MAYOR LIGHTFOOT, A CHICAGO DISASTER

 

                                              BY BILL JUNEAU

                             The first two years of Mayor Lori Lightfoot's administration in Chicago have been dismal and unproductive, but who knew that she harbored such ill will for whites. 

                             As she was marking the completion of her second year as Chicago's 56th mayor and its first gay, African American woman to hold the position, the occasion needed more than just a cake with two candles on it.  And so, the mayor announced that one-on-one interviews with her would go forward, but only if the inquiring journalists were persons "of color."  

                             For too long, she said, she had noted that the faces of reporters at press conferences and around the city hall were virtually all whites, and her decision would call attention to the overabundance of these Caucasian faces.  

                            She explained that "I ran to break up the status quo that was failing so many........ It's a shame that in 2021, the City Hall press corps is overwhelmingly White in a city where more than half of the city identifies as Black, Latino, AAPI (Asian American Pacific Islanders) or Native American. Not many female journalists either, said Lightfoot, but her comments on the distaff representation was inaccurate since a good many women are in fact covering city hall.  

                            Clarence Page, an African American Chicago Tribune columnist, said it was a "stunt" by Mayor Lightfoot to call attention to the lack of diversity in the journalist ranks.  She was in effect misusing the moment, he opined, but should find better ways to focus attention on the lack of journalistic diversity--which he agrees is a problem. 

                             Page was just being kind to Lightfoot whose conduct has revealed that she is what is called a "black racist," who has now "come out." The color of one's skin is what is important to Mayor Lightfoot.  It defines a person.  Ability and talent are just also rans.  Lightfoot is the first lesbian  mayor, and now she has exited the racial closet, and her degradation of whites is no longer hidden from the public. 

                             Tucker Carlson, a popular Fox News pundit and political analyst, did not mince any words in dedicating a big part of an hour long commentary on the mayor and her identity-based judgments.  She is a "racist and a lunatic,'' said Carlson. She is a "dangerous bigot," and that sort of conduct even contradicts state and federal laws. 

                             One of Carlson's guests was Alderman Raymond Lopez, a Democratic member of the Chicago city council, and he asserted that Lightfoot is "incompetent" as mayor and draws the race card  in  the face of challenges to her often loony plans. In her two years, he said, Lightfoot has done nothing which has benefited Chicagoans. 

                               Former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, from faraway Hawaii, a shining exception in the party of the jackasses who ran for President in 2020, was appalled at Lightfoot's racism.  "It is abhorrent, and I call upon President Biden, Kamala Harris, and other leaders of our country—of all races—to join me in calling for Mayor Lightfoot’s resignation."  

                        Lots of Chicagoans do not really care about Lightfoot's disdain for the overabundance of "white" faces in the City Hall press corps. Chicago is one of the most Democratic cities in the nation and  I believe that it is a given that even loyal and liberal Democrats are questioning their allegiance to a mayor who is an out-and-out racist. We all wonder what the reaction would be if similar comments came from a white mayor who was disturbed because there were just too many faces "of color" at press conferences, and that she would be remedying the situation, by ignoring questions from the "of color" journalists.  Someone call out the national guard!! 

                         Chicago residents are more concerned about her fumbling failure to be a strong mayor than her concern over white faces in the press corp.  Murders and car jackings, robberies and burglaries are all up under her watch.  From Friday to Sunday of this past weekend, some 40 persons were shot, eight of them fatally.

                         Hey Mayor,  never mind who is white and who is black, and do  something about gunfire and death on city streets. 

                        As a  candidate, Lightfoot promised police reform, greater safety in the streets and elimination of the city's huge deficit.  So far she hasn't  delivered on anything. Currently,  she is pushing an "historic ordinance" which will call for the creation of a data base which will reveal the records of misconduct by Chicago policemen, going back to the year 2000.  In response, Jamie Kalven, whose "Invisible Institute" focuses upon accountability and transparency in government,  said the Lightfoot "data base" is smoke and mirrors loaded with exceptions  and as a package is worthless. With this ordinance, he added, "Lightfoot has  utterly failed to honor the principle of transparency."  

