Posted on 09/07/2015 2:37:39 PM PDT by Elderberry
This is the 114th day of the Twin Peaks Massacre coverup. It is worth noting for two lamentable reasons.
First, the degree to which government officials have been uncooperative, obstructive and evasive about the Massacre is prima facie evidence that there is an official coverup. There was no probable cause to believe that most of the 177, or 182, or so, people arrested that day were guilty of “engaging in organized criminal activity.” There is probable cause to believe that police murdered at least six men and may have attempted to murder 20 more.
The second reason to note the ongoing coverup is the apparent disappearance of what just a few years ago was being called “the investigative impulse” in American journalism. The investigative impulse began, according to Jon Marshall of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, “in the 1600s, when Enlightenment philosophers taught that ‘people have a right to question their leaders.’”
To its inerasable shame, the Waco Tribune-Herald has not noticed the coverup. To its credit, the Houston Chronicle has. “Any time a prosecutor’s office or a politician does not want people talking about something, one should raise a red flag and insist we talk about it,” a law professor named Patrick Metze told the Chronicle this morning. “They may say it is to protect the investigation, but they are protecting themselves from whatever it is that they don’t want us to see or know about.” You can read the entire Chronicle piece here.
Based on information supplied by various sources who believe their lives, careers and pensions are in actual danger and who have spoken with The Aging Rebel under conditions of either “off the record” or “deep background,” this page will continue to report that the Twin Peaks Massacre was the result of a contrived and avoidable confrontation between members of the Cossacks Motorcycle Club and the Bandidos Motorcycle Club. The Aging Rebel believes that the confrontation was engineered by and anticipated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Texas Department of Public Safety and a Waco area law enforcement agency that was not the Waco Police Department. The Aging Rebel also believes that these police agencies, and possibly the Waco Police Department, began physically preparing for an armed confrontation to include the use of deadly force in the Twin Peaks restaurant parking lot at or before dawn on May 17. And finally, this page believes the Massacre was captured in its entirety by at least 44 video cameras. Investigating This Mess
The Associated Press defines information gained “off the record” as information that “cannot be used for publication.” The same news agency and most publications define “deep background” as information that “can be used but without attribution. The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.” Generally, information gained off the record can only be used after being substantiated by additional independent sources. Off the record information tells reporters where to llok and what to look for.
Off the record information about federal police actions is often substantiated by filing Freedom of Information Act requests with, for example, the Disclosure Division of the ATF. The information requests involving bikers are almost routinely denied on the grounds of either what the FOIA Act calls “Exemption Seven” or one of three “Exclusions.”
The exempt information is defined as, “Certain types of information compiled for law enforcement purposes.” The three exclusions are: One, “Subject of a criminal investigation or proceeding is unaware of the existence of records concerning the pending investigation or proceeding and disclosure of such records would interfere with the investigation or proceeding;” two, “Informant records maintained by a criminal law enforcement agency and the individual’s status as an informant is not known; and three, “Existence of FBI foreign intelligence, counterintelligence or international terrorism records are classified fact.”
Exclusion three is one reason why motorcycle clubs are frequently described as “transnational gangs.”
Taken together, the exemption and exclusions explain why “gang investigations” are always classified as “ongoing” even when the newest information in those investigations is more than a decade old.
After a FOIA request is denied, large news gathering organizations and some private law firms have the means to bring suit in federal court to discover exempt and excluded information. The Aging Rebel does not have the resources to pursue such lawsuits at this time. This page is aware that many of its conclusions about what happened in Waco on May 17 are unsubstantiated sand have been described as “speculative.” As one 23-year-old reporter recently put it, “A blog favorable to motorcycle clubs citing an undisclosed source…is not credible.”
Credible or not, the authorities in Texas have been blatantly manipulating public opinion since the day of the Massacre and the Department of Justice has, as yet, not chosen to intervene. One plausible explanation for that inaction is that the Department of Justice has been involved since sometime before May 1.
The Aging Rebel stands by its coverage of the Waco Twin Peaks Massacre and will continue to pursue the story.
Who is holding you responsible? Therefore, one who supports a criminal gang despite the meaning and intent of the statute, does support criminal outlaws, UNLESS he also decries the unconstitutionality of the Statute — not merely its application in this case.
For clarity please define "supports a criminal gang."
“No, it’s something much more powerful: vote by jury box.”
Which does not make law, and so it has no relevance to any other case. Sorry, but dem’s the breaks.
