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