Bob McCulloch: 0 For 5 In Ferguson

Our beloved writer/friend David Phillips picks up a pen to call out 

Bob McCulloch as the police protector he is, instead of 

the prosecutor he has never been.

With his permission, we republish his blog here.

Bob McCulloch is O For 5 In Ferguson

by

David E. Phillips

It is remarkably easy to get an indictment from a grand jury. Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler once said you could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” There is no defense present. It is an opportunity to run up the score. What typically happens, when a prosecutor is seeking an indictment, is they present the evidence to the grand jury in an effort to achieve just that. Otherwise, why are they there? Normally, potentially exculpatory evidence is not shared with the jurors. Once again, the prosecutor is normally trying to gain an indictment. How easy is it to gain an indictment, you might ask? In 2010, the federal government brought 162,000 cases to a grand jury. They were denied all of eleven times.

Which is why what happened in Ferguson last night was so remarkable and deeply weird.

The prosecutor Bob McCulloch, in charge of Darren Wilson’s grand jury hearing, did none of those things. Watching his press conference last night, I couldn’t figure out what his job was. He sounded more like a defense attorney, not a member of any prosecution. What’s kind of fascinating to me is the idea of a prosecutor presenting the evidence in a way that clearly made it look like he was, at best, ambivalent on reaching an indictment. It is a rare thing for the prosecution to release all the evidence to a grand jury. His delivering of all the evidence to that body has been described as a “document dump.” Now, on one hand, you could argue this is how it should always be done. Maybe it’s the most honest way to do it, right? On the other though, you could point out this is almost never how it is done. In fact, it is beyond rare to find instances of it. Last night, on the various networks, a plethora of legal experts were completely flummoxed and unable to cite a single case in their experience.

McCulloch has a long history of closeness with police in the county. His father was killed in the line of duty in 1964, by an African-American man. McCulloch was twelve years old. As well, his brother, an uncle, and a cousin served in the Saint Louis PD, and his mother worked there as a clerk. The community of Ferguson was so concerned with the prosecutor in this case that they circulated a petition, one that resulted in more than 26,000 signatures requesting his removal from the case, which was something Missouri Governor Jay Nixon could have done when McCulloch refused to recuse himself.

Nixon, who could make a deer in the headlights look positively spry, issued a statement on August 19 that said he would not ask McCulloch to recuse himself, and he would be leaving that decision up to the prosecutor himself. McCulloch took this soft statement of support with indignation, saying Nixon should “man up” and make a decision. He went further still, making his offensive personal, “It’s the typical Nixon doublespeak. He says nothing and he’s ducking.” Nixon offered no retort. This sort of back and forth between a prosecutor, and the top elected official in his state, is positively remarkable.

What’s even more remarkable though, is McCulloch’s inability to return an indictment. Here was a case of an unarmed teenager gunned down in the street by six bullets from an officer’s gun. While eyewitness accounts were–unremarkably–inconsistent, there was no argument that officer Wilson caused the death of Michael Brown under, at minimum, unusual circumstances. Many citizens have been indicted for far less.

Ferguson has a long history of distrust between its citizens, who are 2/3 African-American (66%), and its police force, which as of August of this year, only three of its fifty officers were (6%). A police force that does not reflect the community is a powder keg of unrest. The shooting of an unarmed black youth in the middle of the street, and leaving the body there for four and a half hours, did nothing less than blow the lid off.

Last night, cars were battered, businesses were looted and buildings were set on fire. Martin Luther King Jr. once said “A riot is the language of the unheard.” You can argue that it’s counter productive, but to paraphrase what Ralph Wiley once said, there is a reason why black tend to shout. In the dark of the Ferguson night, they were screaming in response to a prosecutor who does not reflect their community, and quite simply was derelict in his duty. He, and the state of Missouri’s feckless governor, caused this last night. This is a population that does not know what justice looks like. And after watching McCulloch’s defensive and derisive press conference last night, they still don’t.

