Showing posts with label Politicians_Corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politicians_Corruption. Show all posts

May 20, 2020

Lock Him Up! Michael Flynn is Not Going Free Without a Fight

            LOCK HIM UP! |  THAT'S RIGHT...LOCK HIM UP!! | image tagged in general michael flynn,lock him up,wake up america | made w/ Imgflip meme maker

The Justice Department’s attempt to drop the criminal case against Flynn has sparked so much outrage among former department officials and ex-prosecutors that a small army of DOJ alumni has hatched a plan to challenge the move in court.

A group representing almost a thousand former prosecutors and high-ranking officials has drafted a legal brief slamming the motion to dismiss the case against President Trump’s former national security adviser as sheer partisan politics, according to a copy obtained by VICE News on Monday. 

The brief accuses Attorney General Bill Barr of having “weaponized” the Department of Justice “to punish the President’s opponents and reward his friends” — and asks Judge Emmet Sullivan to carefully scrutinize the attempt to dismiss the case, and reject it if he finds the move wasn’t in the public interest.

“There is nothing remarkable or unjust about the case against Flynn. He lied to FBI agents— and admitted to that lie under oath,” the brief asserts. “The government’s motion instead bears the hallmarks of a brazen attempt to protect an ally of the President.”

Their decision to intervene in the Flynn case marks a dramatic escalation in the long-running feud between Barr and DOJ alumni, who have released scathing public letters attacking Barr’s behavior. Barr has shrugged off the criticism by saying that, in the end, “Everyone dies,” and “History is written by the winner.”

Independent legal observers have accused Barr of attempting to undo the consequences of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, in which Flynn became an early target. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general and Trump’s first national security adviser, agreed to plead guilty in December 2017 to lying about his interactions with former Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak soon after the 2016 election and before Trump was sworn into office.

But Flynn later switched legal teams and launched an aggressive campaign to get the original plea thrown out — a cause that was taken up by a chorus of right-wing Trump supporters on cable television. 

Last week, the Justice Department shocked longtime legal observers by asking the judge to drop the case because there wasn’t a good enough rationale for investigators to interview Flynn in the first place.

But now, former Justice officials aren’t just shaking their fists at the sky in protest: They’re preparing to jump into legal battle. And their intervention could have a direct impact on what happens next.

The brief signed by hundreds of former officials could give Judge Sullivan cover to refuse the DOJ’s request to drop the case. That could mean forcing Flynn to honor his guilty plea in spite of the Justice Department’s reversal, and handing Flynn a real prison sentence.

Judge Sullivan has raised the possibility of going even further than that, saying earlier this month he’s weighing whether to hold Flynn in criminal contempt of court for perjury. Sullivan appointed a retired judge named John Gleeson to oppose the DOJ’s argument.

The brief has been organized by a group called Protect Democracy, which helped gather hundreds of signatures already for a previous public letter criticizing Barr over the Flynn case. The group plans to submit the new brief, when finalized, to Judge Sullivan as a friend-of-the-court brief following Sullivan’s decision to open up the proceeding to submissions from third parties.

June 3, 2019

"Mueller is as elliptical as Barr is diabolical"


When I was a political reporter at The Times, I had an editor who told me never to give anyone a Homeric epithet.

Such epithets denote a permanent trait, the editor explained, and people in the caldron of politics were mutable. So if I called that Republican strategist “savvy” this week, the man might do something dumb the following week. (And that is exactly what happened.)

But I might have to make an exception for William Barr. Homer had a couple of epithets that would suit our attorney general: “crooked-counseling” and “devious-devising” come to mind.

In an interview in Alaska for “CBS This Morning,” Jan Crawford asked Barr — who was doing his best Cheneyesque dour-jowly-outdoorsman under the Big Sky routine — if he was worried about his reputation. 

Barr came into the job, Crawford said, with a good reputation on the right and the left and now he stands “accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress.”

In Homer’s epic poems, reputation is more exalted than life itself. But in Donald Trump’s epic reign as the hotheaded, ammonia-haired, serpent-tongued destroyer of worlds, political survival is paramount, no matter the venality involved or the cost to your reputation.

Barr responded to Crawford with fatalism, saying “everyone dies” and he doesn’t believe in “the Homeric idea” that immortality comes by “having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?”

