Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are locked in a surprisingly competitive battle for New York, with a poll on Thursday showing that the Vermont senator has closed to within 12 points of the former first lady  — who only recentlyled 48 in her adopted home state.

The Quinipiac University poll shows Clinton leading 54 to 42 percent heading into the New York primary on April 19, when 291 delegates are at stake.

Clinton is running strong with women[?] and African American voters but white voters are split. — 48 percent fon Clinton, 47 for Sanders.

Democratic analyst Douglas Schoen said the close-than-expected results mirror a national trend.

Sanders, he said, is connecting with the liberal progressive voters of which there are many in New York. Bernie is also riding momentum from a wave of victories in Western states.

The march in NYC yesterday united more than 4,000 people supporting Bernie Sanders.


Bill Clinton delivered four rambling speeches to labor unions across the city Thursday in support of his wife’s presidential bid.

In one wordy riff at District 37 in Tribeca, Clinton, 69, spoke vaguely of the country facing the darkness before the dawn, while urging support for Mrs. Clinton.

Hillary Clinton’s Record of Failure as Secretary of State by Eric Zuesse



Hillary Clinton’s Record of Failure as Secretary of State

Although many commentators have mentioned that Hillary Clinton leaves behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State, the reality is that she does, several – and all of them are harms to the U.S.

There wasn’t only her failure as the State Department’s chief administrator, such that the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board Report on Benghazi Attack said: “In the months leading up to September 11, 2012, security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a ‘shared responsibility’ in Washington, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. Key decisions … or non-decisions in Washington, such as the failure to establish standards for Benghazi and to meet them, or the lack of a cohesive staffing plan, essentially set up Benghazi.” That’s failure at the very top. It’s not in Libya. It’s not even in Africa. It’s in “Washington.”

Who, at the State Department in “Washington,” had “buck stops here” authority and power? Hillary Clinton.

Republicans are obsessed with the Benghazi failure, because it reflects negatively upon her but not on themselves. However, Hillary’s real and important failures reflect negatively upon Republicans also, because these failures culminated actually Republican foreign-policy objectives, and dashed Democratic (and democratic) policy-objectives.

One such failure was the State Department’s establishment of fascism in Honduras, crucially helping to end democracy there and replace it with a far-right hell – an extreme version of the Republican Party’s own conservatism. Without Hillary Clinton’s support for fascism in that country, Honduras would still be a democratic republic in Central America; and this fact is widely known outside the U.S., even if America’s major news-media haven’t reported it. So: it’s a major failure on the part of Hillary Clinton – and also on the part of Barack Obama.

On 28 June 2009, the Honduran military grabbed their nation’s popular democratically elected progressive President, Manuel Zelaya, and flew him into exile.

The AP headlined from Tegucigalpa the next day, “World Leaders Pressure Honduras to Reverse Coup,” and reported: “Leaders from Hugo Chavez to Barack Obama called for reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya, who was arrested in his pajamas Sunday morning by soldiers who stormed his residence and flew him into exile.”

Here was the cable from the U.S. Embassy, reviewing the situation, for Washington, after almost a month’s silence from the Administration:

From: Ambassador Hugo Llorens, U.S. Embassy, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 24 July 2009.

To: Secretary of State, White House, and National Security Council.


This lengthy message from the Ambassador closed:

“The actions of June 28 can only be considered a coup d’etat by the legislative branch, with the support of the judicial branch and the military, against the executive branch. It bears mentioning that, whereas the resolution adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove the entire executive branch. Both of these actions clearly exceeded Congress’s authority. … No matter what the merits of the case against Zelaya, his forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and [puppett-leader Roberto] Micheletti’s ascendance as ‘interim president’ was totally illegitimate.”

