The Myth of Russian Collusion with Trump 2016 Campaign

First, nobody in the Republican or Democrat Parties thought Donald Trump had a prayer of beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. Hillary was the presumptive President of the United States in the minds of many and has been since she beat-out Bernie Sander two years ago. (In point of fact, Hillary had Bernie beat before a single vote was cast due to having 1/3 of the delegates needed for the nomination by securing the support of the Democrat “Super Delegates” concurrent with announcing her candidacy.) Certain folks out there think that her gender; her caustic personality; multiple failures in policy as FLOTUS (First Lady of the United States), US Senator, and Secretary of State; and the fact that she slept with a former President of the country are her qualifications for office. When she ran as a candidate for US Senator, not one single supporter in New York could name three accomplishments that were reasons to vote for her but she won anyway. Today, I still say that those supporters of Hillary can’t name three things that she has accomplished.

Hillary was a failure as Secretary of State. Many thousands of people died because of her incompetence including the folks that died needlessly in Benghazi and a multitude of Christians in Middle Eastern Countries. Other nations knew her unfitness as a leader and wanted to cripple her presidency before she ever got into office. Also, don’t forget that President Obama frequently interjected himself into political campaigns in other countries; especially Israeli elections and the Brexit vote in Great Brittan. Hillary and John Kerry were joined at the hip to Obama in these efforts.

Sensing her weakness, presuming her victory was pro forma, and wanting some payback for US policy, nation states such as Russia and China did use the openness of the US to exact some retribution on Hillary. The irony is that all you have to do to harm Hillary politically is tell the truth about her.

As is the typical pattern, China gets a pass from Democrats. This is due to the millions of dollars that China has invested in the Democrat Party since the Clinton Administration and in left leaning businesses such as Hollywood movie studios and technology that they have heavily invested in.

Not believing that people in other countries could be mad at Hillary—who thinks she is the handmaiden of the Messiah—anything not supporting of her must be the fault of Trump. Trump gets the blame because most establishment Republicans supported her over Trump in 2016 and many still do to this day.

This led to the myth that Trump is the puppet of Russia and this whole collusion story. Even after it has been proven that Hillary and her supporters created this conspiracy out of whole cloth, the Dems and media are holding onto this narrative.

Enter Robert Mueller. Two years have passed since beginning his investigation and he still can’t find the goods on Trump. Believe me if he had, his report would have leaked-out by now just to help the Democrats wipe the Republicans off the map on November 6th. The consensus is that Mueller’s report will end with a whimper not an Impeachment.

Matt Drudge has had this report linked to his website for the last couple of days.

I feel bad for them, in the way that I feel bad for kids who are about to discover that the Tooth Fairy is fake. After 17 months of appending compound adjectives (“Russia-linked,” “Kremlin-backed”) to the names of an increasingly obscure cast of characters accused of things like sending spam emails and holding pointless meetings that went nowhere, it looks like we are finally getting close to the end of the Mueller probe. A report in Politico suggests that what skeptics have argued for more than a year and a half is true: namely, that Mueller and his team have not found any smoking-gun evidence of “collusion” between Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government because no such collusion took place.

How the Mueller fairy tale ends

Trump has endured two years of reporting about him that is 92% negative and yet he is drawing record crowds at political rallies. The pundits are back peddling on the Democrat tsunami on November 6th, could America actually like this guy? What is their Plan B?

Trump Administration to Base Gender on Biology

Why is this even a headline? Because in a world where common sense is not common, people are dumb. The New York Times wrote this yesterday:

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration

Thank God Trump is President.

Those of you that disagree with the above policy have a problem with God not Donald J Trump. Oh, and just so you know, God made you and is the same yesterday, today, and forever so He won’t be changing His mind just because you don’t like it.

Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren

Elizabeth Warren’s entire professional life is based on a lie. Not a mistake or distortion but an old-fashioned bald-faced lie. Yep, she knew it was a lie and like many lies, it furthered the cause of Liberalism, so no one challenged her on it. Liberals embrace the different and don’t discriminate between perversity and diversity so long as the lie continues to advance their cause.

Lest you think this claim is just about Warren’s heritage consider this; if illegal aliens and/or dead people started voting Republican, do you think the rampant voter fraud—especially here in California—would continue unchecked? As long as the Party in power is the beneficiary of the fraud, they will do nothing to insure voter integrity.

Another example which I have documented better than the MSM (main stream media) is the gutting of the Board of Equalization. Liberals had no problem throwing the black Democrat under the bus to pull-off this political sleight-of-hand. The political life of one guy is a small price to pay to highjack the State Constitution to give the Governor more executive power to confiscate money from the people with no recourse.

Sadly, the media went long ago from the watchdog of government to its lapdog.

Back to the good Senator. Her fraudulent heritage was well documented even before she was elected by the Boston Globe newspaper.

 

May 25, 2012

US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.

But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.

In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.

The documents suggest for the first time that either Warren or a Harvard administrator classified her repeatedly as Native American in papers prepared for the government in a way that apparently did not adhere to federal diversity guidelines. They raise further questions about Warren’s statements that she was unaware Harvard was promoting her as Native American.

