According to Daniel Bice at The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the audio conflicts with the way Archer characterizes the experience:
That recording details tense but mannerly exchanges between Archer and Aaron Weiss, an investigator with the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, as he led a team of officers during an early morning raid on Archer's home as part of a now infamous John Doe probe.I'm sort of doing you a courtesy by letting you get a coffee....
“I'm sort of doing you a courtesy by letting you get a coffee and smoke a cigarette just because I imagine being woken up at six in the morning by a bunch of people in black suits is not the way you want to wake up in the day,” Weiss said at one point.
Posts
170 comments:
Great country we've got eh?
Oh, and by the way, you can't speak to anyone about this.
So she lied. Big surprise. She worked for Scott Walker.
"Audio from raid on Walker aide's house"
Not "Cindy Archer's house."
I'm sort of doing you a courtesy by letting you get a coffee
I found that very unusual too. Do you think they were trying to soften her up so she'd testify against Walker? Didn't she try to cut a deal at some point?
Not "Cindy Archer's house."
And yet it is. Strange way to label it. Maybe she part-owns it?
How nice that the Jack-booted thugs are polite.
This is, of course, one of the problems with the double secret probation approach of the John Doe investigation. No one can verify the veracity of the claims from either side.
Also, for what it's worth: One's perception of events is affected by whether you are the immediate object of the John Doe search or an after-the-fact (and perhaps biased) observer.
Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that should have happened months ago at the home of Hillary! and her lawyer (office) and Huma and Blumenthal?
Has anyone listened to the whole three hours yet? I want to jump ahead to the part where they yell at her like a "Drill Sargent"
madisonfella said...
Has anyone listened to the whole three hours yet? I want to jump ahead to the part where they yell at her like a "Drill Sargent"
Why don't you undertake that task for us. See if you can mark down all the errors.
the horror...the horror...
And where in the recording do they say tell her she can't even talk with her lawyer? I want to hear if they scream that at her or smugly state it in a calm voice.
Then its OK to use the police and prosecutor's office against political opponents. I see it now.
suppose, just for a second, that this had happened to madisonfella....
I suspect few will listen to the actual audio and the understanding of what's in the audio will be shaped by what Bice and others are saying now.
And I, personally, don't have time to listen.
"MadisonMan said...
Not "Cindy Archer's house."
And yet it is. Strange way to label it. Maybe she part-owns it?"
Seriously? The just wanted to put "Scott Walker" into a story about a probe. The headline reads "Audio of John Doe raid contradicts Walker aide's claims".
Not "contradicts Cindy Archer's claims." Never mind that after spending millions of dollars, and many thousands of man hours, that Walker was never charged with anything, and those charged had really nothing to do with him (other than he hired them).
Daniel Bice is a piece of shit.
And where in the recording do they say tell her she can't even talk with her lawyer? I want to hear if they scream that at her or smugly state it in a calm voice.
Would it make a difference?
"Ann Althouse said...
I suspect few will listen to the actual audio and the understanding of what's in the audio will be shaped by what Bice and others are saying now."
True, but now that it's public parts that support Archer's claims (if any) will certainly be pulled out and presented.
"Ann Althouse said...
And I, personally, don't have time to listen."
False. You have time. You choose not too.
The 6 o'clock in the morning stuff with armed police for a political infighting scuffle is still Nazi/Soviet behavior whether or not Ms. Archer exaggerated her story somewhat when counter-suing.
Who ever heard of lawyers exaggerating their charges before, anyway? Quelle horreur!
Ann Althouse said...
I suspect few will listen to the actual audio and the understanding of what's in the audio will be shaped by what Bice and others are saying now.
And I, personally, don't have time to listen.
Isn't this why we click on that Amazon portal thingy?
How can being rousted by the police, in ninja suits, at 6AM in your own house ben anything other than traumatic?
I am glad they were polite. They are police, they don't have to be.
But so fucking what? The mere fact of the roust is traumatic and for anyone to say otherwise is smoking something.
Surprised they let her have a cigarette, though. Don't police officers have enough to worry about without second hand smoke too?
John Henry
The audio link we can get to (here) is also only a 30~ minute clip. You have to click twice to get to the full three hour audio (here).
That alone makes me suspicious. Why did they edit down the audio and only highlight that part? I haven't listened to the whole thing, but not providing me with the full audio without having to search their website instantly puts me on guard that they may be cherry picking what they want low info readers to hear, or people without the knowledge/skepticism to click and search for the whole thing.
Especially glaring is that the link in the article reads "Newly unsealed audio of the three-hour incident tells a different story." That made me think I was getting the full story; it wasn't until I stopped to look around I noticed that the file they linked to is a truncated/edited version of the full audio.
Dishonesty or incompetence?
No one can verify the veracity of the claims from either side.
Unless one hears the audio recordings for themselves, and compares them to what was said.
No wonder the Republicans were so eager to have all the evidence destroyed.
When you have to answer to the state for unapproved and inappropriate opinions, it's very nice that the agents of the state are polite. I mean, isn't that what a free society is all about?
What is this about her conflating her account of this raid with the events at a previous raid?
This kind of behavior is common in Wisconsin?
And I, personally, don't have time to listen.
Expected response. You've already labeled Archer's version of the events as factual, so why give it any further thought now.
Did Archer file a lawsuit about the treatment she received during this raid? I know she told the media her version of what happened, but did she also makes those accusations while under oath?
"You've already labeled Archer's version of the events as factual, so why give it any further thought now."
-- Have you listened to the 3-hour audio, not the 30 minute, cherry-picked clip? You're statements imply she has lied to us all, but we have no proof of that. We have a dishonest blog that misrepresented a short clip as the whole audio. I generally do not trust a source that has lied to me, so I'm hesitant to believe their characterization of the audio file.
Would it make a difference?
It was a pretty big deal that she was told not to talk with her lawyers, so the manner in how that was communicated to also a big deal.
Bit if she made the whole thing up, then that is an even bigger deal. At least that should be a big deal, but the partisan hacks are already lining up their excuses and diversions.
You're statements
Me?!
No, you are statements!!
Of course, Archer's lawsuit will have the entire audio, as well as other evidence, as tools for the court to rely upon for its judgement, not just this 30 minute excerpt. This is PR effort on the part of the defendants in her suit to spin the public. As Bice has been the go-to guy for spin from the defendants throughout the entire episode, the release of this partial audio file is not surprising. Frankly, it would be my advice to the defendants to draw less attention to what they are alledged to have done, rather than more. Releasing this audio doesn't convince any partisan of anything they didn't believe already and reminds non-political people of the raid and its nature again. Not wise.
