Jon Stewart Defends Tony Hinchcliffe, Ballot Box Fires in 3 States, & The Truth About Ronald Green
PDS Published 10/29/2024
-
Ronald Green killing cop pleads no contest
These cops killed a man, covered it up, and are now getting away with it virtually Scot-free.
Right, in case you’re unfamiliar, in 2019 Ronald Greene, a 49-year-old barber, died after a high-speed chase with Louisiana police for a traffic violation. [Image]
With state troopers initially telling Greene’s family that he crashed into a tree and died on impact.
But then they released a one-page statement clarifying that actually, he resisted arrest, became unresponsive, and died on his way to the hospital.
So people were like, one, that’s vague, and two, why did you change your story?
But for two whole years, the state police refused to release any body camera videos, even as the public demanded it.
And then, in 2021, the Associated Press obtained 46 minutes of footage that revealed the horrifying truth.
Several cops punched, kicked, choked, dragged, tased and pepper sprayed Greene, who barely resisted, until he died.
Right, after the chase, two officers rush Greene’s car, and you see him raise his hands and repeat “OK, OK, I’m sorry” over and over. [Quote]
But almost immediately, one cop tases him before he even gets out of the car or does anything.
With Greene pleading, “I’m your brother! I’m scared! I’m scared!” [Quote]
Then, after Greene gets out, one trooper wrestles him to the ground, puts him in a chokehold and punches him in the face while another calls him a “stupid motherfucker.” [Quote]
Meanwhile, Greene’s wailing “I’m sorry!” as a trooper tases him again in his back and warns, “Look, you’re going to get it again if you don’t put your fucking hands behind your back!” [Quote]
And eventually, they have him face-down with his hands cuffed behind his back and his feet shackled together.
Which is how he would remain for more than nine minutes, struggling to breathe as a heavyset man, just like George Floyd.
So at one point, you see him trying to prop himself up on his side. [Quote, find “prop himself”]
But Trooper Kory York grabs the chain connecting his shackles and drags him backward, all the while yelling: [image]
[Clip, 00:21 - 00:30]
With York then putting a knee into Greene’s back.
And then, at another point, though it’s hard to tell from the video exactly what’s happening, Greene suddenly cries out.
With one cop then heard saying, “Yeah, yeah, that shit hurts, doesn’t it?”
[Clip, 00:05 - 00:09]
To which Greene responds, “I’m sorry! I’m sorry!”
And several law enforcement officials told the AP that might be the moment when he was pepper sprayed, which we know from documents happened at some point. [Quote, find “pepper spray”]
But even after all that, and as Greene’s still lying there moaning — I’m not kidding about this — the cops casually use sanitizer wipes to wash blood off their hands and faces. [Quote, find “wash blood”]
With one heard commenting, “I hope this guy ain’t got f------ AIDS.” [Quote]
[Clip, 01:26 - 01:30]
And after paramedics arrive, one can be heard saying, “He’s not getting enough air,” yet nobody appears to give Greene oxygen. [Quote]
Also, later on, Trooper Chris Hollingsworth was recorded telling a fellow officer:
[Clip, 02:02 - 02:07, 02:18 - 02:23] Caption: “I beat the ever-living f--- out of him, choked him and everything else trying to get him under control. All of a sudden he just went limp. ... I thought he was dead.”
With the other officer asking in reply, “You all got that on bodycam?” [Quote]
At which point Hollingsworth turns off his camera. [Same quote]
Now the autopsy report, which wasn’t made public for two years, listed Greene’s cause of death as “cocaine induced agitated delirium complicated by motor vehicle collision, physical struggle, inflicted head injury and restraint.” [Quote]
Which, if you remember our segment on the bogus “excited delirium” diagnosis and its spinoffs, that should be ringing alarm bells.
But notably the report declined to state whether the car crash or the police brutality caused his most serious injuries, leaving the blame for his death ambiguous.
Meanwhile, the cops were busy covering up their handiwork.