During the crucial next two weeks, Obama considered what to do. Then, on 6 August 2009, McClatchy newspapers bannered “U.S. Drops Call to Restore Ousted Honduran Leader,” and Tyler Bridges reported that Zelaya wouldn’t receive U.S. backing in his bid to be restored to power. Though all international organizations called the Honduran coup illegitimate, and refused to recognize the leader chosen by its junta, the Obama Administration, after more than a month of indecision on this matter, finally came out for Honduras’s fascists. According to James Rosen of McClatchy Newspapers three days later, the far-right Republican U.S. Senator Jim DeMint had “placed a hold on two nominees to senior State Department posts to protest Obama’s pushing for ousted Honduran President Manuel Zalaya’s return to power, which the administration backed away from last week.” Obama, after a month of silence, caved silently. Instead of his using the bully pulpit to smear the fascist DeMint publicly with his fascism, Obama just joined him in it, silently. Why? Perhaps it was because the chief lobbyist hired in the U.S. by the Honduran aristocracy (whose thugs had installed this new Honduran government), was Hillary’s old friend, Lanny Davis. As slate.com had said on 27 August 2008, headlining “A Day in the Life of Hillary’s Biggest Fan”: “When it comes to defending Hillary Clinton, Lanny Davis has no rival.” He was the fascists’ fixer, inside the Administration.

So, the Honduran aristocracy (largely the Faraj clan) had purchased a line straight to the U.S. Secretary of State, via Mr. Davis. And Obama caved. On August 13th, Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research headlined a Sacramento Bee op-ed “Obama Tacitly Backs Military’s Takeover of Honduran Democracy” and he reported that the Administration’s recent “statements were widely publicized in the Honduran media and helped to bolster the dictatorship. Perhaps more ominously, the Obama administration has not said one word about the atrocities and human rights abuses perpetrated by the coup government. Political activists have been murdered, independent TV and radio stations have been shut down, journalists have been detained and intimidated, and hundreds of people arrested.” There was now, again as under Bush, widespread revulsion against the U.S. throughout Latin America. Also on the 13th, Dick Emanuelson, at the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy, headlined “Military Forces Sow Terror and Fear in Honduras,” and he described in Honduras a situation very much like that which had occurred in Argentina when the generals there took over in 1976 and rounded up and “disappeared” leaders who constituted a threat to the aristocracy’s continued rule in that country.

The U.S. was now the only power sustaining the Honduran junta’s government. Brazil Magazine headlined on August 13th, “Brazil Urges Obama to Tighten the Vise on Honduras to Get Zelaya Back,” and reported that Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had urged President Obama to come out publicly for the “immediate and unconditional” restoration of Zelaya to office. It didn’t happen, however; and on Friday, August 21st, Mark Weisbrot thus bannered in Britain’s Guardian“Obama’s Deafening Silence on Honduras: Seven weeks after the coup in Honduras, the US is hindering efforts to restore President Manuel Zelaya to power.” Weisbrot documented lies from the Obama Administration regarding the coup, and he noted, “The one thing we can be pretty sure of is that no major US media outlet will look further into this matter.” He was assuming that the U.S. had a controlled press, and it seems that he was correct, except for the McClatchy Newspaper chain, which courageously reported on the Honduran horrors.

Obama was lying (not even acknowledging that the coup was a coup) even though “on Wednesday, Amnesty International issued a report documenting widespread police beatings and brutality against peaceful demonstrations, mass arbitrary arrests and other human rights abuses under the dictatorship. The Obama administration has remained silent about these abuses — as well as the killings of activists and press censorship and intimidation. To date, no major [U.S.] media outlet has bothered to pursue them.” America’s aristocracy were clearly supporting Honduras’s.

Nearly a hundred scholars signed a public letter saying that if only the U.S. were to come out clearly against the coup, “the coup could easily be overturned,” because only the U.S. was keeping the coup regime in power (via banking and other crucial cooperation with the coup government). The U.S. was key, and it chose to turn the lock on the Honduran prison and leave its victims to be murdered.

During the following months, however, as the shamefulness of America’s position on this became increasingly untenable, Obama seemed to be gradually tilting back away from the coup in Honduras, though Senator DeMint and some other Republicans travelled to Honduras and spoke publicly against the U.S. Government and endorsed the coup-installed Honduran leadership. DeMint received ovations at the far-right Heritage Foundation, which he now heads. On 5 October 2009, Jason Beaubien of NPR headlined “Rich vs. Poor at Root of Honduran Political Crisis,” and he reported that, though Honduran conservatives were charging that Zelaya had secretly been intending to make Honduras into a communist dictatorship, the actual situation in Honduras was, as explained by an economics professor there, that “power in Honduras is in the hands of about 100 people from roughly 25 families. Others estimate that Honduran elite to be slightly larger, but still it is a tiny group.” This professor “says the country’s elite have always selected the nation’s president. They initially helped Zelaya get into office, and then they orchestrated his removal” when President Zelaya pressed land- and other- reforms.