It’s a good thing, too, because no one will be singing odes about this general being lionhearted in the rosy-fingered dawn. 

Barr is not so much the attorney general as the minister of information. His interview with Crawford was tactically brilliant. Barr once more deftly took advantage of the fact that Mueller, with his impenetrable legalese and double negatives, has handcuffed himself.

Even when the reclusive and mute Mueller finally stepped up to the lectern on Wednesday, he was still hiding.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” said Mueller, sounding like Odysseus struggling to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

Mueller is as elliptical as Barr is diabolical. The special counsel is clearly frustrated that we don’t understand his reasoning. But his reasoning is nonsensical.

Adding insult to injury, the man whose whole career has been about asking the tough questions wouldn’t even take questions. And he doesn’t want to deign to testify about his $35 million report.

Mueller was trying to let himself off the hook by insisting that he couldn’t reach a conclusion on the president’s obstruction because he was bound by a Department of Justice opinion stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Plus, he layered on some extra “principles of fairness.”

But talking to Crawford, Barr took the knife he had already stuck in his old friend and twisted it, using St. Mueller’s prestige against him. He said Mueller, in fact, was not barred from reaching a conclusion, and this is why a “surprised” Barr and his former deputy, Rod Rosenstein, had to step in and reach a conclusion on obstruction, one ending up favoring Trump.

After indicating that Mueller was derelict and misguided, Barr went ahead and belittled him and his dream team as inept.

Dismissively noting he and Rosenstein did not agree with a lot of the legal analysis in the Mueller report, Barr said he applied what he considered to be “the right law,” though he confusingly said he didn’t rely on that when pronouncing Mueller’s evidence “deficient” on the 11 instances of potential obstruction laid out in the report.

When Barr moved on to his investigation of the investigators who worked on the case of possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, he really bared his claws.

About the F.B.I. team that did the investigating, Barr backed up all of Trump’s deep-state rants, saying: “Republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state.” He added, ominously, “Things are just not jiving.”

Just as Barr enables Trump, Mueller enabled Barr.

Mueller’s argument seems to be that he can’t report on what his facts mean because the president has immunity from prosecution. But that doesn’t follow. If you believe Trump committed a crime, even if you can’t indict him now, why not say so? Otherwise, what was the point of the investigation? All Mueller was asked to do was to describe what he found and give his conclusions; then the Justice Department and Congress could do what they wanted.

As Walter Dellinger, an acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration, tweeted: “Everyone agrees a president can be indicted once he is out of office. That (in addition to impeachment) is a reason to gather the evidence now while docs are available and memories fresh.” 

But, tangled up in some overweening idea of fairness, the ultimate straight arrow decided to remain agnostic even though his job did not require agnosticism. And that made him weirdly complicit in Barr’s whitewashing of Trump.

Mueller colored inside the lines and Barr seized the narrative. Rectitude was Mueller’s Achilles’ heel.

Sometimes it’s hard to know who is worse: devils or saints.
I invite you to follow me on Twitter (@MaureenDowd) 

Maureen Brigid Dowd is an American columnist for The New York Times and an author. During the 1970s and the early 1980s, Dowd worked for Time magazine and the Washington Star, where she covered news and sports and wrote feature articles. Wikipedia

July 5, 2018

REP (GOP) jim Jordan is Being Implicated in Boys Sexual Abuses at Michigan State Gymnastics

 πŸ¦ŠPublisher: Jim Jordan is the guy you saw on TV asking Mueller's boss "Why the hell don't you finish this investigation already?". An extreme conservative and supporter of Trump do not want anything legal to happen to Trump, that is why he is so critical of the Mueller's investigation. Well now, the shoe is going to be on his foot or should I say mouth?
What did Jim Jordan know, and what did he do about it? Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call,Inc.