With the highest-ranking officer of six at the scene telling investigators that day that he had no body camera footage of the incident, a blatant lie. [Quote, find “no body camera”]
And adding that his troopers sat Greene up and “immediately held his head up so he could get a clear airway.” [Quote]
But of course, the video shows his men doing the opposite, saying they didn’t want to sit Greene up because they were afraid he would spit blood on them. [Quote, find “spit blood”]
And even when they did sit him up, Greene was already unresponsive, with his head slumped down to his chest, and they didn’t try to lift it for nearly six minutes. [Quote, find “six minutes”]
Moreover, the police didn’t give forensic pathologists even the most routine documents for the autopsy report, including police reports, collision details or emergency medical records. [Quote, find “most routine”]
And they didn’t open an administrative investigation into the troopers’ use of force until 474 days after the incident. [Quote, find “474”]
Now obviously the fact that I’m sharing all this with you means that the truth has come to light, so you would think these cops have been held accountable, right?
Well, think again.
Right, Hollingsworth, the cop who, in his own poetic words, “beat the ever living fuck” out of Greene, escaped justice after he died in a car crash in 2020.
Then, a grand jury indicted the five other officers in December 2022, but nearly two years later only two of them still face any charges.
Which brings us to today’s news about York, the cop who held Greene down and dragged him by his shackles.
Right, initially he was hit With felony charges of negligent homicide and malfeasance. [Quote, find “felony charges”]
But the prosecutors feared they wouldn’t be able to get a conviction with the ambiguous autopsy report, especially in such a conservative state.
So they dropped the homicide charge, and York just pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery instead. [Same quote]
Which got him a 1,000 dollar fine, 160 hours of community service and one year of supervised probation. [Quote, find “1,000”]
Or in other words, he got off with zero jailtime for what many consider murder.
And because he pled no contest, not only does he get to keep his pension, his conviction also can’t be used in the wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Greene’s family. [Quote, find “pension”]
So now the last hope for any sort of real justice is the one remaining cop who’s still being charged, as well as a years-old FBI civil rights investigation that’s still unresolved.
Links:
-
Medi Hassan CNN panel debate
Is this a vile racist death threat, or just a guy getting canceled for making a joke?
Right, for this story, you’ve got CNN’s show “NewsNight” hosting a panel to talk about the upcoming election yesterday, and things got a bit heated, to say the least.
With left-wing commentator Mehdi [Meddy] Hasan sparring off against right-wing commentator Ryan Girdusky [Gurr-dusky]. [Image, need Ryan]
With them getting into Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, specifically the racist comments made by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe and others.
And Hasan acknowledges that equating Trump supporters with Nazis is “inflammatory,” but adds, “if you don’t want to be called Nazis, stop doing, stop saying -”
With Girdusky then cutting him off and claiming that Hasan, more than anyone else at the table, has been called an anti-Semite.
To which Hasan responds, and then Girdusky makes a comment about a beeper that seemed to refer to the exploding pagers that Israel used to kill members of Hezbollah. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:09 - 00:50]
So after that segment ended, the host, Abby Phillip, came back on air alone and got real serious with her audience. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:04 - 00:10, 00:22 - 00:33]
With CNN later explaining that Girdusky is now banned from appearing on the network, where there is “zero room for racism or bigotry.” [CNN statement]
But while Hasan hasn’t spoken about this episode since it happened, Girdusky has, and he’s totally doubling down on his remarks.
With him writing: “You can stay on CNN if you falsely call every Republican a Nazi and have taken money from Qatar-funded [Cut-tar] media. Apparently you can't go on CNN if you make a joke. I'm glad America gets to see what CNN stands for.” [Tweet]
With that “Qatar-funded media” jab apparently referring to Hasan’s work for Al Jazeera.
Now with everything you’ve seen and heard, I’d love to hear your thoughts and reacMedi Hassan CNN panel debate script
Is this a vile racist death threat, or just a guy getting canceled for making a joke?
Right, for this story, you’ve got CNN’s show “NewsNight” hosting a panel to talk about the upcoming election yesterday, and things got a bit heated, to say the least.
With left-wing commentator Mehdi [Meddy] Hasan sparring off against right-wing commentator Ryan Girdusky [Gurr-dusky]. [Image, need Ryan]
With them getting into Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, specifically the racist comments made by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe and others.
