Uvalde Police Enlisted A Biker Group To Harass Members Of The Media

$upport via Cash App

Members of a Texas biker group seemingly harassing a photojournalist covering the Uvalde school shooting incident

As if the senseless massacre of 19 innocent fourth graders, and two of their teachers in their classrooms in Uvalde Texas is not shocking enough, we now find out that the people whose job it was to keep the little kids safe, Uvalde police, are also caught up in a shocking story of their own–an attempted cover up. Norah Lopez, Executive Editor of the San Antonio Express-News, and President of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, said on CNN’s Reliable  Sources(06/05/22) that police in Uvalde have apparently enlisted a biker group to harass and intimidate journalists trying to make sense of their(police)conflicting public statements regarding the shooting–a shocking development indeed. Needless to say, this Uvalde incident has also raised serious questions as to whether moving forward, the mainstream media should treat initial incident reports from police as Gospel truth, as it sadly happens often.

Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter opened the segment with these remarks:“The children had to hide from the attacker at Robb Elementary. They had to run, they had to jump, they had to hide so they would not be shot to pieces. And now it’s the police that are hiding. They are hiding from the press. They have to hide from what? The truth? The public getting the truth?”

Stelter continued:“I think everybody is pretty angry at this point, some truly shocking state of affairs in Texas, because at first the officials misled the public, shared incorrect information about the massacre, now they are not sharing much at all. In Uvalde this week, reporters have been stonewalled, doors shut in their faces, some even threatened with arrest just for standing on school property…Most outrageous of all, police apparently sent some bikers to intimidate journalists and prevent them from doing their jobs…”

Asked by host Stelter whether, given what has transpired thus far, the public can trust anything they are told by law enforcement in Uvalde, Norah Lopez responded(video at 1:31):“It’s become increasingly difficult for us to trust what authorities and what the police are telling us, and as a former police reporter, that’s just extraordinary to me that I’m actually saying that, because I’ve always trusted what the police was telling us, what the sergent on duty was telling you was happening. But every day it seems like we get one more little bit of information that directly contradicts what was initially told to us…They are trying to control the narrative, it looks like, keeping us away from talking to people who can help clarify the situation, and what’s happening on the ground.”

There’s no other way to interpret Norah Lopez’s statements on CNN(I’ll be happy to stand corrected of course) other than police in Uvalde are not only lying to the media about circumstances surrounding the horrific shooting at Robb Elementary School, but they are shockingly, also preventing the media from getting the truth directly from the grieving families. The extent of the attempted cover up is so severe, that they’ve even enlisted a biker group to intimidate and harass journalists who try to talk directly to the grieving families. This is truly shocking, even by Texas standards, where reports of these proxy harassment tactics by law enforcement are prevalent. For law enforcement in Uvalde to engage in such despicable conduct towards the media, knowing full well that the eyes of the world are currently on the city, speaks to a much deeper problem with Uvalde Police Department specifically, and Texas law enforcement generally–a culture of impunity.

Put another way. It’s one thing for Texas law enforcement to enlist some biker gang to harass some local whistleblower who say, sued the department, or exposed some shady dealings within the department(quite common in Texas), but when you start pulling such moves on the mainstream media, covering a huge national story, then reasonable people will agree that something is seriously wrong with the police department.

Norah Lopez specifically said regarding the biker harassment(video at 3:21):“The bikers are the ones who told us that they were there on the invitation of the police…We’ve tried to reach out to the police chief to register these concerns about how they are treating the media out there. We’ve not gotten a response from them yet. It has just been a really incredible difficult situation the way they are trying to control access…Reporters are getting told ‘You can’t be here, this is private property’…”

According to Nora, the bikers are apparently also discouraging families who are willing to speak to the media, from doing so. So they are not just harassing members of the media, they are also actively discouraging  grieving families who wish to speak to the media from doing so. A sad state of affairs indeed.

Bottom line folks, proxy harassment and intimidation by Texas law enforcement, towards those who raise issues that cast them in negative light–lawsuits, grievances etc–is nothing new. Reasonable people will agree however, that when such despicable police tactics are directed towards members of the media, just trying to do their job covering a huge story of national/international significance–the senseless massacre of 19 elementary school children and two teachers in their classrooms–then the ethical breach is so flagrant, that it calls for an immediate dismissal of the officers involved. Simply put, a thorough investigation needs to be conducted into who in the Uvalde Police Department, brought in the bikers to harass journalists, after which the officers implicated need to be fired immediately.  

