Tag Archives: law enforcement

Flynn proves: yes, it’s a Soft Coup

Posted on by

I have said and written since January of 2017 — three long years — that what we are witnessing in the United States of America is a Soft Coup against a presidential nominee, a president-elect, and a sitting president.

I was writing and saying that, again, years before it became “cool” to do so. Because I had insight to laws violated and, well, I also have at my disposal a grasp of history, facts, logic, rationality, proportion, tradition, context, intent and common sense.

And because those things — power, mighty applications of power, propaganda and weight — can be applied to one president by whom the forces of the Deep State disagree, well, it can thusly be easily applied to another president of a different party by similarly-arrayed forces.

But that’s immaterial with the LDAMM: Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots.

With a number of caveats, of course, including the American Media Maggot factor. Because the AMM will never side with Republicans or Conservatives, not unless and until the AMM are totally eradicated and reinvented. Which may, in time, occur. We certainly know they are moribund.

The AMM hate to be called Fake News, except they continue to go out of their way to prove, each and every week, that they are indeed Fake News.

NBC admits Chuck Todd’s ‘Meet the Press’ deceptively edited Barr remarks on Flynn

by Greg Re, 5-11-20

NBC News’ Chuck Todd aired a deceptively edited clip of Attorney General Bill Barr discussing the Michael Flynn case during his “Meet the Press” broadcast on Sunday, prompting the network to concede the mistake hours later — but there is still no word on whether Todd will apologize on-air.

Asked by CBS News’ Catherine Herridge how history would judge the DOJ’s decision to move to dismiss the Flynn case, Barr initially responded, laughing: “Well, history is written by the winners, so it largely depends on who’s writing the history.”

After the brief clip aired, Todd remarked that he was “struck by the cynicism of the answer — it’s a correct answer, but he’s the attorney general. He didn’t make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that, yeah, this was a political job.”

In the full clip, which the NBC show did not air, Barr immediately went on to state explicitly that, in fact, he felt the Flynn decision upheld the rule of law.

“I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law,” Barr said. “It upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.”

Here’s how the full cut went, with Catherine Herridge.

That was NBC’s American Media Maggot hit job on William Barr — because he had the guts to do his job.

This all stemmed, of course, when the Department of Justice decided to drop charges against General Michael Flynn on May   .

But even before that, documents were unsealed on April 30th, indicating the collusion really occurred with the FBI regarding General Flynn.

Gregg Jarrett: FBI’s actions in Michael Flynn case should send a chill down your spine

by Julia Musto

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said Thursday that explosive new internal FBI documents unsealed Wednesday evening in the government’s case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn are the most “outrageous” and “unethical” actions by government officials that he has seen in 40 years of practicing law.

In an interview on “Fox & Friends” with hosts Steve Doocy, Ainsley Earhardt, and Brian Kilmeade, Jarrett explained the findings.

“You know, I thought this is the most outrageous, unethical, dishonest, and corrupt act I have ever seen. And, I have been a lawyer for 40 years. I have never seen such misbehavior by government officials,” he remarked.

You can read the documents here.

Rep Jim Jordan told us what he thought the released documents indicated.

And then former Rep Trey Gowdy weighed in on same.

But what did fired former FBI Director Jimmy “The Leak” Comey say, in 2019, about why he sent FBI agents to the White House? Jimmy reveals: it was a purposeful Perjury Trap. And he did it because he could. He thinks it’s amusing.

Never before have I seen such a sanctimonious, hypocritical, entitled, arrogant, self-serving, preening, alleged law enforcement officer in my life. He is right is better, more sacrosanct and devout than you will ever be.

From RedState.com:

New Docs Tie Obama in to Effort Against Flynn, Biden Also in Room

by Nick Arama, 5-7-20

You can make the judgment call here, but this does not look good for former President Barack Obama.

According to the newly released documents from the Department of Justice, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates learned about the effort against Gen. Michael Flynn from Obama himself.

From Townhall:

“Yates first learned of the December 2016 calls between [LTG Michael] Flynn and [Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergey] Kislyak on January 5, 2017, while in the Oval Office. Yates, along with then FBI-Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, were at the White House to brief members of the Obama Administration on the classified Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities in Recent U.S Elections. President Obama was joined by his National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and others from the National Security Council,” the document states.

“After the briefing, Obama dismissed the group but asked Yates and Comey to stay behind. Obama started by saying he had ‘learned of the information about Flynn’ and his conversation with Kislyak about sanctions. Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information. At that point, Yates had no idea what the President was talking about, but figured it out based on the conversation. Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act, but can’t recall if he specified there was an ‘investigation,’” it continues.

But how can you discover information if you fail — as the American Media Maggots have purposely failed to do — to even ask the basic question:

And even after all this time, has anyone asked Obama or Biden: what did you know and when did you know it?

John Solomon — an excellent journalist — writes at Just The News:

Schiff releases transcripts undercutting Dem claims of Russia collusion proof

by John Solomon, 5-7-20

FBI officials admit they knew Papadopoulos had little contact with Russians but opened probe anyways. DNC-connected lawyer reveals CIA contact.

The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday released thousands of pages of declassified interview transcripts from the Russia investigation that show that more than a year into the probe senior FBI and intelligence officials could offer no specific proof of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Moscow and instead offered rambling explanations of why the probe had persisted.

The testimony of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe typified the testimony that was given back in 2017 to the committee, then under the leadership of Rep. Devin Nunes.

McCabe admitted at one point that while the FBI opened up the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation based on a tip from Australia that George Papadopoulos may have been told Russia possessed emails of Hillary Clinton, the bureau suspected the former Trump campaign adviser had little or no contact with Moscow.

You can see for yourself. Go here for Russia Investigation Transcripts and Documents.

So agents pivoted instead to another adviser, Carter Page, who had been the focus of Christopher Steele’s now-discredited dossier, he explained.

“Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had — that was interacting with the Russians,” McCabe answered when asked by lawmakers why a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant request in October 2016 focused only on Page and not the man the FBI originally predicated the Trump investigation upon.

It was one of the few extraordinary admissions from McCabe: The FBI opened up an entire counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign on a figure agents did not believe was having contact with Moscow.

But wait; it’s all a Nothing Burger that Schiff had to cover up. Schiff said this:

In releasing the transcripts Thursday, the current Democratic House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff claimed they provided proof of nefarious connections between Russians and Trump associates. “The transcripts released today richly detail evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election,” he alleged.

But this was actually in the documents.

