Saturday, August 13, 2022

ATTY. GEN. MERRICK GARLAND'S UNJUST "JUSTICE" DEPARTMENT - LOOK AT LOUISVILLE

The following is taken from the VDARE website from a few days ago.  It is written by Ann Coulter.  Hugh Murray

 

ANN COULTER: The Other Garland Atrocity—Double Jeopardy "Civil Rights" Charges Against Innocent Cops In Breonna Taylor Case
08/10/2022
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

Earlier by Ann Coulter: Breonna Taylor—The True Story Of A BLM Hero

Subscribe to Ann Coulter‘s Substack UNSAFE.

Let’s hope Merrick Garland’s search of Mar-a-Lago is based on more evidence than his indictment of the Louisville, Kentucky, police officers involved in the raid on Breonna Taylor’s house.

That passive construction I just used—“involved in the raid on,” instead of “who raided”—is not sloppy writing: It’s the facts. The officers who actually shot Taylor have not been charged, apparently on the flimsy grounds that they were being shot at when they fired.

Instead, our lunatic attorney general has indicted officers who prepared the affidavit used to obtain the warrant to search Taylor’s home. In the words of the indictment, the affidavit “contained information that was false, misleading and out-of-date…and that the officers lacked probable cause for the search.”

Further, the indictment also alleges that the officers knew they were providing false information.

 

Breonna Taylor, you will recall, was the moll for drug dealer Jamarcus Glover, one of Louisville’s biggest suppliers of cocaine and fentanyl, and therefore by definition a murderer. On March 13, 2020, the police executed simultaneous search warrants on two of his “trap houses” as well as the home of his bagwoman, Breonna.

At Taylor’s house, police announced themselves and got no response. They announced themselves again; no response. They announced themselves again; no response. Finally, they used a battering ram to enter. Almost immediately, an officer was shot.

The man with Taylor, Kenneth Walker, claims he shot at the officers because he thought the guys pounding on the front door and yelling "POLICE!" were home invaders. Skeptics will say that’s implausible, but it is now treated as hard fact in such solid, reliable news sources as The New York Times.

The officers returned fire and hit Taylor, who had the misfortune to be standing next to her boyfriend as he was shooting at the police. Riots ensued. Taylor’s family got $12 million.

Kentucky’s criminal prosecution of the one officer charged ended in an acquittal. With last week's suit, the federal government is now bringing its own criminal charges against the police—in a sane world, this would be double jeopardy—alleging that the affidavit for a search warrant was based on information that was knowingly “false, misleading and out-of-date.”

Specifically, the feds say the following claims were false:

  1. Glover and Taylor had an “ongoing connection”;
  2. Glover used Taylor’s address as his residence;
  3. Glover received packages at Taylor’s address.

While it can be murky determining the precise relationship status and residence of a drug dealer, especially when he works out of three trap houses and has multiple girlfriends, those three claims are not false. They are “true.”

The cops didn't lie; the indictment does.

  1. Did Glover and Taylor have an “ongoing connection”?

Their relationship dates back to at least 2016, when Taylor loaned Glover her rental car, only to have the police show up at her door to ask about the dead body in the trunk. The dead man turned out to be the brother of one of Glover's criminal confederates.

But that was four years before the raid! Surely, Breonna wised up after the body-in-the-trunk incident and dumped Jamarcus like a hot potato. Right?

Nope! Taylor continued bonding Glover out of jail through his many arrests from 2016 to 2020. He called Taylor from jail at least 26 times during those four years—that can be proven—including on January 3, 2020, three months before the raids. During that call from January 2020, the two talk about sleeping together and exchange "I love you's."

On January 2, 2020, police installed a pole camera to observe one of the crack houses in response to numerous violent assaults in the area. The very day the camera went up, Taylor’s car was seen pulling up to the house, dropping off Glover. On Feb. 13, 2020, Taylor drove him there again, and while waiting for him, got out of her car, in full view of the camera.

GPS tracking showed his car driving to Taylor’s house six times in January 2020 alone.

But this is a dry recitation of police evidence. Glover’s baby mama (not Breonna) is more colorful. In a recorded jailhouse phone call the day after the shooting, she told him: “This bitch (Breonna) where she’s been with you, since you ain’t been over at my house ... the same day you post a picture I guess she post a video, you knew it because she said what’s up she was in the bed with you, you kissing all over her.”

Glover repeatedly assures the irate baby mama that Breonna just kept his money for him—and that thousands of dollars were still at her house.

Now, where in the world would the police get the idea that Glover and Taylor had some sort of “ongoing connection”? It's a puzzlement.

  1. Did Glover use Taylor’s address as his “residence”?

Again, what constituted Glover’s “residence” is a bit of a philosophical question because, in the words of his baby mama, “You bounce back and forth between these bitches.”

But he had to give the bank an address. He gave them Taylor’s—as confirmed by the police with subpoenaed bank records they obtained on Feb. 24, 2020, mere weeks before the raids. He also had to give police a phone number when he filed a complaint in February about his car being towed. He gave them Breonna’s number.

To the extent that a major coke dealer with a string of ladies has any fixed address, Glover’s address was Taylor’s house.

  1. Did Glover receive packages at Taylor’s residence?

This one’s the easiest to answer. The police had photos of Glover carrying a USPS package from her house on Jan. 16, 2020. His car pulls up, he walks into her house empty-handed, then emerges carrying the USPS package. (Whereupon, he drove directly to a trap house.)

The hilarious part of this charge is that according to the indictment, it is based on the word of U.S. Postal Inspector Tony Gooden, who has been giving interviews all over, saying that in January 2020, his office investigated whether any “potentially suspicious packages” were being sent to Taylor’s house. But after a thorough investigation, he reported, nope, no suspicious packages!

