Recent Developments in the Alleged Murders of Patrick Shunn and Monique Patenaude / My Thoughts...

Tony Clyde Reed has reportedly been arrested in San Diego County by U.S. Marshals as he re-entered the United States from Mexico.  It appears that Tony arranged his own arrest to preclude a potential incident.  He and his brother, John Blaine Reed, have been charged with murdering Patrick Shunn and Monique Patenaude.  Patrick and Monique’s bodies have not been located.  The presumption of homicide is based on crime scene evidence developed by Washington State investigators to include the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office.  John Reed remains at large, presumably in Mexico.

Based on what I’ve read in the media, I have an opinion as to what is developing:

This opinion is my personal and professional take on what is occurring and Tony’s motivations.  I have no inside information; and, of course, both Tony and his brother, John Blaine Reed, should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

It appears that Tony and John have had a falling-out, or have entered into an agreement that Tony should surrender to authorities.  I suspect the former.

Theory:  As a fact, or as a tactic, Tony will declare that he had no participation in the actual murders; but that his involvement only occurred after John had killed the couple.  Tony will agree to testify against John in exchange for leniency.  He will probably admit that he assisted in covering-up the crime and in assisting his brother to escape imminent arrest.  He will assist in locating the bodies.  It should be understood that the extent of his disclosures, his veracity, and any evidence he might produce to prove his statements could mitigate subsequent sentencing.

____________________________________

If convicted, neither John nor Tony would face the ‘death penalty.’  Regarding capital murder cases, the State of Washington had the ‘death penalty’ up until recently; but Washington Governor (Jay Inslee) announced a moratorium (in 2014) on the sentence of death in capital murder cases.  However, this moratorium did not, does not, apply to those sentenced to death prior to 2014, and nine men remain on ‘death row’ in Walla Walla.

True Nelson

Brothers in War / The Boys of ’67;’ and Some Personal Memories

Although it was first screened on the National Geographic channel, I watched “Brothers in War” on Netflix just recently.  I highly recommend it.  What can I say?  It’s graphic, disturbing and it will touch your heart.  It brought tears to my eyes.  Some of you will remember the Vietnam War.  For some of the younger folks, it’s just a much maligned, misadventure by our American military.

That said, “Brothers in War” is a very personal account from those actually there.  It’s history.  Everyone should watch it.

“Through gripping first-person accounts and digitally remastered archival footage, including the soldiers’ own home movies and personal audio tapes, Brothers in War recounts the harrowing combat experiences of the men of Charlie Company — one of the last American combat infantry companies to be drafted, trained and sent to fight together in Vietnam.”

I served in Southeast Asia during the war (’68 – ’70).  But, I must admit, with some residual feelings of guilt, my experiences were nothing like those of Charlie Company.

I was a Team Commander for the First Mobile Communications Group (USAF).  Our motto was ‘First In, Last Out.’  Although the First Mobile was stationed in the Philippines, our mission was to deploy and set-up tactical communications equipment and navigational aids, as well as conduct necessary training for the subsequent, long-term operators - often members of the Army or Marines.  When the Marines or Army were finished with the equipment, or it had been destroyed, we would again deploy to recover what was left.  The equipment often contained classified equipment and codes.  Some members of the First Mobile spent time in extreme combat assignments, including Khe Sanh.  I did not.  I was lucky.

My experiences, my hardships were nothing compared to Charlie Company.  While at Chu Lai, I did experience a Viet Cong ‘rocket’ attack.  The Viet Cong efforts were, generally speaking, remarkably inaccurate.  They did score an accidental direct hit on the base PX (photo above), but it was at night and there were no casualties.  Marine Corps’ spotters, during the hours of darkness, watched the jungle hillside which was some distance from the base.  When they saw a flash, they would immediately hit the siren.  Those of us sleeping in the base hooches had a few seconds to sprint to the nearest bunker – usually right outside the door – before the rocket hit.  American helicopters were scrambled to ‘light-up’ the general area from which the rocket originated – efforts that were almost always unproductive.