JAMES CLAPPER:

In fact, witnesses were repeatedly pressed to offer specific evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia and could offer none, saying it was either too preliminary or they did not have any. 

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told lawmakers. “That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence.

“But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence,” he added  

LORETTA LYNCH:

Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified that by the time she left office on Jan. 20, 2017 with the case more than six months old, she was unaware of any direct evidence of collusion.

“I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me, and it’s just my recollection at this point is not,” she said. She added that what officials had was mostly fears Russia might be working with Trump.

“Certainly the information that was given in [redacted] was concerning to me and indicated that there was a goal to have coordinated activity,” she said. 

SALLY YATES:

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who worked for both Obama and Trump, also acknowledged there had been no determination of any conspiracy to collude before she was fired. Her winding answer was typical of many of the witnesses.

“I think you need to learn — if you want to get to the bottom line answer of was there collusion, conspiracy or coordination — if I got the three Cs right — then you also need to learn about who had contact, because you can’t get to that collusion — the other — the three Cs there, until you figure out who’s having contact with who,” she said.

Pressed to be more specific, Yates conceded there was no finding. “I don’t believe anybody had reached a conclusion yet as to whether there was a nefarious alliance … with the Russians. We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

MARY McCORD:

Mary McCord, the former assistant attorney general for national security, also testified that by the time she left the department a year into the probe there was no evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia to hack DNC or Clinton campaign officials.

“I can’t recall if there was information, any information or evidence at the time I left about conspiring to take part in the actual intrusion,” she said.

ANDREW McCABE:

“What is the most damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier that you now know is true?” McCabe was asked during his December 2017 interview.

“Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

BEN RHODES:

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Rhodes said he did not.

“I wouldn’t have received any information on any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing, so I would not have seen that information,” Rhodes told investigators.

Pressed again on the topic, he continued, “I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.”

SAMANTHA POWER:

Samantha Power, former US ambassador to the United Nations, has publicly accused Trump of catering to Russian President Vladimir Putin to compensate him for interfering in the 2016 election.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year.

But when speaking under oath to House investigators, she sang a different tune.

Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.”

SUSAN RICE:

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice told ABC’s “This Week” in July 2018 that questioning if President Trump was compromised by the Russians was “legitimate” because Putin was benefitting by the commander in chief’s policy decisions.

“What his motivations are I think is a legitimate question … the policies that this president has pursued globally have served Vladimir Putin’s interests,” she said at the time.

Less than a year earlier, however, Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election.

“I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

The American Media Maggots also did their jobs on behalf of Russia — as you knew they would.

From TheFederalist.com:

Obama, Biden Oval Office Meeting On January 5 Was Key To Entire Anti-Trump Operation

by Mollie Hemingway, 5-8-20

Susan Rice’s bizarre Inauguration Day email about that meeting helps explain the campaign of leaks, lies, and obstruction that followed.

Information released in the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case it brought against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn confirms the significance of a January 5, 2017, meeting at the Obama White House. It was at this meeting that Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration’s utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia, from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.

“President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,” National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote in an unusual email to herself about the meeting that was also attended by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director James Comey, and Vice President Joe Biden.

Remember that convoluted email?

A clearer picture is emerging of the drastic steps that were taken to accomplish Obama’s goal in the following weeks and months. Shortly thereafter, high-level operatives began intensely leaking selective information supporting a supposed Russia-Trump conspiracy theory, the incoming National Security Advisor was ambushed, and the incoming Attorney General was forced to recuse himself from oversight of investigations of President Trump. At each major point in the operation, explosive media leaks were a key strategy in the operation to take down Trump.

Not only was information on Russia not fully shared with the incoming Trump team, as Obama directs, the leaks and ambushes made the transition chaotic, scared quality individuals away from working in the administration, made effective governance almost impossible, and materially damaged national security. When Comey was finally fired on May 9, in part for his duplicitousness regarding his handling of the Russia collusion theory, he orchestrated the launch of a Special Counsel probe that continued his efforts for another two years. That probe ended with Mueller finding no evidence of any American colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election, much less Trump or anyone connected to him.

Read the rest of the article. It goes step-by-step in a clear timeline delineating everything.

Listen now to Adam Schiff. Psychologists term this kind of thing “projection.”

One of the biggest questions, of course, is this: who will fold first? Who will try to cut a deal with the DOJ first? Because whoever makes that decision will get the cushion deal and the rest will be out in the cold.

Here is Obama’s former DNI, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, throwing Barack Hussein Obama under the bus. Do you enjoy hot kitchens much, JC?

You know; the same James Clapper who lied before Congress in 2013.

The case against General Flynn was dropped by the Department of Justice on Thursday of last week. Here is Politico’s take — and please note the biased stance.

DOJ drops criminal case against Michael Flynn

by Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney, 5-7-20

The move comes after the president and his allies stepped up their assault on the legal case against the former national security adviser.

The Justice Department has abandoned its prosecution of President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, throwing in the towel on one of the most prominent cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller.

The move represents a remarkable reversal two and half years after Flynn initially pleaded guilty to the FBI about his dealings with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. In that time, the case has taken a number of dramatic turns: Flynn went from the precipice of being sentenced in 2018, to abruptly switching legal teams in 2019, to trying to withdraw his guilty plea in 2020. Flynn’s attempt to take back his plea led Attorney General William Barr in January to assign a federal prosecutor to review the case.

It was that review that led to the move on Thursday to dismiss the case altogether. Department officials, including Barr, concluded in light of recently disclosed evidence that the FBI’s questioning of Flynn just four days after Trump’s inauguration lacked a proper investigative basis. Flynn admitted in front of two federal judges that he intentionally lied during that interview about his dealings with the Russian ambassador, but the retired U.S. Army lieutenant general formally retreated from those admissions in January.

“A review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never ‘material’ to any FBI investigation,” read the motion filed Thursday seeking to dismiss the criminal prosecution.

This was a Mark I, Model I “Perjury Trap” plain and simple, because I’ve seen them, I’ve worked them. Director Comey admitted to it, plainly and clearly. It was a fishing expedition.

For what? Russia “collusion”? You want to talk about Machiavellian? How’s this for convoluted? The famed Susan Rice “cover your ass” email at the end of the Obama regime.

Try to follow. The Obama Regime and Susan Rice believed General Flynn had to be Putin’s Poodle because he was — correctly, as certainly is confirmed now — emphasizing the threat and danger China is to the United States, whilst also indicating that Russia was — and is — the world stage “has been.”

Thusly proving that General Flynn was a Russian stooge and required targeting.