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Was Race A Factor In The Lax Law Enforcement Response To Uvalde Shooting?

$upport via Cash App

Rhonda Hart speaking to guest host Paola Ramos on MSNBC’s Zerlina show(05/28/22)

Rhonda Hart, a Texas mother who lost her daughter in the horrific Santa Fe school shooting 4 years ago, appeared on MSNBC’s Zerlina show(Paola Ramos subbing 05/28/22) to discuss the latest horrific Texas school shooting in Uvalde. She made a startling claim during her appearance on MSNBC, telling host Paula Ramos that the slow response from law enforcement in Uvalde was because these were predominantly Brown kids. She added, “We know how Texas leadership feels about Black and Brown children.” 


Rhonda Hart (video at 1:30): “I remember I was a parent and also a school district employee that day when our[Santa Fe]school shooting happened, and at some point I went down closer to the building and I did talk to officers. They were adamant that I couldn’t get in there because stuff was going on, but at no point did they ever put their hands on me or push me down or anything like that. I mean, I’m a typical White lady you know, that garners a little bit of respect, I think…privilege, that’s what it is, it’s privilege. These, let’s be honest, these are Black and Brown children, and we know how Texas leadership feels about Black and Brown children.” 


There’s no other way to interpret Rhonda Hart’s remarks other than(I’ll be happy to stand corrected of course), the lax, even incompetent response by law enforcement authorities to the school shooting in Uvalde, had a lot to do with the fact that they were not being called upon to save White school children. Put another way, the shooter in Uvalde would have been neutralized much sooner, had it been White parents like Rhonda Hart, begging authorities to go in and stop him.

Rhonda Hart also slammed Governor Abbott and Texas leadership for lying about shoring up school safety after the Santa Fe school shooting 4 years ago. As she correctly pointed out, the lax law enforcement response to the Uvalde massacre proves that nothing was done to shore up school safety after Sante Fe.

Bottom line folks, reasonable people will agree that the law enforcement response to the shooting in Uvalde did not meet the public’s expectations. The conflicting messages given to the media by the said law enforcement officials also suggest that there was some attempt at a cover up, which needs to be thoroughly investigated. Also worth looking into, is Rhonda Hart’s bombshell claim on MSNBC, that the slow response by law enforcement was because the school in Uvalde is a predominantly Brown school. There are legitimate concerns as to whether there was something more than law enforcement incompetence at play here–a lack of desire to rescue Brown kids.


Oh, and Paula Ramos, thank you very much for being the only MSMer who gets the pronunciation of Uvalde right. It’s not “You-valde”. Get it together, the rest of MSM!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

CBS Face The Nation Interview Leaves Viewers Asking “Who’s Lying?”

$upport via Cash App

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper appeared on CBS’ Face The Nation (05/15/22) to discuss his new book “A Sacred Oath”, which chronicles his time in the Trump administration. During his interview however, there was an interesting, even awkward exchange about the infamous Lafayette Square incident, that left viewers wondering whether he, or former Attorney General William Barr, or both, were lying to the public about the incident. Specifically, Esper told host Margaret Brennan that former President Trump did indeed request 10,000 active duty troops to deal with the BLM protesters at Lafayette Square even though at his earlier appearance on the same show, with the same host, former AG Barr had called such claims “completely false.”

How can two senior officials of the Trump administration(SecDef & AG), who were both present at a seminal moment in the administration(Lafayette Square protests), end up with a polar opposite recollections of the same event? Who’s lying?

Host Margaret Brennan(video at 3:50): “You(Esper) talk about, and have spoken quite a lot this past week about the events in Lafayette Square, and it’s an important bit of the public record. You were in the Oval Office with the President, and he spoke about a very specific number, 10,000 of active duty troops potentially being sent into the streets of Washington DC. I want to play a clip for you here, because I asked the then Attorney General Bill Barr about exactly that..[plays clip with AG Barr, where he calls such claims ‘completely false’]…”

Margaret Brennan: “Why do you seem to have different recollections?”

Mark Esper: “I don’t know. I wrote about this in my book that Bill Barr and I have different recollections. Of course if you go through my story you’ll understand that the President calls into the Pentagon earlier that morning and talks about 10,000 troops. That’s when I’m first made aware of this request. Look, I don’t know why we have different recollections. I think in all these cases people hear or see different things, but I’m 110% confident of what the President was seeking that morning.”

Reasonable people will agree that these two dramatically different accounts of the same Lafayette Square event cannot both be true. Someone is clearly lying here. Who is it?