"madisonfella said...
No one can verify the veracity of the claims from either side.
Unless one hears the audio recordings for themselves, and compares them to what was said.
No wonder the Republicans were so eager to have all the evidence destroyed."
Wrong John Doe penquin. And in John Doe II, which brought NO charges, the evidence they are worried about is personal and private information. And it's not "Republicans" but the "wrongly investigated."
You are a moron.
"Tank said...
Ann Althouse said...
I suspect few will listen to the actual audio and the understanding of what's in the audio will be shaped by what Bice and others are saying now.
And I, personally, don't have time to listen.
Isn't this why we click on that Amazon portal thingy?"
Hahaha winner!
You are a moron.
Says the guy who STILL thinks I'm his ex-girlfriend.
I proudly do not proofread blog comments.
If the audio entirely supported Ms. Archer's account of things, it never would have been made public.
Anyway, I expect police from Wisconsin, acting legally or not, to be polite. It wasn't their call to judge the appropriateness or legality of their orders.
Finally, viewing this from the point of view of the victim roused at 6:00 a.m. in her own home is going to give a vastly different perspective than viewing it as a smug reporter with his own political point of view to spin.
The thugs weren't the police, but the ones directing them.
This is a huge misdirection from the fact that the entire premise of this investigation has been ruled unconstitutional by the highest court in the state. That alone makes this dawn raid an outrage. The cops could have been wearing white gloves and pinafores and it still would have been outrageous.
This was an abuse of the police power of the first order and Chisholm and his thugs should spend the rest of their lives paying for what they did to the subjects.
Nice to see fascist thugs doing the bidding of political hypocrites are so courteous.
Just the fact that there was an unannounced raid at 0600 is enough proof for me that it was well beyond inappropriate. There had to be ways to gather this information in a civilized fashion. This was not a meth house or a Mafia hideout that might have required this type of action. I hope that the prosecutors and judge in this case have some serious fines assessed on them - and a little jail time wouldn't hurt, either.
"How can being rousted by the police, in ninja suits, at 6AM in your own house ben anything other than traumatic?"
Well, it is only traumatic for Republicans.
We don't know how it is for Democrats but it will be coming after Trey Gowdy is AG. Then we can find out how they like police raids in SWAT gear.
“The tape confirms Ms. Archer’s account of that traumatic morning in every relevant respect. As discussion on the recording confirms, Archer was roused from her sleep before dawn; the team of officers demanded that she open the door before she was dressed; the officers came in with guns drawn, threatening Archer’s dogs; Archer was detained for hours and followed at every moment of the raid; Archer’s partner was detained for the same duration despite the absence of authority in the warrant to detain her; and Archer and her partner were threatened with contempt for discussing the events that occurred in their own home with anyone. It can clearly be heard that, as the Milwaukee investigators questioned Archer, her home was being ransacked in the background"
But hey, they let her get a coffee so it's all good.
Whose girlfriend are you, madisonfella?
@ Ann you said: "Maybe the 6 a.m. raid on Cindy Archer's home was not as traumatic as she claims in her lawsuit." That's a little flip! Put yourself in her shoes and I am sure you would be traumatized too.
"I'm sort of doing you a courtesy by letting you get a coffee...."
The banality of evil.
Yeah, a house full of dudes in black with guns. Totally not traumatic or upsetting.
She is such a whiner.
Especially glaring is that the link in the article reads "Newly unsealed audio of the three-hour incident tells a different story." That made me think I was getting the full story; it wasn't until I stopped to look around I noticed that the file they linked to is a truncated/edited version of the full audio.
And going with the Planned Parenthood precedent, editing any footage --- even if you include the full footage online --- means you doctored it.
Maybe we should politely kick in Bice's door with guns drawn on him. Don't be rude, just enter with guns drawn. I bet he'd find it downright pleasant.
HE did get a lot of info from the prosecutors. SHOULDN'T police be investigating his home for coordination with the prosecutors?
Bushman said
Archer’s partner was detained for the same duration despite the absence of authority in the warrant to detain her.
Why are the Democrats harassing lesbians?
War on Wymyn!
"I'm sort of doing you a courtesy by letting you get a coffee...."
Because the unaccused, frequently, have their lives turned upside down for nothing and be fucking GLAD that the state didn't decide to do worse.
At least the Mafia didn't PRETEND they worked for the greater good. I'd rather deal with a Mafia boss than Chisholm...well, actually, I'd rather see Chisholm deal with a Mafia boss, one on one.
I'm just glad the raid didn't discover any fetal tissue.
By all accounts, the Duke of Norfolk was exceeding polite to Sir Thomas More durine his "trial". They still illegally chopped his head off and he was, alas, still dead.
Also, why is it that only lefties can get sealed documents unsealed?
I recall reading a lawyer's advice that if a police raid occurs at one's home, the best legal action to take is to determine if one is under arrest, and if not, to leave the premises immediately.
Getting as far away as possible makes getting a smoke and a coffee a lot more comfortable, and decreases the ongoing risk of being shot by "a bunch of people in black suits" who may also feel a dawn raid "is not the way you want to wake up in the day."
Courtesy from the guy with the boot on your neck still leaves the boot marks.
"Also, why is it that only lefties can get sealed documents unsealed?"
-- Because the right doesn't try as hard to do it, for whatever reason. They're doing a decent job at getting Clinton's e-mails reviewed/released, and did a great job exposing the IRS's abuse of power. It's just that usually, the right goes about it the right way, that is -- it takes a long time, is tedious, and requires hundreds of man-hours to sort through the thousands of documents dumped on them at once.
They also, rarely, open up all the leaked documents to a crowd funding search like -- was it the NYT? -- did with Palin's e-mails.
So, it's just different tactical approaches.
"I recall reading a lawyer's advice that if a police raid occurs at one's home, the best legal action to take is to determine if one is under arrest, and if not, to leave the premises immediately."
-- Eh, I'm torn between that and "I'm calling my lawyer." But, remember, for the early parts of the raid she was naked/not wearing anything, and her partner was in the shower and men with guns were threatening her dogs [allegedly]. You can't responsibly walk out on that situation, for a variety of reasons.
"Am I being detained?"
"No."
Walks out. Naked, and free and proud.
QED.
"Why are you walking naked down the street?" asks one of the tipped-off reporters.
You'll have to ask DA Investigtor Weiss, back at my home there. I'm forbidden by law from discussing the subject. Ask him."