But mostly because Flynn was a clear threat. For one, he planned to revamp pretty much all seventeen intelligence agencies and, to them, that was a true existential threat. Jobs could be lost! Power could be lost! Control could be lost!

The bastard’s gotta go, the Obama Administration agreed.

For a moment, let’s go back to 2017 and the truthful Marie Harf, Obama devotee extraordinaire.

Let’s also go back to 2018 for this article from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Memo: FBI recommended Michael Flynn not have lawyer present during interview, did not warn of false statement consequences

by Byron York, 12-11-18

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who arranged the bureau’s interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 — the interview that ultimately led to Flynn’s guilty plea on one count of making false statements — suggested Flynn not have a lawyer present at the session, according to newly-filed court documents. In addition, FBI officials, along with the two agents who interviewed Flynn, decided specifically not to warn him that there would be penalties for making false statements because the agents wanted to ensure that Flynn was “relaxed” during the session.

The new information, drawn from McCabe’s account of events plus the FBI agents’ writeup of the interview — the so-called 302 report — is contained in a sentencing memo filed Tuesday by Flynn’s defense team.

Citing McCabe’s account, the sentencing memo says that shortly after noon on Jan. 24 — the fourth day of the new Trump administration — McCabe called Flynn on a secure phone in Flynn’s West Wing office. The two men discussed business briefly and then McCabe said that he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” with Flynn to discuss Flynn’s talks with Russian officials during the presidential transition.

McCabe, by his own account, urged Flynn to talk to the agents alone, without a lawyer present. “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only,” McCabe wrote. “I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.”

Can anyone say “Perjury Trap” again? Hands? Bueller?

Chief conspirator himself, Barack Hussein Obama, had to weigh in on the DOJ dropping the Flynn investigation. Ever notice how Obama isn’t the so-called incredibly brilliant orator when a TelePrompter isn’t around?

Why does Barack Hussein Obama care? His presidential ship has sailed. That’s yesterday’s news. Unless he somehow fears that orange really is the new blue.

And speaking of Obama, why doesn’t he want to let us see his archives? I thought — no, wait, I know — Obama said his was going to be the most transparent presidential administration in the history of history.

Obama Sends Private Letter to National Archives Claiming ‘Confidentiality’ To Not Release Biden-Ukraine Docs

by Gregg Jarrett, 5-10-20

What exactly is Obama concerned with in regard to the “confidentiality interests that all presidents have sought to protect?”

Former President Barack Obama has inserted himself into the Russia, Ukraine fiasco; arguably this was not the first time. While Democrats have been denying and protecting their guilt in creating and advancing the Russia Hoax, there is evidence that suggests President Obama likely was aware of the probe. Fox News has obtained a letter from the office of former President Barack Obama to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which manages presidential records.

Why would Obama, four years after leaving office, suddenly get involved? The letter to the National Archives was privately sent in March. Arguably they did not want Fox News to obtain a copy. Nonetheless, the letter bashes Senate Republicans and their investigation of Hunter Biden’s dealings with Ukraine. Hunter, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, joined the Ukraine company during the Obama administration. Very intriguing.

Obama’s letter to the NARA is a response to Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson having requested the Obama administration records on Ukraine-related meetings, placed on November 21, 2019. Obama’s letter claims the senators’ inquiry is an effort “to shift the blame for Russian interference in the 2016 election to Ukraine.”

In retrospect, it appear the Obama Administration was in fact one of the most opaque administrations.

So depending upon the prevailing political prairie winds, the Leftists and American Media Maggots will always align with, alternately — whenever it suits their purposes of working against President Trump in any fashion — Russia, China, or the loving Nazi George Soros.

While we’re here, let’s remind ourselves of what was said between Hillary Clinton and James Comey in 2016.

And let’s review how I knew James Comey was lying back in 2016, and couldn’t be trusted or believed from that point forward. As I wrote in early 2017:

It is crystal clear from the evidence released by the FBI after the first investigation that the former Secretary of State used a private email server to transmit national security information rather than safeguard such information, as required by law, and that she subsequently made statements contrary to the facts as we continue to learn.

Second, the real actor in this Theater of the Absurd is the Justice Department’s decision to commence an investigation that was a sham from the very beginning. After all, it was the Justice Department that failed to convene a grand jury, issue search warrants for computers, place witnesses under oath and appoint a special prosecutor who could operate free from conflicts of interest. Hey, just like Robert Mueller, right?

Then FBI Director James Comey “cleared” Hillary Clinton of all wrongdoing on July 5th of last year.

Comey admits that Clinton lied.  But here is the difference (that we won’t know precisely because there was no oath and no recording).

You can lie publicly all you want, if people are sufficiently stupid to believe it — like much of the electorate and the American Media Maggots are doltish enough.  But you should not lie to the FBI.  My guess is that Hillary Clinton came relatively clean in 3.5 hours.  And that is why I believe she was not placed under oath and the interview was not recorded.  Things like that make it easier to dispute later when politically necessary.

But James Comey outed himself to Jason Chaffetz:

Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.

“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “

And this is how James Comey attempts to rationalize his decision.  He states he does not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization.  All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.”  That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do. Their jobs.  They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.

As I have said time and again, there are two kinds of crimes as written by statute: those of general intent and those of specific intent. Comey stated that HRC had to have possessed a very specific intent to commit her crimes. EXCEPT that the US codes applicable are not those of specific intent because they do not include the phrase “with the intent to.”

That is how a crime of specific intent is crafted. It is stated.

Even more disturbing: Attorney General Lynch did not recuse herself from the final decision on whether to prosecute the case — nor did she give that decision to a career prosecutor at the Department of Justice. She instead prejudged the case by supposedly blindly accepting the FBI’s recommendation.

“[AG Lynch] said…she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made…” –NYTimes July 1, 2016

Of course she would. The fix was in. And Comey was predestined to take whatever fall occurred, not her. After all, he is white and male; she is black and female.

Here, Maria Bartiromo speaks with Devin Nunes about the situation.

Now we’re discovering that, of course, Barack Hussein Obama knew what was going on with Flynn — but Joe Biden knew as well. From FoxNews.com:

Obama knew details of wiretapped Flynn phone calls, surprising top DOJ official in meeting with Biden, declassified docs show

by Gregg Re, 5-7-20

President Obama was aware of the details of then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, according to documents released Thursday as exhibits to the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case.

