Danchenko Indictment: Read It For Yourself
A primary source for the infamous “Steele dossier” is up on charges, as the Danchenko indictment once again brings questions about the 2016 election.
An analyst who was a primary source for a 2016 dossier of allegations against Donald Trump has been arrested on charges that he repeatedly lied to the FBI about where and how he got his information, officials said Thursday.
Igor Danchenko’s role in providing information to British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the accusations about Trump in a series of reports, has long been a subject of scrutiny from internal Justice Department investigators and special counsel John Durham, according to people familiar with the investigations.
Steele presented the dossier to the FBI, and it was part of the basis for secret surveillance court orders targeting former Trump adviser Carter Page as the FBI investigated possible ties between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and Russia.
A 2019 report by the Justice Department inspector general found major problems with the accuracy of Danchenko’s information. But the 39-page indictment unveiled Thursday paints a more detailed picture of claims that were allegedly built on exaggerations, rumors and outright lies. The indictment is likely to buttress Republican charges that Democrats and FBI agents intentionally or accidentally turned cheap partisan smears into a high-stakes national security investigation of a sitting president.
The indictment also suggests Danchenko may have lied to Steele and others about where he was getting his information. Some of the material came from a Democratic Party operative with long-standing ties to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to the charges, rather than well-connected Russians with insight into the Kremlin.
The allegations cast new uncertainty on some past reporting on the dossier by news organizations, including The Washington Post.
Danchenko appeared briefly Thursday in federal court in Alexandria, Va., where his lawyer tried to enter a plea of not guilty on his behalf for five counts of making false statements. The judge did not accept the plea because the hearing was not an arraignment, and Danchenko was released.
His lawyer declined to speak to reporters outside the courtroom.
Durham’s probe into the FBI’s Russia investigation has also led to the indictment of a lawyer connected to Democrats, on a charge that he lied to the FBI. In addition, a former FBI lawyer who worked on the Page surveillance application later pleaded guilty to altering an email related to that case.
Read the full Danchenko indictment for yourself here:
Danchenko indictment
And there we go.Report
So… the pee tape might *NOT* be real?
Glenn Greenwald has a fun thread here:
Report
Makes you wonder how many of those 8 convictions we got from Russia-gate were tactical pleading. People pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit because they didn’t want to roll the dice.
Then we have pleading guilty to crimes they did commit but didn’t know they were doing. Trump’s 2016 campaign had a lot of people out of their depth. Also had a lot of people whose normal activities couldn’t stand the light of day.Report
Based on your logic here, we should empty the prisons since about 90% of convictions are based on tactical pleading from people who took a plea deal.
And the idea that Trump’s people were “out of their depth” is comical but illustrates the liberal charge that, when it comes to people who are rich, well connected and powerful and given the world’s best legal teams to argue on their behalf, conservatives have just an endless, bottomless well of excuses, passes, second chances, presumptions of innocence and mulligans.
A black guy who had a gun in his glove compartment? Well, it is theoretically possible he might have at some point used it, so sure, just shoot him.Report
we should empty the prisons since about 90% of convictions are based on tactical pleading from people who took a plea deal.
I wouldn’t say *EMPTY*, but I’d be interested in hearing why tactical pleading is good, actually and jailtime based on it is good, actually.Report
How about “inevitable” instead?Report
We now know that the underlying charges that got the ball rolling were a political hit job fantasy. Trump wasn’t working for Russia, Trump wasn’t working with Russia, Trump wasn’t blackmailed by Russia. What we found was Trump paid off a porn star.
RE: rich, well connected and powerful
That describes Trump very well. Does that describe the people who we convicted? Let’s just review. Link at bottom for where I’m getting the list of names.
Russian Troll Farm was shielded and obviously guilty.
Paul Manafort is reported to have a net worth of 10 million dollars (70 at his peak). He’s a clear example of someone whose activities couldn’t stand the light of day.
Konstantin Kilimnik is an employee of Manafort and was charged with obstruction. Something about lying about who had polling information. His net is a million dollars.