Then, on 6 October 2009, The New York Times bannered “Honduran Security Forces Accused of Abuse.” This was “news” to people inside the United States, but not to the people in other nations around the world. Also on October 6th, narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield headlined “Poll: Wide Majority of Hondurans Oppose Coup d’Etat, Want Zelaya Back,” and Al Giordano reported “the first survey to be made public since a July Gallup poll showed a plurality of Hondurans opposed the coup d’etat.” This poll of 1,470 randomly chosen Honduran adults found 17.4% favored the coup, 52.7% opposed it. 33% opposed Zelaya’s return to power; 51.6% favored it. 22.2% wanted the coup-installed leader to stay in power; 60.1% wanted him to be removed. 21.8% said the National Police were not “engaging in repression”; 54.5% said they were repressing. Furthermore, the survey found that “the two national TV and radio stations shut down by the coup regime happen to be the most trusted news sources in the entire country.” Finally, approval ratings were tabulated for the twenty most prominent political figures in the country, and Zelaya and his wife were rated overwhelmingly above all others, as, respectively, #1 and #2, the two most highly respected public figures in Honduran politics.

Naturally, therefore, the U.S.’s Republican Party was overwhelmingly opposed to Zelaya, and were thus opposed to the Honduran public. Obama remained remarkably silent on the matter. The Obama Administration brokered a supposed power-sharing deal between Zelaya and the coup government, but it fell apart when Zelaya learned that Obama actually stood with the fascists in letting the coup government oversee the imminent election of Honduras’s next President – which would give the “election” to the fascists’ stooge. On 5 November 2009, the Los Angeles Times headlined an editorial “Obama Must Stand Firm on Honduran Crisis: A U.S.-brokered deal to return Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to office is unraveling, and the Obama administration seems to be wavering.” They closed by saying: “If the Obama administration chooses to recognize the [winner of the upcoming] election without Zelaya first being reinstated [with powers to participate in overseeing the vote-counting], it will find itself at odds with the rest of Latin America. That would be a setback for democracy and for the United States.” But it’s exactly what Obama did. On 9 November 2009, McClatchy Newspapers bannered “Honduran Deal Collapses, and Zelaya’s Backers Blame U.S.” Tyler Bridges reported that Senator DeMint now dropped his objections to a key State Department appointment, when the appointee, Thomas Shannon (and also Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself), made clear that the Obama Administration agreed with DeMint. Thus, “Zelaya’s supporters, who’ve been organizing street protests against the [coup-installed] Micheletti regime, are down to their final card: calling on Hondurans to boycott the elections.”

On 12 November 2009, the Washington Post bannered “Honduras Accord Is on Verge of Collapse,” and quoted a spokesperson for U.S. Senator John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying: “The State Department’s abrupt change in policy last week — recognizing the elections scheduled for November 29th even if the coup regime does not meet its commitments under the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord — caused the collapse of an accord it helped negotiate.” (Let’s hope that Kerry will turn out to be a better Secretary of State than his predecessor was.)

A week later, on November 19th, the Latin American Working Group bannered “Honduras: Things Fall Apart,” and summarized the joint culpability of the Obama Administration, and of the Honduran fascists.

On November 29th, the Heritage Foundation bannered “Heritage in Honduras: ‘I Believe in Democracy’,” and propagandized: “Today the Honduran people are voting in an historic election with consequences for the entire region. Heritage’s Izzy Ortega is on the ground as an official election observer speaking with Hondurans practicing their right to vote. Watch his first interview below.” A typical reader-comment posted there was “I want WE THE PEOPLE back in the United States. For once in my life I’am jealous of another country!” Of course, the aristocracy’s stooge was “elected.” (Zelaya wasn’t even a candidate in this “election.” Most democratic countries throughout the world did not recognize the results of this “election.” However, the U.S. did; and so did Israel, Italy, Germany, Japan, Peru, Costa Rica, and Panama.)