                                In April of last year, Lightfoot appointed  David Brown as the city's new Police Superintendent.  She said that Chief Brown has been widely praised for his reforms designed to reduce violent confrontations between police officers and the community and to increase the department's accountability and transparency. 

                              He is a pro from Texas , said Lightfoot, and will bring more safety and tranquility to the streets. But last weekend's scary statistics,  eight killed and 40 wounded in Garfield park, was pretty typical of what is happening every weekend on the south and west sides of the city. If Mayor Lightfoot is so concerned about people of color, why doesn't she do something about their dangerous and unsafe neighborhoods where bullets kill innocent and unsuspecting residents walking down the street in frightening numbers? It is not just the gang bangers who die, it is the families who live in these impoverished neighborhoods, and in many cases, young children and even toddlers.   

                              Earlier this month,  rank and file Chicago police officers in the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) voted a "no confidence" assessment of Mayor Lightfoot and Supt. Brown. New foot-pursuit rules for uniformed officers will only enforce its findings that Lightfoot and company are mentally wanting.

                               Chicago has become the poster city for crime and deaths by gunfire, and is mentioned as a bad example nationwide. Last year, President Trump even offered to send in the federal troops to Chicago to assist in quelling the shootings and criminal behavior which is  occurring principally in African American neighborhoods.  Lightfoot declined the President's offer and said that "racism is part of his political agenda." Editorially, the Chicago Tribune urged her to be more "collaborative" with the President of the United States. 

                             If you lived in one of Chicago's rough neighborhoods, would you rather have a mayor who frets about the race of her interviewers, or a mayor who takes advantage of every opportunity, even drastic ones, to make her city safe for all citizens.                                                                                              

                                                xxx

                                                                 

DEREK CHAUVIN'S APPEAL

l 

                               BY BILL JUNEAU   

                                   In America, criminal defendants are accorded the presumption of innocence and are promised a fair and impartial jury trial by their peers. Is that what Derek Chauvin, 44, a police officer with 18 years on the job received as he was found guilty by a jury of two counts of murder and one of manslaughter in the death of George Floyd ? 

                                  Could this televised trial, punctuated by countless judicial errors inside the tense courtroom, located in a city set on fire in protest just months before, possibly be fair?  Was the jury impartial even though one member later admitted that he did not reveal his attendance at a Black Lives Matter event where Floyd's family spoke, during voir dire questioning by attorneys for the prosecution and the defense? Might un-sequestered jury members, who had to pass through protective barriers and walk  along burned out city streets to get to court, have come to fear for their safety--and their city--if the "racist cop" was not found guilty?  These are the questions a higher court must decide.

                                   Judge Peter Cahill has indicated that he will sentence Chauvin on or around June 16 for his crimes. Pursuant to Minnesota law, Chauvin faces a possible 40 years of prison on each charge.  Cahill, however, has said in a written order that Chauvin was unnecessarily "cruel" in his treatment of Floyd, and in view of this 'aggravating factor" he, as the judge, will be considering enhancing the punishment.               

                                  Defense Attorney Eric Nelson has filed a post-trial motion for a new trial alleging a series of mistakes by the trial judge, but Cahill is expected to deny that motion as it parallels similar petitions filed during the 21-day trial which Cahill repeatedly denied. 

                                   The appeal process will commence with a petition to the Appellate court which has jurisdiction over Hennepin county.  If the defense is unsuccessful, the case will move on to the Minnesota Supreme Court.  It is likely that the Chauvin verdict and petitions for its change will eventually wind up in the lap of the U.S. Supreme Court because of the many Constitutional issues raised.