Roger Stone. Net worth 20 million. Basically an expert in dirty tactics. Lied to congress and pretty much everyone. Seriously hits the radar as connected.
Michael Flynn. Net worth 1 million. Lied to the FBI. Absent the original investigation there would have been no crime.
Rick Gates. Campaign aide. Lied to investigators. Net worth 25 million. Absent the original investigation there would have been no crime.
Michael Cohen. Trump’s personal lawyer. Job description is to do dirty things, lie about them, and get thrown under the bus when he gets caught. Would have stayed longer without the original investigation but see job description. Net worth 1 million.
George Papadopoulos. Net worth of 2 million (although wiki said he was living with his mother before he got married in 2017 so there’s that). Trump foreign policy advisor. Lied about ties to Russia to investigators. Absent the original investigation there would have been no crime.
Alex van der Zwaan. Dutch attorney. Works for a bank. Pled guilty to one count of making a false statement to investigators. This is a weird one, he didn’t work for Trump, just had some contacts with Gates. Absent the original investigation there would have been no crime.
Richard Pinedo. Convicted of identity theft. Was selling false websites on ebay. Not sure how he’s in here.
Sam Patten. Failed to register as a lobbyist. Worked with Kilimnik. Core crime was helping a foreign client get tickets to Trump’s inauguration and misleading investigators.
Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin. Associates of Flynn. Broke lobbying laws for their work on behalf of a Turkish campaign to expel a rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Gregory Craig. Tried and acquitted on charges of lying to authorities. Long time Democratic attorney and worked for Bill Clinton and Obama.
https://time.com/5556331/mueller-investigation-indictments-guilty-pleas/
Some of this hits the radar as there were legit crimes being done. Some of this is grey area stuff and/or the laws are complex and not widely known. Some of this is the investigation creating crimes, i.e. basic human nature is everyone lies. Witness Bill Clinton talking about his sex life under oath.Report
Ooh, now do these guys:
L.A. sheriff’s deputies use minor stops to search bicyclists, with Latinos hit hardest
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-county-sheriff-bike-stops-analysis/#nt=00000175-c749-da42-a377-ff5f38920001-liA7promoSmall-7030col1-main
The article details how LA Sheriffs use stop and frisk on innocent people riding bicycles, stopping them and searching them without any probable cause or reason.
This “hits the radar” as harassment, and trumping up petty infractions into “show me the man I will show you the crime” stuff.
I’d have a lot more support for “Law N Order” folks if they didn’t just turn it on and off like a light switch depending on who is being arrested.Report
LA should stop voting for Republicans.Report
We did! We voted in George Gascon, who was immediately subject to a recall funded by…Republicans.
One of Gascons reforms was to dismiss these de minimis violations, which outraged the Law N Order crowd.
And you would be surprised at the sort of people who love to fan the flames of “OuttaControlCrime” stuff.Report
Mostly peaceful flame fanning.
Did the recall succeed? I mean, every single president in the modern era has had impeachment papers written up. The question is whether they get past the first couple of hurdles. (Wanna see the bill to impeach Biden? here it is.)
Did Gascon back down following the recall effort fizzling? (That’s not my word, that’s the word used by the LA Times.)
I am not seeing where Gascon tried to redefine de minimis crimes. Just stuff like this article that talks about getting rid of the death penalty, getting rid of cash bail, and not paying attention to the three strikes law when it comes to enhanced punishments for serious or violent felony convictions (I’m assuming that “serious or violent” felonies no longer qualify as de minimis).
As for whether crime is “out of control”, I don’t know how to measure. But articles like this one talk about how violent crime is on the rise.
One of the things that I think is exceptionally ineffective is active denial of stuff like violent crime going up. It’s one thing to not pursue de minimis crimes. Quite another to not pursue serious or violent felonies. That sort of thing will only hurt the progressive project.Report
Here’s a good article talking about the quietly effective ways in which the California Democratic supermajority is revising the penal code to do things like end mandatory sentencing, gang enhancements and reducing some petty thefts to misdemeanors.
https://calmatters.org/justice/2021/10/california-criminal-justice-reform/
Four of the proposals have become law, while others are still being studied.