And Hasan acknowledges that equating Trump supporters with Nazis is “inflammatory,” but adds, “if you don’t want to be called Nazis, stop doing, stop saying -”
With Girdusky then cutting him off and claiming that Hasan, more than anyone else at the table, has been called an anti-Semite.
To which Hasan responds, and then Girdusky makes a comment about a beeper that seemed to refer to the exploding pagers that Israel used to kill members of Hezbollah. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:09 - 00:50]
So after that segment ended, the host, Abby Phillip, came back on air alone and got real serious with her audience. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:04 - 00:10, 00:22 - 00:33]
With CNN later explaining that Girdusky is now banned from appearing on the network, where there is “zero room for racism or bigotry.” [CNN statement]
But while Hasan hasn’t spoken about this episode since it happened, Girdusky has, and he’s totally doubling down on his remarks.
With him writing: “You can stay on CNN if you falsely call every Republican a Nazi and have taken money from Qatar-funded [Cut-tar] media. Apparently you can't go on CNN if you make a joke. I'm glad America gets to see what CNN stands for.” [Tweet]
With that “Qatar-funded media” jab apparently referring to Hasan’s work for Al Jazeera.
Now with everything you’ve seen and heard, I’d love to hear your thoughts and reactions.
Links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/29/cnn-ryan-girdusky-mehdi-hasan-beeper-comment/
-
Jon Stewart Weighs Into Tony Hinchcliffe Backlash
We should talk about Trump continuing to suffer
from the fallout from his Madison Square Garden rally.
But this also, as Tony Hinchcliffe
is now getting a defense from people that a lot of people didn't expect.
starting with Trump.
Though the archbishop of Puerto Rico is formally
rebuked, Trump is demanding he personally apologize.
president of the Republican Party's branch in Puerto
Rico is threatening to endorse Trump unless he apologizes.
Bunny and Mark Anthony have now cut ads condemning Trump.
And this following endorsements from J.Lo and Ricky Martin.
Pennsylvania chapter of the National Puerto Rican Agenda
sent out a letter urging Puerto Ricans and Latinos to vote against Trump.
all this is Trump has refused to apologize.
An announcer condemned the jokes, with him at this point saying
he just doesn't know Tony Hinchcliffe and that someone just put him up there.
though also on that note, a lot of the conversation
is now kind of moved to this place of it's not about Tony Hinchcliffe
having said these things.
that Trump and or the people he has surrounded himself with thought
that this would be a great place to have this sort of content.
especially when paired with the fact that a number of the other
non road comedians that spoke at this rally made racially offensive remarks
about Latinos, black Americans, Jewish citizens and Palestinians.
so the conversation has become more about the Trump team's
greenlighting of this content at the venue,
in fact, John Stewart on The Daily Show, defending Tony Hinchcliffe
and hitting these points.
Now, obviously, in retrospect, having a roast comedian
come to a political rally a week before Election Day and roasting a key
voting demographic probably not the best decision by the campaign politically.
But to be fair, the guy's really just doing what he does.
for now, with Election Day just seven days away,
it's going to be very interesting to see.
Does this actually have an impact?
as well as being reported
that this scandal and this backlash, it's breaking through in a way
we really haven't seen in a very long time. Words or words.
Actions or actions.
Poles or poles.
And ultimately, we won't know until Election Day,
and probably a few days after.
Visit Cozy Earth and use code DEFRANCO to get up to 40% off your purchase!
-
Fires at election drop boxes destroy hundreds of ballots in Washington, Oregon, and Arizona
Some people’s votes are literally going up in flames, with ballot boxes being set on fire yesterday in Oregon and Washington.
RIght, in Portland, Oregon, thankfully, fire suppressant inside the ballot box protected virtually all the ballots.
Three ballots were damaged, but they were still intact enough for election officials to identify whose they were and get in touch
Just fifteen miles away, however, in Vancouver, Washington, it was a different story.
WIth hundreds of ballots being destroyed in ballot drop box fire that officials say was likely connected to the first incident (BROLL: 0:10-0:14)
And notably there, Vancouver is the biggest city in Washington’s 3rd Congressional District, which is expected to be one of the closest House races in the country (1, 2).