                                   Nelson and the Chauvin defense team will be contending in their appeals that the evidence against the policeman viewed in its entirety does not support a guilty finding, since the cause of Floyd's death was primarily due to a very sick heart, his severely blocked arteries and a body pumped full of   methamphetamine and  fentanyl.  The large amount of fentanyl in Floyd's system, aside from other factors and standing alone, would be  regarded as a fatal dose, according to doctors.  

                                 Even the Attorney General of Minnesota, Keith Ellison,  has  commented after the trial that he was doubtful there would be a guilty verdict. 

                                     When Officer Chauvin encountered the muscular,  six-foot, six inch Floyd on the evening of May 25, 2020, he knew he was dealing with an addict high on drugs and police were aware of his record as a criminal.  Floyd had been arrested nine times, and was convicted nine times for various crimes.  He served five years in prison for an home invasion during which  he shoved the nozzle of his loaded pistol into the swollen abdomen of a pregnant woman and demanded money-- or else. 

                                       Evidence of Floyd's out of control conduct in prior arrests was also known to officers, but Judge Cahill ruled that such evidence would not be allowed in the trial and that ruling also is being challenged by defense attorneys in their appeal.  

                                       Videos of the police officer with his knee pressed against the defendant's neck circulated throughout the country and became the theme of "justice" for George Floyd. Violence and looting swept though the streets of major cities and was promoted by the organization, Black Lives Matter (BLM).  The fall out was overreaching contempt for all policemen and generated senseless cries for the defunding of police departments. 

                                        The media consistently painted the arrest of Floyd and his death as racially motivated, and politicians, including President Biden, charged that police departments were  "systemically racist," and that the nation's problem was that of white supremacists. 

                                        As jurors were being selected for the Chauvin trial, the city of Minneapolis announced that $27 million had been awarded to the Floyd family for damages caused by his murder.  Did un-sequestered jurors hear of the  city's  determination of the policeman's guilt?  How did they not hear of this? 

                                         African American Congresswoman Maxine Waters screamed into microphones for all to hear that unless Chauvin was found guilty of murder there would be retaliation on the streets. "We mean business," she warned the world.  Did un-sequestered jurors who walked the Minneapolis streets, and passed the "George Floyd Square" and saw the burned down police station and boarded up stores feel threated as to what might happen if the jury did not find Officer Chauvin guilty?  Even Judge Cahill opined from the bench that Waters' behavior might itself be grounds for a mistrial, though he never ordered one, but could have--and should have.  

                                         The jury was composed of five black and five white skinned Americans and two persons who were biracial.   Following the trial, one seated juror, Brandon Mitchell, a 31-year old high school basketball coach, spoke publicly about the trial and of persuasive witnesses for the prosecution. 

                                           Subsequently, it was revealed that Mitchell had participated in a "justice" for Floyd spin off rally last August in Washington, D.C., at which Floyd family members spoke. The gathering had been arranged as a tribute to Dr. Martin Luther king.

                                          At the rally, photographs were taken which showed Michell  wearing a BLM hat  and a tee shirt with the words, "Get Your Knee off Our Necks." During the voir dire of potential jurors, Mitchell answered "no" when asked if he had participated in protests on behalf of "justice" for George Floyd. 

                                        Was Mitchell an impartial juror?  Was the jury pool tainted? Defense attorneys believe that his presence as a juror cold have prejudiced other jurors and that Mitchell would never have been approved as an impartial juror had he answered more accurately.  

                                          Should the trial have been moved out of Minneapolis and to a another venue in Minnesota, because of the extreme publicity?  Judge Cahill denied motions for a venue change,  asserting that no other venue was any different.

                                            Harvard Law School Emeritus Professor Alan Dershowitz, an expert in criminal law, has said that in his judgment, there was no way that Officer Chauvin could ever receive a fair trial in the Minneapolis atmosphere. Denying motions for relocation or delay by Judge Cahill was a big mistake, and will be key in the Chauvin appeals for a new trial, he said.