The horrific scandal involving Larry Nassar, the Michigan State University and U.S. Gymnastics team physician who was convicted of criminal sexual assault against athletes under his care, and was credibly accused of literally hundreds of acts of abuse, has made the risks of sexual misconduct by medical personnel at colleges a huge topic, especially in the Midwest. Those who knew or had reason to know of his misdeeds over the years have been held accountable: Exposure of his crimes led to the resignations of the president and board of USA Gymnastics, and the president of Michigan State, along with $500 million to settle lawsuits against MSU filed by 332 Nassar victims.
That makes the new allegations being made that prominent conservative U.S. representative Jim Jordan turned a blind eye to sexual abuse of athletes by a team doctor during his long tenure as an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State University especially explosive right now. NBC has the story:
Rep. Jim Jordan, the powerful Republican congressman from Ohio, is being accused by former wrestlers he coached more than two decades ago at Ohio State University of failing to stop the team doctor from molesting them and other students.

The university announced in April that it was investigating accusations that Dr. Richard Strauss, who died in 2005, abused team members when he was the team doctor from the mid-1970s to late 1990s.
Jordan, who was on the wrestling staff at OSU from 1986 to 1994, before his political career began, is denying that he knew anything about Strauss molesting his athletes.
His denials, however, have been met with skepticism and anger from some former members of the wrestling team.

Three former wrestlers told NBC News that it was common knowledge that Strauss showered regularly with the students and inappropriately touched them during appointments, and said it would have been impossible for Jordan to be unaware; one wrestler said he told Jordan directly about the abuse.
The ex-athletes don’t seem to have any particular bone, political or otherwise, to pick with Jordan, and mostly said they were fond of him. But the ones who spoke to NBC were unanimous in saying that he’s covering up what he knew:
“I love Jimmy to death,” [one] ex-wrestler said. “It was a head-scratcher to me why he would say he didn’t know anything. Doc used to take showers with the team even though he didn’t do any workouts, and everybody used to snicker about how you go into his office for a sore shoulder and he tells you to take your pants down.”
At least one of Strauss’s accusers claims that his misconduct went far beyond the wrestling team, as the Washington Post reports:
[Mike] DiSabato said he was first abused by Strauss at 14 as a high school wrestler. He said he believes Strauss abused 1,000-2,000 young athletes.

“He was Larry Nassar before Larry Nassar,” DiSabato said, referring to the disgraced former sports physician who was sentenced to up to 175 years in prison for sexually abusing girls and young women.
Now Jordan is a pretty big deal in the House these days, as a co-founder of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and a possible candidate for the speakership when Paul Ryan steps down at the end of this year. These accusations are the last thing he needs right now. And his prominence in conservative politics is already generating ferocious counterattacks from the, er, less inhibited precincts of the right-wing media, viz this post on the Gateway Pundit: 
The swamp unleashed a smear campaign on Jordan Tuesday morning, accusing him of turning a blind eye to sexual abuse as Ohio State wrestling coach. 
The law firm handling this case is none other than Perkins Coie; the same law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and paid for the fake Russia dossier.
Perkins Coie is actually working for Ohio State in the investigation, not Jordan’s accusers, but whatever. Alt-right gabber Mike Tokes sees something even more sinister at work: 

View image on Twitter
Jim Jordan goes against the powerful interests at the FBI & deep state to expose them & hold them accountable for their crimes.

Now all of a sudden there is a concentrated smear campaign against him in a deliberate attempt to discredit his work?

The American people know better.

 It takes some kind of self-confidence to hear of serious allegations of criminal misconduct that only indirectly involves one of your “team’s” politicians and immediately know for a fact that it’s a “deep state” conspiracy. The rest of us will just have to wait for the facts to unfold.

April 20, 2018

Some GOP's Push Bill to Protect Mueller But Mitch McConnell Wants to Protect Trump not The Prosecutor Instead

 "To be scared of a a man with small everything is to believe you have less of everything"