The administrator responsible for Harvard Law School’s faculty diversity statistics from 1996 to 2004, the period in question, was Alan Ray, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation who, like Warren, has fair skin, blue eyes, and Oklahoma roots.

But Ray, now president of Elmhurst College in Illinois, said in a statement that he “did not encourage the Law School to list any faculty member as one particular race or ethnicity, including Professor Warren.’’ He further said through a spokeswoman that he “never encouraged any faculty member to list himself or herself in a particular way.’’ Ray added that Harvard “always accepted whatever identification a faculty member wanted to provide,’’ a characterization another highly placed former Harvard administrator backed up.

In a statement to the Globe Thursday, Harvard disavowed any wrongdoing, saying that it “adheres to the Department of Education and Department of Labor regulations and guidance concerning the reporting of race and ethnicity.’’

Warren arrived as a visiting professor in 1992, but left a year later. By then, she had been listing herself for seven years as a minority in a legal directory often used by law recruiters to make diversity-friendly hires. She continued to list herself in the book until 1995, the year she took a permanent position at Harvard.

That year, the director of Harvard’s Native American program was quoted in the law school newspaper bemoaning the university’s “lack of Native faculty in any of the schools.’’

But the school had begun describing Warren as Native American in the media soon after she was hired.

In 1996, law school news director Mike Chmura, speaking to the Harvard Crimson, identified Warren as a Native American professor.

In 1997, the Fordham Law Review, citing Chmura, referred to Warren as Harvard Law’s “first woman of color.’’

In 1998, Chmura wrote a letter to the New York Times, saying the law school had appointed or tenured “eight women, including a Native American.’’ Three days later, the Crimson again touched on the issue: “Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.’’

The Harvard document defines Native American as “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.’’ It notes that this definition is consistent with federal regulations.

It is not a definition Warren appears to fit. She has not proven she has a Native American ancestor, instead saying she based her belief on family lore, and she has no official tribal affiliation. The current executive director of Harvard’s Native American program has said she has no memory of Warren participating in any of its activities.

Filings add to questions on Warren’s ethnic claims

Photo from Facebook

Warren’s DNA test has blown-up on her.

As The Federalist’s Sean Davis points out, according to The New York Times, the average white person in America has nearly double the amount of American Indian DNA (0.18%) as Elizabeth Warren (0.098%), who claims to be Cherokee.

When her supposed Native American heritage came under scrutiny during her first Senate bid, Warren presented a recipe she had published in her cousin’s cookbook as evidence of her background. It was signed “Elizabeth Warren — Cherokee.” Later we learned that even the recipe was taken verbatim from an article in The New York Times five years earlier.

It’s easy to see what’s going on. Warren wants to dull Donald Trump’s “Fauxcahontas” jibes because she is about to run for president. Rather than admitting she has no genuine cause for being “proud of my Native American heritage” in her career, she’s doubled down on the assertion.

Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Proves She Was Lying

 

Even “The Old Gray Lady” can’t provide cover for Senator Warren.

Yet even as she sought to defuse the issue, Ms. Warren was criticized on both the right and the left Monday. Conservatives mocked her for releasing a test that indicated she is anywhere between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.

“Elizabeth Warren hasn’t dealt with a problem, she has highlighted it and opened up other avenues for attack,” wrote the editor of the conservative National Review, Rich Lowry, on Twitter. “For Trump, 1/1024th will be priceless material.”

And liberals, as well as conservatives, said Ms. Warren had still not adequately addressed why she changed her ethnic identity from white to Native American as a law professor in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

“Warren’s gotta say she shouldn’t have listed herself as Native American 30 years ago and apologize profusely and sit down with community leaders that agree to meet with her,” said Josie Duffy Rice, a progressive writer. (Ms. Warren has said she began identifying as Native American to honor her heritage because many of her older relatives were dying in that period).

And Cherokee Nation, which is based in Oklahoma, also criticized Ms. Warren, saying in a statement she was “undermining tribal interests” by claiming Native American heritage.

Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Results Draw Rebuke from Trump and Raise Questions

 

The test — part of her strategic preparations for a likely presidential campaign — did not placate President Trump, who has mocked Ms. Warren as “Pocahontas” and once promised $1 million to a charity of her choice if a DNA test substantiated her claims of Cherokee and Delaware heritage. And her announcement of the results angered many Native Americans, including the Cherokee Nation, the largest of the country’s three federally recognized Cherokee tribes.

DNA testing cannot show that Ms. Warren is Cherokee or any other tribe, the secretary of state of the Cherokee Nation, Chuck Hoskin Jr., said in a statement. Tribes set their own citizenship requirements, not to mention that DNA tests don’t distinguish among the numerous indigenous groups of North and South America. The test Ms. Warren took did not identify Cherokee ancestry specifically; it found that she most likely had at least one Native American ancestor six to 10 generations ago.

Why Many Native Americans Are Angry With Elizabeth Warren

 

This just proves the old axiom that repeating a lie enough times will get people to believe it, especially when its what they want to hear. In Senator Warren’s case the truth won’t set her free, but it might make her unemployed. We can only hope…

.