Personally speaking, an incoming rocket, or the far more frequent false alarms, did disrupt an otherwise sweat-drenched effort to sleep.  But, it was a small sacrifice compared to Charlie Company soldiers’ sleepless nights in a mud-hole.

One Vietnam experience has stayed with me.  I once hopped an ‘in country’ transport on a C-130 moving Marines to their new base – from which they would be deployed.  The pilots and Load Master were Air Force; but, other than myself, the rest were young Marines.  I sat in the back in the jump-seats with this very solemn group of young men, all Marines.  Nobody spoke.  They looked so young.  God, they looked young.  As they say, wars (at least in those days with the military draft in place) were not fought by ‘John Wayne types.’  I wanted to say something to the young man next to me, but what could I say?  Good luck?  I don’t think so.

Back to the documentary, Charlie Company took considerable casualties – killed and wounded.  Upon completion of their one year tour, they (what was left of the original contingent) were flown back to the States.  When they arrived in the U.S., happy to finally be home and to be alive, they were met by anti-war demonstrators who cursed them, threw things at them and spit on them.

They were just boys – often draftees.  They had nothing to do with the politics of the Vietnam Conflict.  And did you know that some were actually ‘conscientious objectors,’ who acted as medics and carried no weapons – but, nonetheless, died trying to save others.

If you were one of those demonstrators, how do you live with yourself – the shame of it?  Well, you might say, ‘I was young, perhaps a little thoughtless, but just joined a crowd of my friends and peers.’

Sorry, I don’t buy it.  Who would buy it?  Your wife?  Your kids?  Your grand kids?  I doubt it.

PS:  Incidentally, the above documentary was based on the book by Andrew Wiest, ‘The Boys of ’67.’  A good book if you care to read more about these young heroes.

True Nelson

The FBI, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Hoffa and my thoughts.

The investigation involving Hillary Clinton seems to drag-on into dim uncertainty.  We all are aware of the allegations against Hillary and her private ‘server;’ as well as her reported disregard for State Department procedures and relevant federal laws.

Furthermore, I understand that the Clinton Foundation is also under investigation; but, in that instance, ethical lapses and improprieties may not be considered a federal crime – or will they…  There is some talk that the private ‘server’ used by Hillary was actually set up and paid for by Bill Clinton’s staff in furtherance of the ‘Foundation’ goals.  What does that mean?  At this point, I’m not quite sure.  Conflict of interest – almost certainly.  Crime – don’t know.

What I will tell you is that I’m becoming more and more convinced that the ‘fix,’ or attempted ‘fix,’ is ongoing in the Hillary case.  Let’s be very clear about the status of this case and the resources dedicated.

As we all know, the FBI has practically unlimited resources of money and investigative personnel.  Additionally, the Hillary case is undoubtedly complicated, but it is not the most difficult type of investigation handled by the FBI.  This inquiry has suspects available to be interviewed, actual evidence in a potential crime to be evaluated, and a presumably top level priority; but nothing seems to happen.  The FBI is starting to appear inept – even foolish.  More likely, deals are in the works.

For comparison, let me give you an example of what I might consider a difficult FBI investigation or series of related difficult investigations:  The focal point, for the purpose of this discussion, is the disappearance and presumed murder of Jimmy Hoffa.  This case and some of its off-shoots are still open cases to this day (perhaps now considered pending inactive cases) with the FBI.

Hoffa’s disappearance occurred in July of 1975.  I was an Agent in the FBI at the time.  More than 40 years have passed and the Hoffa case remains unsolved – even though hundreds, dare I say generations, of FBI Agents have worked on the investigation over the years.  I, too, played a small role in attempting to develop an informant who believed he could help the Bureau locate Hoffa’s body.  It didn’t happen.  Why was he murdered?  Uncertain - other than he had enemies.  No doubt about that.