Front page, guaranteed.
" They're doing a decent job at getting Clinton's e-mails reviewed/released, and did a great job exposing the IRS's abuse of power. "
As soon as it seems the server is going to be in custody of anyone cooperating with Congress, the server will be seized by Lynch and will disappear.
Nice discussion of the whole fiasco, including Libya.
Summarized anti-Walker folks: It's ok to violate Constitutional rights, as long as your nice about it and doing it to harm a Republican.
The rape wasn't so bad, she didn't cry out as much as she could have.
So, it's just different tactical approaches.
More like approach vs. non-approach.
Blogger damikesc said...
"I'm sort of doing you a courtesy by letting you get a coffee...."
Because the unaccused, frequently, have their lives turned upside down for nothing and be fucking GLAD that the state didn't decide to do worse.
He was stupid to allow her to have coffee and a smoke.
Nothing like having steaming hot coffee thrown in your face, or being burned by a cigarette.
I thought Lynch was an Obama partisan, not a Clinton partisan? What does she care if Clinton's shot at the presidency gets ruined?
Amadeus 48 said...
This is a huge misdirection from the fact that the entire premise of this investigation has been ruled unconstitutional by the highest court in the state. That alone makes this dawn raid an outrage. The cops could have been wearing white gloves and pinafores and it still would have been outrageous.
This was an abuse of the police power of the first order and Chisholm and his thugs should spend the rest of their lives paying for what they did to the subjects.
And this is the part that MF, Machine,garage, et al. are just fine with. Everything out of their smug little mouths is in defense of fascism.
"I'm sort of doing you a courtesy by letting you get a coffee...."
I like to think I could have suppressed the reflexive "Fuck you", but I'm not so sure.
You mean a Walker loyalist lied? No fucking way!
Livermoron said-- Whose girlfriend are you, madisonfella?
Garage's obviously.
So the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which illegally was fed info to harass subjects of the investigation, for the raid "playful". I am not impressed.
Overheard on a Central European train station platform. "Madam, what do you think we are, barbarians?"
"You mean a Walker loyalist lied? No fucking way!"
-- I don't know. Have you listened to all three hours of the audio?
I watch "The First 48" a lot. Their investigations are all about murders. Violent murders with guns and knives and things like that. And frequently, when they obtain the name of a suspect, they call them up and ask them to come down to the station for an interview. For a murder. They tend to only send the SWAT team on a raid when the subject is attempting to flee or hide or literally in the middle of a crime spree.
There was no reason for that raid to happen that way. Four detectives could have shown up at her door at 10 o'clock in the morning, politely knocked, and executed that search warrant just as effectively. It was thuggery and intimidation (and a power trip), pure and simple.
I see no evidence of a lie, Garage, you tool. You should be ashamed of your blatant biases, but instead you're proud.
"You mean a Walker loyalist lied? No fucking way!"
Without watching the whole thing, we only have Dan (the law's too complicated to explain to my readers) Bice's word on it.
Fascism with a happy face.
Have a nice day, Untermenschen.
I'm trying to understand the point of view of those who think it matters whether this raid was done *courteously*. But I'm failing.
When Castro's thugs knocked on my grandmother's door, looking for my grandfather, who happened to be out of the country at the time, they were very nice, too. Called her "Señora Hamilton" and and everything.
They also told her to pack up her three American-born teenage sons who had been raised in Havana and be on whatever flight was leaving the country.
They arrested my father's good friend's dad around the same time, beat the shit out of him, and held him until he died in prison 10 years later.
They were very polite to my grandmother, though. So they got that going for them. Which is nice.
Over to you, madisonfella, fuckface.
Wait a minute, I thought we were supposed to always believe and support a trauma victim's subjective experience as they report it. Hell, according to many on the Left we're supposed to believe and support a victim's account of objective facts, even when that account is at odds with the objective truth we can prove (hands up, don't shoot).
Is it ok to question survivors' accounts of their trauma now?
This is a perfect example of the soft totalitarianism we are headed towards.
Link to full audio.
I just started listening and the first thing I notice is that it is NOT from the beginning of the raid. Definitely very early in it but not the beginning.
Wow, what a smug asshole this Bice guy is:
During his questioning, Weiss had to explain to Archer how a John Doe probe works, acknowledging that it is “a different procedure.” A John Doe is similar to a grand jury investigation but requires even greater secrecy.
Weiss said he believed Archer would appreciate that fact.
“This is a way of conducting an investigation without the whole world knowing,” Weiss said. He added, “Nobody's going to know about what you and I talk about today unless it became evidence in a criminal case.”
Or a filing in a civil lawsuit.
This from the guy who previously published an article (including a picture) about the very raid in question! Now he's saying it's Archer's fault that the raid was publicized...but he himself (or anyway his paper) had already publicized it! That's some major-league douchebaggery folks.
The exaggeration, if that is what it is, was a serious tactical mistake. When you already have a good case (and she does) why overclaim? That's just dumb.
I read the entire Brady transcript last night so I'm not listening to this right now. But the Brady transcript gives a nice example about how those in power love to use it. Brady is suspended because a single misguided arbitrator found it "more likely than not" that Brady had some prior knowledge of an event that (in my view of the evidence) probably never happened. The procedures used by the NFL for determining the inflation of the balls were haphazard and full of problems. This is true of the League's actions before and during the game, as well in the investigation. I come away from reading this thinking it is far, far more likely than not that Brady had nothing to do with tampering with the inflation of the footballs, in part because the evidence that there actually was tampering is very unconvincing. As a juror in the court of public opinion, Sir Tom, I find thee Not Guilty.
Go Packers.
madisonfella said...
"And where in the recording do they say tell her she can't even talk with her lawyer? I want to hear if they scream that at her or smugly state it in a calm voice."
garage mahal said...
"You mean a Walker loyalist lied? No fucking way!"
8/5/15, 10:15 AM
We are at this point because the left has condoned totalitarianism. Cuba, China, and Venezuela have always been their role models. It is not merely ideological at this point.
Speaking of Fascism with a happy face in the land of the LaFollettes:
The Stock Pavillion address elicited a remarkable reaction from Colin Ross, a German citizen who was a frequent visitor to the United states and a committed National Socialist. Ross replied through an open letter to La Follette published in Berlin in the Nazi periodical Wille and Macht. Recognizing that "an American politician who dared to identify himself with Fascist principles would commit political suicide," Ross nevertheless agreed with other commentators that Phil's address "was a purely Fascist (sic-JRH) or - let us say - a National Socialist speech. Hitler himself had, in fact, already enunciated its basic ideas and Ross chided the governor for failing to acknowledge the source.