Order in the Court: Part IV—Jury and Verdict

A week ago, Thursday, the closing arguments of the trial began. The prosecution went first with a 50 minute PowerPoint presentation that covered the charges and how the evidence fit the charges. This was followed by the defense attorney recasting the testimony of the witnesses in such a way to benefit his client (think James Carville defending Bill Clinton). The defense attorney did a masterful job of misdirection and obfuscation. The prosecution then got a small rebuttal.

Then, just over three weeks after jury selection began, the trial went to the jury. Due to the trial running so long and some jurors having conflicts, the jury agreed to meet the following Monday to begin deliberations. The three day weekend gave me and presumably the others some time to reflect on our responsibility as a jury and the evidence. (In my opinion, had the jury started deliberations immediately after the defense’s closing argument’s it would have taken much more time for them to arrive at a verdict due to the level of doubt introduced.)

Monday morning finally arrived. The jury gathered and entered the deliberation room. We talked for a while and waited for the stenographer to arrive. We wanted to rehear the testimony of the two main witnesses. One man in particular was the crown jewel of the prosecution’s case. He was the man offered the bribe. He was the type guy that took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and in his mind, his DD214 did not absolve him of the responsibility. He identified the shooter at the scene of the crime while waiting for medical aid. Both attorneys stated that this witness was reliable and correct in his testimony, at least up to the point of the actual shooting and then–per the defense–he was mistaken.

This is where I can get into the charges; however, I’m doing this from memory so I won’t be citing charter and verse for each accusation. All together there were five counts.

  1. The big charge was attempted murder of Bender Bob. Alternately, the jury could look at a lesser charge of attempted manslaughter.
  2. assault with a semi-automatic firearm causing great bodily injury to Bender Bob–shot in neck.
  3. assault with a semi-automatic firearm causing great bodily injury to the security guard–shot in hand.
  4. a felon in possession of a gun.
  5. witness tampering.

Several of the charges had additional factors associated with them. For example on the assault charges, if Carlos was guilty then we had to consider: Did the assault cause severe injury to the victim? And did Carlos use a semi-automatic weapon? The felon in possession of a weapon charge required that Carlos possess the weapon or control it when fired. The law does not say he had to own it, basically if he was touching it when it fired then he was guilty of violating this statue.

Bender Bob started the altercation. On this point both prosecution and defense council agreed. Did Bob draw the gun too? Bob testified that he hit Carlos because he saw Carlos drawing the weapon; however, Bob was so drunk his version might be the product of his imagination. Could Carlos’ defense testimony be true? Much of any reasonable doubt the jury might have stemmed from the answer to this issue. This was the main purpose of the read back of the witness testimony.

The question that much of the case hinged on was where did the gun come from? A shell casing was recovered at the scene but no weapon was recovered during the course of the investigation. Three choices were postulated in the trial about the gun:

  1. The defendant, Carlos–the prosecution claimed that he brought and used the gun but Carlos claimed he didn’t and furthermore, he never had the gun or control of it
  2. Bender Bob–the guy who got shot in the neck, Carlos’ defense testimony was that the gun was Bob’s but nobody asked Bob during the trial about ownership of the gun.
  3. The girlfriend, who’s purse kept being brought-up by the defense with no follow-thru (she was never asked to testify).

The purse was a red herring that explained nothing about the gun so nobody gave it much thought; especially after the defendant, Carlos, took the stand and blamed Bob for being the owner. Thus did defendant Carlos bring gun and shoot Bob as the prosecution alleged or did the victim, Bob, bring the gun and shoot himself during struggle? Did the defendant have possession of the gun at any point? If so he was guilty of count four.

Oh, while waiting for the stenographer, the jury voted guilty on count five related to intimidation of a witness. There was no debate on this point since both attorneys has stipulated that Carlos wrote the letter and arranged the phone call making the offer. Carlos agreeing to all this under oath sealed his fate on that count.

Should some enterprising criminal ever read this post, please understand that promising good things should a witness change his testimony also has the implied threat that bad things will happen if you don’t, whether the threat is explicit or not. The fact that the witness called the lead detective as soon as the call terminated and ditched his cell phone number for a new one is further proof he took it as a threat.

The testimony read back took two and a half hours but the intrepid stenographer made it thru the evidence that we needed to hear to get back on track. After a few minutes of discussion, we agreed to break for lunch.

Deliberations resumed at 1:30 PM.

It was clear that the jury would not agree to the attempted murder charge. This statute required premeditation and there was no consensus that the shooting in this case was premeditated. I could argue that bringing a gun to a night club is a premeditated act but that Bender Bob was shot seemed the opposite of premeditation.

The attempted manslaughter charge was more achievable but a few jurors wanted to examine whether the shooting as described by Carlos was self-defense. Two different reasons can get you to attempted manslaughter, one of which is imperfect self-defense. For many jurors, the question of guilt hinged on whether bringing out a gun and firing it at a fistfight was excessive force for this situation.

The presence of security and other options available to Carlos were discussed. Carlos’ assertion that Bob shot himself was just too incredible to believe. Had Carlos claimed that Bob had the gun but Carlos grabbed it and tried to scare Bob and it accidently discharged, Carlos might have been acquitted. Carlos’ version was clearly some jailhouse lawyering that was concocted to get him off all the charges.