A brief summary:

Jimmy Hoffa, former President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was a powerful and politically connected operator / criminal with close ties to the ‘Mob.’

Robert Kennedy (US Attorney General 1961 to 1964) with the concurrence of his brother and the President, John Kennedy, decided to put the full-court-press on Organized Crime, with particular emphasis on Hoffa.  The FBI, under Hoover, was given their marching orders.

As a result, Hoffa was convicted of various Federal crimes to include fraud and attempting to manipulate a Federal Grand Jury.  He was sentenced to thirteen years in Federal Prison.  Appeals followed, but he was finally incarcerated.

His sentence was subsequently ‘commuted’ by President Nixon when Hoffa had served about four years in prison.  There were rumors that Nixon received a bribe, but no evidence of that was produced.  However, in appreciation for Nixon granting Hoffa early release from prison, the IBT endorsed Nixon during his 1972 Presidential Campaign.  Odd, in a way, because the IBT customarily endorsed Democrats.

Water mostly over the dam at this point, but is an example of an FBI investigation taking a long time, involving numerous suspects, innumerable crimes and elusive criminal associates.  In fact, the Hoffa disappearance (alleged murder) is just one aside to the ongoing comprehensive investigation first demanded by Robert Kennedy in the 1960s.

Now, back to the inquiry involving Hillary.  It is hard for me to believe that the Clinton investigation is taking as long as it has with literally nothing to show.  In this matter, they presumably have a prima facie case involving Clinton or those very close to her.  After all this time, I certainly hope so.

Secondly, as the months pass, the FBI hasn’t even gotten around to calling Hillary Clinton for a preliminary interview.  The FBI Director, James Comey, when asked, simply reiterates that the FBI is being thorough.  Sorry, I just don’t buy it anymore.  Clinton creeps ever closer to the Democratic nomination for President; and Comey says he is being thorough.  Hundreds of Agents, millions of taxpayer dollars, months of investigation – and he’s being “thorough.”  I don’t believe it.  Something is in the works.  Something that has little to do with ‘equal justice under the law.’

Sounds like the good-ole-Nixon days, doesn’t it?

True Nelson

Murder of Pat Shunn and Monique Patenaude // Suspects: John and Tony Reed

This is an alert that I am forwarding to all potential readers regarding the reported murder of Pat Shun and his wife, Monique Patenaude.

I didn’t know Pat personally, but he was a friend of my daughter at Canby High School in Oregon; and Pat and my daughter were both members of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Search and Rescue group.  From all reports, he was an exceptional young man.

The suspects in the murders, now reportedly on the run, are the Reed brothers, John and Tony.  There is information that they may have recently been seen in the Ellensburg, Washington area.  For detailed information, including pictures of the suspects and a vehicle description, I would suggest you go to the Snohomish County Sheriff’s website:

http://wa-snohomishcounty.civicplus.com/Archive.aspx?ADID=4445

“Detectives have advised that the Reed brothers are in possession of a red 2007 Volkswagen EOS Coupes, Washington plates AXH5106, a vehicle that belongs to their parents."

"John Reed is 5’08”, 190 lbs. with hazel eyes and gray hair.  Tony Reed is 5’11”, 150 lbs. with green eyes and gray hair."  John is 53.  Tony is 49.

"Anyone with direct information on the whereabouts of John or Tony Reed, or with information about the investigation into the murder of Shunn and Patenaude, is asked to call 911 or the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office”

Snohomish County Sheriff's Office:  425/388-3845

It should go without saying that the two men are armed and dangerous.

Pat and Monique pictured above.

True Nelson

Three Friends (two liberals and one conservative) analyze the Presidential Primary Candidates

My two best friends and I met for lunch last week and current events were on the menu.  My friends are good guys – lifelong friends; but are pretty much (unfortunately at least from my perspective) liberal Democrats.  Residing in the Portland Metro area, the life of a liberal is actually pretty easy – surrounded by a massive support system of like-minded people.  On the other hand, being politically conservative can be rather lonely at times.  Nonetheless, friendship can usually overcome disagreements.  Let’s see, what did we discuss?