War, a New Era, and Depression, 1914-1940 (Google eBook)
Front Cover
Paul W. Glad
Wisconsin Historical Society, Mar 5, 2013 - 662 pages
Found on page 548. Not sure if the link takes you straight there.
https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=s_ ... sm&f=false
Not much seems to have changed in the intervening 75 years or so.
Progressivism = Socialism = fascism = Fascism = National Socialism
John Henry
Perhaps I should add that progressivism equals those things in theory, platforms and ideas if not in actual practice.
In other words, equal in design if not in degree.
But as we see here, not all that different even in degree.
John Henry
Thirteen minutes in... Rather boring. Cops seem to be doing their job (as BBS as it may be in this case) professionally. Though, I found the part where the officer told her that she is not under arrest and then follows it up with 'but I am doing you a courtesy by letting you get coffee...' ridiculous. She is not under arrest, her COFFEE is not subject to the warrant. Letting her minimal exist in her own home while you rifle through it is not a courtesy.
Sixteen minutes, she is not under arrest but is not allowed to get herself ready to leave. Thus, a difference without a distinction.
I should note that I have no idea what Ms. Archer claimed happened as I have not paid attention to that part of the story. Thus far though, the cop's behavior (the one in the audio - as no others can be heard) has not struck me as anything that would justify a complaint. The warrant itself may be BS but that is not for him to know.
" thought Lynch was an Obama partisan, not a Clinton partisan? What does she care if Clinton's shot at the presidency gets ruined?"
The e-mails between the White House and Clinton showing that Obama was behind much of the Libya action might be of interest to Lynch. They don't give a shit about Clinton.
This is about the "legacy" and if the Congress gets too close, it will "sleep with the fishes."
Twenty-three minutes in, the officer has not raised his voice at all. Ms. Archer and her partner can be heard speaking together and laughing. I am impressed with how they are handling a stressful situation. Sandra Bland (the full video I finally watched for the first time yesterday) would have been wise to adopt a similar tact.
Twenty-five minutes, Ms. Archer is talking about the previous raid referenced in the article. 'Don't shoot my dogs, don't shoot my dogs.'
Twenty-six minutes, cop cracked a joke, "You have not seen my lack of organization yet." Both women briefly laugh.
Twenty-eight minutes, through heavy mic noise, the cop has informed her she is not under arrest but she is detained pursuant to the search warrant. He notes that "a lot of these things are politically charged". Ms. Archer says that she has done nothing wrong.
"We do lots of John Doe investigations that don't lead to criminal charges." Really? REALLY!? Something sounds wrong about that. Sounds like a law needs to be changed. Intrusive investigations of people who have done nothing wrong is BS.
Thirty-one minutes, what is the cop doing? Is the dog licking the mic?
Thirty-two minutes, cop starts asking about the case they are investigating. About to get even more boring!
Also, early on in the recording, Ms. Archer was told she could not discuss the case with anyone except for her attorney.
Is it true members of the press were outside her home at the start of the raid? At 6 AM?
If you investigate the theft of money front orphaned veteran's widows you're a fascist. Ah, the morals of a modern day conservative.
He'd be sort of doing her a courtesy to stay the fuck out of her house.
It's easy to say it was nothing as an uninvolved observer. It's another for it to be your house and your family that is being disturbed. Regardless of how she appears in the video, her version of the event may be a truer expression of how she felt.
"If you investigate the theft of money front orphaned veteran's widows you're a fascist. Ah, the morals of a modern day conservative."
Pathetic. Please explain how this police raid has anything to do with that case.
Forty-nine minutes... boring stuff. Though it is funny that she was told not to discuss the case with anyone but her lawyer yet her partner can be heard speaking in the background. So... it's ok to talk about the case in front of others just not with them?
Look, the jack-booted thugs brought in by the political opposition were bending over backwards to be nice to her- she has no right to complain. That basically describes the journalist's position.
This sort of thing just makes you want to puke.
Note to our leftist friends, "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg was not a how-to book.
The Smiley-Face-with-Hitler-mustache on the cover was not supposed to be a suggested tactic.
madisonfella said...
"And where in the recording do they say tell her she can't even talk with her lawyer? I want to hear if they scream that at her or smugly state it in a calm voice."
garage mahal said...
"You mean a Walker loyalist lied? No fucking way!"
Your honor.
I rest my case.
Standard tactic.
"See its not that bad" still means it's bad. Just like Hillary. "sure I used a private server and hid my activities in violation of the law but I did turn all the emails in that I considered were necessary."
The fact that the house was searched in the first place is the abuse. A point that seems lost on the partisans Daniel Bice, and Judge Nettesheim.
I think the release of the video is great because it further illustrates the hypocrisy that was used in regards to "secrecy" on the part of the prosecutors, judges, and others involved in John Doe II.
More document dumps to come. No ethics remain among Wisconsin Democrats and Liberal Judges.
Where in Jonah Goldwhale's book can I find liberal fascism as it pertains to investigating dirtbags who steal from orphaned widows? Or looking into perverts who troll underage men in a van? Or who flaunt state laws to circumvent open records request? Or, are conservatives just unprincipled fuck wads led by unprincipled f7ckwads? I'm going with the latter. The science is in on that, as they say.
I just started listening to the audio for the full three hours. Where is the audio for the beginning of the search? The audio starts with the agents already in the house. Why was it released without the audio of the beginning?
Seventy minutes in...
I think I know why the Professor declined to listen. She was reasonably confident it would be mind-numbingly boring. If that is the case, she is correct! It is so dull to listen to an interview about illegal activities when none have occurred.
I'll keep listening but my conclusion thus far is that the edited version of this recording accurately portrays the unedited version - just as the edited version of the PP videos have accurately depicted the content of the unedited videos.
"I recall reading a lawyer's advice that if a police raid occurs at one's home, the best legal action to take is to determine if one is under arrest, and if not, to leave the premises immediately."
I don't know how long ago that lawyer's advice was published, but today, attempting to leave would be considered "resisting arrest," now a corporal, and even capital, crime. One would be risking serious injury, and possibly death.
You know, the last decade or so really shows us how the poem was supposed to go:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out -
Because the socialists had spent the entire bloody time jeering that once they were in power they were really going to stick the boot in our faces and point out to us how nice they were for not spitting on us at the same time. Man, maybe we should have said something out of long-term self-preservation in hindsight of what happened next, but I gotta say it was really good seeing the would-be tyrants finally run into someone with a bigger stick and the ruthlessness to use it.