It was clear that Carlos lied about all the following:

  • Being checked by security as he entered the building–security guards testified that VIP’s were exempted from thorough scanning and often enter the building with no check at all
  • Carlos said when he was hit so hard that a tooth was chipped but that he never took a step backwards but stood his ground, this  was contrary to the other witnesses and common sense
  • Bob glaring down at him from the balcony after the shooting (discussed below)
  • Talking to the head of security after the shooting–head of security never spoke with Carlos
  • Never trying to tamper with witness testimony–Carlos maintained there was no threat explicit or implied in his offer

 

Before I go on, let’s talk about Bob and the balcony. In order for this to be true the following things had to have happened in less than ten seconds.

  • Bob gets shot in the neck with a .45
  • Bob and the security guard fall backwards and land on a table, breaking it into several pieces. (They fell in the opposite direction from the exit.)
  • Bob would then have to scramble to his feet and scoop up the gun at the scene of the shooting
  • Bob would then have to run to the balcony and already be there so that he could be seen glaring at Carlos as he got to the landing halfway down the stairs
  • Police found no blood between the scene of the shooting and the front of the dance floor where balcony is located
  • Bob was drunk as a skunk and highly impaired, and barely mobile

Other threads that cast doubt on Carlos’ version of the story are that he never called the girl he brought to the club or arranged to get her home; instead, he just ran away. He never called the police or offered to make a statement against Bob. The only time Bob was accused of having the gun was by Carlos in open court, you’d think even if the cops didn’t investigate this that Carlos’ lawyer would use the possibility to create reasonable doubt when Bob was on the witness stand. Fleeing to Las Vegas and the Vegas jail call to his wife about “going away for a long time for attempted murder” doesn’t help either. As a whole, Carlos’ behavior is hardly that of an innocent person. As a convicted felony, only Carlos had any reason to lie about the events of the shooting.

After reading the law given to the jury as part of our written instructions, we ruled out self-defense and voted guilty of attempted manslaughter.

Having concluded that Carlos is the only person that witnesses saw holding the gun and firing it at Bob and the fact that Carlos was full of B.S. with his version of the story that Bob shot himself, finding him guilty of assault and possessing a weapon was a simple matter. By a few minutes after 3 PM, we had five verdicts.

As slow as court proceedings had been going, we figured it would take until the following day to gather all the folks to have the jury verdicts read in court. Wrong! As it turned out, the prosecuting attorney was in courthouse on another case, the defendant was downstairs in the cooler, and his lawyer was just down the street. The defense attorney was the last of the three to arrive. I could tell by the look on his face that he already knew the verdicts. One of the other jurors commented that he looks glum. I responded that is because he already knew the verdict. I said we decided too fast to find his client innocent, he knows it. About the time we were let into the courtroom, Carlos’ parents had arrived—at least I saw him mom and sister before going into the courtroom.

When the verdict on the first charge was read, “on the count of attempted murder, not guilty”, you could sense some hope coming from Carlos but then his world shattered. “On the lesser count of attempted manslaughter, guilty” and every other guilty verdict that was read, he let out an audible gasp. The jury also found Carlos guilty of all the modifiers associated with the charges. I didn’t look but it seemed that he was being restrained from making further outbursts. His family began sobbing after the first guilty verdict was pronounced.

I felt sorry for the family that had been in the courtroom every day of the trial but I was convinced that their son was guilty. The prosecution made a fairly solid case. Carlos’ story did not fit the facts of the case. His testimony hurt his cause; especially when he attempted to explain that Bob shot himself. Bob was about 6’ 2’ and close to 280 lbs. while Carlos was about 5’ 6” and 165 lbs.

The defense attorney then tried the final Hail Mary play in the book and polled each juror for their vote on each of the five verdicts. After 60 votes, it was over. The judge thanked us for our service and dismissed us.

Subsequent to the trial I have wondered if I did the right thing and after many days of contemplation, I think given the evidence, that Carlos is guilty. As to his sentence, that is up to the judge and will be decided another day.

Order in the Court: Part III–Defense Argument

Once the prosecution rested, the defense was able to present their case, I’m surprised that they did. I thought the attorney would close, simply arguing that the prosecution didn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and thus we must acquit. However his client–Carlos–had other plans. In the end two people were called to the stand.

The first defense witness was the policeman that was first on the scene to interact with Bob, the man shot in the neck. He had described the gunshot to the neck as “a graze”. That was the entirety of his testimony.

We then took a break and returned to find the defendant on the witness stand. The only person more shocked than me was probably the defense attorney. If I was him, the last guy I would want under oath was my client but there he was in the flesh. The defendant, Carlos, then told his version of the fateful night. His testimony went something like this:

Carlos was on a date at a local restaurant with a lady friend of his. She left her car at the restaurant and he drove her to the nightclub. They arrived at the night club about midnight. Since Carlos was a VIP at the club, after a short wait, he was given a parking place in the front of the club. He and said lady then entered the club, underwent a security check, and were given his usual booth in the back of the club. He danced a few times and had a few glasses of Hennessey and Coke.

About 1:40 AM, the sound went off and the lights came up and people were encouraged to head for the exit. As a VIP, Carlos was offered an opportunity to exit via an alternative route but the lady had to pee so they headed towards the bathrooms locate near the main exit. They were in the back of the group being funneled to the exit area.

