy priorities he helped bring into the Democratic mainstream in the Trump era.
Acknowledging the stark differences between the 2016 and 2020 fields, Hollywood star Danny Glover, who campaigned alongside Sanders in 2016, would not commit to a second Sanders’ candidacy when asked this weekend.
“I don’t know what 2020 looks like right now,” Glover said before taking a front-row seat for Sanders’ opening remarks. “I’m going to support who I feel to be the most progressive choice.”
apnews.com
EDIT: Did some more looking around and Kamala is even weaker than a lot of reports have made it seem. I get the Beto hype a bit better now.
|
On the bright side for democrats, the people seem to be sticking a fork in the Clintons, which the DNC has repeatedly failed to do. No one is showing up to their stadium tour, and Maureen Dowd devoted her column this weekend to eulogizing the Clintons as premier political operators.
|
On December 04 2018 02:19 xDaunt wrote:
On the bright side for democrats, the people seem to be sticking a fork in the Clintons, which the DNC has repeatedly failed to do. No one is showing up to their stadium tour, and Maureen Dowd devoted her column this weekend to eulogizing the Clintons as premier political operators.
There's part of me that thinks she'd rather die than see another woman become president or even VP and that helped keep the early push for Kamala in check. I like to think she couldn't possibly be that cynical, but it is Hillary Clinton we're talking about who is still married to Bill Clinton.
Her name will come up if they do manage to have a split (even if it has to be manufactured by even more wishful thinking than Bernie supporters were accused of) and speculations on how she could unite the party and campaign on "I told you so".
I think Kamala Harris realized she can't wait to get busy in South Carolina and get at least 1 top 3-4 in Iowa or NH and is teasing an announcement in January 2019. I find it hard to believe she can possibly cut off coordinating with her superPACs so early though so it'll probably be a Jebesque "I'm just hanging out in primary states and raising tons of money for my superPAC to get a better idea if I'm going to run" type announcement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