-- I don't know. Have you listened to all three hours of the audio?
Has he listened to ONE minute?
Odds are low on that.
This from the guy who previously published an article (including a picture) about the very raid in question! Now he's saying it's Archer's fault that the raid was publicized...but he himself (or anyway his paper) had already publicized it! That's some major-league douchebaggery folks.
Why SWAT raids are daily occurrences in Wisconsin, apparently. Nobody would even NOTICE a bunch of cops entering your house.
Sixteen minutes, she is not under arrest but is not allowed to get herself ready to leave. Thus, a difference without a distinction.
If she wasn't under arrest, on what legal grounds could the police detain her?
If you investigate the theft of money front orphaned veteran's widows you're a fascist. Ah, the morals of a modern day conservative.
Would it be OK if police burst into the Clinton house with guns out to search for servers?
Where in Jonah Goldwhale's book can I find liberal fascism as it pertains to investigating dirtbags who steal from orphaned widows? Or looking into perverts who troll underage men in a van? Or who flaunt state laws to circumvent open records request? Or, are conservatives just unprincipled fuck wads led by unprincipled f7ckwads? I'm going with the latter. The science is in on that, as they say.
Progressives are Nazis.
All Progressives should be treated as Nazis.
The Bombing of Dresden is a great starting point for the deserved treatment of Progressives.
Garage, I am ashamed we have any similarities on a genetic level.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out -
Because the socialists had spent the entire bloody time jeering that once they were in power they were really going to stick the boot in our faces and point out to us how nice they were for not spitting on us at the same time. Man, maybe we should have said something out of long-term self-preservation in hindsight of what happened next, but I gotta say it was really good seeing the would-be tyrants finally run into someone with a bigger stick and the ruthlessness to use it.
No joke.
I've argued that the biggest mistake we made was going into WW II in Europe as early as we did. Allow the Nazis and Communists to REALLY slaughter one another for a while. Then storm in and wipe both sides out.
Eighty-seven minutes...
She is talking about her dogs eating habits...
Shortly afterwards, joke about if this can be done yet, cop answers that HE wants it done already.
"Am I free to leave?" Yes? Leave. No? They now have to read you your Miranda rights, and respect them. any other answer, phrased as a question? "Am I free to leave?"
Continue a couple times. Then say "look, if I'm free to leave, I'm leaving, now. If not, say 'you are not free to leave'. By the way, I'm recording this on my phone."
Progressive logic: Believe all women in accusations of rape, even with no evidence at all. Assume all women are lying about abuse at the hands of the state, in spite of ample bias.
Oh well. When the pendulum swings back, retribution is going to be REALLY ugly. And I'll be cheering it all on.
Ninety-Three minutes...
Questions about fundraising on the job... "Scott Walker would never do that." Plus talk about secret routers!
garage mahal,
I should have added that MSNBC is not an instructional video on "How to Make Persuasive Arguments."
"I'm sort of doing you a courtesy by letting you get a coffee"
What an utter douchebag. You want to do me a courtesy? Leave.
And I'd really like to know why the release doesn't include entry to the house. Sounds like some editing has taken place.
@Damikesc I think you underrate how much of the killing in WW2 WAS between the Russians and Germans. We could have stayed out entirely and Germany would still have eventually lost. They simply didn't have the manpower to allow the loss of entire armies that happened in Stalingrad and other battles. D-Day and the entire US/British action that followed is best viewed as preserving the western half of the continent from Soviet domination.
Helpful chart at link:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/06/d-day-more-important-in-containing-the-soviets-than-defeating-the-nazis.html
Being offered a cigarette is traditional before a firing squad. The offer would not calm me much.
Gregq,
I was wondering exactly the same thing. Matt, do you concur that the beginning of the audio is after the entry into the house?
I think you underrate how much of the killing in WW2 WAS between the Russians and Germans. We could have stayed out entirely and Germany would still have eventually lost. They simply didn't have the manpower to allow the loss of entire armies that happened in Stalingrad and other battles. D-Day and the entire US/British action that followed is best viewed as preserving the western half of the continent from Soviet domination.
I'm aware. The better move would've been to let the USSR kill of the Germans and then go to Europe and tear up the Soviets.
We would've had the benefit of equal manpower and dramatically better military leadership accompanied with a leader who, while hardly a genius, didn't make comically idiotic decisions while likely on drugs.
And I'd really like to know why the release doesn't include entry to the house. Sounds like some editing has taken place.
Heck, watch any video on police procedure and they "take control" early on and then mellow out when the situation "improves".
From Matt's first comment:
"I just started listening and the first thing I notice is that it is NOT from the beginning of the raid. Definitely very early in it but not the beginning."
So, I am not being dense.
Did they give the 16yr old kid a coffee/cig break too?
When the recording begins is clearly after the beginning of the raid. It is at the beginning of the raid that the abuse Archer alleges would have occurred. We only get to hear audio of events after she is dressed, and the scene is under the control of law enforcement. Bice, and his fellow enablers of fascism in this thread, don't want us to notice this obvious fact.
Bice also hopes we don't notice that his newspaper had reporters at the scene of this supposedly "secret" raid.
Classic PR bullshit. Again, as I said above, the defendants to Archer's suit were be better served trying to settle and make it go away, rather than continuing to draw attention to their abuses of her in a vain attempt to spin them away.
But, then again, Wisconsin liberals have shown themselves throughout Walker's tenure to be exceptionally arrogant and stupid variations on the normal arrogance and stupidity that characterizes liberals, nationally.
When Scott Walker takes the oath of office on the steps of the Capitol on 20 January, 2017, they will have only themselves to blame. They turned him into an average mid-western governor from an average state into a giant-killer. Helluva job, libs, helluva job!
Still listening but, frankly, my ears are glazing over. This is so dull.
With regards to the start of the raid, there is absolutely missing audio. There is no way to know how much nor what was said. Would all of Ms. Archer's claims fit into that timeframe? I am not familiar enough with her claims to say one way or another; however, if one of the claims was she could not talk to her lawyer, according to this recording, that is not true.
Is there a link to an article that is contemporaneous with when she made her claims?