Bottom line folks, this new phenomenon of Washington insiders sitting on information of great public interest, only to release them after lucrative book deals, is getting out of control. Both Esper and Barr have written books about their experiences in the Trump administration, and have presumably been rewarded handsomely for the books. The public however is still left hanging on the question as to whether Trump requested active duty troops to deal with the Lafayette Square protests. What public good do these “bombshell” books serve?

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

From George Floyd To Ronald Greene;The Epidemic Of Lying In Police Reports

George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police on 05/25/2020, will go down in history as one of the seminole moments in the push for policing reform, not just in the United States, but globally. It was one of those rare occasions where people on both sides of the police reform debate, after viewing video footage of the incident, agreed that there needs to be changes in the way police officials interract with people of color, and especially, Black people.

Another major takeaway from the George Floyd incident, that rarely gets it’s deserved mainstream media coverage, was the stark difference between how the Minneapolis Police Department(MPD) characterized the event in their police report, and what the public actually saw on the video footage. Simply put, but for the cell phone video footage from a teenage girl, the world would never know what really happened to George Floyd on that fateful day, even after going through the MPD incident report. Police Departments lying on police reports is a very serious issue, so it’s very encouraging to see the mainstream media beginning to address it as such, a good example being this CNN piece by Josh Campbell.

Josh Campbell’s piece highlights the cases of George Floyd, Walter Scott, Laquan McDonald, Breonna Taylor and Ronald Greene, all Black victims whose deaths at the hands of police, resulted in very stark differences between the narratives in the initial police reports, and video footage of the events. The initial police reports basically lied about what actually led to the deaths of these Black suspects in their custody, a sad state of affairs indeed. Naturally, this has raised two elephant-in-the-room questions among members of the public; (1) What else do police lie about? and (2) Is lying in police reports more prevalent than we think?

The latest incident involving Ronald Greene, where Louisiana State Patrol officers put out outright lies in their police report about the circumstances of Greene’s death, will certainly lead any reasonable person to conclude that lying in police reports, is probably more prevalent than the public wishes to admit. Think about that, Louisiana State Patrol officers had video footage of the event, yet continued lying to the public for two years. The truth about the incident only came out after a reporter dug into the story, forcing the release of the video footage. There is nothing to suggest that Louisiana State Patrol officers would have ultimately done the right thing, and told the public the truth about Ronald Greene’s death, absent the dogged journalism by this reporter. This just goes to show the very crucial part good journalism plays in not only the fight for police reform, but also good governance generally.

Yours Truly has raised this “good journalism” issue before, with mainstream media taboo topics like “targeted individuals” and “gangstalking”. For those of you not familiar with these terms(not sure what rock you live under), there are growing complaints from individuals in the United States, believing to have been watchlisted, claiming that they are often the targets of abuse by various U.S. law enforcement agencies. Among the most common abuses cited by these people is “organized stalking” or “gangstalking”, conduct if proven to be true, would constitute torture(violation of Geneva Conventions). Despite the seriousness of these allegations, the mainstream media has chosen to totally ignore them, choosing instead to characterize people who make such claims as paranoid nutjobs, or dismissing them as “conspiracy theorists”.

With the rising epidemic of lying in police reports about the circumstances of minorities dying in police custody, one has to wonder whether time has come for the mainstream media to lift it’s embargo on discussing targeted individuals, gangstalking, and many other taboo topics related to law enforcement. Given what we know now about police departments’ propensity to lie to cover up their injustices, can the mainstream media justify it’s embargo on discussing targeted individuals, gangstalking et al, any longer? What if targeted individuals have been telling the truth all along?

Bottom line folks, the number one lesson from George Floyd to Ronald Greene, is that there is an urgent need for policing reform in this country, and legislative fixes like the proposed George Floyd Justice In Policing Act will go a long way in achieving these desired reforms. True policing reform however, will only be achieved and sustained, if we have accompanying “media reform”, meaning, going back to our good old fashioned investigative journalism days, and ditching the present “access journalism”. Simply put, the media must go back to posing tough questions to law enforcement/government officials instead of always seeking ways to be liked by them for the sake of “access”.

Yours Truly has been consistent on the importance of good journalism, and so should you.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Sean Hannity Busted For Lying About “Spontaneous” Presidents Day Crowd For Trump In Florida

On the 02/16/2021 edition of her show CNN Newsroom, host Brianna Keilar masterfully deconstructed the lie perpetrated by Sean Hannity and his friends at Fox News, that a “spontaneous” crowd came out to greet former President Trump in Florida on Presidents Day. Hannity and his friends at Fox News, were of course attempting to use the “spontaneous” crowd lie to perpetuate this perception that Trump is still very popular among the base, and should continue as leader of the GOP.