Without Obama, Honduras’s fascists would have been defeated. Obama’s refusal to employ either his banking power or his bully pulpit, and Hillary’s outright support of the fascist junta, sealed the deaths of many thousands of Hondurans. The U.S. thus, single-handedly among all nations, kept Honduras’s newly-installed fascist regime in power. A U.S. professor who specialized in Honduras, Orlando Perez, said that probably Obama did this because he concluded “that Honduras’ political, military and economic elite wouldn’t accept Zelaya’s return.” In other words: he was saying that Obama wanted to serve Honduras’s aristocracy, regardless of the Honduran public, and even regardless of the increased contempt that Latin Americans would inevitably feel toward the U.S. as a result.

The results for Hondurans were hellish. On 11 April 2011, McClatchy Newspapers bannered “Honduran Police Ignore Rise in Attacks on Journalists, Gays,” and reported that within just those almost-two years, Honduras had become “the deadliest country in the hemisphere,” because of the soaring crime-rate, especially against homosexuals and against journalists. The new fascist government tacitly “sends a message to the criminals, the paramilitaries and the hit men that they can do as they please.” Hondurans were by then five times likelier to be murdered than Mexicans were. Honduras’s aristocrats, however, were safe, because they hired their own private security forces, and also because the government’s security-apparatus was controlled by the aristocracy. Only the public were unprotected.

Fox “News” Latina bannered, on 7 October 2011, “Honduras Led World in Homocides in 2010,” and (since Rupert Murdoch’s Fox is a Republican front) pretended that this had happened because Latin America was violent – not because Fox’s Republican friends had had their way in policy on Honduras, and had thus caused the Honduran murder-rate to soar.

The actual problem was that the U.S. had a Republican government under nominal “Democratic” leadership, both at the White House and at the State Department (not to mention at Treasury, Justice, and Education). Obama not only gave Rupert Murdoch a nice foil to gin-up his hate-machine; he also gave Murdoch the most politically gifted Republican in the country: Obama, a Republican in “Democratic” clothing.

On 19 January 2012, the AP headlined “Peace Corps Pullout a New Blow to Honduras,” and reported that, “The U.S. government’s decision to pull out all its Peace Corps volunteers from Honduras for safety reasons is yet another blow to a nation still battered by a coup and recently labeled [by the U.N. as] the world’s most deadly country.” Three days later, on the 22nd, Frances Robles of the Miami Herald, headlined “Graft, Greed, Mayhem Turn Honduras into Murder Capital of World,” and reported the details of a nation where aristocrats were protected by their own private guards, the public were on their own, and all new entrants into the aristocracy were drug traffickers and the soldiers and police who worked for those traffickers. “Everybody has been bought,” in this paradise of anarchism, or libertarianism (i.e.: in this aristocratically controlled country).

On 12 February 2012, NPR headlined “Who Rules in Honduras? Coup’s Legacy of Violence.” The ruling families weren’t even noted, much less mentioned, in this supposed news-report on the subject of “Who Rules in Honduras?” However, this story did note that, “Many experts say things got markedly worse after the 2009 coup.” (That was a severe understatement.)

Jim DeMint, who has since left the Senate, and recently took over as the head of the far-right Heritage Foundation, got everything he wanted in Honduras, and so did Hillary Clinton’s friend Lanny Davis – the aristocrats’ paid hand in the affair, on the “Democratic” side. (The aristocrats had many other agents lobbying their friends on the Republican side.) Honduras’s public got only hell. Four days later, on February 16th, Reuters headlined “Honduras Under Fire After Huge Prison Blaze,” and reported: “Survivors of a Honduran jailhouse fire that killed more than 350 inmates [some not yet tried, much less convicted], accused guards of leaving prisoners to die trapped inside their cells and even firing on others when they tried to escape.”