                                             

                                                  XXX

                                                

                       

FROM "MIDDLE CLASS JOE" TO MILLIONAIRE

 

                                                BY BILL JUNEAU

                              When veteran Senator Joe Biden signed on as vice president and partner to President Barack Obama in 2008,  he had a net worth of $27,000.  After eight years in that office, he still pushed his persona as "Middle Class Joe," just a regular guy fit for association with the man on the street. At the close of his VP days, in January 2017, his worth was in the vicinity of a million dollars and  it was time for making money like the Clintons and the Obamas. 

                             In one interview in 2014, the vice president said that he was the "poorest man in the senate," and wore only "mildly" expensive suits, unlike other legislators with their classy togs; and that he owned no stocks or bonds, and had no savings accounts.  He actually painted himself as sort of a moneyless stooge whose only care was doing good for his fellow Americans.

                             Slow Joe was popular in Delaware where he was elected a senator for six consecutive terms of six years each. And he was a family man and  did his best for his troubled son, Hunter, who had been kicked out of the navy for his cocaine addition and had marital problems and was running from paternity claims.  He needed a push and in 2013, with Biden's nod, was given a spot on a Ukrainian Gas company board earning $83,000 a month.  So grateful was he to his dad, the "Big Guy" (as he referred to him in Emails), that he set a slice of the pies aside for him from his stash of money which also came from contracts with Communist China which also had been facilitated by the senior Biden.

                             Currently, The FBI has the Hunter laptop and its emails and pictures under investigation, and is checking into money matters to see if the senior Biden and his wealthy son and other members of the Biden family met tax requirements and did not violate any other laws that Americans are obligated to observe when dealing with foreign countries.  

                              Following his two terms as U.S. Vice President, during which he collected an annual salary of  $230,000,  Biden and his wife, Dr.  Jill, dug in their heels with a focus on becoming the new Bidens.  Biden abandoned his persona as the  "middle class" gent and zeroed in on making money.

                              Although still slow witted and confused, nowadays Biden is "Millionaire Joe." According to Forbes magazine, his net worth is $9 million.  Now residing in the splendor of the White House as the nation's 46th President, he busies himself signing executive orders while pushing the Bernie Sanders "Green New Deal" and looks favorably on the spending of $5 to $10 trillion dollars.  No American resents the cushioned and good life for their president, but it is a fair question to wonder how he got so rich in a couple of years.   

                              After leaving his VP job in January of 2017, Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill, completed the year by earning $11.5 million. In  2018 and prior to announcing his candidacy for president in 2019, he took in nearly $5 million. It was lucrative book deals and the speech circuit which transformed "Middle Class Joe" to that of a high roller Joe the millionaire. Collecting his annual pension of $180,000 from 36 years as a U.S. Senator and eight as the country's 47th vice president  also contributed to his new wealth.  

                               It must be apparent to everyone who has watched his shaky performances on camera that Biden is competent at reading cue cards,  but it is unfathomable to see him as a writer who pens and takes pride in his words.  His 40 speeches in two years averaged $100,000 per speech which probably consumed less than an hour of his stammering and whispered pronouncements. In some cases, he took as little as $40,000 for a speech, and in other situations, he received as much as $190,000 for his lunch or dinner meanderings which probably included the travails of "Corn Pop" and recollections of how the hair on his legs bristled in the noon-day sun.  

                              After becoming citizen Biden,  he and his wife signed a $10-million dollar  three-book deal. After writing Promise Me, Dad (a book about his son's death), Joe promoted his book with a tour. He made over 40 stops. Basic tickets cost $25, while VIP tickets (which included a photo with Biden) cost $450, according to reports. 

                             Joe Biden's books have sold well too. He is the author of several, but predictably the writing and arranging was done for him, as is generally the case in books that flow from celebrities. Ghost writers these days are doing well and are in demand. Safe to say that Joe Biden is no Hemingway. 