But the fire suppression system at this drop box in the district?
It didn’t work.
With Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey (Kimzie) saying:
"The majority of the ballots are completely destroyed and the remaining ballots are severely damaged and very very wet."
But that said, it’s not like these votes are necessarily gone forever.
Right, voters who may have dropped off their ballots at either of the affected drop boxes this weekend are being asked to get in touch and told their votes will be counted.
With the Washington Secretary of State’s office also reminding voters that they can check online to see if their ballot had been marked as returned and ask for a replacement if necessary.
And besides that, officials are putting measures in place to try and keep something like this from happening again.
Right, for example, in Washington, increasing how frequently ballots are picked up and changing collection times to the evening so they’re not in there overnight.
Plus, the county decided to hire workers to monitor all of its drop boxes 24 hours a day until the election is over.
And with that, the incidents are now also being investigated by local authorities and the FBI, with the main lead shared publicly being a photo of a suspicious vehicle seen parked beside the drop box in Portland.
And overall, experts are still saying this is a secure way of voting, with one telling NPR, for example:
"These drop boxes have been thought through and have these measures in place. And people should not allow these isolated incidents to undermine their trust in these voting methods, which are generally extremely secure,"
But then, also saying small-scale incidents like these arsons can bolster misconceptions about the security of drop boxes.
Right, as we know, ballot drop boxes and mail-in voting in general have been subjects of conspiracy theories and false claims since the 2020 election cycle.
And in fact, the Department of Homeland Security warned that this could happen in a briefing last month, writing, quote:
“Some social media users are discussing and encouraging various methods of sabotaging ballot drop boxes and abiding detection.”
With them going on to say: “Election infrastructure remains an attractive target for some domestic violent extremists and other threat actors with election-related grievances.”
And finally, warning that “Some threat actors may perceive ballot drop boxes as ‘soft targets’ because they are more accessible.”
And with that, this actually isn’t the first time drop boxes have been targeted this month.
Right, you may have missed it, but last week, a postal service mailbox in Phoenix was set on fire overnight.
With about 20 ballots being damaged, and the Arizona Secretary of State saying "many undamaged ballots" were recovered and that the affected voters would be contacted.
And local law enforcement officials have actually already arrested a 35-year-old man in connection to the incident, though he’s claiming his actions weren’t politically motivated.
And of course, all this is just part of the pre-election chaos we’re seeing right now.
I mean, talking about Phoenix, there was also a guy arrested there last week for shooting at a DNC office on three separate occasions.
With law enforcement saying the man had amassed 120 guns and 250,000 rounds of ammunition, leading them to think he was planning a mass shooting.
And then, back to mail-in voting, Russian actors were reportedly behind a widely shared and now debunked video seemingly showing mail-in ballots for Donald Trump being destroyed in Pennsylvania.
With intelligence officials saying the video was part of “Moscow’s broader effort to raise unfounded questions about the integrity of the U.S. election and stoke divisions among Americans.”
And also saying they expect Russia to create and release similar content in the days leading up the election and the weeks and months after.
Right, so as always, be careful what you believe.
And don’t let any of this stop you from voting by whatever means is available to you.
-
Man in Minneapolis is arrested almost a week after shooting his neighbor and after a year of the neighbor complaining to police about racially-motivated harassment
Minneapolis police finally arrested the man who shot his neighbor in the neck almost a week ago – after allegedly threatening to do so for months.
Right, the victim’s name is Davis Moturi (Mo-turry).
A video captured on a home surveillance camera shows Davis standing outside, trimming a tree in his own yard by the property line (SCREENGRAB: 0:42)
Then, he suddenly falls to the ground.
And that’s because his neighbor – John Sawchak (Saw-check) – apparently shot him in the neck.
And now, thankfully, Davis survived.
Barely.
Right, he suffered a fractured spine, two broken ribs and a concussion.
“He tried to kill me, and if it weren’t for a few inches, I would be dead.” (BYTE: 0:43-0:48)
And notably, this didn’t all start with the shooting.