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., does not support a measure that would make it harder for President Trump to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, but that isn't stopping some Republicans from forcing the debate.
North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis said Wednesday that he will continue working on a bill to allow Mueller access to speedy judicial review if Trump tries to force him out of his job leading the Justice Department investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election — with or without McConnell's support.
"We'll have a markup and a vote in committee," Tillis told reporters. "It's something that can lie in the Senate chamber. Facts may lead to passage or not."
Tillis said he plans to continue lobbying leadership on the bill, even after McConnell explicitly rejected the legislation.
"This is not necessary, there's no indication that Mueller is going to be fired," McConnell said in a Fox News interview on Tuesday. He added, "We'll not be having this on the floor of the Senate."
But Tillis and other supporters of the bill say they aren't backing down. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said Wednesday that the goal isn't necessarily to pass a measure with the hope of forcing Trump to decide between signing the bill or issuing a veto. The real goal, he said, is to send the president a message. 
"If the goal — and I think it should be — is to convince the president not to take this action," Flake told reporters, "I think the message needs to be that we take this very seriously."
There are plenty of Republicans who say they agree the issue should be taken seriously, but they want to lobby Trump quietly — not through an aggressive public measure like voting on this bill.
Supporters of the legislation say that's just wishful thinking. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Tuesday that Republicans who hope they can persuade Trump not to fire Mueller through such discussions aren't facing reality.
"If he's not listening to his own lawyers, I don't think he's going to listen to a bunch of U.S. senators," Blumenthal said.
Trump has crossed Republicans on a number of issues, like the recent tariffs on China. Many in Congress have grown wary of a string of White House firings — like that of former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — that came without any warning. Blumenthal said Trump could do the same to Mueller.
Another group of Republicans, including McConnell and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, simply believe Trump won't fire Mueller.
"It's hard for me to just hypothetically think in this direction because I just don't think it's going to happen," Hatch said on Tuesday. "It would be a mistake."
There are also political reasons for Republicans to want to avoid a public display of support for Mueller. Forcing a vote could also create an impossible choice for Republicans running for re-election against strong Democratic challengers.
Either they vote against the president and commit what would be considered a cardinal sin by many in Trump's fervent base, or they vote against protecting Mueller, which could anger moderates worried Republicans won't stand up to Trump.
Either way, Democrats like Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois want Republicans on the record.
"It isn't a question of whether Trump might one day veto it," Durbin said Tuesday. "It's whether they believe in the integrity of the special counsel or they believe anybody, including the president, should be above criminal investigation."
For now, a majority of Republicans say they agree that the special counsel should be allowed to finish his investigation. And they say they trust that Trump won't get in his way.
Speaking at a news conference with Japan's prime minister Wednesday in Florida, Trump provided little clarity about the fate of Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has overseen the Justice Department investigation since last year.
Trump repeated his charge that the Russia matter is a "hoax," but he stopped short of saying he would fire Mueller or Rosenstein.
"They've been saying I'm going to get rid of them for the last three months, four months, five months, and they're still here," Trump said.
The president also reiterated his view that there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russians involved in the election interference. He also said that the White House has been cooperating with the Mueller investigation and "we want to get it over with, done with, put it behind us."

March 3, 2018

Qatar Denied Loan to The Kushner's and Pays For It by Having Saudis Come Against Them

Image by Lia Kantrowitz, appeared on Vice 2017

Earlier this week it was learned that Jared Kushner’s family business received half a billion dollars in loans from a pair of financial institutions following meetings between senior executives and the First Son-in-Law in the White House. The optics weren’t great! An even worse look? The possibility that the boy prince launched a geopolitical tantrum and punished an entire country for refusing to lend money to Kushner Cos.

The Intercept reports that in April 2017, Jared’s father, Charles Kushner, met with Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi in hopes of securing an investment in 666 Fifth Avenue, the Midtown tower that has become a real-estate albatross around the family’s neck. The 30-minute meeting was held at a suite at the St. Regis in New York and was followed up by another rendezvous at the cursed property itself, though Al Emadi was not in attendance at the latter. Ultimately, like the numerous other parties from whom the Kushners attempted to extract money for the building, the Qataris decided to pass. And then, totally coincidentally, this happened:
The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatar’s neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushner’s backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff.

As the Intercept notes, this was not the first time Jared’s dad solicited money from the Qataris; in another instance, shortly after the 2016 election, Charles Kushner tried to get Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al Thani, a rich and powerful businessman and former foreign minister and prime minister of Qatar, to invest in 666. 

That deal, worth $500 million, ultimately fell through when the Kushner failed to drum up outside the capital, which was one of the businessman’s stipulations. Of course, there’s know the way to know whether the Trump administration’s decision to rain hell on Qatar was the result of Jared not getting his way. Certainly, neither the Kushners nor the Trumps are known for holding grudges, or for retaliating against people they believe have wronged them. But the timing is interesting—in fact, if one were in the business of making such salacious claims, one could almost say that a pattern is emerging!