In almost every case, the Republicans were united in their opposition, and Republican-leaning groups like law enforcement and prosecutors were eager to whip up public hysteria over crime fears.
I know that your “stop voting Republican” was meant to be sarcastic, but its true.
If you want to reform the justice system, stop electing Republicans.Report
As great as the symbolism of that sort of thing can be, I’m wondering if you’ve seen this story about what law enforcement actually looks like on the ground?
You’d think that having a trifecta for a decade would mean something.
(Personally, my assumption is that the system is working as designed.)Report
I like how you spend so much time complaining about the carceral state, then blithely dismiss concrete changes in the penal code as “symbolism”.
I mean, you’re practically an internet meme of the guy perspiring feverishly, torn between pressing one of two buttons:
“Support Democratic reforms” or
“ATTACK DEMOCRATS!”Report
Chip, my problem with the carceral state is that de minimus stuff results in carcery.
I think that the cops doing stuff to take care of serious or violent felonies IS GOOD. Like, that’s what they’re for.
The problem comes up when you’ve got progressives who say “we’re going to have Democratic reforms!” and then stop prosecuting shoplifting of goods worth less than $950 while still having law enforcement pull over kids on bikes for riding on the sidewalk.
My problem is not with the idea of Democratic reforms.
I’d love it if there were any.
As it is, the Dems have had a trifecta for a decade.
The system is working as intended.Report
There’s no logic within your comment, other than “Whatever they’re doing its bad, and in such small portions!”
This is just reactionism trying to hide within reformism.Report
Chip, I’m not saying “whatever they’re doing is bad”.
I’m pointing to stuff that they’re actually doing and saying “this is bad”.
I’m saying that the cops shouldn’t be chasing after de minimis stuff (like kids riding bikes on the sidewalk) but should be going after serious and violent felonies.
The examples you’re providing of reform are of prosecutors trying to do end runs around serious and violent felonies while, at the same time, linking to stories of cops harassing kids on bikes!Report
Who is supporting the cops chasing kids on bikes? George Gascon, or the Republican law enforcement groups? Remember, the cops don’t work for him.
And you’re not even describing the reforms correctly- it isn’t the prosecutors who are doing them, its legislators; The prosecutors were the ones fighting those reforms tooth and nail. And it isn’t “end run” around serious felonies, its reducing some nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors.
Like, one of the biggest reforms I mentioned, was the end of drug-war mandatory minimums, but you just ignored what has been your signature issue. Not to mention ending the death penalty, which is like, kind of a big effin deal.
So it really does seem that your hostility towards Democrats trumps any desire for actual reform, which is why I used the word “reactionary”.Report
And you’re not even describing the reforms correctly
I’ll quote the reactionary news article from the reactionary NPR:
Judge James Chalfant agreed with the union’s argument that Gascón’s rules broke California’s three-strikes law, which states, “[t]he prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior serious or violent felony conviction” of a criminal defendant.
It’s not talking about de minimis. It’s talking about serious or violent felonies.
Like, one of the biggest reforms I mentioned, was the end of drug-war mandatory minimums, but you just ignored what has been your signature issue.
This is a *GREAT* reform! But if he’s also throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the bathwater will come back when the baby does. Let’s hope not all of the bathwater comes back.
Not to mention ending the death penalty, which is like, kind of a big effin deal.
When was the last execution in California? Well, I’ll tell you: 2006. 15 years ago.
I’m not sure that the ending of the Death Penalty in California can be attributed to the guy who was elected last year.
Here are the numbers for people who have died in police custory from 2010-2019. It’s the “Homicide Justified (Law Enforcement)” and the “Investigation Pending” numbers that I find most interesting.
If you want the number of people killed by police, I’m having trouble finding recent numbers for that, but the ACLU had a report in 2015 that said that, during the previous six year period, the police had killed 610 people.