No surprise there, we discussed the primary race and the candidates.  Is anyone talking about anything else?

On the Democratic side, we all three generally agreed that Bernie Sanders was the ‘man,’ ah, sorry, the best candidate.  Democrats that I’ve come in contact with don’t readily admit they plan to vote for Hillary.  If, however, she is the Democratic nominee, I’m sure my friends will give her their vote.

Incidentally, I just finished a book written by Ed Klein called ‘UNLIKEABLE; The Problem with Hillary.’  If you are thinking about voting for Hillary, read it.  OK, OK, my friends will now be searching the internet for information on Ed Klein.  Tomorrow morning they will email me information from some obscure source that Klein is a past Nazi sympathizer or member of the Ku Klux Klan, maybe both.  Although Ed’s name sounds like he might be Jewish which would give me a very solid counter argument.

Ed, if you’re out there somewhere, don’t let me down on this.  Is what you said about Hillary accurate?  I would like to say I was shocked, but...

I’ve kind of committed to voting for Ted Cruz (no relation to Tom Cruise and the Scientology connection) – so I’m safe in that regard.  My friends sum-up their opinion of Ted Cruz as:  ‘Just don’t like him,’ ‘Everyone in Washington hates him,’ and ‘He’s too in-your-face religious.’  OK, got it.  I counter with:  ‘Right, well, I hate most everyone in Washington’ (maybe hate is kind of a strong word).  Let’s just say, I don’t care much about what the Senators and Congressmen think about Mr. Cruz; and firmly believe our elected officials spend almost all of their time thinking about themselves and darn little else.  Regarding the religion part, I’m fine with that; but I think Cruz should tone-it-down just a tad – now that he’s not campaigning in Mississippi.

So what about John Kasich?  One friend informed me that ‘no one likes him in Ohio.’  That might be true for all I know.  As you can see, I’m running out of good counter arguments, and out-gunned two to one.  Although -- it does seem somewhat odd that he is the Governor of Ohio, but no one likes him.  Maybe, it’s a new thing.

Oh, and as far as Donald Trump is concerned, we all three agreed that Donald Trump is totally ‘unlikeable.’  Mr. Klein, how about another book called ‘Unlikeable Too?’  I enjoyed reading the earlier one.

True Nelson

The FBI and Director James Comey; Hillary Clinton and Handcuffs

During a recent interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton laughed when Lauer suggested that some Republicans were predicting she would be “hauled off” in handcuffs. She referred to the notion as a “fantasy,” stating the FBI inquiry was merely a “security review.”

Well, there has been a lot of discussion on the Hillary situation within the former Agents’ underground network – nothing specific however.  Director Comey is playing this investigation close to the vest – the word being that any information leaked by current Agents would be punished severely, and that the polygraph would be used to ferret-out any potential ‘leakers.’  OK, but that hasn’t necessarily put a stop on the many informed opinions, at least I consider them to be informed opinions, circulating.

I don’t think we are going to see Hillary Clinton taken anywhere in handcuffs – even though many would be tickled to see her get the same punishment as the average Joe.  But let’s be candid here, that’s not how the world works.

For reference and context, you might take a look at a previous post of mine:  Hillary Clinton / Email Scandal / Will She be Prosecuted? 3-7-16

Here are some additional thoughts…

Director Comey, unless he has ice in his veins, must be under a lot of pressure.  What are the potential outcomes of this FBI investigation or, if you prefer, security review?

Let’s put forth some potential scenarios:

What if this investigation drags-on and there are no criminal referrals or indictments generated by the FBI?  Comey will be criticized for wasting millions of taxpayer’s dollars on a bogus inquiry that could have been handled far more efficiently, without the drama, by a more professional investigative agency.