For me, the behavior of Chisholm's cops is just a little more evidence that the United States in many aspects is the only surviving Soviet Socialist Republic. All devoted republicans -- the lower case is deliberate and intentional-- should be devoted to developing support for the convening of a Constitutional Convention within a decade, What we have created in Washington can only end in Fascism within a generation when we are confronted with biowarfare attacks coming from the Muslim world which is now in the first stages of its self-inflicted suicide. Pakistan and North Korea which were both coddled by American presidents as different from one another as Reagan and Clinton will be the most likely sources of this weaponry. Nietzsche, in my view the wisest intellectual in 19th century, predicted this in 1899. Shortly before he went terminally insane, in response to a query from a female acquaintance -- his lack of anything more throughout his life was a deep well of sadness for him --he said that the century which was about to begin would be characterized by wars of a global nature fought with weapons not yet invented or even imagined. The disappointments and dislocations these would cause, he said, would lead to a rejection of nationalism and a return of religious fervor. Wars of religion, he said, are always the most dangerous and violent human enterprise, Enjoy the movie we are making.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-im-filing-a-civil-rights-lawsuit-1435694608
"Nothing could have prepared me for waking up to the shouts of men with battering rams announcing that they were about to break down my door on that morning in 2011. It was so unexpected and frightening that I ran down from my bedroom without clothes on. Panicked by the threatened show of force, I was then humiliated as officers outside the window yelled at me to get dressed and open up. I quickly retrieved clothing and dressed as I unlocked the door.
Agents with weapons drawn swarmed through every part of the house. They barged into the bathroom where my partner was showering. I was told to shut up and sit down. The officers rummaged through drawers, cabinets and closets. Their aggressive assault on my home seemed more appropriate for a dangerous criminal, not a longtime public servant with no criminal history.
After they left, I surveyed the damage. Drawers and closets had been ransacked. My deceased mother’s belongings were strewn across the floor. Neighbors gathered in small clusters at the end of their driveways and the press arrived in force."
Did they include the part where the police throw cheese wheels to smash in the door and spray the family with high pressure beer hoses?
I love this Wisconsin local color.
Thanks for the link and quote, walter. Nothing in the unedited recording indicates that those statements by Ms. Archer are untrue. Furthermore, it is terrible journalism on the part of Mr. Bice not to note this in his article.
Two hours and nineteen minutes, she speaks about the initial contact by police. It is consistent with the quoted text from the WSJ.
But not with this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/20/i-thought-it-was-a-home-invasion-and-it-was/comment-page-2/
"Welcome to the terror of Wisconsin’s “John Doe” raids. David French details them in a new report for National Review:
She got the dogs safely out of the house, just as multiple armed agents rushed inside. Some even barged into the bathroom, where her partner was in the shower. The officer or agent in charge demanded that Cindy sit on the couch, but she wanted to get up and get a cup of coffee.
“I told him this was my house and I could do what I wanted.” Wrong thing to say. “This made the agent in charge furious. He towered over me with his finger in my face and yelled like a drill sergeant that I either do it his way or he would handcuff me.”
They wouldn’t let her speak to a lawyer. She looked outside and saw a person who appeared to be a reporter. Someone had tipped him off."
It's quite precious how Bice, and the defendants who are feeding him this audio, assume that Archer would have incompetent counsel that would have allowed her to give accounts to multiple national news outlets that turn out later to be false. Uh, no, they didn't.
The best bet for these defendants is to settle her lawsuit and hope their names fade from the public eye quickly. But knowing Wisconsin liberals, they will keep doubling down on stupid. It's what they are, it's what they do.
Two hours and twenty-three minutes... 'Did Scott Walker ask you to do anything you declined to do or made you uncomfortable.' (Single quotes because I am paraphrasing... jump to that part and listen for yourself.) That is quite the targeted investigation they have going there.
Might as well ask, "Hey, we want to get Scott Walker. Can you give us anything? Anything at all!? PLEASE!?" Disgusting.
Walter, it is absolutely not inconsistent with the audio. The audio begins after these initial events. They threatened her and she cooperated. Weiss starts the recording at the point he is ready to begin interviewing her, after she has begun to cooperate, and they have total control of the house. This isn't rocket science.
Agreed, Walter. Unless that occurred in the missing minutes, which seems extremely unlikely if not absurd based upon the content of the recording.
I have listened to the first hour, and I can't really say that anything Archer claim previously is false. The main problem is that the audio is truncated at the beginning, or the agents only turned on the recording devices after the house was secured. Bice discredits himself (more than he already has) if this latter fact isn't disclosed in the article itself.
Not absurd at all. People in stressful situations have a variety of defense mechanisms. Laughing and trying to appear as cooperative as possible after the initial shock is totally normal for a lot of people. Cops are trained to utilize these reactions to get information, which Weiss is obviously attempting to do in the audio recording.
The lawsuit is about the initial trauma of the raid and the damage to her home and reputation. Nothing in the audio mitigates those claims.
Many people cooperate and try to "make nice" with men with guns in their home.
Matt, I don't think it even close to implausible that part did occur in the first few minutes of the raid. Maybe somewhat unlikely, but certainly not implausible. One of the very things she would have been instructed to do is sit down and not make any movement to get up. That is why the truncation of the audio is so suspicious in the first place.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422070/wisconsin-john-doe-investigations-audiotape?iB4JXcIewi1BqfI5.01 for a different perspective.
Two hours and thirty-six minutes...
It sounds like Ms. Archer notices the reporter outside.
Earlier, I noted that they told her that she could speak about the issue with her lawyer. It was not clear if that was at that moment or as the investigation progresses. I have not heard anywhere in the recording where she was told she could not speak to her lawyer.
Did they tell her she could not speak to a lawyer when they were at the door? As in, something like this:
"Ms. Archer, we have a warrant to enter the residence. Open up."
"I want to talk to my lawyer first."
"No, you can't do that."
If that is the case, it gets into an area I am unclear on and the good Professor would need to clear up. I believe that you cannot refuse to allow a search warrant to be executed until after you have contacted your lawyer. Am I wrong on that?
Yes...I hope "rocket science" doesn't involve filling in blanks of chronology like you seem to be doing. I would say her representation of the tone should at least be in question..hopefully she can clarify..not you.
The blanks are problematic for both parties.
Yancey,
I agree. The absence of that audio is highly suspect. Walter's quoted text at 1:42 is wholly consistent with the audio recording. The quoted text at 1:56 is what I find far less plausible. Possible, yes. But far less likely.
"garage mahal said...
Where in Jonah Goldwhale's book can I find liberal fascism as it pertains to investigating dirtbags who steal from orphaned widows? Or looking into perverts who troll underage men in a van? Or who flaunt state laws to circumvent open records request? Or, are conservatives just unprincipled fuck wads led by unprincipled f7ckwads? I'm going with the latter. The science is in on that, as they say."