As they passed a large black man—Bender Bob, the two men bumped shoulders. Bob didn’t like it and gave Carlos a hard shoulder check. The two men exchanged words. Carlos said that the black man (Bob) said he was going to steal Carlos’ Rolex and then threatened to kill both he and his lady friend. Carlos testified that he told Bob to calm down. In response, Bob hit him full-on in the mouth with his right hand. Carlos said that the blow was so hard that he chipped one of his teeth. Despite the strength of the punch, Carlos said that he stood his ground and was not knocked backwards.

Simultaneously, Bob drew a gun; presumably with his left hand. Carlos said that he reached-up with his right hand and grabbed Bob’s hand with the gun. Carlos said that he was able to twist the gun toting hand of Bob around to the point that the black man (Bob) shot himself in the left side of his own neck. Carlos said that he never touched the trigger or had control of the weapon. After a single shot, the gun then fell to the floor. Carlos did not grab the gun but fled. As he was making his way down the stairs, he looked up towards the dance floor where the shooting had happened only to see Bob glaring at him from the top of the balcony. Carlos said he then exited the building. On his way out, Carlos testified that he told the head of security about the shooting upstairs (omitting his involvement) and then fled the scene.

Folks there are a few facts in the above account of Carlos’ defense that should stand out as odd comments for me to include. They stood out as peculiar to me too until we finally got to see the charges as the case was given to the jury. More to say when I discuss jury deliberation and the verdict in my next installment.

There is an old saying, “A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client”. I would suggest that a man who ignores him council’s advice and takes the stand to perjure himself is just as foolish.

Why was defendant Carlos telling this version of events? What he said didn’t agree with the facts presented by witnesses that had already testified and everyone in the courthouse knew it. Additionally by taking the stand, the prosecuting attorney gets free and unfettered access to the accused under oath to shred Carlos’ story under cross-examination.

Cross-examination

The first thing the prosecution attorney did was go thru the letter written from jail that was intended to get a witness to change his testimony in exchange for defendant Carlos’ written thanks and ten thousand dollars in cash. (Considering that the accused claimed to be wearing a Rolex on the fateful night, this seemed like a paltry sum to me.) Carlos admitted to writing both the letter of instructions and the letter intended to be given to the witness from his jail cell. The letter contained the witness’ personal cell phone number, and information about his wife and children including their names. (Remember he got all this info after he was put in jail.) Carlos asserted that there was no threat in the letter since he promised only good things to the security guard should he change his testimony.

The prosecution was also able to introduce more information about the Carlos’ fight (flight as in fleeing not as in an aircraft) to Las Vegas. Upon being arrested in Vegas a week after the shooting, Carlos called his wife (not the person with him at club) and told her that he would be going away for a long time for attempted murder. (Admission against interest on recorded jail phone call is not too bright.)

Carlos could not say who screened him for weapons at the club the night of the shooting but maintained that it happened. He also said that the girlfriend’s purse was not checked by club security. His story was as outlined previously; namely, the gun was the black guy’s (Bender Bob’s) and he—the defendant—never had possession of the weapon and yes the black guy shot himself. When confronted with the fact that the head of security stated that Carlos never spoke with him following the shooting, his story began leaking badly. Carlos never explained what happened to his lady friend that he left stranded at the club. Since it was after 2 AM, maybe The Chief decided she was cute enough to offer her a ride to his teepee.

Carlos’ testimony was at odds with that of other witnesses; especially the confrontation with Bob. The defense never offered any witnesses to cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of what happened or to agree with Carlos’ version of the story. In the end, it was three witnesses of varying degrees of believability or the defendant Carlos’ version that we were expected to believe. Both could not be simultaneously true in many key respects.

To be continued…

Order in the Court: Part II–Prosecution Argument

Above Sam Waterston from NBC’s Law and Order, best known as a tough prosecution attorney

The prosecution case, as simply as I can state it was similar to what follows:

Bender Bob and his Bro decide to paint the town on a Thursday night. They start with a bottle of Hennessey, I don’t really know what that is, but I know its high octane.

Hey Mikey, take the 5th

They get to the club and Bob is drunk as a skunk and acting somewhat belligerent. He continues drinking and at closing time, the lights come up and Bob knows it’s time to go; however, he forgets where he left his cell phone. He turns around to head back to where he was sitting to search for his phone and bumps into Carlos. The two men exchange insults.

Glock .45

The confrontation escalated. A nearby security guard sees Bob hit Carlos in the face so he springs into action and grabs Bob from behind to restrain him. Carlos is knocked back from the strength of the punch but remains on his feet. Just as the security guard is grabbing Bob, Carlos pulls a Glock .45 and shoots Bob. The bullet goes thru the guard’s hand and into Bob’s neck. Bob falls backwards onto the security guard and both men hit a table that shatters under their combined weight. Think of it as a sloppy Quigley shot. Meanwhile, Carlos flees the scene.

Bob exits the night club via an auxiliary exit, wraps a shirt around the bullet wound in his neck and calls his mother to say goodbye thinking that he will bleed to death.

Carlos flees Sacramento and is arrested about a week later in Las Vegas. He is extradited to California and has been cooling his jets in the Sacramento County Jail.