Obama’s unexpectedly intimate knowledge of the details of Flynn’s calls, which the FBI acknowledged at the time were not criminal or even improper, raised eyebrows because of his own history with Flynn — and because top FBI officials secretly discussed whether their goal was to “get [Flynn] fired” when they interviewed him in the White House on January 24, 2017.

Obama personally had warned the Trump administration against hiring Flynn, and made clear he was “not a fan,” according to multiple officials. Obama had fired Flynn as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014; Obama cited insubordination, while Flynn asserted he was pushed out for his aggressive stance on combating lslamic extremism.

Obama knew what was going on. So did Joe Biden. No one can possibly think that Barack Hussein Obama was either a stupid or an uninformed individual in the Oval Office. And particularly when dealing with issues of these importance.

So it’s official: we have a name. ObamaGate. Jesse Watters talks about same.

And listen how the LDAMM, the Leftists, Demorats by way of the American Media Maggot Brian Stelter, want it both ways. Flynn is just a smoke screen for avoiding Wuhan-19 deaths, which is essentially an overblown flu targeting the elderly while — in the meantime — the nation spent almost four straight years being put through the wringer of the constant whining and keening of little officious pricks like George Costanza on CNN.

General Flynn’s lawyer weighs in, from the New York Post:

Flynn’s lawyer accuses Obama of framing the ex-national security adviser

by Mark Moore, 5-10-20

The lead attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Sunday accused former President Barack Obama, other top administration officials and the FBI of setting up her client.

Sidney Powell on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” cited the revelation in recently released-documents that FBI agents didn’t tell Fynn he was under investigation or that lying to them would be a federal crime.

“These agents specifically schemed and planned with each other how to not tip him off, that he was even the person being investigated,” she said.

“So they kept him relaxed and unguarded deliberately as part of their effort to set him up and frame him.”

“The whole thing was orchestrated and set up within the FBI, [former Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper, [Former CIA Director John] Brennan, and in the Oval Office meeting that day with President Obama,” Powell said.

And finally, when you’ve lost New York media, you know things aren’t going well for you. This, just today, from the New York Post:

It looks like President Obama ordered up phony RussiaGate scandal

by The Post Editorial Board

RussiaGate is now a complete dead letter — but ObamaGate is taking its place. Just how far did the then-president go to cripple his successor?

It’s now clear the Obama-Comey FBI and Justice Department never had anything more substantial than the laughable fiction of the Steele dossier to justify the “counterintelligence” investigation of the Trump campaign. Yet incessant leaks from that supposedly confidential probe wound up consuming the Trump administration’s first months in office — followed by the Bob Mueller-led special counsel investigation that proved nearly the “total witch hunt” that President Trump dubbed it.

Information released as the Justice Department dropped its charges against Gen. Mike Flynn shows that President Barack Obama, in his final days in office, played a key role in fanning the flames of phony scandal. Fully briefed on the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, he knew the FBI had come up with nothing despite months of work starting in July 2016.

Yet on Jan. 5, 2017, Obama told top officials who’d be staying on in the new administration to keep the crucial facts from Team Trump.

And there you have it. ObamaGate.

Sadly, Comey’s FBI played along — sandbagging Flynn with the “friendly” interview that later became the pretext for the bogus charges dropped last week, as well as triggering the White House chaos that led to his ouster. This when the FBI had already gone over the general with a fine-tooth comb, and concluded that, no, he’d done nothing like collude with the Russians.

Meanwhile, Comey himself gave Trump an intentionally misleading briefing on the Steele dossier. That was followed by leaks that suggested the dossier was the tip of an iceberg, rather than a pack of innuendo that hadn’t at all checked out under FBI scrutiny.

Pulitzer Prizes were won for blaring utter fiction; the Trump administration was kneecapped out of the gate. Innocents like Flynn were bankrupted along the way.

Say this about Obama: He knows how to play dirty.

Everyone, up to and including Barack Hussein Obama, in this treasonous chain, should be prosecuted criminally and civilly.

Criminally, under 18 USC 242.

Civilly, under 42 USC 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

And finally: the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine should prevail. Everyone caught, sentenced or affected by the illegal FISA warrant should be set free, to include Manafort and all others.

I have said and written since January of 2017 — three long years — that what we are witnessing in the United States of America is a Soft Coup against a presidential nominee, a president-elect, and a sitting president.

Heads should roll.

And this can never happen again.

BZ

 

 

 Share

Freedom and law enforcement: what are the laws?

Posted on by

A paddleboarder was arrested 4-3-20 for disobeying Governor Newsom’s “stay at home order” on Malibu Beach. It took a sheriff’s boat, a USCG boat, and about $17,000 worth of fuel, time and man-hours to “corral” the miscreant, who faces 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine — at the same time that actual criminals are released from Kalifornia jails. Perspective, anyone?

The fight continues.

And I am perplexed why it does.

I’m not speaking out of school when I say that this issue is tearing through a number of law enforcement contingents on Facebook, with groups featuring retired and current LE members, who have vastly different opinions on the subject.

Altogether too many of them shockingly wrong.

Wrong how? As in marching lockstep with whatever edicts are handed down by local mayors or state governors. I won’t enumerate all the myriad reasons on this post; I already did so on my prior post in great detail. Read it here.

I find this thinking disappointing and, frankly, a bit shocking and certainly disturbing. In my opinion, altogether too many law enforcement officers are willing to look at the computers in their vehicles, acknowledge a call with an easy fingertip, respond, violate rights, and seemingly think nothing of it, all in the name of what I term Fear Porn.

And now, there’s another reason for cops to continue violating your rights. We’ll get to that in a moment.

Perhaps that might have been initially semi-excusable about two months ago when the numbers were still rolling in — and yet, not very excusable when taken in overall context in terms of rights and freedoms in the United States of America.

The subject was already a primary focus, for two entire hours, on my wireless radio show last Thursday night, the 7th, where I delineated the numerous reasons, in significant detail, why too many responses by law enforcement feature unnecessary, over-the-top — and unconstitutional — reactions to situations that can be best served, easily, by other less heavy-handed means.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Thursday, 5-7-20” on Spreaker.

And yet the hits and foolishness just keeps on coming. Please understand, the bulk of what I’m addressing with this post applies primarily, as you will read below, to Kalifornia laws.

The most recent incident that set me off — as well as apparently others in the opposite direction — occurred in Fresno, Kalifornia on May 10th, Sunday, Mother’s Day.

WATCH: Police Shove Through Crowd, Arrest Mother’s Day Diners at Fresno Waffle Shop

by Todd Starnes, 5-10-20

At least two people were hauled away by police after law enforcement officers tried to enter a diner that was illegally opened in Fresno, California.