The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatar’s neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushner’s backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff.

As the Intercept notes, this was not the first time Jared’s dad solicited money from the Qataris; in another instance, shortly after the 2016 election, Charles Kushner tried to get Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al Thani, a rich and powerful businessman and former foreign minister and prime minister of Qatar, to invest in 666. That deal, worth $500 million, ultimately fell through when the Kushner failed to drum up outside the capital, which was one of the businessman’s stipulations. Of course, there’s know the way to know whether the Trump administration’s decision to rain hell on Qatar was the result of Jared not getting his way. Certainly, neither the Kushners nor the Trumps are known for holding grudges, or for retaliating against people they believe have wronged them. But the timing is interesting—in fact, if one were in the business of making such salacious claims, one could almost say that a pattern is emerging!
Mohammed Hitme, chief of staff to the Qatari finance minister, did not respond to the Intercept’s requests for comment while Hope Hicks, White House spokesperson for the next few weeks, referred questions to Kushner Cos. The company’s spokesperson, Christine Taylor, told the Intercept: “We don’t comment on who Charlie meets with,” adding, “We don’t do business with any sovereign funds.” She was not asked whether the company would if given the opportunity.

November 28, 2017

In One of The Most Corrupt Govs in Asia The Police Caught on Video Committing Murder

 On White like a virgin, self-admitted killer of Three. In the middle Trump who envies the position of leaders who don't answer to the law. Leader of Putin's elite fan club

Police tell one story of what happened in Barangay 19. Security cameras tell another.

Chilling surveillance footage of a drug-war operation in Manila raises fresh doubts about police actions in President Rodrigo Duterte's brutal anti-narcotics campaign. Reuters obtained the footage, which shows the deadly operation from start to finish 

BARANGAY 19, Manila – The police report was clear. 
Anti-drug officers shot and injured three men in this poor
 district of the Philippine capital, then “rushed” them to
a hospital where they were pronounced dead on arrival.
But security camera footage obtained by Reuters tells a different story of what happened just after midday on October 11 in Barangay (district) 19. It shows that police took at least 25 minutes to haul away the men they had shot. The victims show no signs of life; police are seen carrying them by their arms and legs and loading their limp bodies onto pedicabs to take them to hospital.
The footage casts new doubts on the official accounts of police killings in President Rodrigo Duterte's 17-month war on drugs.
In June, Reuters revealed that police have shot hundreds of people during anti-drug operations, then taken them to hospitals where they are declared dead on arrival. Police say they're trying to save lives. Bereaved relatives and other witnesses allege police are sending corpses to hospitals to disrupt crime scenes and cover up extrajudicial killings. 
Police have shot dead at least 3,900 people in anti-narcotic operations since Duterte took power in June 2016 - always in self-defense, police say. Human rights activists blame the police for thousands of more killings attributed to vigilantes, but authorities deny any involvement.
A witness to the Barangay 19 killings told Reuters that the three men were executed and not, as the police claim, shot in self-defense. Police say they only use deadly force in self-defense, but a series of investigations by Reuters suggest they are summarily executing people.
The security camera footage not only contradicts the police account of the Barangay 19 killings. It also provides further evidence of another drug-war tactic: the disabling of surveillance cameras at crime scenes by the police. In the footage, filmed simultaneously by four security cameras, an officer is seen turning the camera that captured the action away from the scene.
The police understand the dangers posed by such footage, which can expose their actions. An active-duty commander involved in the drug war told Reuters earlier this year that police collude with local officials to unplug security cameras in areas where they plan to carry out a drug-war killing.
Reuters has obtained footage from all four security cameras, each capturing the episode from a different angle. Together, the cameras provide a unique record of a police operation from start to finish. Some of the Barangay 19 footage was previously aired by Philippine broadcaster GMA.
“The operation was legitimate,” said Santiago Pascual, the commander of the station that conducted the raid, in a statement to Reuters. A station investigation showed that his officers had followed correct operational procedure, said Pascual, and eyewitness testimony that they had opened fire on unarmed men was “untrue and unfounded.” Police carried out the Oct. 11 raid a day after Duterte ordered them to leave anti-drug operations to the state-run Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The October memo marked the second time that Duterte has publicly told police officers to stop waging his drug war. He announced a halt to their operations in late January after news emerged that police had kidnapped and murdered a South Korean businessman. He lifted that ban one month later, saying drugs were returning to the streets.
In his latest order, Duterte said he wanted "to bring order to the operation/campaign against illegal drugs, thus pinpointing precise accountability.”
The announcement came amid escalating public criticism of alleged police atrocities. Recent surveys by Manila-based pollster Social Weather Stations have shown rising distrust of the police and unease with their brutal methods, which have been criticized by the influential Catholic Church.
The circulation online of security camera footage of police operations and vigilante killings has spurred public disquiet with Duterte’s bloody anti-drug campaign. Outrage followed the August release of a video that seemed to back up eyewitness accounts of how teenager Kian Loyd de los Santos was killed that month.