Carlos had lots of time to ponder his situation before the trial. As the old saying goes, idle hands are the devil’s workshop. Well, old Carlos decided he needed to make this trial go away. After six months in the county jail, he called in a few markers and had a friend make an offer that the injured security guard couldn’t refuse. Yeah, Godfather Junior tried to get the key witness to recant his story or at least the part where Carlos was identified as the shooter. Carlos offered $10K in cash to the guard in exchange for “telling the truth about what happened”.

Carlos’ friend called the security guard on the guard’s personal cell phone. Thanks to the wonder of Bluetooth technology, the guard’s wife and small children heard the offer as the family was driving home after a supply run to the local Target. The call was described by the guard as “positive”. He was promised that good things financially and otherwise would happen if he changed his story. The caller also let the guard know that they knew the names and ages of his children and that the children too might benefit if the charges were ultimately dropped against Carlos.

The guard made the lead detective in the case aware of this attempted tampering with the case and the cell phone number used was traced to Carlos. As a result, Carlos is facing even more charges.

To be continued…

Live look at Burned Toast in North Dakota

You smell that smell?  Not the ethnic food you ate last night, I mean that other smell, like burned toast?  That’s what a certain soon to be former Senator from North Dakota smells like today.  No, not because she voted no on Kavanaugh, but for the reason she gave.  Sen Heidi Heitkamp who by the way comes from a political family a la the Clintons in North Dakota, said she didn’t vote to confirm the good judge because she believed Dr. Ford, the accuser, not Judge Kavanaugh the accused.  Even though the accuser’s story could not be verified and the FBI came to a similar conclusion after their own investigation…Heitkamp still voted no.  Then proceeded to say the investigation was not thorough enough.  Keep that last sentence in mind as I drop this new revelation that came out about then Attorney General of North Dakota Heitkamp…..

US Senator Heidi Heitkamp

While Heitkamp was Attorney General AKA the second most powerful law enforcement official in North Dakota from 1992 and 2000 she ignored rampant sexual harassment and assault at Wahpeton Indian School.  This is a boarding school for troubled Native American Students (No word on if Elizabeth Warren is familiar with said school).  A teacher was accused of sexually assaulting a young girl.  Heitkamp looked the other way.  Heitkamp you may recall gave this reason for not voting to confirm Kavanaugh “Our actions tonight are a poignant signal to young girls and women across this country.”  “I will continue to stand up for them.”  This leads to an obvious question, where were you when your “constituents” needed you most clown?  Why didn’t you stand up for women during your time as Attorney General?  Apparently you believe Native Americans, most in North Dakota live far below the poverty line and have no access to running water or electricity are just throwaways, shame on you.  Heitkamp for what it’s worth said it is not the Attorney General’s job to sue or enforce the law it’s the bureaucracy’s job.  Maybe someone should make sure Xavier Beccerra of CA gets that memo?  He sues the Trump administration by the hour.  Glad you feel so self-righteous about a vote to oppose a duly qualified judge to the highest court.  Maybe you can charge yourself with some sort of failure to prosecute crime?

But wait there is more…..

The Heitkamp campaign over the weekend took out a full page ad in an “open letter” to her opponent criticizing his position on protecting sexual assault victims.  This printed AD listed over 100 names of women who were victims of sexual assault…..allegedly.  Allegedly, because several named women have come forward saying they never gave permission to use their name publicly!  Kind of a big deal.  Other names were discovered as never being victims of sexual assault, yeah the women came forward saying #NotMeToo.  Heitkamp denied any involvement saying it was the first time she had seen the ad, kinda funny being it was paid for by her campaign. Either she delegated this campaign job to Aaron Park or she is lying. Woah! I think we can gather up the hymn books on this one, and I think I hear a portly sized women warming her vocal chords up…I think this one is over!

Heitkamp #MeToo open letter used women’s names without permission

ND-Sen: Victims furious after Heidi Heitkamp campaign identifies abuse survivors in ad

Heitkamp looks to be borrowing a chapter out of the Democrats new playbook, accuse someone erroneously of sexual assault.  Back it up with omitted facts and errors and then when all else fails just deny you ever had a part in any of it.  Even worse it seems the playbook also includes denying the same accusations decades ago, ala Bill Clinton.  Heitkamp could well face charges for running that ad without obtaining permission from those women. Also I think it’s Libel when someone writes something publicly that isn’t true?  I will defer to Heitkamp on this one, since she is you know an attorney…allegedly.  I feel kind of bad for her, her family’s political name is officially tarnished for generations.

That is the one nice thing about a dumpster fire, no one puts it out; it just keeps raging until it no longer has fuel.

a dumpster fire waiting to be extinguished

I predict a big win by her Republican opponent Kevin Cramer…actually YYYUUUUUUUGGGGEEEEE!

BTW the “Chief” will have no comment on my now fellow Indian by blood Elizabeth Warren, however as the Chief I designate your new tribal name as “Squaw of Crazy Ideas.”

Order in the Court

I just spent about four weeks on jury duty and I need to decompress, debrief, vent, or whatever you want to call it. I plan to write a few posts covering different aspects of the experience. First, I would like to write about the process itself.