The diners were waiting in line outside the Waffle Shop. Officers ordered the diners to step aside so they could enter the establishment. When they refused, the officers forcefully shoved aside patrons. It was during that confrontation that at least two people were taken into custody.

Body cam video from Fresno PD.

Then: off to the races on a law enforcement Facebook group. The original post:

So I can’t find the post where the video of my Alma Mater Fresno PD arrested a guy at a restaurant this morning.

I watched the video earlier and only later decided to respond to it. What I saw was an officer meeting two code enforcement officers to make contact with the management of the restaurant probably to cite them for a muni code violation. As they walk up to the door, the crowd gets ugly. There is a guy blocking the door.

The big guy is about 6-03. He blocks the door as a crowd surrounds the officer and tells him he can’t go in. The big guy also gives the officer some sort of forearm or elbow. The officer arrests him.

I know the officer pretty well. He did everything by the book. The crowd and the tall guy were angry and things went down hill because of them not the police. The officer is a good dude who does his job impartially doesn’t get jacked up easily. Don’t judge until the facts are in.

You may not like the fact that code enforcement was going to shut down the restaurant, fine. In my opinion the officer did his job the way he thought it needed to be done.

I disagreed. After a number of comments I wrote:

Maybe the guy’s (the officer) a good guy. At this point it’s becoming immaterial. The numbers and the science aren’t justifying these actions any longer.

I retired as a cop after 41 years in LE. As a Sergeant I wouldn’t have allowed my troops to be the Covid Gestapo.

I can read and people can read. I smell bullshit and people smell bullshit.

You forget the phrase “with the consent of the governed” at your own peril.

From that point the fire was lighted. One deputy responded to my comment.

The police are being used by the politicians to enforce poorly thought-through directives. The public is getting more and more pissed off about these Draconian measures to contain the virus. What will result is civil unrest as the public grows more defiant against the politicians while the police get caught in the middle. It’s a no-win situation for the police.

By the way I’m a retired deputy sheriff and I’m catching a lot of flack from friends who see more and more intrusion on their civil liberties.

He’s correct. Cops are catching crap — properly — for actions such as this. I replied:

My point precisely.

Then there was a response I hadn’t anticipated, corroborating my thoughts.

You might need to get your glasses checked, the guy he arrested never gave him a forearm or elbow. The officer reacted to a verbal challenge and got pissed off. There was no crime, hope you buddy is ready for the law suit. Also ask your buddy how long it will be before he does gun confiscation as ordered.

Then we were off to the races when I wrote:

I’ve read on any number of LE sites how “politics like this” are ruining these sites. Debatable. The overarching points in my mind are Constitutionality and the Bill of Rights. That’s the oath I took. Not to a mayor, not to a governor, but to the US Constitution. Because LE can do a thing, we always need to ask: “are we doing the right thing for the right reason?”

Spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. Discretion. Malum in se vs malum prohibitum.

One individual began the thread.

So what would you have done if you were directed by your supervisor to assist code enforcement with their investigation?

I replied:

Told my troops to C4, gone over myself to look, listen. The city can send paper later. Is it worth getting my troops or citizens hurt over this when the numbers and stats don’t justify it, when I personally see the same thing happening at Costco or Save Mart, or people standing in line for EEO? Nope.

So when rational arguments don’t work, as with everyone else — and attorneys — you go for the ad hominum attacks:

You worked in Sacramento County, one of the most pussified and liberal departments in California. Where you need permission before you can make a request (he meant arrest). I understand your response. But, in real police work, things are a bit different.

So my 41 years mean nothing. Okay. But factually, again, he was sorely incorrect. I responded:

Oh, you mean SAC PD.

Because historically, with the Sacramento Police Department, you need the permission of a SPD Sergeant to make an arrest absent exigent circumstances.

Not so, historically, at the Sacramento Sheriff’s Office where I worked for 35 years, where myself and others were granted trust and utilized discretion — and did not require a Sergeant’s permission for any arrest.

That is one of many reasons that retired SPD officers came over to Sac SO to work as annuitants because, as most every retired SPD officer told me when I supervised EVOC: “If I’d only known this, that you treat your officers like actual adults, I would have gone with you guys.”

Another individual wrote:

Funny we never went with code enforcement people when they did their job, wasn’t our business enforcing health codes and such, only time I ever responded to assist a code enforcement was when the place had a history of getting physical with the code enforcers and I can’t imagine that was the case here, but one never knows. Personally with all the lies and deception coming from newscum I would have on viewed something en route and not gotten their to be involved…..this isn’t about a virus it’s about the upcoming elections…..

Now we’re getting closer to the crux of the biscuit, because here’s another thought:

Where was the on duty patrol Sgt. That would not have happened if those were my troops. I would have led the Code Enforcement officers through the back door, securred the front door after safely ecorting the customers out the back door after they had finished their meals and as as soon as Code Enforcement was done, ecorted them to their vehicles. Sorry Folks the Waffle House is closed until further notice.
10-8 Clear – return to your beats.

The same goon who hated me hated that response. He posed:

Back doors locked. Now what?

The response?

Have dispatch call them and tell them to open the back door. If that doesn’t work, have a unit borrow a crowbar from the Fire Dept. Do I have to do all the thinking? Apparently.

Boom, shaka-laka.

More comments.

We can all debate the officers actions/tactics, etc. But I’ve read several comments on here referring to the officer as “ short shot, gnome, tweedle dum” etc.
It’s disappointing that a few of the arm chair warriors on here feel the need to denigrate an officer who is still out there wearing the badge, doing a difficult job.

And:

That Officer is 5-02 of fury. He is tough as hell any of you who denigrate him based on his size are dicks.

Several comments later, a voice in the wilderness:

The police should not be involved in this issue at this level. Distrust & rebellion are growing, & involving our police is perceived as the overreaction that it is. LE cannot afford further erosion of respect & cooperation. Our collective security is at great risk & anarchy is the result. Big Bird appeared to challenge the officer. I know nothing of him or his motives but that cannot be allowed.

And there we have it. Another comment:

The officers did not have their heads in the game. I led patrol officers as their field Sgt.for 26 years and that was a cluster f..k from the get. They did not follow the 5 Ps – Prior planning prevents piss poor performance.

Then it went to this, and rightly so.

Confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms? Better bring a body bag. Our neighbors, friends and every citizen will ultimately be engaged in armed resistance. We’ll be getting a taste of what it was like to be a Redcoat in 1775. Sure, there will be cops and soldiers who will buy in and enforce such orders. I expect the majority will not. I know of none of the Marines I served with who would comply.