What if Hillary doesn’t get the Democratic nomination, and Comey does not pursue any sort of criminal prosecution?  His continuing to delay the process will be blamed for sabotaging Hillary’s campaign.

What if he waits until she has been nominated by the Democrats, and then he drops the bomb?  He will be criticized for that and accused of playing politics in an effort to undermine her election.  The fallout could be significant, disastrous to the political process, riots in the streets, and fodder for all the conspiracy theorists for the next decade and beyond.

What if he makes an official, criminal referral to the Department of Justice, and they refuse to prosecute?  Does he resign?  Doubtful.  Director of the FBI is a good job and pays well.  No one could blame him for shrugging his shoulders and moving on to other matters.  He still has time to polish his legacy.

What if Hillary’s negligence, incompetence and/or criminal behavior involves the President?  One does wonder if he, too, exchanged emails with his Secretary of State (H.C.); and was also so clueless that he did not recognize this was not such a good idea.  Or, perhaps the President’s staff?  The Vice President?

Certainly, someone, other than Hillary’s immediate henchmen or hench-women were aware that Ms. Clinton was bending, if not breaking, the rules / that she was compromising security and the potential safety of others – you know the guys and gals that actually do the dangerous work.

Let’s go Director Comey – better get with it.  I don’t think the American public will be satisfied with a ten-thousand-page report saying ‘I’m sorry, but hundreds of Agents over these many months, couldn’t find that anyone, including the former Secretary of State had done a darn thing wrong.’  Perhaps, as a face saver, the Attorney General could critique Ms. Clinton’s State Department with a carefully worded, for the most part non-accusatory letter of understanding – suggesting some improvements.

No, realistically speaking, someone will have to take the ‘fall.’  Hillary – doubtful.  Hillary’s immediate staff – a good possibility – and no one of particular importance would have been hurt in the process.  Comey – who knows – maybe this will be a career ender.  I’m sure the Director has thought about it.

True Nelson

Donald Trump vs. Ted Cruz / I’ve made my choice / Tell you why:

OK, admittedly, I sometimes go off half-baked when it comes to politics.  But, it’s my blog, so if you’re not particularly interested in what I think about the Presidential race, just hit delete now.  

There are plenty of ‘talking heads’ (experts / at least in their own minds) out there.  I’m not an expert on this area, just a guy.  My opinion is no more valid than anyone else.  And, I do understand that.  But, here goes.

Short of an indictment, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President.  Some of you are happy with that – the nominee part, not the indictment part.

I am an officially ‘unaffiliated’ voter in Oregon.  I just changed my registration to Republican, because I’d like to have a say in who the Republican nominee is.  In Oregon, it will be winner-take-all.

Oregon is a ‘liberal’ state, for the most part; and the Democrats will fight over Bernie or Hillary.  I really don’t care.

I do care about the Republican nominee – Trump versus Cruz.  I’ve kind of researched them both.

Let’s see – Trump first:  Donald Trump projects himself as a ‘tough guy,’ and therefore appeals to real, authentic tough guys – the hard working class – the tell-it-like-it-is class.  I like those people.  I don’t like Trump.  Why?  Because he is, in no way a ‘tough guy’ by my definition.  He was born rich and I’m sure he has never broken a sweat doing any sort of hard labor.  Why does that matter?  Because for those of you who have – and I have – he is ‘jerking’ us around.  Was he a draft dodger?  Looks to me like he was.  But nothing new about that – that’s just what rich people did – student deferment changed to 1-A (for a short time) and then converted to 4-F under doubtful circumstances.

OK, what about his policies?  The 40 foot wall along the Mexican border – hyperbole at best – lying to the public at worst.  There are more sensible ways to solve the illegal residents’ problem.  Enforce the current law is the one I would start with.  That’s what every other country (with a lick of sense) does.  Simply said:  no work unless you are a citizen or have a valid temporary work permit.