The group that I was in reported for duty on a Tuesday. We checked in with a secretary of some sort in the jury room about 8 AM. Each prospective juror is handed a questionnaire to complete. Prospective jurors are asked if they have ever been the victim of a crime, called as a witness, or know someone convicted of a crime. About 8:30, a judge entered the room and gave us a speech about the importance of jury duty and thanked us for coming. In the past, this speech was an old VHS recording dubbed onto a DVD but this time the judge was in the flesh with a microphone in hand. That was different.

A few minutes later, we were called by name not group number—yet another change from my previous times on jury duty—and sent to a courtroom on another floor of the building. After we made our way up the stairs and gathered in front of the courtroom door, a Sacramento County sheriff deputy opened the door and began calling names. The first names called were directed to the jury box. I was the third name called. Just like that I found myself in the jury box starting the day as juror number three.

The folks that are in the jury box plus some others, are then subjected to a series of questions. Based on your answers, you may find yourself excused from jury duty. Other folks were given the opportunity to be excused based on their work and the length of the trial which was estimated to run three weeks. Still others were booted from this case if they had medical trailing or specialized trailing in firearms. The questionnaire completed in the jury room is the starting point for questions along with things specific to the case. The prosecution, defense, and judge each get a copy of the questionnaires. Many people were excused from jury duty in my group. I figured that I was old, white, and male so I was sure to get the boot eventually. Amazingly, that didn’t happen. Some older folks than me did get the boot and so did all the black folks in the jury pool.

We were told to return for more on the second day because jury selection was not completed. The elimination process continued until the lawyers quit booting people. All of the sudden, about halfway thru the second morning there was agreement between the prosecution and defense. All the folks in the spectator part of the courtroom were dismissed and fifteen of us—twelve jurors and three alternates—were being sworn-in as the jury.

After a short break, the trial began.

The prosecuting attorney is given the first move in making the opening remarks of the trial. “We will prove the following…” Then the lawyer tells their case in outline form against the accused. In our trial this took about 15 minutes. Then the defense attorney had his turn and took about three minutes. He said my client did it in self-defense and sat down. Please note that you are not given a detailed explanation of the charges against the accused at the beginning. The charges were mentioned once at the beginning and not again until the trial was concluded.

A jury trial is not like you see it on television or the movies. The biggest factors in the trial are the judge and the lawyers. The judge runs the overall thing but the real work is that of the lawyers. The trial is only as good as the questions that the lawyers ask each witness. The judge will occasionally ask a question of a witness but the jury cannot.

The jury is given a tablet and pen to take notes. These notes are not allowed to leave the courtroom until the jury deliberates that case, then they can be taken to the jury room for use during deliberations. Finally the notes are destroyed.

The next thing that is very different is that the witnesses are not called in chronological order of events. Our first witness was a doctor testifying about the injuries received by the victim of a gunshot wound. Then a witness to the shooting was called. Then a ballistics guy then another witness to the crime and then lots of police. Think of court testimony as a photo that is shredded by a playful puppy and then you randomly pick up each piece that the dog did not eat to see if you can understand the whole of the picture.

Video, fingerprints, DNA, and other technical wizardry are not a big part of most trials. As in this case, it was witnesses with varying degrees of believability that were called upon to testify.

Over the course of many days the story slowly comes into focus. You get the feeling watching this unfold that trying to schedule all these witnesses is like herding cats so they can fit the timeframe of the court. Some witnesses take ten minutes and others several hours. Some are willing to testify while others clearly would rather be anywhere else than court. But again, the answers are only as good as the questions.

The prosecution has the burden to prove the case against the accused. Early in this trial, the court made a big deal about the fact that the accused was not required to testify or even offer a defense. (I will have more on this in another installed of this series.) All evidence gathered by the prosecution in the investigation is required to be disclosed to the defense.

Something else that defies life in the real world are the hours kept by the court. Trials start at 9 AM for juries but the doors of the courtroom may not open until 9:30. Lunch can begin anywhere from 11 to noon but afternoon sessions always begin (in theory) at 1:30. The day usually ends at 4 PM but can go as late as 5.

I would arrive about 7 AM each morning, eat my breakfast in the jury parking lot, and then get 5 to 6 thousand steps each morning before court began. I arrived early partially to keep somewhat to my usual working hours and partially to beat the traffic. Also, jury parking is at a premium—especially at the beginning of each week.

The closing arguments went something like this: the judge read some instructions, then the prosecution did a 50 minute PowerPoint presentation going over each charge and point of law, and then the defense council did his best to muddy-up the waters in the hopes of creating reasonable doubt. The prosecution got a short rebuttal and then the jury was off to make a decision.

In short, we took a one hour episode of Law and Order and split it into pieces over a three week period.

More on the case in the next installment.

Why is SEARS Going Bankrupt?