                             Now as President, Biden  receives compensation of $400,000 a year and receives an annual $50,000 expense account to cover costs and incidentals incurred by the President in carrying out his duties. Also, he receives  a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.  

                             Biden also served briefly as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and was compensated with pay of about $550,000.   Some students there have said that Biden never taught a single class, but did participate in some panel discussions.  

                            Reportedly, Mrs. Biden will continue to teach at Northern Virginia Community College where she receives a salary of $100,000 per year.  She will continue to deliver speeches too, but her honorariums pale alongside her husband's. First Lady Jill Biden is the recipient of an ED in education, the equivalent of a Phd and she prefers the title of "Dr." in her professional activities. 

                              Joe and Jill Biden are the owners of deluxe homes in Greenville and in Rohoboth Beach in Delaware.  Each is valued at upwards of $2 million.  In the Greenville acreage, an attached cottage is provided to the Secret Service agency for its policemen, and the agency pays the Bidens $2,200 a month in rent.  

                             Joe Biden is America's President and has earned all of the compensations and benefits which he receives.  His movement from Biden the middle class poor man, to the upper class, Millionaire status came fast.  Public service is a noble calling, but who would believe that it could be so incredibly profitable. For sure, there will never be a tag day for Joe Biden.  

                                                  XXX

. 

                                             

THE MAGIC OF "ANONYMOUS" NEWS SOURCES.

 

                                                        BY BILL JUNEAU

                                     In the news business, the use of "sources" as a vehicle for introducing key information into a story plays a big role in earning print space or air time for hot news.  Political stories, especially those which favor the "woke" position and the cancel culture attitude, frequently rely upon  "anonymous sources" to tie questionable political conduct to decision makers whom they oppose.   

                                      News organizations speak of the need for "transparency" in government. But what about in the news?                                                     In the good old days, reporters who intended to use material from anonymous sources needed to  get approval from their news manager before sending the story to the desk. Is that rule still followed?  Obviously,  it's been "canceled out"!!             

                                    Here in the United States, "sources" for news stories are protected and journalists have gone to jail rather than reveal the identity of the person who provided the information for controversial stories which may have stirred up the passion and excitement of readers and viewers.  

                                     But in this era of "fake news," the use of unnamed sources has flourished. Once an unnamed source referred to someone of authority who spoke "off the record," as a means of protecting his career or even his life. But now, in many cases,  sources are unnamed because they have no names. 

                                   In just recent days there have  been "sources" for NBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post stories claiming that former New York Mayor Giuliani had been a purveyor of  Russian disinformation and that the FBI  warned him he was on the block. The stories were false, and the companies, unexpectedly,   acknowledged the error and apologized.                     

                                     If a journalist believes that he or she is on to something of consequence, yet lacks the authoritative words to  support publication, what is he likely to do? Sit on the story?  Not with today's 24-hour news cycle. He has to get in print or on the air.

                                      So he attributes the information to "reliable sources" or to "anonymous sources" in high up positions, and ergo, the story is published and takes hold and often leads to investigations.  The reporter is lauded for his expose, and the  subject of the story gets roasted by the media, whether deserved or not, and may even wind up getting indicted.  It's all part of that mirage known as investigative journalism which is always justified by the public's right to know.  

                                    Rarely does the use of make-believe  "sources" come back to bite the newsman or his newspaper or TV station. But it happens, as it did in the Giuliani debacle.  The more likely scenario is that the episode simply fades away with nary a blemish on the lying newsman and his media bosses.  Accountability for misstatements and intentional lies by the media?  Simply put: There is none; no penalty for lying.   

                                During my quarter of a century as a reporter, rewrite man, and night city editor at the Chicago Tribune, I watched the use of "sources" gradually grow from something done on a special occasion to a regular practice in the gathering of news. Sometimes the results were good, and sometimes innocent people were dragged through the mud.   