This was how law operated, in a supremely fascist nation. Dwight Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers had done a similar thing to the Iranians in 1953, and then to the Guatemalans in 1954; Obama now, though passively, did it to the Hondurans. When Ike did it in Iran, who would have guessed at the whirlwind that would result there 26 years later, in 1979? (Ironically, when Ike did it, the mullahs were delighted that the elected Iranian President, Mossadegh, whom they hated, had been overthrown. America now reaps their whirlwind.)

This is the type of hypocritical leadership that has caused the United States to decline in public approval throughout the world under Obama – ironic after his Nobel Peace Prize awarded within just months of his becoming President. On 13 June 2012, the PewResearch Global Attitudes Project headlined “Global Opinion of Obama Slips, International Policies Faulted,” and reported that favorable opinion of the U.S. had sunk during Obama’s first term. It declined 7% in Europe, 10% in Muslim countries, 13% in Mexico, and 4% in China. However, it increased 8% in Russia, and 13% in Japan. It went down in eight countries, and up in two, and changed only 2% or less in three nations.

But there is yet a third area in which Hillary Clinton’s stay at the State Department was bad, and this one has been, and will be, disastrous:

On 26 July 2009, Marisa Taylor bannered at McClatchy Newspapers, “Why Are U.S.-Allied Refugees Still Branded as ‘Terrorists?’,” and she reported that “DHS [Department of Homeland Security] is working with other agencies, such as the State Department, to come up with a solution” to the routine refusal of the United States to grant U.S. visas to translators and other local employees of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan who wanted to move to the U.S. and who had overwhelming reason to fear retaliation from anti-Americans in their home countries after we left. The State Department did nothing. Then, Human Rights First headlined on 13 August 2009, “Senator Leahy on ‘Material Support’ Bars,” and reported that, “In a powerful statement submitted for the Congressional Record on August 5, 2009, Senator Leahy (D-VT) reaffirmed his commitment to ‘restore common sense’ to the bars to refugee and asylum status based on associations with what the Immigration and Nationality Act defines as terrorism,” which was “written so broadly” that it applied even to “children who were recruited against their will and forced to undergo military training, doctors (acting in accordance with the Hippocratic oath) … and those who fought against the armies of repressive governments in their home countries.”

The State Department failed to act. On 2 February 2013, the Washington Post bannered “Alleged Terrorism Ties Foil Some Afghan Interpreters’ U.S. Visa Hopes,” and Kevin Sieff in Kabul reported that, “As the American military draws down its forces in Afghanistan and more than 6,000 Afghan interpreters seek U.S. visas, the problem is threatening to obstruct the applications of Afghans who risked their lives to serve the U.S. government.” What kind of lesson is this teaching to interpreters and other local employees of the U.S. missions in unstable foreign countries? Helping the U.S. could be terminally dangerous.

Eric Zuesse is an investigative historian and the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


Judge Rules Hillary Clinton Exhibited ‘Wrong-Doing and Bad Faith’


Judge Rules Hillary Clinton Exhibited ‘Wrong-Doing and Bad Faith’


A U.S. District Court Judge ruled, on Tuesday March 29th, that in the civil matter of Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails, “there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith.” Consequently, he has granted to Clinton’s adversary in the proceedings, Judicial Watch, what they had been seeking, which was “limited discovery” to seek further evidence about what she had done and why. (NOTE: This is not in the FBI’s potential criminal case against her, which remains at a preliminary stage. A main purpose of the civil case is to develop evidence that can assist in a potential criminal prosecution against the defendant.)

The Judge, Royce C. Lambreth, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, further noted that there have been “constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former officials.” This was a veiled reference to the former Secretary of State, Clinton.

He also said that, for these reasons, such “limited discovery,” as Judicial Watch was seeking, “is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] cases.”

Consequently, the petitioner (‘Plaintiff’) Judicial Watch, was, in his ruling, allowed — in accord with a prior judge’s ruling — to draw up its specific list of further evidence to be sought in “discovery,” in the case (which Judicial Watch had already done on March 15th), and, Clinton, the “Defendant shall respond ten days after plaintiff’s submission.” The prior judge’s ruling had already specified that Clinton(’s lawyer, David Kendall) has until April 5th to respond. Judicial Watch is to respond to that by no later than April 15th.