Sears Corporation will be filing bankruptcy as early as Saturday, or as late as Monday morning. Sears is the definition of a former retail/corporate powerhouse. Look at some of these companies that used to be a part of Sears: Dean Witter, Allstate, Discover Financial, Morgan Stanley (later merged with Dean Witter), Orchard Supply Hardware (OSH) AKA (rest in peace, liquidated 2018) spun off: Sears Hometown, and Sears Canada in 2015. Wow look at that list! In its heyday, (think 1960’s) Sears sold everything from toys to hardware, to mail order houses, now its circling the drain at ramming speed. What caused all this death spiral you might say? Well a series of poor decisions that began with the ill-advised merger with Kmart in 2004. This is because while Sears competed in the middle to higher end, Kmart catered to the lower end customer seeking value and low prices. A fatal mistake is Sears began cross selling its most valuable brands in Kmart stores such as; Craftsman, Kenmore, and Diehard. By doing this they cheapened their brand, and due to needing to sell the product at a lower price had to cheapen their product.

Craftsman was a very trusted top of the line name in the tool category, they also came with a lifetime guarantee if it broke, by the way, it was actually good for life, not a certain number of years. As a young child, Craftsman tools were a large part of my father’s childhood. He and his father would always be working on or fixing something with Craftsman tools in hand. He always told me he could count the number of times a tool broke on one hand and usually have 3 or so fingers to spare. When it broke you simply went to the local Sears and presto, no questions asked it was replaced. No such luck anymore. The tools are made of cheap material from China that resembles the graphite found in a number 2 pencil. There is a reason they are sold at discount prices, they break with ease. Similar to when you hire folks from LaborReady or whatever they are called now, if the directions call for 1 wrench you better buy 3. Oh, and getting the tool replaced…get ready to gear up for a fight over that “lifetime warranty” means. Cheap crappy tools.

Back to a central part of this blog, the real reason for bankruptcy is CEO Eddie Lampert.

Eddie Lapert

If you are thinking the same guy who runs hedge fund ESL investments, your right. Lampert has never run a retail business, he just knows how to buy lots of stock in a company, force changes, and cash out when he makes a tidy profit; think Buffett, Icahn, and Nelson Peltz.

Lampert has actually been running a liquidation sale over the last decade to tell you the truth. He is a hedge fund guy, the only thing they know how to do is monetize assets and suck every dollar out of a company as humanly possible. Lampert inherited a company which albeit was struggling but had 3,500 stores, the company now has 700, planning to close another 150, keep 300 open and decide the fate of the other 250 in due time. This is too small a footprint to compete, more on this later. Lampert over the past few years has spun off most of Sears property (the ground/building) not the name into a different company to monetize its real estate, spun off Lands’ End into a stand-alone, mostly inside of Sears stores business, selling Craftsman to Stanley Black and Decker (by the way now available at Lowe’s, Home Depot, and pretty much everywhere). He also has loaned the company money through his fund ESL investments. By doing this he can charge a corporate bond interest rate think 8-12%, so he can suck more money out of the company. Lampert may own quite a bit of Sears stock, but he is very wise, shareholders are last in line in a bankruptcy, the banks are close to first, his loans essentially make him a creditor, and thus he will get most of his money back. Now here we are today, with Sears owing a $134 million dollar debt payment October 15th, they have no way to pay it. Enter Lampert again; offering to loan the company the money to make the payment, in exchange for Kenmore and several real estate plots the stores currently sit on. Sounds like a pretty good deal for Ole Eddie. The board is contemplating this, and I think they won’t go for it.

The moral of the story is this, we here at ReallyRight.com don’t like to see anyone lose their livelihood or see stores close but Sears hasn’t been relevant in at least 15 years. Honestly, they got rid of the Christmas (or is it Holiday) Catalog, likely to save money, bought a chain known for selling cheap crap with Blue Light Specials, and viola, it’s over. Cheapen your core brands to the point no one wants them or make it so they are now available anywhere not just exclusive to your store. In addition, ask yourself this question, what can you get at Sears that you can’t get cheaper elsewhere? Or better yet what do you go to a Sears to buy? Sears is the new Toy’s R Us, except that when it goes out of business it won’t be back, rumor has it Toy’s might be risen from the ashes like a Phoenix. It doesn’t help when you have a blood sucking hedge fund manager out only for himself who owns and runs the company.

NeverTrumpers Proven Wrong Again

Those of us that proudly voted for President Trump and supported him from the primary season to the Whitehouse have yet another accomplishment to crow about today. Trump told Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris to go pound sand and got three conservatives appointed to the Nine Circuit Court of Appeals. I told you the Ninth Circuit would be his next target for judicial reform. These two ladies burned any hope of civility and decorum with the slime attack on Brett Kavanaugh.

President Trump is plowing ahead to fill three vacancies on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, brushing aside Democratic resistance to nominate conservative judges.

Presidents traditionally work with senators from judicial nominees’ home state — in this case, California — to put forward judicial picks. They often seek what’s known as a “blue slip,” or an opinion from those senators.

But in a snub to California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, the White House announced Wednesday that Trump had nominated Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee (all from the Golden State, and reportedly all members of the conservative Federalist Society) to the influential circuit. The court, with a sprawling purview representing nine Western states, has long been a thorn in the side of the Trump White House, with rulings against the travel ban and limits on funding to “sanctuary cities.”

Trump snubs Feinstein, Harris to nominate conservative judges to liberal 9th Circuit

I know there are more openings on that court and Trump can severely hamstring the nuttiness in California if some common-sense folks are placed on the Ninth Circuit.