                                      Recently,  we saw the use of counterfeit  "anonymous sources" by the New York Times in its follow up stories of the riots inside the capitol building on January 6. Protesters  were passionate in their belief that President Trump had been pushed from his office by way of an election which had the distinct odor of cheating and fraud. During that disorder in the Capitol building, Veteran Police Sgt. Brian Sickwick, 42,  died as a screaming mob trespassed, but the precise reason for his death was not known, until the NYT turned loose its reliable "sources."  

                                       Explaining the death, the powerful New York paper wrote that "Pro Trump Supporters," according to two unidentified law enforcement officials, "killed Sgt. Sickwick by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher." The hot story swept through the nation, reprinted by hundreds of other news papers and highlighted by electronic media outlets like CNN and MSNBC.  So strong was the reaction to the brutal killing by "Trump Supporters," that it fueled the impeachment of President Trump on charges that he "incited an insurrection." 

                                       Articles of Impeachment were drafted and approved in the liberal House of Representatives and supporting documents outlined how Sickwick had been downed from a head bashing.  President Trump was tried before members of the Senate and found not guilty of all charges. 

                                      Eventually, it came out that the mighty Times "relied" on "unreliable" --if any--sources: the initial story  that Sickwick had been beaten with an extinguisher was not true. It was a lie.  The dishonesty of the fire extinguisher report was debunked by the D.C. Medical Examiner, Dr. Francisco Diaz, who determined that Sgt. Sickwick had suffered one or two strokes, and that the manner of his death was "natural causes."  Personally. I would be surprised to hear that any corner of the media ever apologized for pushing that phony narrative.  

                                         "Sources" become the foundation for news stories which rip apart public officials not to the liking of the author. Highly placed "sources" are, in my judgment,  invented frequently,  but generally speaking, there is no fall out, and most often the use of a bogus  "source" will open a door to wrongdoing, and in the end,  the mendacious news organization and reporter end up being lauded for their diligence.  Reporters win awards, and feel that the decision to fudge a little over "sources" was the right one.   

                                          After President Trump took office in January 2017,  the drumbeat started that the new Commander-in-Chief was a pawn of Vladimir Putin and was "colluding" with Russia. The Washington Post and the New York Times began their crusade on this "collusion" delusion and poured out stories. In the Spring following his election, Robert Mueller, an ex FBI chief, was appointed as a special counsel to the Department of Justice to investigate the alleged misdeeds and seditious behavior of President Trump.

                                         As the investigation went forward, the Post and the Times continued with stories of the "collusion,"  and way too many were based upon "sources high up in his administration."  President Trump denounced each and every story as "fake" and as lies. "Who the hell are these 'sources,' " the President demanded to know.  

                                         With the saturation of stories pounding the President for his traitorous behavior and his hand holding with President Putin of Russia, the Pulitzer Prize committee announced that it was awarding a prestigious annual citation jointly to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their combined exposes of the Trump collusion with Russia.  

                                          Then the bomb came from Special Investigator Robert Mueller, following his 22 month investigation that President Trump had not at any time colluded with Russians. The finding by Mueller vindicating the President of any wrongdoing made use of more than 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, and the interviews of approximately 500 witnesses.  The cost of the investigation to taxpayers was estimated to be more than $30 million dollars.  

                                           The Pulitzer committee never rescinded or even acknowledged its unearned award.                                                                In the Untied States, Freedom of the Press as set forth in the First Amendment to the Constitution, is unique in the world.  Even with its flaws, a newspaper is a check on government which no constitution can ever provide. But the media must be accountable for its lies when they are exposed as with Sgt. Sickwick's death and in the case of the "Purloined Pulitzer Prize." 

                                        The use of "anonymous sources" is a respected tool for journalists so long as there are real "sources." Claiming "anonymous sources" as a substitute for journalistic investigation is unacceptable.  Journalists should be subject to some form of sanctions when their abuse and manufacturing of "informed sources who cannot be identified" are used recklessly by print reporters and TV pundits with a mission to destroy. 

                                              XXX