Clinton (via her lawyer) had requested a denial of the petitioner’s request for “limited discovery” of more evidence, and the Judge’s ruling against her here is referring to what he apparently viewed as being already-existing “evidence of government [i.e., of Clinton’s] wrong-doing and bad faith,” so as to make clear, to her — though tactfully in a way that didn’t condemn her by name, but only as “government,” in order not to harm her (political career) outside the ongoing judicial proceedings in this case — that, in his opinion, which is based upon what he has seen thus far, the prospect of a final judgment against her is very real. It’s simply a warning to her.

On February 23rd, a different judge, on the same Court, Emmet G. Sullivan, had already ruled that Judicial Watch’s request for additional evidence in the case was granted, by saying: “The Court grants [48] Motion for Discovery. … Plaintiff to Submit Discovery Plan To Court and Counsel by 3/15/2016. Defendant Response due by 4/5/2016. Plaintiff Replies due by 4/15/2016.” So: that ruling established the timeline by which the Court demands responses.

Judge Lambreth’s ruling merely seconds Judge Sullivan’s prior one, but adds to it Lambreth’s veiled warning to Clinton.

Whereas Judicial Watch is seeking additional evidence, Clinton has been seeking for the case to be instead either dismissed in “summary judgment,” or else, dragged on, until she has become elected President.

The Court has clearly not been convinced that the case is meritless. Consequently, the question for her, at the present stage, seems to be whether or not some additional way to postpone judgment will be able to be found by Clinton’s lawyer.

Already, by April 15th, the Democratic Presidential nominee might have been determined. And, if there is to be any indictment of Ms. Clinton on criminal charges, it would presumably occur after that time. Consequently, the possibility exists that she will be indicted while she is campaigning in the general election, against the Republican nominee. Anyone who votes for her before this case is cleared up is, apparently, comfortable with having helped to nominate a person who might be a criminal defendant campaigning against the Republican nominee. Alternatively, the Democratic Party’s 715 superdelegates might be able, if an indictment comes down prior to the Democratic National Convention on July 25th, to hand the nomination to her competitor, Bernie Sanders. However, if an indictment comes down after the end of that Convention on July 28th, there might be no way of salvaging election-year 2016 for the Democratic Party.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


  • Judge Sullivan was appointed to the Court by the Defendant’s husband, Bill Clinton.
  • Judge Lambreth was appointed to the Court by Ronald Reagan.

‘Please don’t shoot me’: Man pleads for life moments before being killed by police officer




My beloved husband, Daniel, was shot and passed away the evening of Monday, January 18th. All of the details are not clear right now but I feel the need to put out what we know as truth and allow the rest to unfold through proper investigation– and to dispel rumors that have been circulating in the media.

Daniel was traveling for work in Mesa, Arizona. He makes this trip 2-3 times a month and frequently services pest removal stores there. He carries his wo

In Daniel Shaver’s final moments, he was heard pleading for his life — sobbing and saying to police officers, “Please don’t shoot me.”

Shortly afterward, Shaver was shot and killed by one of them, according to an investigation report from the Mesa Police Department.

In January, authorities said former officer Philip “Mitch” Brailsford fatally shot Shaver after responding to a call about a suspect with a gun. He has been charged with second-degree murder and fired from the force.
Philip Brailsford. (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office) Philip Brailsford. (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office)

On Tuesday, according to the Arizona Republic, authorities released a report detailing witness testimony as well as audio and video footage from a body camera that suggests an unarmed and intoxicated Shaver was begging to be spared. The report also indicates Brailsford may have had cause for concern as Shaver made a move toward his waistband while approaching police.

Authorities said Brailsford then fired five shots.

[Thousands dead, few prosecuted: An investigation into police shootings]

Late at night on Jan. 18, an employee at a Mesa La Quinta Inn & Suites phoned police to report that someone had been pointing a rifle from a fifth-floor window.

“A couple of the guests have come to me,” the La Quinta Inn worker said, according to the Arizona Republic. “I’m an employee and they’ve come to me and they’ve told me that somebody is pointing a rifle outside of one of the windows in our building.”