It was pointed out last night on MSNBC that Bob McCulloch has now brought five cases to a grand jury targeting police officers. He has returned an indictment against none of them. That means Bob McCulloch has indicted as many police officers in his twenty-three year career as I have. Think on that as you watch the people of Ferguson take to the streets.

The President We Don’t Deserve: Occasional Repost

Whenever we see our friend/writer David Phillips post a new piece, 

we can't wait to read it, they are like a wonderful slice of 

turkey with cranberry on Thanksgiving, delicious, and timely. Enjoy.

The President We Don't Deserve

by David E. Phillips

I often look back on President Obama’s inauguration in 2009 and wonder what we wanted. What we expected from a man inheriting a free falling economy, two wars, and all the rest that Bush and Cheney left behind for him. The soaring rhetoric of his campaign raised expectations to sky high levels. Every president over promises. Perhaps not all intend to, but it is a part of the campaign game. Hope and Change sounded marvelous didn’t it? That wasn’t the problem though. I think the greater issue is, it sounded easy. We should know better. Real change comes not only at a cost, but quite often in painful, ruthless inches that tax both stamina and resolve. Two things this nation has proven itself to be in short supply of.

Oh sure, maybe Obama hasn’t been all we may have hoped he would be. Occasionally, I feel that way. Then I compare him to the alternative. When I do, the air I breathe fills with jasmine, and anything I take a drink of turns to mother’s milk. That is not the prevailing opinion of the average American. For many, change has come too slow during this presidency. It’s okay to hate incrementalism. I’m no fan either. However, in a strange way, it’s almost like science. It’s not going to change whether you like it or not. For better or worse, baby steps is generally how we roll.

The thing is, that’s not all on the President. FDR was once approached by a Democratic Senator with a new proposal. He made his argument for the legislation and, at the end of the discussion, FDR said “That’s great, now make me do it.” Every President needs to be pushed by both their party and the public. Do you really think LBJ wanted to deal with the sturm und drang of the Civil Rights movement? Or FDR the great Depression? All things being equal, I would guess not. However, history met them in the form of pressure. That pressure did not come from above them–how could it?–it came from below, as a groundswell.

I mention FDR and LBJ most specifically because they probably passed more meaningful progressive legislation than any other President of the 20th century (with apologies to Teddy). We forget something though. For most of their tenure, they had very strong majorities in both houses of congress. A fact that allows for the greater passage of meaningful legislation. They also had a motivated populous pushing for change. Whether it was FDR’s New Deal, or LBJ’s Great Society, there was a hunger in the land for something more.

Barack Obama has had neither of those things. Oh, it’s true, he briefly had majorities in both the House and the Senate until he did that awful thing we elected him to do. You know, improve our health care. He did so with a flawed bill that not only wasn’t the “Medicare for all” the far left wanted, or even the more modest public option the left of center would have liked to have seen. That being said, not only was it the best he could do, but it’s also working. Even stout Obama critics from the far left like Paul Krugman accept that now.

He also passed a stimulus bill that many–including Krugman–feel was too small, but may well have staved off another Great Depression. He also moved to stabilize the auto industry. A ringing success that too few have spoken about. It appears that he has also kept us safe. There has been no second 9/11 and bin Laden sleeps with the fishes–literally. He embraced gay marriage. Begrudgingly at first and with an assist from Crazy Joe, but it’s no small thing to be the first leader of the free world to do so.

All of that doesn’t mean I believe he’s always been right. He doubled down in Afghanistan, wasn’t hard enough on Wall Street (although Dodd-Frank is not nothing), has been too slow on immigration, hasn’t solved the riddle of income inequality, and expanded both the drone program to kill, and the authority of the NSA to peep through our cyber windows. Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum of the left, those shortfalls probably fall somewhere in a range between disappointing and outright folly. He has not been a perfect President. If he were, he would be the first.

I will tell you this. His greatest political mistake was not necessarily any of the things listed above. As my good friend and fellow scribe, David Harada-Stone, once said to me, “Obama’s greatest mistake was overestimating the American public.” To this I say, and how.