I’d like to know the numbers for the last six years. One thing I’ll tell ya: It’s a number bigger than zero. Which means that it’s a number bigger than the number of executions in California.
Getting rid of the Death Penalty might be symbolically satisfying, I guess, but I don’t really consider it a “big deal”.
So it really does seem that your hostility towards Democrats trumps any desire for actual reform, which is why I used the word “reactionary”.
I would like to see actual reform.
Instead of prosecutors ignoring serious and violent crimes even as police harass kids on bikes during a spike in violent crime.Report
You live in another state so I’ll grant your confusion between the reforms of LA District attorney and the California legislature, especially since i mentioned both.
The Legislature in my link has reduced some nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors. George Gascon in Los Angeles has proposed not using the Three Strikes Law in some cases.
Similar, not the same.
And not having executed someone is NOT the same as not having a death penalty; Gascon has refused to charge people with the death penalty, which IS a big deal.
See, you’re struggling very hard to dismiss actual reform, but in so doing, now aligning yourself with the prosecution and carceral state, but trying to conceal it with “but real reform”.
That doesn’t wash, and its where your contrarian take of refusing to actually support any faction or group becomes a de facto support of reaction and status quo.
Even your framing of “But we must talk about crime!” is an example of rightwing framing.
What is the connection between the Gascon and Legislature reforms, and crime rates?
Absolutely nothing, unless one accepts the premise that reducing the carceral state causes people to run amuck i.e., The Rabble Must Be Controlled.Report
Oh wait, what is this??
LA Democrats Helped Elect Sheriff Villanueva. Now They Want Him Out.
The L.A. County Democratic Party is calling on Sheriff Alex Villanueva to resign, accusing him of “perpetuating a culture of police brutality” among his more than 9,000 deputies and failing to rid the department of “deputy gangs.” The resolution won the support of 91% of delegates to the party’s central committee at its meeting Tuesday night.
Is it possible that Democrats don’t like Sheriffs harassing kids on bikes?
And may even be in favor of reform??
Waaaa?Report
In Colorado, the only person who can get the Sheriff to quit is the Coroner.
This is one of those laws that dates back to the 1800’s.
I assume California has similar?Report
between the reforms of LA District attorney and the California legislature
The attempted reforms of the LA District attorney were the ones that the fascist NPR highlighted white supremacistly.
As for the California Legislature passing new laws… good? Let’s hope that the executive properly directs law enforcement accordingly.
George Gascon in Los Angeles has proposed not using the Three Strikes Law in some cases.
Looks like he got overturned by the Judicial Branch.
And not having executed someone is NOT the same as not having a death penalty; Gascon has refused to charge people with the death penalty, which IS a big deal.
Oh, I agree that there is a difference on paper.
If we’re going to run with the size of the deal, I’ve gotta say: I’ve seen bigger.
After all, more people died in custody in the last week than were put to death by the state in the last decade.
Even your framing of “But we must talk about crime!” is an example of rightwing framing.
It’s more that I don’t see “we must *NOT* talk about crime” as working out in the long run.
What is the connection between the Gascon and Legislature reforms, and crime rates?
For one thing, if I wanted to change the prosecutor and the members of the legislature, I’d try to squelch discussions of the crime rates. I’d get really gaslighty about it, too.
Especially if law enforcement was still doing de minimis crap to children even as prosecutors were trying to get serious and violent felonies overlooked.Report
You forgot to answer the question:
What is the connection between carceral reform and higher crime rates?Report
In the 70’s, they crested together. That doesn’t establish a pattern, though.
There are a handful of theories.
One is the “Broken Windows Theory“. Essentially that allowing visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes. Going after lesser crimes, by comparison, creates an atmosphere of lawfulness.
The Wiki page links to a number of criticisms of this theory but, if it’s accurate, carceral reform crested in the 70’s at the same time as higher crime rates and it had a connection, not just a correlation.