And the rest of his polices?  Reportedly, he’s going to be doing a lot of ‘kicking ass.’  Yes, right, like he has ever kicked anyone’s ass in his entire life.  Unless you want to count his body guard shoving someone around, or being sued by him – in other words having someone else ‘kick ass.’

Now, for Cruz:  I must admit, he was not my first choice.  My first choice for the Republican nomination faded away weeks back.  That’s the way it goes I guess.  So, Cruz will have my vote here in Oregon.  I generally have a low regard for attorneys.  I’ve said this before; attorneys, in my opinion, often have a character flaw that is hard for me to ignore.  To me it boils down to a highly questionable tendency in attorneys that everything is ‘relative.’  There is no right or wrong – it just depends - and, of course, money talks.  It’s their nature.  And, unfortunately, attorneys often become politicians.  Now, I’ve met a lot of good people who were attorneys; but, as a general rule, I stand by my opinion.  Cruz is an attorney; and I understand he is, professionally speaking, a very good one.

So, you might ask, by your definition is Cruz a ‘tough guy?’  Well, I’m not sure.  One thing for sure is that he doesn’t constantly try and make us believe he is.

Example:

Donald Trump:  ‘Let’s go outside and I will kick your ass.’  Outside, you will find that Trump is nowhere to be seen.  His 6’8” body guard and his attorney are there instead.

Ted Cruz:  ‘Let’s not resort to violence.  Let’s have a debate about the issue.’  And, when the debate is finished, your head spinning, you will have to admit that he ‘cleaned your clock.’

Who do you want to be President?  I’ve decided.

PS:  I finished my taxes yesterday.  I went immediately after that to my Anger Management Class.

True Nelson

Shooting of Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum / FBI Agents Fired Two Rounds at Vehicle / or did they? (Part 2)

Regarding my previous post, there might be a partial explanation to my earlier questions.  It sounds like, based on statements from the passengers in Finicum’s car, that one of the bullets, allegedly fired by an FBI Agent, shattered the car windshield of Finicum’s car as he was trying to exit the car.  It could be said, if this is what happened, the shot was poorly timed and potentially escalated a tense situation – leading to Finicum’s explosive reaction upon exiting the car.

That said, the shot was not necessarily inappropriate or unlawful under the stress-filled conditions.  Nonetheless, if the members of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team attempted to conceal this fact – well, that’s a horse of a different color.

Refer Part One

True Nelson

The Shooting of Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum / FBI Agents Fired Two Rounds at Vehicle / or did they?

I’m curious and puzzled by the recent, front page, news article concerning the “2 Standoff Casings Not Found” (The Oregonian, Wednesday, March 16, 2016).  We shouldn’t jump to any conclusions at this point; but, reportedly, an FBI Agent fired two rounds at Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum’s vehicle as it raced toward a law enforcement roadblock.

For background information, I’d like to refer you to my previous post on the tactics involved in stopping Finicum’s vehicle and the shooting, by Oregon State Police, which resulted in Finicum’s death:  The Shooting of Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum – Let’sTalk Tactics.

“Five FBI Agents assigned to the traffic stop told investigators none of them fired at Finicum’s Dodge pickup” as it neared the roadblock at a high rate of speed.  However, “Oregon investigators concluded one Agent fired twice at the truck, hitting it once in the roof and missing on the second shot.”  There was subsequent witness statements that appear to support this information.

However, all five Agents denied shooting.  But, “a State Trooper later described to investigators seeing two rifle casings in the area where the Agents were posted.  Detectives tasked with collecting evidence didn’t find the casings.”  It has been postulated that an, as yet undetermined, Agent picked up the casings and has lied about firing at the car.