Explore the killings in an interactive graphic: Click here.

Police said they shot the 17-year-old in self-defense after he opened fire. Eyewitnesses said police took the unarmed boy to a trash-filled alley in northern Manila and shot him in the head. Footage emerged showing two officers marching a figure toward the spot where delos Santos’ body was found. His funeral procession turned into the biggest protest yet against the drug war.
The officers in the Barangay 19 footage belong to an anti-drug unit from Police Station 2 in Manila, according to a police report of the incident. Of the 15 officers who appear clearly on the footage, only one is wearing a mask.
The report said Rolando Campo, 60, sold drugs to an undercover officer, who signaled for back-up. Campo "sensed the presence" of the police officers and ordered his two associates - Sherwin Bitas, 34, and Ronnie Cerbito, 18 - to draw their guns and open fire on them, the report said.
The police retaliated, leaving the three men "fatally wounded," it said.
But the footage shows Campo chatting with people in the neighborhood in the minutes before the police arrive, and not, as the report said, selling drugs to an undercover officer.

NAMED: This list, provided by police in response to questions from Reuters, names the officers who shot Campo, Bitas and Cerbito.

The police operation doesn’t seem to be undercover. The footage shows mainly plainclothes officers, most of them visibly armed and some wearing body armor, entering the area through the alley on which Campo and Bitas lived. The officers pass in full view of the victims’ house seven minutes before the shooting starts.
Arlene Gibaga, Bitas' wife, told Reuters that she witnessed the shooting and the three men were unarmed. "We don't have the money for guns," said Gibaga, who has three young children with Bitas. She said her husband didn’t deal drugs.
Police detained the men in an alley next to her house, she said, and asked her to get Bitas' ID. When she produced it, said Gibaga, one officer shouted "Positive! Positive!" and then the officers fired on Bitas.

“Don't do that to my husband!" she screamed, as the police shot Bitas. "I will report you! There are CCTV cameras here!"
One of the officers then aimed his gun at Gibaga and ordered her inside, she said.
The footage doesn't show the police shooting the three men, but does show an officer appearing to open fire on an unseen target. Campo then falls backward into the frame, his body hitting the ground. His arms move for a while before resting motionless.
Less than a minute later, the camera that captured the scene of the shooting is effectively put out of action: someone turns it to face the wall. A second camera shows a police officer reaching up and turning it away.
Station commander Pascual said the camera was averted for a “valid security reason” and to ensure the operation wasn’t compromised. His statement reiterated the police report’s version of events - “that the suspects first drew firearms and shot the operatives,” who returned fire in self-defense.
Later that day, at Police Station 2, Gibaga said officers told her it was useless to complain. “It’s the government you will be fighting against,” she recalled one officer saying. “Don’t get angry at us. We are just following orders.”

RESTING PLACE: The wake of Rolando Campo and Sherwin Bitas was held only 
a few paces from where police shot them. REUTERS/Dondi Tawatao

Duterte’s War
By Clare Baldwin and Andrew R.C. Marshall
Video: Ryan Brooks
Graphic: Jin Wu and Simon Scarr
Photo Editor: Thomas White
Design: Catherine Tai
Edited by Peter Hirschberg  

Featured Posts

The Government in Egypt Arresting Doctors and Critics Over The Virus Outbreak

There is someone is Washington that would love those powers but thank goodness we have a different type of government and Consti...