Listen: 911 audio before Ariz. police shoot man

Play Video4:59

A hotel employee in Mesa, Ariz., called 911 in January when patrons reported a man pointing a rifle from a room window. A police officer later shot and killed the man, identified as Daniel Shaver. The officer has since been fired and charged with second-degree murder. (AZcentral.com)

A woman later told police that she and a colleague were in Mesa for a Dollar General training conference and that Shaver had invited them into his room for “shots,” according to the report.

She told police she saw a case in Shaver’s room that contained a gun and a dead sparrow.

“Shaver told her he was on a business trip with Walmart and his job is to kill all of the birds that get inside the buildings,” according to the report. However, Walmart said Shaver was not a Walmart employee.

Shaver’s wife, Laney Sweet, said on Facebook he would travel from their Texas home to Mesa a few times per month to service pest removal stores.

The woman told police that Shaver and her male colleague started messing with the rifle, pointing it out the window. Her colleague later left the room.
With over 900 fatal U.S. police shootings in 2015, a call for retraining
Play Video4:11
In Pasco, Wash., officers fired 17 rounds that killed orchard worker Antonio Zambrano-Montes, who was armed only with rocks. At the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, there is an increased focus on shifting the mentality of police officers from warriors to guardians. (Zoeann Murphy/The Washington Post)

[Video shows activists turning Hollywood Walk of Fame into Black Lives Matter memorial]

When the officers arrived, they called Shaver on the phone and asked them to exit the room.

The woman later told investigators that she heard police yell at Shaver because he was not “following protocol.” She then saw police shoot him and “saw him go down,” according to the report.

But moments before he was killed, the woman said, he was crying, saying: “Please don’t shoot.”

Body camera footage shows that during the confrontation with police, Shaver was on the ground with his hands extended above his head, according to the report. At one point, the report stated, he tried to raise his body.

“If you do that again, we are shooting you,” an officer said, according to the report. “Do you understand?”

Shaver responded: “No, please don’t shoot me.”

Authorities said no weapon was seen on Shaver, but it was unclear whether he had one.

An officer told Shaver to crawl toward them.

Sobbing, he said, “Yes, sir,” and started to move.

Once he reached the area where the woman’s purse was, the report stated, “his left hand moved across his body and around the purse in order to crawl past it. Shaver was audibly sobbing as he crawled.”

The report stated that Brailsford’s rifle was pointed down the hall until that point.

“Brailsford then swung his rifle back toward Shaver where Shaver could be seen with his braced left hand and his right hand moving back toward his waist with his elbow raised behind him,” according to the report. “Shaver’s head appeared to be down with his face looking at the carpet.”

The report stated that “multiple voices” began to say “don’t” as “Shaver’s hand moved back toward the front of his body.”

“Brailsford fired his first shot as Shaver’s hand was moving toward the front of his body and as at least one officer was heard saying ‘don’t,’” according to the report.

Authorities said Brailsford fired about five shots.

Shaver, 26, was pronounced dead at the scene.

[The Washington Post’s police shootings database]

On Tuesday, Mesa police also released Brailsford’s personnel file, which was obtained by the Republic. The newspaper said it painted a picture of “a high achiever who scarcely received criticism from his employers or the public.”

In 2013, Brailsford spoke with the Arizona Republic when he became one of the first rookies to receive Axon body cameras during the department’s push for greater security and transparency.

“I definitely think there is a benefit to start out with this so young,” he said then. “It’s like learning a new tool right off the bat.”

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office announced earlier this month that it was pursuing second-degree murder charges against Brailsford.

“The use of deadly physical force by law enforcement is governed by Arizona law and is always a tragedy when the loss of life results,” Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said, according to the Arizona Republic. “After carefully reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances, we have determined that the use of deadly physical force was not justified in this instance.”

Brailsford told investigators that “a million things” were racing through his mind and he felt threatened when Shaver was crawling, “trying to gain a position of advantage in order to gain a better firing position on us,” according to the report.

Brailsford entered a not-guilty plea. Shaver’s widow, Laney Sweet, has started adamantly fighting against a possible plea deal in the case.