“Just so you know your generic statement was bogus.”
It wasn’t a generic statement, it was a statement in reference to a very specific incident and the events surrounding it.
“So try and be more specific when you make these foolish claims of yours in the future.”
Try to pay attention to the context of the discussions you decide to jump into the middle of?
You said you were listening..."to the Led Zeppelin."
I think you got caught once again..and scrambled...to come up with a "story".
Because that's your rep here...........
I just think...I will pull up your other bald faced lie.
Yeah, mistaking Pink Floyd for Led Zeppelin is bad. Not as bad as mistaking outlaw biker gangs for law abiding citizens, but still bad :)
Of course it’s an assumption, I am not a fortune teller. Great observation Sherlock.
The defendant IS entitled to clear charges and evidence supporting them.
Good. I have retracted when I crossed a line I should not have. I have found it painless and liberating.
“The entire article was posted to refute “conspiracy theories” and this is how they sum it up? That’s pretty much what many posters have been saying in these threads.”
Well, with the exception that the article rightly names those theories, at this point, speculation. If more of the conspiracy theorists around here would be honest enough to admit that what they post is pure speculation, I don’t think anyone would be bothering to argue with them as much as we are.
Tell it to the judge!
I don’t see where you “debunked” anything.
As I remember, the story was that they had no criminal record. Period. If you have a source that disproves that then show it.
Here’s a funny(to me) story. About 20 years ago I was at a friends house watching football with about 30 other guys. Wife of the house got 300 bucks stolen out of her pantie drawer. Or somewhere. Anyway. Hubby decides that all of us are going down to the Police station to get finger printed. I know. Alcohol.....So, all 30 of us head to the police station.
We get there and the Chief looks through his records and says “Well, I only have to print Jeff. The rest of you we already have on file.” I guess you had to be there.
So, I kinda have a hard time believing that 117 had no record at all.
Will you decry the poster who called me an Obama bootlicker Sarge has since said that was a joke, It wasn't.
Fair enough.
Just so you know, Cucuy.
Don’t mess with my dogs.
There could be trouble.
“As I remember, the story was that they had no criminal record. Period.”
No, that wasn’t the story.
“If you have a source that disproves that then show it.”
Sure, here you go:
“Records searched by The Associated Press show more than 115 of the 170 people arrested in the aftermath of a motorcycle gang shootout outside a Central Texas restaurant have not been convicted of a crime in Texas.”
So, as I said, the story claims only no convictions in Texas, that were found in the records searched by the reporter. Finny misconstrues and leaves out relevant details in order to portray the claim as much stronger than it actually is.
That’s been pointed out to them many times, but they have continued to use the same misleading tactic.
Amen Brother FReeper.
Fine post. There are complexities that do need careful sorting out. You contribute greatly to that.
“YOU should admit it, too (the second part, not just the first part).”
Why would I admit what has already been debunked as a false/misleading claim?
I just debunked it again a couple posts ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3334116/posts?page=534#534
Ummm, no, go to my post (14), which you replied to at 307, and follow the "View Replies" links.
The thread goes from my 14, to your 307 to my 331, to your 360, to my 467, to your 470, to my 491, etc. There is a short concurrent thread, started by me at 476 with a question about distinguishing between "attended" and "participated." Anybody can follow that thread too.
The fact that you can't keep track of the conversation (understandable, in that you have a number going on at the same time) does not make my quoting of you "random." All of the discussion, including the subthread beginning at my 476, revolves around your remark at 307, and my rebuttal to your remark at 307.
The conversation would have been brief if you'd earlier noticed the distinction between "commit" and "conspire," and didn't craft a few straw men.
You said "When police witness you participating in a deadly gang fight, that's all the probable cause they need." My rebuttal is that according to the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals, the affidavit in support of arrest does not recite probable cause of participating in a deadly gang fight.
They may have probable cause of participating in a deadly gang fight, but they didn't reduce it to writing in the cooking cutter affidavit. The only thing the cookie cutter affidavit is good for is an allegation of conspiracy, and it's only good for that because the Texas Courts don't want to open a big can of worms.
“decry the poster”
not my job and I know you can handle that yourself ; )
“There is a short concurrent thread, started by me at 476 “
Your reply at 476, where you brought up the “participating” stuff, was in reply to an unrelated post of mine, so no this was not relevant to the post you were replying to, sorry, buddy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.