We are terrible. The only group of people I can think of in this country that might be worse are those that presently serve in congress. Democrats who run from the President, and their own successes, and Republicans who run from sanity.

That truth does not let us off the hook. A few weeks ago, the center-right columnist, Jon Avlon, was on Real Time with Bill Maher, and he made the most simple and yet one of strongest defenses of the Obama presidency I have heard. He essentially said, if you compare the way things are now to the way they were when he entered the office, it is inarguable that things are appreciably better. He’s exactly right. And somehow, this is true despite zero assistance from that not so loyal opposition known as the GOP, and relatively feckless support from the party whose standard Barack Obama bears like a 60 pound stone.

For this, we–the American people–have paid this man almost no dividend. His approval ratings are underwater, and the oh so recent midterms were an unqualified disaster, due in no small part to the inability of those of us on the left to show up. We provided a vacuum for a sour, science denying, willfully ignorant, and yes, appreciably racist hard right to step right in, and wipe the floor with us. We made it so easy; it’s embarrassing.

And that’s mostly how I feel right now about this country, and those that are contained within. Embarrassed. Because if you would have told me at the ass end of the Bush Administration that in six short years, the stock market would be at record highs, millions more people would have health care, job growth would be constant and ever expanding, we would be relatively safe from terrorists and loose nukes, have many fewer troops in harm’s way, be nearing a full acceptance of gay rights, and generally just not walking around trying not to shit our pants as all that we hold dear seems to be crumbling around us, not only would I be ecstatic, I would have purchased a hammer and a chisel from the hardware store, hopped in my car, set my GPS for Mount Rushmore, and requested a photo of the man who would lead us out of that doleful wilderness so I could get to adding a fifth face to that monument. But that’s just me.

So what should President Obama do with his remaining two years surrounded by an obstructionist Republican majority, a reeling Democratic minority, and a public that can’t be bothered to know or appreciate anything he has done? He should tell us all to go straight to Hell, and do what he’s been doing for the last six years…what he by and large believes is right. Only now, he should do it harder. The irony of it all is that will probably end up being what is best for us as well.

There is no point in trying to cure the sickness of apathy, misplaced anger, and reckless stupidity that grips this country, the way many seem to foolishly fear Ebola one day will. In short, we can’t be pleased. Therefore, this president should set his sights higher–not that it will be hard to do. He should look to those who will either come after us, or are still too young to understand the complexities of the difficult times we live in. Those whom he might just be able to leave a better world. Maybe they will thank him for it. Certainly those that go on to become historians will.

And that seems to be just what he’s doing. It has barely been a week since his party and his supporters abandoned him. In that time he has pushed for–in the strongest of terms–the maintaining of net neutrality. Late last night he reached a historic accord with China (China!) to greatly reduce carbon emissions, and next week he’s primed to take major executive action on immigration reform. If you are a progressive, these are exactly the things you should want. If you are anyone else, these are exactly the things you need–whether you want them or not.

I wish I could I say we were worthy of it. That we would recognize it. That we might deserve it. Lucky for us, as Clint Eastwood once said, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” And we are damn lucky. Much luckier to have Obama than he is to have us.


Follow David Phillips on Twitter @BrotherJulius83

Occasional Repost: The Face of Propaganda

When one of our fellow writers hits the nail on the head, we like to share their knowledge in a column we like to call "Occasional Repost." Enjoy this one from our writer/friend Bruce Lindner.

The Face of Propaganda

by

Bruce Lindner

Back in the late '70s during the Iran Hostage Crisis, I got into shortwave radio (prior to that, was my wine, women & song period. Oh, and skiing). Shortwave radio opened a window on the world to me that I never knew existed. The Cold War was still raging, and many say it was at its apex around that time. Besides the Iranian Revolution mess, the Soviets had just invaded Afghanistan, President Carter announced our boycott of the 1980 Olympics and tensions were high from Belgrade to Petropavlovsk. And when Reagan came to power in 1981, his MX Missile program and the threat of the Neutron Bomb further exacerbated the mistrust. The true behemoth of the International airwaves at that time was Radio Moscow. Any time you'd turn on an HF radio, there would be Moscow, on at least three dozen frequencies in forty or fifty languages, saturating the planet with their message. And that message was surreal.