Sweet told the Republic earlier this month that she had been frustrated by the lack of information available in her husband’s death.

“I can’t bring him back, but I will fight for justice for him,” she told the newspaper. “My kids are absolutely heartbroken and I can’t fix it.”

This story has been updated.
Lindsey Bever is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post. Tweet her: @lindseybever

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

The Post Recommends
This hot mic recording just made MSNBC’s Scarborough-Trump headache worse
It’s not damning, but it does reinforce a perception, which is dangerous.
Beware the rule-following co-worker, Harvard study warns
Harvard study on toxic employees lays out three characteristics that should make you suspicious.
The states people really want to move to — and those they don’t
A national trend has reversed.


The Razor Startup That’s Disrupting a $13 Billion Industry Dollar Shave Club
Hillary Clinton Through The Years Forbes
15 Celebrities Who Left Millions Without Updating or Writing Wills Smart Asset

The Best Kept Secret For Coloring Gray Hair Fab over Fifty
The only hoodie with a six-month wait. Trust me, it’s worth it. Business Insider
The Inside Of Leonardo Dicaprio’s House Is Far From What You’d Expect Lonny Magazine

Recommended by
Most Read

Mother who wanted haunting photos of her dead daughter is now charged with murder
An ancient site spotted from space could rewrite the history of Vikings in North America
All-American swimmer found guilty of sexually assaulting unconscious woman on Stanford campus
Smashed skulls suggest large European battle 3,200 years ago – and a more advanced society
The latest picture of Rosetta’s comet is truly breathtaking

Unlimited Access to The Post. Just 99¢
Our Online Games

Play right from this page

Mahjongg Dimensions

It’s 3D Mahjongg- you don’t even need to wear 3D glasses!
The Sunday Crossword by Evan Birnholz

Online crossword.
Spider Solitaire

Spider Solitaire is known as the king of all solitaire games!
Daily Crossword

Challenge your crossword skills everyday with a huge variety of puzzles waiting for you to solve.

Get the Today’s Headlines newsletter

The day’s most important stories, selected by Post editors.

© 1996-2016 The Washington Post

Help and Contact Us
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Print Products Terms of Sale
Digital Products Terms of Sale
Submissions and Discussion Policy
RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices

See More


Oliver Stone on Menace Posed by Hillary Clinton


Written by Date: 04-01-2016
Subject: Philosophy: Fascism


Oliver Stone on Menace Posed by Hillary Clinton

by Stephen Lendman

Among an array of deplorable US presidential aspirants, Clinton stands out as the most recklessly dangerous in modern memory – a she devil committed to endless wars of aggression, possible unthinkable nuclear confrontation.

Award-winning filmmaker Oliver Stone says America’s political landscape has him in “deep despair.”

Clinton has a virtual lock on her party’s nomination, things rigged in her favor. Stone hit hard, saying she “effectively closed the door on peace, blasting both the Palestinian peace process and the Russians in the same week. NATO is her god…”

Endless wars are certain no matter who succeeds Obama. Clinton’s finger on the nuclear trigger should terrify everyone.

America’s provocative military buildup along Russia’s borders is the greatest threat to world peace since Hitler mobilized troops ahead of invading Poland, launching WW II.

“We’re going to war,” said Stone, “hybrid in nature to break the Russian state back to its 1990s subordination, or a hot war (which will destroy our country).” 

“Our citizens should know this, but they don’t because our media” serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths.

Hillary’s rap sheet shows support for endless imperial wars and coups overthrowing legitimate governments.

Electing her president threatens world peace. Russia, China and Iran are on her hit list. She pledged to enhance the power of Israel’s killing machine more than already – “tak(ing) our alliance to the level,” she told AIPAC in Washington.

Stone supports Sanders, a political opportunist throughout his public life voting 98% of the time with Democrats, but at least he’s not Clinton.

Would an administration under his stewardship make a difference? Avoiding WW III alone makes him a better choice.

It’s far from what Americans deserve, what they’ve never had throughout US history and won’t under any new administration – governance representing everyone equitably, not just its privileged few.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.