Now, as for my own personal theories, I think that the assumption that the authorities have no moral authority and are merely capricious gang members who have the okay from people in power is corrosive to society in general. If the cops had moral authority, their excesses would be more acceptable in the aggregate. Without their moral authority, even doing stuff by the book is questionable. So, under that theory, carceral reform is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I suppose it’s nice, I guess. But the problem isn’t the carcerity, it’s the lack of moral authority on the part of the authorities.Report
This mirrors your comments on immigration.
You can see then, why proponents of immigration and carceral reform shouldn’t see you as an ally, but an opponent?Report
My comments on immigration?
You mean like this here:
Or do you mean stuff like my immigration story here?
Or is it the fact that I notice stuff like when the Congressional Budget Office releases a Report on the Effects of Migration on Wages, I read it and take it seriously?Report
Yes, exactly that.Report
Well, if that sort of thing makes me an opponent, no wonder the proponents of immigration reform have so very few allies.Report
You really don’t understand?
Your comments, on immigration and carceral reform, are a wild mix of incoherence- You support immigration, while noting that it has harmful effects; You support carceral reform but quickly assert that it leads to higher crime.
This is an argument for chaos which is an argument for authoritarianism.
Nowhere in your comments is there a vision of a happy outcome, where we enjoy the benefits of liberal immigration, higher wages, a just carceral system, and lower crime.
Your comments- your very own words- paint a Hobbesian choice of neverending Divorce or War, reminding me of that comment about how fascists never promise their people joy and harmony, but the drama of endless war and suffering.Report
I support immigration which is why I support immigration reform but, I do that with open eyes and the ability to say “this will harm some people and, yes, I am one of the people who will benefit from it”.
I think that saying “We should do this because it’s the right thing to do!” without acknowledging that, yes, it is easy for me to advocate for my own interests is better than pretending that I’m not putting money into my own pocket by calling for more immigration.
“But the people who don’t want you to benefit more than they care about principle will automatically oppose immigration!”
Yes. I suppose that that’s true.
As for carceral reform, I think that the barrel is so full of rotten apples that there needs to be, like, *MAJOR* structural changes. Oscar wrote a post about it.
The thing is that any one change won’t fix the problem. Any two changes won’t fix the problem. Any four changes might start to make a dent in the problem.
Nowhere in your comments is there a vision of a happy outcome, where we enjoy the benefits of liberal immigration, higher wages, a just carceral system, and lower crime.
Because everything has tradeoffs and Utopia does not exist.
This shouldn’t be controversial and I don’t see how promising how awesome everything will be if only Democrats have a supermajority for a decade will result in the change we claim to want.
There will be tradeoffs. There will be downsides.
Pretending that there won’t be is a recipe for distrust. And more distrust. And even more distrust.
And if you’ve got enough distrust, you’re going to find yourself unwilling to live with someone that you don’t trust to that point.
And there are only but so many options after that.Report
Good to clarify this, then.Report
It’s certainly true that if you assume cops have no moral authority, that is corrosive and if you assume the contrary they get away with more. In the parts of the universe I know about, however, the cops have lots of moral authority among a large group of people, most of whom self-identify as Republican or conservative.
This has important implications for politics, which is the slow boring of hard boards — as Jaybird himself knows except when it is convenient to forget it.
When is it convenient to forget it? When you want to blame the only party that is likely to give you any of what you want for your not getting most of what you want, and not give the actual opponents grief for it. For example, take qualified immunity reform. It dies when the Presidency is in the hands of Democrats and the Democrats have 6-vote margins in the House and a 50-50 Senate. Blame the Democrats when the President is OK with it, the House passes it, and Senate Democrats favor it. Ignore that this legislation can’t go through reconciliation, and, therefore, as a practical matter, needs at least 10 Republican votes. Then blame the Democrats and pretend you don’t know why it failed.
Fortunately, people with actual skin in the game know that the real choice is between people who will try to get you what you want and, however haltingly, get you some of it, and people who don’t want you to have it at all. And they will blame, and vote, accordingly.Report
What’s wacky is that what kicked this off isn’t “what’s happening at a national level” but “what’s happening in California”.
Which has had single party rule for a decade.
