Cops Unaware They Were Filmed Breaking In – The FBI Warned Them

You can tell a lot about criminal… I mean cops, when they don’t know they are being recorded. What they did with his friends ashes was so appalling as well. To me the craziest part is they are higher sophisticated criminals to have the mind to cut the cameras wires and should be arrested and punished accordingly as far as laws are written. I have only seen that in movies until today.

And they wonder why citizens have complete disgust for law enforcement.

It’s something that comes up regularly. “There’s a law for the rich and a law for the poor.” Well, the guys you see on here are the guys that make this true. Someone without hidden cameras and or an attorney would be more or less at the mercy of these wandering goons. I don’t really think that they set out to create a stratified criminal justice system but that’s dammed sure the result.

Finding out the FBI leaked this to the officer’s just blew me away. I hope John can make them agents pay to, sadly the corruption probably goes all the way to the top.

Cops will still say it’s just “a few bad apples”, when it’s clear the entire tree is diseased, from the very top down to the lowest root.

He just admitted to being retaliatory on live TV that should start an investigation on his entire department for those words alone. Smh the world we live in and the people that are supposed to protect us is scary

“if they would stop being piles of shit, i could retire this fucking channel”
thank you for getting a laugh out of me while making a great point lol

So they are caught in illegal actions and still get to keep their badges …. its no wonder street justice has been ramping up

If they had legitimate reason to conduct a warrantless search, they would have no reason to cut the cameras. These guys are criminals with badges.

I don’t understand how a judge or official has seen this and not let it go to court this is America isn’t it what is going on

Dash Cam Shows Cops Take $100,000 From Innocent Man



Real World Police’s channel:…
Sources: United States v. Sokolow-
Maryland v. Pringle-
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2019-
Arkansas Code § 5-64-505-
21 U.S.C. § 881-
18 U.S.C. § 983-
State forfeiture case (Case ID: 17CV-21-78)-
Policing for profit:


So, You Think the Republican Party No Longer Represents the People

“There is no sense in avoiding or diluting the magnitude of this turn in our story: One major political party no longer accepts democracy.”

The author of this sentence is the former Obama White House speechwriter Ben Rhodes, writing recently in The Atlantic, but it could have flowed from the keyboard of a hundred different writers in the post-Trump, post-Jan. 6 era. That conservatism and the Republican Party have turned against government by the people, that only the Democratic Party still stands for democratic rule, is an important organizing thought of political commentary these days.

So let’s subject it to some scrutiny — and with it, the current liberal relationship to democracy as well.

First, there’s a sense in which conservatism has always had a fraught relationship to mass democracy. The fear of mob rule, of demagogues rallying the masses to destroy a fragile social order, is a common theme in many different right-wing schools of thought, showing up among traditionalist defenders of aristocracy and libertarians alike.

To these general tendencies, we can add two specifically American forms of conservative anxiety about the franchise: the fear of corrupt urban-machine politics that runs back through the 1960 presidential election to the age of Tammany Hall and the racist fear of African American political power that stamped the segregation-era South.

Because all these influences touch the modern G.O.P., conservative skepticism about mass democracy was a somewhat normal part of American politics long before Donald Trump came along — and some of what’s changed in the Trump era is just an events-driven accentuation of existing tendencies.

Republicans have long feared voter fraud and noncitizen voting, for instance, but the fear — and for liberals, the oft-discussed hope — that demographic change could deliver permanent Democratic power has raised the salience of these anxieties. Likewise, Republicans have long been more likely to portray America as a republic, not a democracy, and to defend our system’s countermajoritarian mechanisms. But today this philosophical tendency is increasingly self-interested, because shifts in party coalitions mean that those mechanisms, the Senate and Electoral College especially, advantage Republicans somewhat more than in the recent past.

But then things get complicated, because the modern Republican Party is also the heir to a strong pro-democracy impulse, forged in the years when Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon won crushing presidential-level majorities but conservatives felt themselves constantly balked by unelected powers, bureaucrats and judges especially.