Davis had been dealing with John’s shit for a whole year.
Right, since purchasing his home in 2023, he and his wife contacted authorities at least 19 times to report John for vandalism, property destruction, harassment and threats of physical harm that included the use of racist slurs.
And in fact, John reportedly had a history of harassing, threatening and attacking his neighbors dating to at least 2016.
Right, he actually had three active arrest warrants for previous threats against multiple neighbors, including Davis, at the time of the shooting.
And with that, police say they attempted to contact John on multiple occasions in response to Davis’s past 911 calls, but he simply refused to come to the door every time.
And so, police have been criticized for failing to do something then, and now they’re also being criticized for their response to the shooting.
Right, it happened last Wednesday in broad daylight
But John wasn’t arrested until early Monday morning, never leaving his home.
With that meaning once Davis got out of the hospital, he couldn’t really go home.
“Essentially, I’m homeless until the cops go and somehow capture John.” (BYTE: 1:04-1:09)
Now, that said, there is some explanation.
Right, there were officers surrounding John’s home for days, waiting for him to exit.
But they were reportedly hesitant to go rushing because they knew he had guns and also say he had knowledge of improvised explosive devices.
“Given reports of mental illness, presence of firearms, possibility of explosives – and all of this in a residential neighborhood – a careful and methodical approach was required to ensure that lives were not lost.”
With Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara further arguing it’s unfair to insist that police officers should be de-escalating tense situations while also saying they should, quote, “bust through those doors with the SWAT team and drag somebody out.”
Adding: “You can’t have it both ways.”
But with that, has also took some responsibility for the department failing to prevent the shooting in the first place:
“In this particular incident, we failed this victim. 100%. Because that should not have happened to him. The Minneapolis police somehow did not act urgently enough to prevent that individual from being shot.” (BYTE: 1:24-1:39)
Though, notably, O’Hara also seemingly tried to make excuses, saying his officers are, quote, “scared of being prosecuted if they get into a situation where they make a mistake trying to do their job and protect the public”.
And of course, with that, this isn't the first time Minneapolis police have faced criticism.
Right, a US justice department investigation last year concluded that the department had a “pattern or practice” of discrimination against Black Americans, among other findings.
And that investigation stemmed from the 2020 murder of George Floyd in the city.
But this time, at least, no one was killed.
And we’ll have to wait and see what happens with the case and if it has any broader impact in the city.
Just go to Zocdoc and download the Zocdoc app for FREE. Then find and book a top-rated doctor today!
-
200,000 WaPo subscribers — nearly 10% of paid circulation — leave after Bezos ends presidential endorsements, other papers also ending the practice
More than 200,000 people have canceled their digital subscriptions to The Washington Post after owner Jeff Bezos abruptly decided to end presidential endorsements and block an already drafted endorsement of Harris.
And that is absolutely massive — according to NPR, which reported those numbers, the figure represents around 8% of the paper’s paid circulation of roughly 2.5 million subscribers, which also includes print.
Right, the move was announced Friday in an op-ed by Will Lewis, the outlet’s Chief Executive and Publisher.
And there he wrote that the decision not to endorse in this or any future presidential elections was a return to the paper’s “roots,” noting that, for many decades, they did not offer endorsements, arguing:
“We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader.”
And adding: “We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.”
Then going on to say that The Post’s job is to be “nonpartisan” and “independent.”
But that move got a TON of backlash, with many specifically condemning The Post for making the decision so close to the election and seemingly at the last minute given that the editorial had already drafted the endorsement of Harris.
This including Marty Baron, the former Executive Editor of The Post, who told reporters:
“If this decision had been made three years ago, two years ago, maybe even a year ago, that would've been fine. It's a certainly reasonable decision. But this was made within a couple of weeks of the election, and there was no substantive serious deliberation with the editorial board of the paper. It was clearly made for other reasons, not for reasons of high principle.”
Additionally, the newsroom's union issued a statement saying it was “deeply concerned” with the decision coming so close to Election Day.
And to that point, we also saw tons of others claiming that Bezos made this decision to curry favor with Trump or because he was afraid of how Trump may retaliate if he wins.[]
And that criticism even came from many people at The Post, with top journalists and editors condemning the move.