At that time here in the states, other than reading a newspaper, "news" meant Walter Cronkite or John Chancellor. They were true newsmen in every sense of the word. By contrast, Radio Moscow was like Bizarro World. NBC News would report a story of some skirmish somewhere, for example, the situation between the Turks and Greeks on Cypress, complete with video of the incident. Radio Moscow would put their own unique spin on the story, Cronkite's footage be damned. Whatever the West said, RM would fabricate a counter-story, alleging that the U.S. version of events was false. And again, the Soviet reports were broadcast worldwide, to strategically targeted regions in the native language of their intended audience. The US countered their propaganda with propaganda channels of their own; Radio Liberty and the Voice of America, though neither was so brazen in their disinformation as was Radio Moscow.

The Soviet disinformation methods closely mimicked Nazi absolute control of their media during World War II. The Nazis controlled the print media, as did the Soviets with Pravda. Herr Göebbels established his own film industry to promote his vision of a Third Reich utopia, and even produced a "Volksradio;" a reasonably priced tabletop radio for the German masses — that just happened to be restricted to Nazi propaganda only. To my knowledge, the Soviets never went that far, but they did establish "jammers" that conveniently blocked Western broadcasts. So in the end, you heard only what the Kremlin wanted you to hear. An onslaught of state-approved propaganda.

Ultimately, what digital cameras did to photography and CDs did to vinyl records, the Internet did to shortwave radio. Today, anytime you want to hear the news from Radio Bhutan or music from Radio Tahiti, you can just hit their website and stream it. Gone are the days when you had to wait for their broadcast (usually at some gawdawful hour), then hope that conditions were just right for it to come in. There are still numerous shortwave broadcasters, though they're mostly for local, or regional consumption, or in tropical regions where AM radio isn't as effective due to electrical storms. But more than any other broadcast empire, Radio Moscow was unique. It was an enormous state-run giant of 24/7 misinformation, the purpose of which wasn't to inform and enlighten, but to intentionally keep their listeners in the dark. There's never been anything quite like it.

Until 1996 that is, when Rupert Murdoch was granted a license to launch Fox News. When I hear Sean Hannity doing his thing, I'm immediately reminded of the then Radio Moscow announcer, Vladimir Posner. He was at that time, the unofficial English language voice of the Soviet Union, and his commentaries, while entertaining, were often hysterical in their inaccuracy. Whatever was being reported in Europe or North America, bad bad Vlad would put his own spin on it, which was often 180° opposed to what was actually happening. And from the perspective of the men in the Kremlin who controlled him, why not twist things? They'd already convinced their listeners that anything they heard from the bourgeoisie broadcasts of the West were lies, so they had little to lose in the way of credibility.

So it is today with the Murdoch Empire. Fox News viewers and listeners are told daily that the so-called mainstream media is biased, that only THEIR reporting is trustworthy (the term "mainstream media" being Fox contrived jargon itself, devised to separate them from the competition, or in their view, the lesser broadcasters). And it works. Fox listeners & viewers who dare to venture out and listen to any of the three broadcast networks, or perish the thought, MSNBC or CNN, and hear something other than what they WANT to hear, come away reinforced with the notion that Fox tells the truth while all the others lie. It's a self perpetuating system of deception.

What seems so ironic to me, is that the media empire that routinely wraps itself in Old Glory and touts itself as the "Fair & Balanced" voice of truth, has no more than a micron's width of difference between what they're doing today, and what their arch-enemies, the communists did 30 years ago. Or perhaps more aptly, what the Nazis did 70 years ago. Godwin's law aside, that's an inconvenient truth that neither Rupert Murdoch nor Roger Ailes can deny. When it comes to propaganda, Joseph Göebbels had nothing on what Murdoch's doing today.

Bruce Lindner

Find Lindner on Facebook