This experience left the right deeply invested in the idea that it represents the true American majority — moral, silent, what have you — while liberalism stands for elite power, anti-democratic forms of government, the bureaucracy and the juristocracy and the Ivy League.

And that idea and self-image have remained a potent aspect of the right-wing imagination even as the old Nixon and Reagan majorities have diminished and disappeared: With every new age of grass-roots activism, from the Tea Party to the local-education revolts of today, the right reliably casts itself as small-d democrats, standing boldly athwart liberal technocracy singing “Yankee Doodle.”

Against this complicated backdrop, Trump’s stolen-election narratives should be understood as a way to reconcile the two competing tendencies within conservatism, the intellectual right’s skepticism of mass democracy and comfort with countermajoritarian institutions with the populist right’s small-d democratic self-image. In Trump’s toxic dreampolitik there’s actually no tension there: The right-wing coalition is justified in governing from a minoritarian position because it deserves to be a true electoral majority, and would be if only the liberal enemy weren’t so good at cheating.

So seen from within the right, the challenge of getting out from under Trump’s deceptions isn’t just a simple matter of reviving a conservative commitment to democracy. Trump has succeeded precisely because he has exploited the right’s more democratic impulses, speaking to them and co-opting them and claiming them for himself. Which means a conservative rival can’t defeat or replace him by simply accusing him of being anti-democratic. Instead the only plausible pitch would argue that his populism is self-limiting and that a post-Trump G.O.P. could win a more sweeping majority than the one his supporters want to believe he won already — one that would hold up, no matter what the liberal enemy gets up to.

But if that argument is challenging to make amid the smog of Trumpenkampf, so is the anti-Trump argument that casts American liberalism as the force to which anyone who believes in American democracy must rally. Because however much the right’s populists get wrong about their claim to represent a true American majority, they get this much right: Contemporary liberalism is fundamentally miscast as a defender of popular self-rule.

To be clear, the present Democratic Party is absolutely in favor of letting as many people vote as possible. There are no doubts about the mass franchise among liberals, no fears of voter fraud and fewer anxieties than on the right about the pernicious influence of low-information voters.

But when it comes to the work of government, the actual decisions that determine law and policy, liberalism is the heir to its own not exactly democratic tradition — the progressive vision of disinterested experts claiming large swaths of policymaking for their own and walling them off from the vagaries of public opinion, the whims of mere majorities.

This vision — what my colleague Nate Cohn recently called “undemocratic liberalism” — is a pervasive aspect of establishment politics not only in the United States but across the Western world. On question after controverted question, its answer to “Who votes?” is different from its answer to “Who decides?” In one case, the people; in the other, the credentialed experts, the high-level stakeholders and activist groups, the bureaucratic process.

Who should lead pandemic decision making? Obviously Anthony Fauci and the relevant public-health bureaucracies; we can’t have people playing politics with complex scientific matters. Who decides what your local school teaches your kids? Obviously teachers and administrators and education schools; we don’t want parents demanding some sort of veto power over syllabuses. Who decides the future of the European Union? The important stakeholders in Brussels and Berlin, the people who know what they’re doing, not the shortsighted voters in France or Ireland or wherever. Who makes important U.S. foreign policy decisions? Well, you have the interagency process, the permanent regional specialists and the military experts, not the mere whims of the elected president.

Or to pick a small but telling example recently featured in this newspaper, who decides whether an upstate New York school district gets to retain the Indian as its high school mascot? The state’s education commissioner, apparently, who’s currently threatening to cut funds to the school board that voted to keep it unless they reverse course.

Whereas the recent wave of right-wing populism, even when it doesn’t command governing majorities, still tends to champion the basic idea of popular power — the belief that more areas of Western life should be subject to popular control and fewer removed into the purview of unelected mandarins. And even if this is not a wise idea in every case, it is a democratic idea, whose widespread appeal reflects the fact that modern liberalism really does suffer from a democratic deficit.

Which is a serious problem, to put it mildly, for a movement that aspires to fight and win a struggle on behalf of democratic values. So just as a conservative alternative to Trump would need to somehow out-populist him, to overcome the dark side of right-wing populism, American liberalism would need to first democratize itself.