There were also a series of resignations from columnists.
And nearly a third of the 10-person editorial board stepped down.
Right, and all that backlash was so fierce that it prompted Bezos himself to write an op-ed published yesterday explaining the decision.
And there, he essentially framed the decision as an effort to restore trust in the media.
Noting that surveys have long shown declining trust in news media and journalists.
And specifically pointing to a recent Gallup poll that showed a continuation of that downward trend.
With that survey specially finding that:
“For the third consecutive year, more U.S. adults have no trust at all in the media (36%) than trust it a great deal or fair amount. Another 33% of Americans express ‘not very much’ confidence.”
And in his op-ed, Bezos noted that trust in media fell behind trust in Congress, writing:
“Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.”
Arguing that, like voting machines, newspapers: “must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate.”
Bezos then went on to say that the media “must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.”
Claiming that “Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” and instead create perceptions of “bias” and “non-independence,” so ending them “is a principled decision.”
With Bezos then going on to address criticism against the timing of this decision and allegations that he was trying to appease Trump.
Writing that he wished the decision had been made earlier and further from the election but claiming:
“That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.”
And even explicitly stating that “no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here” adding:
“Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally.”
With him continuing on by explaining that his vast business enterprise will always pose some kind of conflict for his ownership of The Post.
And then closing by circling back to the lack of trust in news media, writing:
“Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue.”
Right, and to that point, while The Post has been the center of attention over the last few days, it isn’t the only major news outlet that has recently decided not to endorse a candidate in this election.
Just days before The Post made its announcement, the billionaire owner of The Los Angeles Times also declared that the paper wouldn’t be making an endorsement.
And while the owner claimed he was following a decision made by the editorial board, the board directly disputed that, saying it had actively recommended backing Harris.
Now, notably, unlike The Post, The LA Times didn’t say that it was ending the practice of presidential endorsements entirely for the future, just that it wasn’t backing anyone this year.
But that move still prompted widespread backlash, resignations, and subscription cancellations.
And The Post isn’t even the most recent outlet to announce it won’t be making an endorsement.
Right, literally yesterday, USA Today — which is one of the country’s single largest daily newspapers by circulation — also said it will be ended the practice of giving presidential endorsements entirely for now and future races.
With USA Today’s parent company, Gannett, also saying that this policy will apply to ALL the more than 200 American outlets it owns.
And beyond that, there have also been plenty of others who have made similar choices in a much more timely manner, much further from the election.
This including The Minnesota Star Tribune, which announced back in August that it won’t endorse any candidates of causes in this election cycle.
And back in 2022, over 200 publications owned by hedge fund Alden Global Capital — which includes major outlets like the Chicago Tribune and Denver Post — declared they would end the practice of endorsing national political candidates entirely.
So clearly, this is a growing trend, and with that in mind, I’d really love to know your thoughts here.
What do you make of all this in general, and also do you agree with Bezos’ claim that this will increase trust in media?
-
Former Filipino president Duterte admits to Congress that he had a “death squad” to kill alleged drug dealers and users. First time he admitted as such and is unrepentant about it
Extortion, blackmail, and deathsquads -- that’s what the democratically elected former Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte just admitted to at a Senate hearing.
It’s a well-known fact that Duterte had draconian views on how to deal with the drug trade and was long accused of encouraging the extra-judicial killings of people involved in it.
But in this Senate hearing he was completely unrepentant and even admitted to things that went above and beyond what many thought.
Right, he told the commission, "I can make the confession now if you want. I had a death squad of seven, but they were not police, they were gangsters.” [broll]
Oh, and these gangsters apparently didn’t have much choice inRodrigo Duterte admits he had his own ‘death squad’ but says it doesn't consist of policemen the matter, with Duterte explaining:
“I’ll ask a gangster to kill somebody. If you will not kill (that person), I will kill you now.” [broll @0:15-0:25]
That’s an important distinction because in the past he’s been accused of giving police chiefs and officers the “okay” to kill suspects.