Exactly what I want to hear from law enforcement officers.

Another comment.

“The officer is a good dude who does his job impartially doesn’t get jacked up easily.”

I don’t doubt that at all, but I bet their friends and colleagues would have said much the same about many of the Redcoats at Concord on April 19, 1775.

Sometimes “good guys” follow bad orders, and find themselves on the wrong side of history. Time will tell.

And another comment.

Speaking for myself only, if I had to go out on a call to assist another city department, I just stood by to keep the peace. My dog wasn’t in the fight over too many chickens or how tall somebody’s grass was.
That’s their call. But, if things started going south then I was in charge and called the shots. It wasn’t worth the potential damage trying to force a hand over a municipal code violation.
The department involved could file a report with the city attorney and go about finding another solution. I’d back them but I wasn’t going to get my butt in a sling for them either.

You have to look further down the road. What are the ramifications of this call, particularly a Wuhan-19 call?

The problem today is that the police are in a no win situation. They are expected to uphold the law but in turn are crucified by the press and the public, who know nothing about the law or the situation.

And:

Agencies need to step back and away from all the bull shit. U have people getting arrested and released…real crooks. Not people trying to keep there business going and people hired. Really. Going to arrest people on the beach, or your not social distancing and going to take them. Come on. My son a combat Marine grunt was hired by a agency. After seeing all this the kid withdrew. Told them he wanted nothing to do with what they r doing…He is back in the service

Then this dropped:

I thought this site was an LEO site. All the second guessing sounds like some of you need to be in IA.

A response:

Exactly. Bunch of self righteous assholes

I responded myself:

Who follow the Constitution, Bill of Rights, honor their oaths and don’t blindly obey. So I guess I’m an asshole.

A reply to me:

Right. I’m sure when you were a cop in the 80’s and some asshole mouthed off to you, you immediately thought “of the constitution, bill of rights” and walked away. Come on.

Me:

Apparently you don’t understand the difference between Constitutional and unconstitutional. I’m not someone’s political poodle and this is all politics. These political mayors and governors can fight their own political wars.

Him, with the ad hominum attack, which is what attorneys use when they have no argument.:

Apparently you forgot what it was like to be an officer. Easy for you to judge in retirement how bad ass you were and how you would have done it.

One defender:

Calling out a fellow officer for doing something stupid isn’t anti LEO.

Then I wrote, more pointedly:

Oh please. This is all political bullshit that cops get placed into by fuckhead politicians, meaning it isn’t worth getting my troops embroiled in. I go back to my original reasons above. Numbers, stats, politics.

Then a little more common sense emerged from another officer:

This reminds me of the time I had a municipal code violation for loud music. The guy was ready to go to blows along with his party friends. I issued the ticket noted the refusal, wrote a brief report. The city attorney later got upset and said I should have taken the guy to jail. I asked if they would have stood by me for a use of force complaint over loud music. The look on his face told me I did the correct thing… cops are being pulled into a bad situation with this mess.

Bingo. Thank you. Then another interesting comment making the distinction between a police department and a sheriff’s department.

Can’t fault a city peace officer if he is ordered by a city appointed Police Chief who must answer to city officials who order him to enforce unconstitutionally issued orders, codes or statutes.

A county Sheriff on the other hand is elected and answers directly to his citizens and if he truly believes in the Oath of Office he swore to he will tell those communist leaning officials, whether they be city, county or state, that he will NOT enforce any unconstitutional statue or rule that violates the rights guaranteed to the citizens under the U. S. Constitution.

Whether it be active military or active law enforcement anyone who took the Oath of Office which is a life long obligation, knows full well they do not have to carry out orders they know to be wrong and in this case an egregious violation of the rights of all Americans…….………………

Read what Wikipedia says about governors executive orders. As I interpret it, the governors executive orders apply to only government employees and departments, “NOT” the citizens. If that is the case all of these communist leaning orders they have issued are illegal in the first place and not adhering to an illegality issued statute or code by people exercising their protected rights is not a violation of anything.

Except yes, I still fault the police department.

It’s politics, people. Backed, now that we are cognizant of so many other updates, by smoke and mirrors. The numbers and statistics and even the World Health Organization, the WHO, no longer back the Chinese model, instead selecting the Swedish model. Sounds kind of lascivious. I’d select the Swedish model also.

And on and on it went.

So let’s check the law. Let’s let an attorney grab a part of this.

Please note these salient portions.

California Government Code section 8567 states that all orders under the California Emergency Services Act must be in writing and they take effect immediately. When the governor calls a state of emergency, he may suspend any state statute, rule or regulation. (Cal. Gov. § 8571). Please notice that the governor does not have the authority to suspend the California Constitution. As such, any rights contained in the Constitution are still in force. In fact, to make sure the government understands that there are limits to their authority, Cal. Gov. § 8571.5 expressly states that nothing in the California Emergency Services Act gives the government the right to seize or confiscate any firearm or ammunition unless an officer is arresting someone pursuant to an investigation for the commission of a crime.

And:

On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom Declared a State of Emergency.

On March 11, 2020, Governor Newsom’s office published the fact that it was California Department of Public Health’s policy of preventing gatherings of groups larger than 250 people “should be postponed.” This was not an executive order by the governor, instead it was a California Department of Public Health policy. This policy does not cite a single law that gives the California Department of Public Health authority to shut down events of 250 people or require social distancing of more than 6 feet. While these may be good guidelines to follow, they are simply policies, they are not the law.

To emphasize that this was just a policy and not a law, on March 12, 2020, Newsom issues his next executive order (N-25-20). This executive order states that “All residents are to heed any orders and guidance of state and local public health officials, including but not limited to the imposition of social distancing measures, to control the spread of COVID-19.”

Notice the language of this order. “All residents are to heed any orders and guidance …”. If you look up the word heed in the dictionary, you will discover that it means “to give consideration attention to.” It does not say you must obey. Gavin Newsom in his executive order utilizing his powers granted him after declaring a state of emergency told the citizens of California that Californians should takes the advice given by the California Department of Public Health into consideration when making decisions.

Now a very important part.

Thus, contrary what you may have been led to believe, Gov. Newsom did not actually issue an executive order requiring Californians to practice social distancing, nor did he actually order gatherings of over 250 people to shut down. All he did was order people to pay attention to what these organizations were saying. These were merely recommendations.