It’s good that they got around to some reforms last year, though.
Vote harder! VOTE HARDER!
(Note: New Mexico abolished Qualified Immunity at the state level. This is a good thing. And possible when you’re not engaging in kabuki.)Report
Nothing wacky about it at all. Discussions move from the specific to the general back to the specific and back again all the time. You did it yourself in this very thread and nobody thought it was wacky. Some people responded to what you yourself said without whining to the Hall Monitor. To each his own.Report
Specifically: New Mexico has pulled off significant reform.
Specifically: California has had one party rule for a decade.
This ain’t something that can only be blamed on the intransigence of the bad guys. Maybe the good guys are actually *NOT* trying to fix things.Report
We’ve all seen that quadrant graph of political identities, where Authoritarian is opposite Anarchy or something.
Except it isn’t true at all.
The opposite of Authoritarianism is controlled liberty, where cops have the moral authority that comes through trust.
If your idea of cops/ government is that they are essentially lacking in moral authority, then that path leads inevitably to authoritarianism.
It gets back to my critique of libertarianism where they demand a third agent, but can’t bring themselves to accept its existence as anything but malign.
So the choice is only between different shades of authoritarianism, never controlled liberty.Report
How many lawsuits are thrown out because of QI? This board has had reviews of various examples of police bad behavior, I don’t remember any of them interacting with QI.
My impression is QI, like the death penalty, is not a very big thing. Getting rid of it would be nice but would also be something akin to virtue signaling.
If we’re talking about “review boards”, then that’s a local thing. An all-Blue city with no GOP power can (and indeed, must) do whatever they want without GOP involvement.
Lion’s share of fixes for law enforcement behaving badly is local reform.
There are a few exceptions, we should outlaw/reform those laws which say local law enforcement can keep “drug” money without a trial (or the Supremes might do that).
Example: The bulk of the problem of Chicago’s police is local to Chicago. Their city council is 46 Democrats and 4 Independents. Their Mayor and so on are all members of Team Blue. All the talk about GOP opposition seems specious.
We hear a lot from the Mayor and others about how stuff is going to change and serious reform is going to happen and how when it doesn’t it’s somehow the GOP’s fault.
Most big cities with big dysfunctional police departments have similar city makeups.Report
How many lawsuits are thrown out because of QI? This board has had reviews of various examples of police bad behavior, I don’t remember any of them interacting with QI.
Here are a couple.Report
No. The death penalty gets people spun up but it’s not a large thing.
Since 1976 (45 years ago).
7,800 defendants have been sentenced to death;
1,500 have been executed
As of December 16, 2020, 2,591 convicts are still on death row
So we’ve had 3k+ people on death row and then excused or die of other causes, twice as many as we’ve executed.
We execute about 33 people a year. This is smaller than “killed by dog” or “killed by lightning”. Dogs aren’t even the most dangerous animal around either.
The cops kill 20 to 30 times as many people in the normal course of things (600-1000).
For perspective, we have 4000 fatal drownings.Report
1: A proposal to end mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses
2: A plan to limit the state gang enhancement law
3: A proposal to make good behavior credits available for mentally ill people who are in a treatment facility
4: A bill to retroactively repeal some sentence enhancements for people who were previously excluded
“2” (defined): The bill would remove looting, felony vandalism, and specified personal identity fraud violations from the crimes that define a pattern of criminal gang activity.
The case for 1,3,4 seem obvious. 2 seems less so. I can see arguments for wanting to treat organized riots as thought it were organized crime (i.e. gang activity). However this is not my field and it’s possible rioters are being punished as gang members. But it’s also possible that they should be.
So that’s 3 that seem obviously good and one IDK.Report
We have RICO laws for that.Report
RICO is against Racketeering.
Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the perpetrators set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a racket) to repeatedly or consistently collect money or other profit.
If you have a rioting gang, it may not be for collecting money and/or organized enough to count.Report
When it was popular to crank up law enforcement, Biden was a key member in doing so. California’s peak of their tough on crime movement was in 2006 (counting the number of arrested).