Cops broke into his home without showing a warrant, but what happened next is even worse

Coty Cecil was awaiting repairs on his RV in a West Virginia campground when Milton police started breaking into his home, refusing to show a warrant. Cecil was eventually charged with possession with intent to distribute and transporting drugs over state lines, even though the half-dozen pot plants found in his RV were grown in his home state of Michigan—where they are legal. While looking into the dubious circumstances of Cecil’s arrest, PAR investigated the finances of the small rural community and uncovered some intriguing details about the role policing plays as a revenue engine for the town.

Ron DeSantis Rushes To Defend His Donors As His Constituents Die

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is furious that the FDA is revoking the emergency use authorization for monoclonal antibody treatments after they found – and one of the drug companies admitted – that it isn’t effective at all in treating the Omicron variant of COVID. DeSantis vowed to fight this decision, making this the only thing that the man is willing to fight for since his state is still dying from COVID. Farron Cousins explains what’s happening.

Florida’s Republican governor. Ron DeSantis is furious at the Biden administration for cutting off the supply of monoclonal antibody treatments created and distributed by Regeneron and Eli Lilly, except that’s not actually an accurate statement. The FDA of course, came out recently and said, listen, these Regeneron treatments or not Regeneron, excuse me. The monoclonal antibody treatments put out by companies, Regeneron and Eli Lilly are not effective against the Oleron variant. And since 99% of new COVID K here in the United States are Omicron. We are cutting off the emergency use authorization for these two monoclonal antibody treatments. There’s actually still one out there on the market. That seems to be showing a little bit of effect against Omicron. So that’s actually still of available. But Ron DeSantis, nevertheless is angry. Office released this statement. Governor Ron DeSantis is demanding the Biden administration reverse its sudden and reckless decision to revoke emergency youth’s authorization for Regeneron and Eli Lilly monoclonal antibody treatments.

This abrupt unilateral action by the, the Biden administration will prevent access to life saving treatments for Floridians and Americans. So suddenly you care about dead Floridians, Ron. No you don’t. What you care about are the interests of one of your top donors by the name of Ken Griffin who have its to be one of the, uh, I guess managers you’d call ’em with Citadel. The hedge fund investment group Citadel owns 15.9 million worth of shares in Regeneron. And of course, Ken Griffin with Citadel who owns part of Regeneron, uh, gave $10 million to Ron DeSantis, uh, political action committee along with over the years, a hundred million to other Republicans. So Ron DeSantis is not fighting for Floridians to receive life saving treatment. He’s fighting for his donor, Ken Griffin to continue to get government money. Because as I said, there’s still a monoclonal antibody treatment out there available for everybody. Like you can still get that one. There’s also other COVID treatments that the government announced this week. They’re sending tens of thousands of doses of it here to florid dah. So we’re still getting treatments. We’re getting medicine, still a monoclonal antibody out there. So what are you off about? That’s like saying that one brand of tomato soup is no longer gonna be available, but there’s still half a dozen on the store shelves. You have plenty of other

Options. If, of course your real concern with saving lives here at the state of Florida, which judging by the numbers I’ve pulled here, it doesn’t look like you care so much about saving our lives. 64,000 Floridians are dead from COVID 1960 4,000. We are averaging over the seven day span, 40,000 new COVID cases per day. If you cared about saving people’s lives, you would be out there encouraging to get encouraging them to get vaccinated. Your are not doing that. You have not encouraged people to take the vaccine for months and months and months. You’re such a coward you’re gutless as Trump put it, cuz you won’t even admit whether or not you’ve had the shot.

You’re coward. Ron, we see right through what you’re doing. You’re not mad that monoclonal antibody treatments have been cut off because they haven’t all been cut off. We still have access to what out of three, you are mad that your precious little donor, Ken Griffin, isn’t gonna be getting bootles. If that’s even a word is going to be getting tons of that free government cash that he’d been getting, that’s gone. Your donor is losing money. And that is what you’re fighting for. Not for our lives, not for our health, not for our safety. Ron DeSantis is fighting only for his big million dollar donor.