Based on my past experience, a couple of immediate questions came to mind.  Why would the Agent lie about shooting at the car?  It appears that he was probably justified. A State Police Officer fired at the car, when it appeared the driver might ram the barricade.  Have the ‘rules of engagement’ for the FBI become so restrictive that the Agent feared criticism or worse if he admitted shooting – under the defined circumstances?  And, then, when questioned, why would he commit a potential crime by lying about it?  To complicate the matter, it has been discussed and reported that all the Agents present knew about the rounds being fired; and have chosen to be complicit in the lie / cover-up.  Why would they do that?

Maybe, we will never know the answer?  But, the FBI will not take this lightly.  And, they will find the answer.  If someone lied, or if others were complicit in a lie, this will be considered far more serious than the actual shooting.  Shots fired by the FBI Agent, if it occurred, could be favorably interpreted or rationalized by FBIHQ.  Lying to law enforcement investigators conducting an official inquiry of this nature would not be tolerated.  And, someone will be required to pay the price.

True Nelson

True's Miscellany March 2016 / My Previous Post / I Don't Like It.

This morning, I read my previous post.  I don’t like it.  I could delete it; but it adds context to what I am about to say.

It’s a personal thing.  Sometimes, I write about subjects that make me feel good.  The latest one did not.  It’s what I believe, but it’s angry and not particularly relevant to anyone but me.  This is the political season.  Everyone has their personal beliefs on who they would like to see become the eventual President.  However, most of us will come to the realization that we won’t be voting for someone – as much as we will be voting against someone.  My family and friends have their preferences.  They have, or will make, their own decisions based on personal reasons – some frivolous (in my opinion) – as, undoubtedly, are my own.  As the choices for President seem to narrow, I am becoming more and more convinced that I will not vote for President.  The process has become too ugly.  The choices uninspiring.

Many young people seem inspired and motivated by Bernie Sanders.  It’s their future.  He seems like a nice guy, maybe a little nutty.  Why not?

I’m a retired, unemployed, often (at least sometimes) depressed curmudgeon - actually a bit younger than Bernie.  I don’t like to think of myself that way - depressed curmudgeon that is; but, if I’m not already there, I’m well on my way.

I need to pause and rethink what’s important – to me – now - and to write about same - maybe just a tad more uplifting.

True Nelson

Hillary Clinton / Will She be Prosecuted? / My Prediction Regarding the Email Scandal

I have a prediction regarding the outcome of the FBI’s case regarding Hillary Clinton, her ‘Private Home Server’ and the errant emails.

The Feds are currently, or close to, impaneling a Federal Grand Jury to hear the evidence regarding the above stated investigation.  The FBI has expressed interest in interviewing Mrs. Clinton and she has offered her cooperation – at least for now.

What we now know is that at least three of Mrs. Clinton’s staff members are also under investigation.  Brian Pagliano who, reportedly, set up the questionable private ‘server’ in Mrs. Clinton’s residence has agreed to be interviewed by the FBI in exchange for immunity.  He had originally invoked the Fifth Amendment.  Pagliano’s original position against potential self-incrimination may mean little.  It doesn’t mean that now he will necessarily be entirely forthcoming.  But, he will undoubtedly receive an intense grilling.

The State Department has released over 50,000 pages of emails that passed through Mrs. Clinton’s private, and officially unauthorized, private server.  Twenty-two of those documents have the highest classification of Top Secret, and will not be released to the public.  Mrs. Clinton has said that none of the messages she received, or the information contained therein, were ‘classified’ at the time she received them.

While in the military, I was Custodian for classified documents (including Top Secret) – sent and received; and have some understanding of how such material is handled.  It is conceivable that new information received, and not immediately or officially Classified, could have been relayed on to Mrs. Clinton by her Staff.  And/or her Staff could have paraphrased, summarized or reissued Classified messages without advising Mrs. Clinton that the original information had been Classified.

That is possible, I suppose.  However, one would have to totally ignore the fact that Mrs. Clinton was not just working at the State Department, she was heading the State Department.  She was the boss.  If she had no idea what type of information may very well be classified, her incompetence would have to be off the chart.  It’s hard to even imagine.  No, I think she knew.  I think she simply didn’t care.