Although his confession doesn’t really make it much better because instead of directly ordering them to get their hands dirty he told them to escalate situations to “encourage” suspects to fight back…
[]…Thus giving officers an excuse to justify a killing.
(The gangsters were for targeted killings, it seems).
Also, it should be noted that this confession was in relation to his time as mayor of Davao -- not president of the Philippines for what that’s worth.
The current Filipino government estimates that during Duterte’s War on Drugs, about 6,200 people were killed.
[]And Human Rights groups fear that a solid chunk of those were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or targeted for non-drug-related reasons.
[]Not that -- you know -- the extrajudicial killing of suspects is ever something to be praised.
Like an officer shouldn’t be judge, jury, and executioner.
Let alone some deathsquad set up by the President.
Duterte’s testimony yesterday was the first time he’s ever talked to an official investigation into his War on Drugs.
And he clearly does not care there’s an investigation going on and told lawmakers:
"Do not question my policies because I offer no apologies, no excuses. I did what I had to do, and whether or not you believe it... I did it for my country.” @1:59-2:21
"I hate drugs, make no mistake about it." @5:16-5:35
The hearing also had a personal touch.
That’s because the hearing also had him face some of his accusers, including former Senator Leila de Lima.
De Lima was a Duterte critic who was targeted by his administration and accused of drug related crimes, causing her to be imprisoned for SEVEN YEARS.
There was essentially no proof and the charges were eventually dropped.
We’ll likely get more info in the coming days and weeks as Duterte is expected to give further testimony but remained cryptic about what exactly he’d say.
However, I think he hit the nail on the head and is asking what a lot of people are wondering right now when he said:
“I’m puzzled why the Justice Department hasn’t filed any case. I’ve been killing people for a long time and they haven’t filed any cases up to now?"
[]
So maybe we’ll see charges.
What’s really crazy about this though -- and possibly a sign of how people view “strongman” political leaders -- is that despite it being near-public knowledge that these killings were going on, Duterte still remains wildly popular.
-
Microsoft accusing google of recruiting companies and groups to trick antitrust regulators into going after Microsoft instead of itself
Google is waging a proxy war against Microsoft.
Or that’s what the makers of Windows are claiming in their latest blog post by a top company lawyer.
According to Microsoft, Google organized and funded the soon-to-launch Open Cloud Coalition, a group of “cloud service providers, industry leaders and stakeholders” that wants a “fair, competitive, and open cloud services industry across the UK and EU.”
Allegedly Google is going to pretend it’s just a minor player in the coalition when in fact it organized, funded, and recruited smaller companies to join the group.
Or, as Microsoft alleges, Google sometimes doesn’t even make it clear that they’re involved when recruiting by leaving their name off of any docs.
But Microsoft doubts that Google’s aim is for a “fair, competitive” cloud environment.
Instead it’s to keep Microsoft down and point EU regulators to them, which Google has kinda admitted to in the past across four different blog posts with a spokesperson saying:
"We’ve been very public about our concerns with Microsoft’s cloud licensing. We and many others believe that Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices lock-in customers and create negative downstream effects that impact cybersecurity, innovation, and choice.”
Microsoft has tried to turn the tables and point out that Google is no stranger to monopolies and that Google is spending more time trying to tear down competition into its growing cloud business rather than building it up, with the company writing:
“Never in the past two decades have Google’s search, digital advertising, and mobile app store monopolies faced such a concerted and determined threat as they do today. At a time when Google should be focused on addressing legitimate questions about its business, it is instead turning its vast resources towards tearing down others. It is disappointing that, with the foundation of their business facing jeopardy, they have sought to bolster their cloud computing service – Google Cloud Platform – by attacking ours.”
[]
This is also hardly the only time Google has tried to attack Microsoft.
Recently Microsoft made an antitrust settlement with the Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe.
But Google wasn’t happy with the deal and tried to derail it by offering the CISPE $470 million to go after Microsoft, which was ultimately turned down.
It remains to be seen if Google’s efforts will pay or whether Microsoft calling them out will lower the group’s impact.
But considering we’re talking about two of the biggest companies ever -- both of which are known to be monopolistic assholes -- it’s hard to feel sympathy for either side.
