The prevarications of the Democratic presidential candidates about President Trump are bad enough, but now two of them are manufacturing lies about an American uninvolved in their quest for the presidency.
Senators Kamala Harris, the California pot-smoker, and Elizabeth Warren, the fake Cherokee, have accused former Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson of murdering Michael Brown, a young black man, on August 9, 2014.
A grand jury refused to indict Wilson, and the Justice Department of Barack Hussein Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, cleared Wilson of wrongdoing.
The two women are lawyers and should know better. But upon the five-year anniversary of Brown’s death, defame Officer Wilson they did.
Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement. We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system.
Warren, a former Harvard law professor who penned a “Native-American” cookbook with a “Cherokee” crab recipe she purloined from the New York Times, agreed:
5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.
The Justice Department didn’t see it that way. Led by Holder, the department cleared Wilson of all wrongdoing and concluded, without saying so, that Brown got what he deserved.
That is, Wilson shot in self defense after the “defenseless gentle giant” attacked him.
The Obama-Holder report is clear that Brown, who robbed a convenience earlier that day, attacked Wilson in his SUV, then fled, whereupon Wilson pursued. Brown, who outweighed Wilson by about 80 pounds, turned and charged Wilson like an angry bull, and Wilson fired in self defense.
The report is worth reprising at length:
After the initial shooting inside the SUV, the evidence establishes that Brown ran ... and Wilson chased after him. The autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away because there were no entrance wounds to Brown’s back.... Witnesses who say so cannot be relied upon in a prosecution because they have given accounts that are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence or are significantly inconsistent with their own prior statements made throughout the investigation.
Brown ran at least 180 feet away from the SUV ... then turned around and came back toward Wilson....
Several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson. According to these witnesses, who are corroborated by blood evidence in the roadway, as Brown continued to move toward Wilson, Wilson fired at Brown in what appeared to be self-defense and stopped firing once Brown fell to the ground. Wilson stated that he feared Brown would again assault him because of Brown’s conduct at the SUV and because as Brown moved toward him, Wilson saw Brown reach his right hand under his t-shirt into what appeared to be his waistband. There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson’s stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety....
Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution.... Some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements.... Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media. Prosecutors did not rely on those accounts when making a prosecutive decision.
While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson ... they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him.
The report’s concluion is clear: Wilson did not “murder” Brown, as Harris and Warren claimed in perhaps the boldest lie yet from the Democratic candidates. Rather, Wilson fired in self defense.
Again, from the Obama-Holder report:
The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson ... would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true — i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses ... there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV.
Officer Darren Wilson, a good cop, did not murder Michael Brown.
But the pot-smoker and the Cherokee imposter did murder the truth.