Understand, a policy is different from a regulation. While I was able to find authority that allowed the California Department of Health Services to issue emergency regulations after they jumped through a few hoops, I have been unable to find where their policies would have the full force of law. Laws are passed by the legislature, or under the state of emergency, via executive order by the governor.

We’re not done yet.

Cal. Health & Safety § 101040 permits local health officers to take any preventive measures that may be necessary to protect and preserve the public health from any state of emergency declared by the governor. After a local health emergency has been declared, “The sheriff of each county .. may enforce within the county … all orders of the local health officer issued for the purpose of preventing the spread of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease.” (Cal. Health and Safety Code 101029). Cal. Health & Safety § 101030 specifically gives the county health officer the authority to order quarantines.

As one studies California law, it is clear that the law used to be very explicit that a quarantine was only applicable to those who had a contagious disease or those who had come in contact with someone who had a contagious disease.

While most of the laws regarding quarantine are very broad, Cal. Health & Safety § 120215 appears to have limiting language. This statute reads: Upon receiving information of the existence of contagious, infectious, or communicable disease for which the department may from time to time declare the need for strict isolation or quarantine, each health officer shall: (a) Ensure the adequate isolation of each case, and appropriate quarantine of the contacts and premises. (b) Follow the local rules and regulations, and all general and special rules, regulations, and orders of the department, in carrying out the quarantine or isolation.

And finally:

The quarantine laws are clearly intended to be applied to individuals not to the entire county. The quarantine laws are designed to stop those who might have been infected from passing the disease onto others. Absent the local health officers finding that an individual has the disease or is likely to have the disease, California law does not give them broad authority to quarantine the entire county.

As such, it appears counties such as San Francisco that have issued broad shelter in place laws may be violating California law.

Let’s just be plain and obvious. With altogether too many cops in these circumstances, they are taking the calls personally. It becomes a personal affront. That’s not how this works. Not with politics and politicians — who are all to happy to allow cops to get caught in the middle so that they can be kicked to the curb at will.

And by departments, when faced with use of force complaints, aren’t willing to support their officers when they’re correct.

They are failing to see the ramifications of their short-sighted decisions. That’s my job as a Sergeant, to cover my troops, make sure they’re doing the right thing for all the right reasons, and to ensure people are safe and rights are upheld.

Here is an organization that knows how to protect its troops against an absolutely classic “no-win” situation for law enforcement, the New York Police Benevolent Association.

NYPD union wants cops out of ‘social distancing enforcement’

by Tina Moore, 5-4-20

The city’s largest police union is demanding cops get “out of the social distancing enforcement business,” while slamming New York pols for “releasing criminals,” “discouraging proactive policing,” and leaving subways “in chaos.”

“This situation is untenable: the NYPD needs to get cops out of the social distancing enforcement business altogether,” a statement from Police Benevolent Association president Patrick Lynch said.

“The cowards who run this city have given us nothing but vague guidelines and mixed messages, leaving the cops on the street corners to fend for ourselves,” Lynch said. “Nobody has a right to interfere with a police action. But now that the inevitable backlash has arrived, they are once again throwing us under the bus.”

Lynch was referring to a fracas that erupted as NYPD cops were trying to enforce social distancing rules over the weekend in the East Village and a cop was caught on video slapping and hitting a bystander who appeared to challenge him.

Lynch added that the politicians are “still watering down our laws, releasing real criminals and discouraging proactive enforcement of fare evasion and quality of life issues.”

“As a result, our subways are in chaos and we have hero nurses getting mugged on their way to our hospitals,” he said, referring to a nurse who had her phone torn out of her hand in Times Square on April 26. “As the weather heats up and the pandemic continues to unravel our social fabric, police officers should be allowed to focus on our core public safety mission. If we don’t, the city will fall apart before our eyes.”

If only more organizations took this logical stance.

Before I go, this came to the forefront:

The original video can be seen here.

There is also this, from a locality closer to my area, Lodi, Kalifornia:

Lodi Police Officer Says He Was Fired For Refusing To Enforce Stay-At-Home Order

LODI (CBS13) — A Lodi police officer says he was fired for not enforcing the states’ stay-at-home order.

In the past 24 hours, his community has raised thousands of dollars to support his family.

Former Officer Jordan Duncan only worked with the police department for four months. The details of the incident aren’t clear, but city officials confirm an April separation date. They would not go as far as to say that Duncan was fired.

Officials did point to a recent ruling which calls the stay-at-home order “lawful,” and said police officers can’t choose which laws to enforce.

That last paragraph? Wrong. Cops have been using discretion in terms of which laws to apply and when for, literally, over a century.

Two aspects the article fails to point out are that, one, he fronted off the Chief of Police in a briefing, telling him what he would and would not do. The other aspect is, two, that he belongs to the easiest class of person in the world to fire, someone on probation.

THIS JUST IN: A RECENT RAY OF LIGHT

From Breitbart.com:

Fresno County Sheriff Won’t Enforce Stay-at-Home Orders; Too Busy Re-arresting Freed Criminals

by Joel B Pollak, 5-14-20

Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims said Tuesday that she would not be able to enforce Gov. Gavin Newsom’s stay-at-home orders because she was too busy re-arresting accused criminals set free under the state’s new “zero-dollar bail” policy.

Mims appeared on the Trevor Carey Show, discussing the challenges facing law enforcement during the coronavirus pandemic, as well as the economic hardship. She pointed out that government employees were also vulnerable to the economic damage, because the decline in tax revenues meant that state and local governments would cut services.

Carey asked her: “I’ve heard multiple sheriffs around the nation state they will not enforce their governors’ shelter-in-place orders. Is that your position?

“That is my position. We do not stop the public to find out what they’re doing when they’re not sheltering in place. We don’t ask those questions, we don’t ask if they’re ‘essential’. We’ve got our hands full trying to re-arrest people that are released due to zero-dollar bail. So we’ve got other things that are on our mind that are more important than stopping normally law-abiding citizens.”

Fresno County now, officially, has a Good Sheriff.

Clearly, two camps have emerged in law enforcement.

The strict “we follow the orders and directives all the time” camp — and the other, like mine, who insist there are overarching issues we shouldn’t be ignoring — like the rights and freedoms we as peace officers are sworn to uphold, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, no matter the circumstances. I don’t recall the “Time Out, It’s A Bad Flu” clause in any of those documents.

The bottom line is: there’s no doubt this is a proverbial “dry run” for Leftists and Demorats to push the envelope and see what it is that you, the average American citizen, will tolerate in terms of having your freedoms and liberties removed.