Sean Hannity said on Presidents Day, “A few hours ago, spontaneously, thousands of people in Palm Beach, lined up in support of the former president as his motorcade travelled through Florida. I have a question [Senators] Mitch McConnell, John Thune, how come you’ve never had this kind of enthusiasm at any of your events?” Hannity then went on to interview Trump’s son Donald Trump, Jr asking him, “Looking at your dad coming back from golf, did you see thousands of people out of nowhere? Nobody organized it that I can see, and certainly nobody associated with your father that I know of, do you?” Trump, Jr responded, “No. This is totally organic and again, it just shows that the American people are with Donald Trump.” The full CNN segment is available here but the relevant Hannity clip is below.

Turns out per Brianna Keilar, there was nothing spontaneous about the crowd that turned out to greet former President Trump on Presidents Day, and importantly, Sean Hannity knew this while he was lying on his show. Brianna Keilar then went on to demonstrate how these flagrant lies by Hannity and his pals at Fox News are not only harming our democracy, but also literally tearing families apart. She gave the heartbreaking example of Rep Adam Kinzinger, who is now considered to be in the “devil’s army” by some members of his family, who have confessed to believing the words of Hannity and company religiously. This means others in the mainstream media must follow Brianna Keilar’s lead and confront the flagrant lies emanating from Hannity and his friends at Fox News.

Bottom line folks, after the unfortunate events of the January 6th DC insurrection, which was primarily based on lies spread on Fox News and other right wing media outlets, we can no longer let the network self-police itself. It is very important for the public to call out the flagrant lies coming out of Fox News and other right wing media outlets, as Brianna Keilar routinely does. Simply put, we must not allow the lies emanating from Fox News and other right wing media outlets to go unchallenged. As a matter of fact, it is high time we started chronicling and keeping track of who is saying what on these right wing channels so that when another Jan 6th-like incident happens, we know exactly who to pin the blame on. Good stuff Brianna Keilar, as always.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Ivanka’s Lawyer Told Cohen To Lie About Her Role In Trump Tower Moscow

There was a bombshell revelation in MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show yesterday that Ivanka Trump’s lawyer Abbe Lowell directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about Ivanka’s role in the Trump Tower Moscow project. You’ll remember that Ivanka’s role in Trump Tower Moscow project became a huge issue of concern among those who believed President Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 elections. Intense media coverage around this issue led to Ivanka’s infamous remark that she knew “literally almost nothing” about the Trump Tower Moscow project. The full Maddow segment is available here but the relevant clip is below.

Maddow said on last night’s show, “One of the allegations at issue here for which there is apparently some sort of documentary trail, is the allegation that lawyer Abbe Lowell specifically told Cohen that he should tell Congress Ivanka Trump had essentially no knowledge of Trump Tower Moscow. According to Michael Cohen that wasn’t true. According to Cohen, Ivanka Trump was regularly briefed on Trump Tower Moscow. Well, if as Cohen alleges, Abbe Lowell was involved in telling Michael Cohen to lie to Congress specifically about the involvement of Ivanka Trump in that scheme….that is sensitive on a lot of different levels.”

Maddow’s segment essentially raised questions as to why Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen was prosecuted and is now serving prison time while the people who crafted the said lies that got him in legal trouble (attorneys Abbe Lowell, Jay Sekulow and others) got away scot-free. Maddow’s segment also raised legitimate questions as to why Trump’s eldest son Don Jr was never prosecuted even though there is enough evidence showing he engaged in the exact similar conduct as Cohen–lying to Congress. Even more troubling, as Maddow correctly pointed out, Don Jr has not just gotten away with clear cut felonies, he is also now dictating to Congressional committees the terms under which he will testify before them–a total travesty of justice.

Bottom line, as Yours Truly has repeatedly stated in previous posts, we are facing a crisis of confidence in the U.S. justice system. Specifically, it is becoming quite evident that there is a separate and distinct system of justice that applies to the poor (especially minorities) and the one that applies to the rich (especially rich White people like Don Jr and Abbe Lowell). All reasonable people will agree that if Michael Cohen was prosecuted and is now serving prison time for lying to Congress, then lawyer Abbe Lowell and others who crafted the lie he presented to Congress should also be criminally prosecuted or face some kind of sanctions up to and including disbarment. Reasonable people will also agree that if Michael Cohen was prosecuted for lying to Congress as part of the TrumpRussia investigation, then Don Jr should also be prosecuted for committing the exact similar offense. Simply put folks, we either have equal justice under the law or we don’t.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Can A Sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Be Indicted?