In view of the above, I’m of the opinion that Mrs. Clinton will not be prosecuted unless a potential prosecution is an absolute ‘slam dunk.’  And, what would that be?  Well, if she doesn’t confess to a crime (which she won’t, of course) and / or self-importantly lie to the FBI, any subsequent trial’s outcome could be somewhat in doubt.  The Attorney General will not take the chance – not with Clinton’s apparent ‘slam dunk’ of the Democratic nomination for President.

I do think there will be some indictments.  Some of Mrs. Clinton’s former staff will be required to ‘fall on their sword.’  They will be prosecuted, given light sentences, probably probation.  When Mrs. Clinton gets to be President, she can give them a full pardon.

So what do we know about Mrs. Clinton?  Well, we all pretty much know her and her husband’s reputation, their modus operandi – House of Cards – in spades.  “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is…” --- Benghazi.  Truth be damned.

True Nelson

What Ever Happened to Zachariah M. Peterson? / and his Online Threat to "Mow Down" Local Portland Area Teachers

What ever happened to Zachariah M. Peterson?  You know, the guy who threatened online to go to a Portland area school and “mow down” the teachers because of some past grievance.  He was 29 at the time of the threat, so his ‘grievance’ must have been festering a long time.

ZachariahPeterson Threatens to Mow Down (Kill) Teachers at Local Christian School

Update to Previous (Part 2)

Connection between Zachariah Peterson and Chris Harper Mercer / Coincidence? Doubtful.

Perhaps you will recall that Peterson was arrested by the FBI and local police on charges etcetera; including a charge of ‘a felon in possession of a firearm’ (a federal felony) to wit:  “a Mossberg shotgun, a .22-caliber handgun, a 10-22 Ruger rifle with two 25-round magazines and one Remington 700 rifle with a Leupold scope.”

Peterson was arrested at his home on 9/21/15 and immediately charged as an ‘Ex-Felon in Possession of a Firearm / US Code Title 18, Section 922’.  Said charges were ‘dismissed’ on 10/14/15.  Why?  I couldn’t tell you for sure.  I’m not about to go to the Multnomah County Court House, in downtown Portland; and endure that ordeal as I have done many times in the past, just to learn what I already know.  X- Felons found to be in possession of firearms are rarely prosecuted.

Some possible reasons for no prosecution:  part of a ‘plea deal’ or the US Attorney considers the crime low priority and declines to prosecute - ah, well, those are the two reasons generally utilized.  I suppose you could put forth a couple of the more obscure reasons:  ‘Peterson was framed by the police’ or ‘there was an illegal search conducted,’ and/or the guns were placed in the house by space aliens; but these explanations are generally considered to be highly unlikely.

Here is the take-away from all of this:  Gun Control, as proposed by politicians (particularly liberal politicians) is a ‘red herring,’ a ‘stalking horse,’ a ruse used to deceive the uninformed citizenry.  While recommending all types of additional legislation directed at basically honest gun-owners, the government refuses to enforce laws that are already on the books.

Why would they do this?  First, because they can.  Secondly, the jails would be, in their opinion, overwhelmed by real criminals.

On the other hand, the government can put forth some recommendations for gun control that does, I suppose, look to some (perhaps most) in the public like they (the politicians) are actually doing something – even though the laws proposed would be largely ineffective – and they know it.  But, the hard cold fact is that the government considers the general public to be pretty darn ignorant; and that legalese-laced platitudes will make said public temporarily feel good; but, more importantly, perpetuate the careers of many current politicians.

Furthermore, what's the big deal about a few more armed x-felons running around terrorizing the public?  At least they aren't clogging-up our prison system (True's sarcasm).

And then they wonder why Donald Trump is ahead in the poles.  God help us.  (Or... Maybe he is.)

True Nelson