Maybe you can connect the dots between the Archer raid, and the above mentioned? What am I saying . You can't. There isn't one.
Fail.
One big lie is the Journal Sentinel identifying this audio file as the "Full Audio..." From the very start of it, it is obvious that it is not. "Fully Available Audio..." Ok. But there is clearly something missing. Considering that Ms. Archer needed to dress and her partner finish showering and dress, it could be anywhere from 5-10 minutes if not more. I think the defense will have a hard time explaining why that audio is absent.
"Furthermore, it is terrible journalism on the part of Mr. Bice not to note this in his article."
That's one way to describe it.
Walter,
I have reread Ms. Archer's previous accounts of this raid, and her description of the tone of it isn't really contradicted by the audio. She herself described that the situation calmed down after she was allowed coffee and a smoke. The problem, as I mentioned above, is that the beginning of the raid isn't part of the released audio.
Bice's description of things borders on imaginary- he is claiming contradictions that aren't actually supported by the audio itself- at least the portions I have listened to- I stopped at the 71 minute mark. The only contradiction I can possibly assert is that she was told she could contact her lawyer, but I don't know when she first asked to do so. I can imagine she asked when, or immediately after, they gained access to the house. I know I would have asked instantly, and I am quite sure they told her she could not contact the lawyer- that she had to open the door. I don't think it likely they would have qualified that before securing the home by telling her she could contact her attorney later.
2:55:40 of the audio...
"Walker looks out for Walker and he is not going to do anything to tank him."
If Ms. Archer had something on Walker, she does not seem like she would fall on her sword for him; which says to me that Walker is clean,
2:56:20...
"I'm sorry you got scolded when you lit up the cigarette..."
Everyone should listen to that part.
That "scolding" was not part of the "full" audio. They cut A LOT out at the beginning. That part of the audio gives tremendous credence to Ms. Archer's claims.
Having listened to the entire audio (well.. listening to the last ten minutes now as the cops pack up... lots of mic noise), unless the police can produce the missing audio AND it contradicts Ms. Archer's claims, I would find in her favor.
The cops either purposefully did not record at the beginning because they reasonably believed the resulting audio would not sound good or they purposefully cut it out after the fact because they KNEW it sounded bad.
Ok Yancey,
Depends on which account one reads. It may be a matter of NR etc selecting bits that support a narrative at the expense of total context...made the duration of situation seem all one way.
The "I'm sorry you got scolded when you lit up the cigarette..." certainly informs the situation. Is there a transcript of this for those unable to listen to it all?
Again..if allowed, would be good if Archer could comment.
I would like to know what SOP for these recordings are..when are they to start. Did all of the folks, including the 16 yr/old get recorded? I'd looove to hear that one.
If folks want to publish recordings, let's hear 'em all.
Why if I were a Planned Parenthood defender, I'd say that the police audiotape had been "selectively edited". All you guys looking for the "screaming like a drill sergeant" part will find that it went into something akin to Rosemary Woods' "missing 18 minutes". But while I don't doubt that there was some loud shouting going on, I suspect Ms. Archer doesn't know what she's talking about.
I'm of an age where I've personally had a real live drill sergeant screaming in my face. Many of you powderpuffs along with Ms. Archer have never had the experience. I think the military lightened up enough after Viet Nam that the face and voice of a real live drill sarge hasn't been heard in this country for 45 years. The face has to be screwed up, the mouth wide open, the veins in the neck bulging and the volume at about 95 decibels--all within three or four inches of your face. Usually you get flecked with a bit of spittle. I happened to have finished both college and law school (and been admitted to the bar) before my enlisted time in the Big Green Machine. So I could, and did, look at those drill sarge chewings as a form of performance art. The sergeants knew that I thought that; I did my bit and busted my hump for them as best I could; and after a while I was left alone. Of course that meant that I could also enjoy the "performance art" when visited on some scared 18 year old kid next to me. Red headed peckerwood was about the nicest thing that was said.
All this is not to say that Ms. Archer didn't think that the cop was yelling like a drill sergeant; in these days of precious snow flakes, innocent little flowers, and "micro aggressions" raising your voice a single decibel is "yelling like a drill sergeant". So I'll go with Ms. Archer's characterization--let a judge or jury sort it out. And as for the snarky news reporter---if I could bring Sgt. Bobby Jean Rowlands back from the dead, we just might be able to straighten the reporter out. That's all a drill sergeant really wants to do. And they're pretty good at it.
3:10:50...
Cop says, "If that goof with the suit was a reporter..." Haha. I am guessing that didn't make the half-hour edited version.
It also makes the timeline more interesting. How did the reporter know about the raid? If he claims it was a police scanner and he rushed over to cover it, why did he take the time to put on a suit? If the raid started at 6 AM, he was noticed by Ms. Archer at 8:36 AM. Where did the reporter live in relation to her house? Was he really tipped off? I think that should be investigated as well since this was supposed to be an unknown investigation.
Perhaps they should raid his home at 6 AM to see if there is any incriminating correspondence on his home computer.
Thank you for your service..but it's a "figure of speech"..sir.
Of course, all the talk about how, offers a nice distraction from why.
I find it odd that our Hostess who usually intends her posts to stimulate discussion on the content of the news item or her reaction to it, has completely elided the main evidence here: the doctored tape. Matt and Yancey took a deliberate approach and reviewed the material available, which turned out to not be ALL the material that COULD have been available if the cops truly released tape of the "whole" incident.Furthermore, Yancey reviewed the WSJ article (as I did, along with the earlier NRO piece too) and nothing Archer claimed is contradicted by the released tape today.
The "maybe" in "Maybe the 6 a.m. raid on Cindy Archer's home was not as traumatic as she claims in her lawsuit" really is doing yeoman's work in that sentence. Then again, maybe it WAS that traumatic and the liberal Wisconsin press is still flacking for Chisholm et all.
Mike,
Without knowing what SOP is for recording these situations, it's hard to know/prove whether something was withheld.
I say...let's find THAT out and then compare all the recordings.
So the defendants put out a long, edited tape to try and justify their actions?
Yeah, Progressivism.
Without knowing what SOP is for recording these situations, it's hard to know/prove whether something was withheld.
I say...let's find THAT out and then compare all the recordings.
I'd argue that since they LEAKED it to defend themselves, then they have to prove that the editing wasn't intentional.
I don't give deference to the honesty of leakers seeking to justify their own actions.