That search must have been exhaustive.

Even the lawyer representing Taylor’s family wasn’t stupid enough to deny the packages. Amid a blizzard of fanciful claims about Taylor and Glover’s relationship—They’d broken up years ago! They barely stayed in touch!—the lawyer admitted that Taylor “accepted packages” for Glover.

Yeah, we know. There are pictures. The only people who don’t know are the Louisville postal inspector and the attorney general of the United States.

This fall, the Democrats will try to convince you that they support the police. Why, look at how well we treated the cop who shot Ashli BabbittNever forget that this is the party that spent 2 1/2 years—and counting!—trying to destroy Louisville police officers for risking their lives to take down a major drug ring.

Saturday, August 6, 2022

SPEAKER OF HOUSE, NANCY PELOSI CORRECT IN GOING TO TAIWAN

            By Hugh Murray

   I was surprised to find different reactions to the trip by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan this August 2022.  She had earlier announced that she would go, the government of the People's Republic of China objected.  There was debate in the US.  Pres. Biden asserted that the American military discouraged her trip.  Pelosi planned to stop in Singapore, the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea, as well as Taiwan.  Some hawks in China threatened to prevent her from landing or even shoot her plane down.  On the other side, some conservative Republicans thought her trip a good idea, and hoped she would ask them to accompany her.  She did not announce her specific plans, but on Tuesday 2 August she arrived in Taipei, was presented an award by the leader of the island, and soon thereafter, continued to her next destination.

    I was shocked by Pat Buchanan's reaction, contending that she was risking war with China with no specific purpose.  Even more surprising, the reaction of Fox News star Tucker Carlson, who deemed her Taiwan venture, irresponsible, dangerous, a provocation to a war with China.

    I am usually an opponent of every political act my Speaker for the past few years: her impeachment of Pres. Trump; her 2nd impeachment of Trump, the January 6 one-sided inquiry into the fracas on the Capitol, her support for the Democratic Party pandemic policies, and her left-wing agenda.  Why then do I support her reviled trip to Taiwan.

    When House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited Taiwan in the 1990s, the PRC may have objected, but so what?  The American military and naval forces were far superior to those of the People's Liberation Army.  True, on the Asian mainland, the PLA's "volunteer" forces stole an American military in North Korea, and restored the border to where it had been when Kim Il Sung invaded the South in 1950.  But the US had no desire to invade the mainland now.  The American navy, which had defeated that of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, was far superior to that of the PLA-N in the 1990's.

      The question of who would win a war for Taiwan today is not so clear.  In war games, China often wins.  But games are not reality.  Still, it would be a closer call.  On Wednesday morning, I was pleasantly relieved when I turned on my tv, and it worked.  A first strike attack today will not be like one on Pearl Harbor in 1941.  We will not find out by listening to our radios or tvs.  The first thing to go in the star war age will be our electric grid and satellites.  We may not have electricity, a phone, or water.  Welcome to America 1820.  Or China may suffer that black-out.  Nukes may not be necessary to win a modern war.

    So why risk war with China for a non-essential visit by Nancy Pelosi?  The main reason, as close as the 2 contenders are today, the US and the PRC, under Pres. Biden - the worst President in America history, our military will only get worse.  Better a confrontation today than a year from now.  The sooner a Republican is in the White House, America and begin to rebuild and repair the broken machine where a major ship is destroyed by a minor fire in the docks, and others cannot be properly steered so as to avoid collisions, and leaders are chosen by racial or sexual quotas, not on abilities.  Better the fright today so that perhaps some can begin to repair the Democratic Party caused damaged.  This is why, for once, I cheer Nancy Pelosi, whose visit may make a wake-up call to all America about the real danger we face.

    Now the dull stuff:  About 94% of our chips are made in Taiwan.  These are used in many American industries, and without them, we cannot finish auto production, or make washing machines or most other machines.  If China were to impose a blockade around Taiwan, that too might mean war.  Unlike Ukraine, we are dependent upon Taiwan, we need it to remain an industrial power.

     China lost Taiwan to Japan in war in the 1890s, and it remained Japanese until the Imperial defeat in 1945, when it was restored to the official govt. of China, the Nationalist govt.  In China's civil war Pres. Truman sent Gen. Marshall to handle things and he demanded that Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek form a coalition government with Communist leader Mao.  Chiang refused Marshall's demand, so Marshall refused to allow any arms to be supplied to the Nationalists, while Stalin was supplying Mao with captured Japanese arms from Manchukuo and Soviet sources.  Communists in the US Treasury Dept. and other departments sabotaged any later efforts to supply Chiang with aid.  Mao won the civil war on the mainland and proclaimed the PRC in 1949.  Chiang and his remnant fled to Taiwan and continued as the Republic of China.  In the effort to split the USSR from China, Kissinger and Nixon made deals with Mao.  Under Pres. Carter, we ditched The RoC, and recognized the one-China policy.

      Legally, that one-China policy gives Beijing a strong claim to Taiwan (it is harder to imagine Taiwan now conquering the mainland, which would also be a one-China policy).  But the PRC ignores the law, especially when the international court ruled against its fantasy claims to the South China Sea.  In the 1400s the Chinese probably had the largest fleet in the world and might have claimed that sea, but a new emperor around 1450 destroyed the fleet and all plans for such ocean-going vessels and established a new stay-at-home policy, which was not reversed until centuries later.  But China ignred the law and used forced to build and fortify islets in the South China Sea and threaten its neighbors and all sea-going vessels in the area with its lawless actions.