Team Blue wants to claim they’re seriously against the prison pipeline. They also want to tell the prison guard’s union that they’ll have more work. They also want to tell those afraid of crime they’ll do something. They also want to claim that this isn’t a multicultural issue.
Team Red represents a lot of crime free areas that would like to stay crime free.Report
There seems to be a widespread assumption that “toughness on crime” is a single knob that can be turned up and down, and those are our only options. There may be some political reasons why this is true. But logically, we don’t have to choose between locking up drug users and prostitutes on the one hand and effectively legalizing property and light violent crimes on the other.
What I really want is Seattle’s approach to victimless crimes and Singapore’s approach to victimful crimes, with the stipulation that fouling the public commons is not a victimless crime.Report
I think the phrase is, “fishing expedition.” It is possible that there is a larger context justifying what they’re doing here, but your link doesn’t suggest that so let’s ignore that.
Given the lack of efficiency for the stops, are the cops simply trying to justify their own existence? That seems very similar to the whole Russia-gate investigation, although the later seems to have also “created” crimes.
Different communities have extremely different crime rates. Strip away all the potential for “different policing” or racism or whatever by just counting corpses. The communities with extremely high crime rates tend to be poorer and darker.
So what do we do? (Not a rhetorical question, I’m inviting feedback).
Have a much greater and more intrusive police presence in those communities? If we do that then all stats we create will look pretty racist.
Alternatively, we could simply ignore the problem and limit police presence and activities to something a rich neighborhood would have. Of course that means tolerating very high levels of victimation in those communities (which should look racist). This would also create supply/demand issues with the cops (i.e. there are fewer cops than they need so there’s often none when you need them and/or it takes hours to get a response).
Of course we could do both, i.e. have a greater police presence but not great enough to actually be enough.Report
The FBI investigation was warranted because we know that there are different crime rates for Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns.
How? Well just look at all the convictions! That alone justifies extensive investigations of any Republican presidential campaigns, because, My God, the crime rate over there is outtacontrol!
The lunacy here, is when you investigate, you find things. If you stop and frisk Latino men on bikes way out of proportion to their size of demographic, of course the “crime rate” will be higher.
Your constant use of “crime rates” assumes clear and correct reporting by cops, but here you have documented fishing expeditions where they manufacture a crime rate that otherwise wouldn’t exist.
Crime states are unreliable, and reflect only the crimes they look for, not the crimes which are actually there.Report
Let me just quote myself: Strip away all the potential for “different policing” or racism or whatever by just counting corpses. The communities with extremely high [counted corpses] tend to be poorer and darker.
All of the spin in the world doesn’t change that we count all dead bodies.
Now there are multiple other sources(*) which suggest yes, we’ll find the same situation with violent crimes that don’t leave corpses.
(*) Counting people who show up in hospitals with gunshot wounds, looking at surveys which ask how often they’ve been a victim of crime, etc.
And this brings us back to, “what do you suggest we do about it?” Do you have anything other than insisting that this isn’t the reality?Report
Actuslly I agree this is the reality, that poor people tend to resolve problems with violence.
And no, I don’t have an easy solution for that.
But notice how this conversation started, with me noting how police use de minimis infractions to inflate crime numbers.
The critics of the carceral state aren’t complaining that the cops are too tough on rapists and murderers;
Its the kids riding bikes and guys with broken taillights who are on the receiving end of injustice.
And ironically, as the LA Times article shows, when the police are abusive, the crime gets worse, not better because now the people have no one they can trust.Report
Longtime Clinton/Dem operatives are even easier to indict than ham sandwiches.Report
Chris Arnade read some books that were not Harry Potter:
Report
Then demagogues inciting distrust in those institutions have a lot to answer for.
I know that’s not the response Arnade was looking for.Report
Those poor politicians, media people, and “elites”.Report
Those assholes who went to med school to understand how infections work. Who are they to say the answer isn’t mainlining bleach? Ditto people who run election; who are they to contradict a pathological liar?Report