But again..if speculation is allowed, let's speculate about the trauma in the Chisholm household leading up to this crap. How many cupboards were slammed...how loud were the crying jags? Then there's Chisholm's wife....
I was thrown off early in the recording by Ms. Archer's demeanor. She was so composed that it seemed unlikely that events proceeded as she had claimed according to the originally linked article. However, the missing audio and the fact that the cops reference to what would be on that audio was consistent with Ms. Archer's claims changed my mind.
She is not lying. She is not unjustly seeking money and sympathy. She is a mature adult who is able to control herself well in a stressful situation. Furthermore, based on her testimony and the cop's comments about her reputation indicate that she as an honorable, hard-working woman. The fact that many liberals are gleeful about the "Walker aide" being investigated and raided is disgusting.
She did nothing wrong and had her life turned upside down in the pursuit of political scalps. Just awful.
Garage, you fat cunt, do the world a favor and go off somewhere and die of your obesity related ailments.
MadisonInga, I hope you get terminal ovarian cancer.
The officer or agent in charge demanded that Cindy sit on the couch, but she wanted to get up and get a cup of coffee.
“I told him this was my house and I could do what I wanted.” Wrong thing to say.
Doesn't that seem weird to anyone else? I mean..if you've been subjected to shouting, battering ram wielding cops? Dunno..I have more deference in a simple traffic stop.
I am writing to inform you of our exciting new initiative - the Save Our Bucks Foundation (www.SOB.org). The primary goal of the SOB Foundation is to ensure that beneficiaries of national socialist policies, such as Social Security and Medicare, will no longer have an inordinate impact on national elections and the debate on federal spending priorities. To this end we are proposing an amendment to the constitution such that the beneficiaries of these national socialist programs will have the value of their vote reduced to 2/3 of a normal vote (in national elections, not Bingo competitions).
While cash donations to the foundation will be gratefully accepted, please do not overlook the value of in kind donations in helping to eliminate this problem (nod, nod, wink, wink).
www.SOB.org - the time has come.
This is why I say this is a bullshit PR flack attempt. They are trying to undermine the "trauma" part of the lawsuit claim but they are doing it ham-handedly (I know, what are the odds of WI libs doing it ham-handedly?)and actually drawing attention to her claims, and the fact that the initial part of the raid, where she alleges the traumatic events to have occurred, is not on the audio recording.
Again, helluva a job, libs, helluva a job. Why can't these assholes quit when they are behind?
So proud of yourself you just couldn't wait for a relevant post? I suggest the SIUYA initiative.
I started at the end. Starting about 2:31 these things happened. CA says Scott Walker always told her to do the right thing She says. She sees a man in a suit walking around and becomes quite upset. She asks them to find out who it is; they say it's public street. About 2:35 they ask her whether anybody has talked about the John Doe investigation, about houses being searched. Trying to get her to incriminate others. They ask if anybody told her they did something wrong. (about 2:39) Ask her if people are talking speculating. Trying to get her to incriminate others.(about 2:41). She asks them, who they are and the DA's man says he doesn't have a card and says that "Sue" is FBI because the DA only has nine men to work on this and needs help. In other words, she hasn't seen a card showing who these invaders are and now she finds its the Federal government as well. Then CA asks, "What would be the charge", she becomes very anxious and asks if she is going to prison. She is told "I don't know what the decision will be" So she has no idea what she is being accused of and no idea of whether she is about to go to prison. But why should she worry if the DA and FBI are investigating unknown crimes? - thought crimes at that? that could send her to prison. For the DA's man doesn't say - no one goes to prison for this. He says it isn't his decision. Terrorizing her on purpose.
Do the same to a JS reporter - and watch them scream the house down - outrage, etc. Do it to a conservative - yawn.
But the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel finds this not worthy of comment or notice. I'll bet that known murders have gotten out of prison on appeal of lesser procedural violations
Matt, did you hear this exchange? (from Bice's article):
"According to the audio of the raid, Weiss spent nearly six minutes reading the search warrant and the John Doe secrecy order to Archer and her partner shortly after arriving at their house.
Archer's suit also maintains that she agreed to talk to Weiss out of fear and intimidation, not realizing she had a right to remain silent or to have an attorney.
Again, however, Weiss is recorded specifically issuing a Miranda warning to Archer and letting her know that she could have a lawyer present if she wanted. Archer was also told she could stop answering questions at any time.
“Realizing you have these rights, are you willing to talk with me now?” Weiss asked.
“Yes,” Archer said."
Original Mike,
Honestly, I don't recall. He did read the warrant. It was long and boring. That was all during the first ten minutes of the "full" audio. I can't re-check at the moment. It would be great if someone else would.
walter said...
you just couldn't wait for a relevant post?
That will be the day, when Althouse posts something sensible on economics.
There you go. Anything about capital punishment you want to get off your chest? Climate Change?
AReasonableMan said...
walter said...
you just couldn't wait for a relevant post?
That will be the day, when Althouse posts something sensible on economics.
That will be the day when say something sensible on economics.
There. That's better. That makes more sense.
I went to the section Matt mentioned about the scolding. It pretty much supports Archer's description of being told no. In the 71 minutes I listened to, there nothing there that would indicate a reason to apologize for "scolding", and that strongly suggest the event occurred prior to to the beginning of the 3 hour+ audio. I have no time for it now, but it would be interesting to know if that apology made into the edited version that runs about 30 minutes. I somehow doubt it.
So...what is "procedure" regarding recording such a thing? Need to notify those about to be recorded? Record just miranda? Only parts they want to record?
The audio does not include the most brutal part of the episode, according to NRO's David French:
Crucially, the tape omits the beginning of the raid, in which Archer reports that the police pounded on the door, held a battering ram, confronted her while she was completely undressed, and left her terrified that they would shoot her dogs. Instead, the tape begins at an unknown time after those events occurred, when an investigator apparently approaches the house with the scene secure, Archer’s dogs under control, and Archer and her partner (who’d been interrupted in the shower) fully dressed. However, at the 18:50 mark Archer does describe what had just happened, In other words, the tape doesn’t contradict Archer’s story of the initial entry, and, in fact, her contemporaneous statements corroborate the story she told NR.
"when Althouse posts something sensible on economics."
ARM, how would you know ?
"The audio does not include the most brutal part of the episode, according to NRO's David French:"
I'd like to know who edited it out; the "cops" or Bice. My money's on Bice.
Hey garage, you fucking lying douchebag? Where are the routers?
you
doh!
Post a Comment