Do they only have to provide some kind of “safety crisis” for you to cave and fold? Will Fear Porn do it? How far can you be pushed before you react negatively?

I think we’re starting to see those answers right now.

We cannot allow law enforcement to be wedged into political issues like this. Because we have to do what I term The Logical Extension:

If law enforcement will willingly obey Fear Porn — what will they do when ordered to confiscate firearms from American citizens should Leftists return to power — which they obviously will, some day? And just as Leftists and Demorats said “nah, we’re not coming for your guns,” wrong, they now state openly they’re coming for our firearms.

Doing again The Logical Extension, that means they’re coming for, eventually, all of your rights — every little thing they can steal. IF you stand there complacently and allow it. But wait. Once you have no firearms?

Yeah. You are going to have to stand there and allow it.

I wish I could say I knew for a fact that all law enforcement officers are not going to act unconstitutionally. I cannot.

And that is so foundationally disturbing to my core.

Because I’ve seen all of this, now.

BZ

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Thursday, 8-29-19, with guest ALLEN THOMAS

Posted on by

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Kalifornia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, the capitol building at 10th and L Streets, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursday nights, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.

Hour 1: BZ spoke to the fabulous ALLEN THOMAS, the Saloon’s official Bigfoot, Unexplained, UFO and Paranormal expert and consultant! We talked about ancient aliens, Bigfoot, the Nephilim, Allen’s Squatch Zone channel on YouTube as well as his newest YouTube channel for his drone, Sky Squatchin‘.

Hour 2: BZ presented an SHR Media Network Special Report: “What Do You Want From Law Enforcement,” an examination of today’s state of law enforcement and how recent events have impacted its efficacy and future. Click here for the full transcript.

By the way, if you didn’t already know, BZ is in fact on iHeart radio. Click here. Like Apple products? You can listen to the Saloon here on Apple Podcasts.

If you want to listen to the show on Spreaker, audio only, click on the yellow button below.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Thursday, 8-29-19” on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on the SHR Media YouTube channel, click on the red arrow below. We kindly ask you to SUBSCRIBE to the SHR Media channel.

Please like us and follow us on Facebook! Video of this show is here on Facebook.

Join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep, Facebook as Biff Zeppe and the Bloviating Zeppelin, and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the booze is not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Please remember we only monitor the chat room at SHRMEDIA.COM — though there is chat available on both Facebook and YouTube. Come on over to the SHR chat room where you’ll meet great friends!

  • Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives on Spreaker? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on Periscope? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on the SHR Media Facebook page? Go here.
  • Want to watch past Berserk Bobcat Saloon shows on YouTube? Go here.

Thank you one and all for listening, watching and supporting the SHR Media Network: “Conservative Media Done Right.”

BZ

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Tuesday, 5-28-19, w/special guest DICK MARGARITA

Posted on by

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursday nights, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.

Hours 1 & 2: BZ spoke with DICK MARGARITA, former FBI/DEA agent, attorney, Deputy District Attorney for Sacramento County and adjunct law professor — about law enforcement in general and law enforcement in California. DICK had some great cop stories, tales, and opinions! Furthermore, he was sufficiently kind to stay the entire two hours! Great guest and great show — and massive thanks to the gracious DICK MARGARITA!

If you want to listen to the show on Spreaker, audio only, click on the yellow button below.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Tuesday, 5-28-19” on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on the SHR Media YouTube channel, click on the red arrow below. We kindly ask you to SUBSCRIBE to the SHR Media channel. Please NOTE: For DISH subscribers: your Hopper has recently been wired to play YouTube videos. You can now toss ol’ BZ onto your massive flatscreen TV and watch him in all of his obese, biased and politically-egregious, lamentable goodness — for free!

You can watch the show here on the SHR Media Facebook page. Please like us and follow us on Facebook!

Join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep, Facebook as Biff Zeppe and the Bloviating Zeppelin, and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Please remember we only monitor the chat room at SHRMEDIA.COM — though there is chat available on both Facebook and YouTube. Come on over to the SHR chat room where you’ll meet great friends!

  • Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives on Spreaker? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on Periscope? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on the SHR Media Facebook page? Go here.
  • Want to watch past Berserk Bobcat Saloon shows on YouTube? Go here.

Thank you one and all for listening, watching and supporting the SHR Media Network: “Conservative Media Done Right.”

BZ

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Tuesday, 1-15-19, with special guest Deputy MATT SILVEY

Posted on by

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursday nights, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.

This show featured another SHR Media Network Special Report: “The State of California Law Enforcement,” in which BZ had the distinct honor and pleasure of speaking to Deputy MATT SILVEY, a 22-year-veteran of California law enforcement, who decided that it is time to pull the pin and not just leave law enforcement but leave the state of California as rapidly as possible — directly because of the state of California law enforcement.

Hours 1 and 2: BZ was sufficiently blessed to speak to Deputy Matt for the entire two hours. We spoke about the general state of law enforcement, the challenge of trying to remain sane in a massive Leftist enclave like California, the politics, Antifa, BLM, the caving law enforcement administrations (I’m talking about you San Jose PD, Portland PD, Seattle PD, Berkeley PD, Sacramento PD, UC Berkeley PD), the technology, and the demanding environment in today’s law enforcement venue for perfection and the lack of tolerance for humanity.

Deputy Matt can be found on his website at “Deputy Matt And Those Who Serve.”

Let’s be frank: California, you’re losing a great American. But the truth is, you no longer value great Americans.

If you want to listen to the show in Spreaker, click on the yellow button at the upper left.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Tuesday, 1-15-16” on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on the SHR Media YouTube channel, click on the red start button below. We kindly ask you to SUBSCRIBE to the SHR Media channel. Please NOTE: For DISH subscribers: your Hopper has recently been wired to play YouTube videos. You can now toss ol’ BZ onto your massive flatscreen TV and watch him in all of his obese, biased and politically-egregious, lamentable goodness — for free!

You can watch the show here on the SHR Media Facebook page. Please like and follow us on Facebook.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep, Facebook as Biff Zeppe and the Bloviating Zeppelin, and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Please remember we only monitor the chat room at SHRMEDIA.COM — though there is chat available on both Facebook and YouTube. Come on over to the SHR chat room where you’ll meet great friends!

  • Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives on Spreaker? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on Periscope? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on the SHR Media Facebook page? Go here.
  • Want to watch past Berserk Bobcat Saloon shows on YouTube? Go here.

Thank you one and all for listening, watching and supporting the SHR Media Network: “Conservative Media Done Right.”

BZ

 

 Share