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections heats up and more and more evidence continues to pop up indicating that then presidential candidate Trump was either fully aware of or an active participant in the interference, legal eagles are grappling with the question as to whether a sitting U.S. President can be indicted.

As it currently stands, according to many of the legal eagle pundits on cable TV, the answer to that question is no. There is apparently a Department of Justice(DOJ) policy that advises against indicting a sitting president. The pundits are quick to point out however that this is only a directive that can be changed at any time(not set in stone). Respected legal scholars like Harvard University’s Lawrence Tribe have argued against this DOJ directive saying nothing in the U.S. constitution prohibits a sitting president from being indicted if he is found to have committed crimes.

Strangely missing from the “to indict or not to indict” debate however is the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice can be indicted. We are of course talking about recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh who as you will remember was the subject of numerous serious judicial complaints. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts referred the judicial complaints to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for resolution.

A judicial council at the 10th Circuit Court recently dismissed all the complaints against Kavanaugh concluding that even though the allegations were serious, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because Kavanaugh was no longer a federal appeals judge and thus not subject to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that deals with disciplining federal district court judges, magistrates and circuit appellate justices. Essentially, because Kavanaugh had been elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act no longer applied to him.

It is very important to point out that among the serious accusations against Kavanaugh was that he lied multiple times to congress while under oath. Lying to congress as you know is a serious felony, especially in Kavanaugh’s case given the fact that (1) he did that as a federal judge who should know better and (2) he lied to congress on multiple occasions.

An excerpt from 12/18/2018 USA Today article

The logical question then becomes if Kavanaugh can be proven to have lied to congress under oath, a felony, can he be indicted? Is it possible to indict a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice or are they for all intents and purposes, above the law? Is there any case law that precludes such an eventuality? All these are serious questions that one would think the mainstream media would have posed to the myriad TV legal eagle pundits by now. Instead as it has now become customary, it is left to Yours Truly to ask the serious questions the mainstream media won’t ask, for which the public is desperately seeking answers to.

Bottom line with all the attention focused on whether Trump can be indicted, it is about time the mainstream media also started asking the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in this case Kavanaugh, can be indicted.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. 

Emails Prove Kavanaugh Lied To Congress Under Oath Several Times



Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had a tense time on the confirmation hot seat taking questions from Senator Patrick Leahy and other Dems as to whether he lied to Congress under oath during his confirmation hearings for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Well, courtesy of a Daily Beast article, we can definitively identify multiple instances where Kavanaugh lied to Congress under oath.

Kavanaugh lie #1—In 2006, under questioning by the late Dem Senator Ted Kennedy, Kavanaugh said he wasn’t involved in the selection and vetting process of controversial conservative judge William Pryor. Turns out there are now emails proving Kavanaugh was intricately involved in Judge Pryor’s vetting.

Kavanaugh lie #2—During his 2006 confirmation hearings for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, under questioning by Dem Senator Patrick Leahy, Kavanaugh outrightly denied ever receiving stolen Dem documents from Republican operative Manuel Miranda. Now during his confirmation hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court, after being confronted with emails between him and Miranda, he finally admitted to Senator Leahy that he did indeed receive the stolen Dem documents. He now contends however that he didn’t know they were stolen. A cursory look at the emails in question leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that Miranda did not get the Dem documents through legitimate channels making Kavanaugh’s assertion that he didn’t know Miranda acquired the Dem documents illegitimately an outright lie.

Kavanaugh lie #3—-Kavanaugh also lied about George W. Bush administration’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program”. Kavanaugh initially testified under oath that he found out about the program through a 2005 New York Times article. Well, turns out there is a 2001 email in which Kavanaugh is asking a DOJ lawyer: “Any results yet on the 4A implications of random/constant surveillance of phone and e-mail conversations of non-citizens who are in the United States when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent terrorist/criminal violence?”. This again proves that Kavanaugh knew about the terrorist surveillance program way back in 2001 but decided to lie to congress about it under oath

It is well known that lying to congress under oath is a felony. Any reasonable person would therefore conclude that repeatedly lying to congress under oath is so serious, it should preclude anybody from assuming any judgeship, especially a judgeship at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bottom line Dems and the mainstream media must continue shedding light on Kavanaugh’s troubling conduct which clearly precludes him from being a Supreme Court Justice.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out