Either Allen Weisselberg and other witnesses in the Trump Organization fraud case lied to protect the “boss”—or Donald Trump is an even bigger moron than we thought.

 

One wonders what exactly Manhattan prosecutors were hoping to accomplish with the just completed tax fraud case against the Trump Organization, which will go to the jury by Monday, confronted with lots of numbers to digest. We are reminded of the Robert Mueller investigation, when Paul Manafort pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax fraud in a plea deal in which he also agreed to “cooperate” with investigators against Donald Trump. Were they really expecting him to “turn” on Trump? Why would he? Word had likely reached him that Trump would pardon him if he kept his mouth shut, and not surprisingly he frustrated investigators by instead playing “ignorant” to any machinations the Trump campaign may have had with the Russians who had “dirt” they could use against Hillary Clinton.

In the New York City tax fraud case against the Trump Organization, CFO Allen Weisselberg confessed the following according, to CBS News: “Weisselberg said Donald Trump, or at times Eric Trump or Donald Trump Jr., signed checks to pay up to $100,000 for private school tuition for Weisselberg's grandchildren. Weisselberg said he then instructed the company's controller to deduct the $100,000 from his salary, allowing him to report a smaller income.” Weisselberg also admitted to other fraud schemes—such as the company paying the rent for his Manhattan apartment, and paying tax-free fringe benefits for other company executives—over a 15-year period, reaping himself financial gain in avoiding paying nearly $2 million in taxes. 

But to be honest, after all the effort to persuade him to “turn,” this frankly seems a rather “paltry” deal in retrospect. In exchange for a light sentence of only five months in prison, Weisselberg was expected to give damning evidence against Trump himself—or at least that was the expectation of the media. But apparently he promised no such thing, and in court while he “tearfully” confessed his own guilt, he was adamant that Trump himself knew nothing of these fraud schemes. Weisselberg admitted that he was still on the company payroll and expected to receive a $500,000 bonus—which, we suspect, is the price for his silence, or perjury.

Another witness, Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney, also apparently reneged on “teased” testimony against Trump, and Judge Juan Merchan ruled him a “hostile witness” for the prosecution when, as CBS News reported,  “McConney appeared to be avoiding giving meaningful answers to even basic questions.  Judge Juan Merchan said McConney had ‘a hard time giving very credible answers’ to prosecutors' questions, while ‘it is pretty clear to the average observer that he is very helpful to’ Trump Organization attorneys.”

Prosecutors claimed that McConney gave testimony that not only was helpful to the defense case—it was revealed that the Trump Organization was paying his legal expenses, and despite being given immunity, it was suspected that he was being “coached” but Trump attorneys—but McConney contradicted testimony he gave before the grand jury. McConney shifted all blame for tax fraud schemes on Weisselberg, claiming that he didn’t go to Trump himself to report Weisselberg’s fraud because he didn’t want to hear “you’re fired.” This is of course is an interesting claim, since it suggests that Trump probably knew of but didn't care to hear what unlawful activities were occurring in his company.

The defense also called a “hostile” witness, Mazars accountant Donald Bender, who claimed that he didn’t actually examine the company’s tax returns himself to personally detect fraud, but only oversaw subordinates who did the actual work—none of whom apparently “detected” the fraud either, or reported it. Bender wasn’t facing charges, so it isn’t surprising that he might lie about this and not feel any repercussions for it.

There is concern that the jury will be “confused” about whether the Trump Organization is actually “liable” for the crimes committed by its employees, and that Weisselberg was merely acting on his own and not within a company that deliberately overlooked corrupt practices. There seemed to be too much emphasis on individuals benefiting from tax fraud and not the company itself.  Trump’s own claims on his Truth Social platform seems to want people to believe that the Trump Organization is not liable for the actions of a few bad apples trying to enrich themselves without his “knowledge.”

Upcoming later next year is the New York State case against the Trump Organization, Trump and his children for fraudulent evaluations of company assets and receiving improper payments, such as Ivanka receiving an income for a non-existent position; Weisselberg—who probably will be out of prison by then—is scheduled to testify, but whether he will feel any more pressure to testify implicating Trump and his children is another matter. A case specifically against Trump himself has not been finalized and will be difficult due to the lack of witnesses willing to testify against him, as seen in the NYC prosecution.

What I find most interesting about this is that in the effort to exonerate Trump of any liability for the illegal actions of his own employees, there is the suggestion that Trump himself was an incompetent businessman who “unknowingly” oversaw a corrupt organization, kind of like the presidencies of Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding. But unlike Grant and Harding, who were personally upright but naïve about the corruption of trusted administration officials, Trump is morally and ethically corrupt, and it is simply too hard to believe that he wouldn’t say to his underlings that “you fix this for me, and I won’t care if you do this for yourself,” because when they themselves are committing crimes, they are less likely to turn on Trump. The alternative theory is that Trump is an oblivious moron.

But Weisselberg freely admitted his crimes—too freely, it seems. He got a “deal” that benefited him, and didn't really give prosecutors what they really wanted out of him, but something was better than “nothing” given all the publicity surrounding the case. We can speculate that Weisselberg, McConney, Bender and others lied about Trump’s involvement in tax fraud schemes; but what if they didn’t lie, or only a little, and it was “true” that Trump was completely in the “dark” about the corruption being perpetrated, some of it putting his company in legal jeopardy? Again, are we to believe that Trump was a completely oblivious moron?

We may even speculate that these corrupt actions showed fiscal irresponsibility that hurt the company’s financial position. Bender, for example, was forced to admit that Trump’s own tax returns showed losses every year from 2009 to 2018, including nearly $1 billion in losses from the first two years of that period—indicating that Trump’s “very stable genius” did not extend to his business acumen. His book The Art of the Deal was just about him trying to browbeat people into submission and cheat them out of their money, as seen by the numerous bankruptcies filed by the Trump Organization. 

But there was nothing there about how to really build a business; Trump is just a glorified real estate agent, not a "businessman"—as shown by every attempt to market a product being an abject failure. It has been noted that in real dollar terms, the value of the Trump Organization is no larger than it was if he had done absolutely nothing after he inherited it from his father.

Was all the fraudulent wheeling and dealing, combined with inflated valuations of the company masking its true ill-health, an example of what happens to a company run by a man who has little real acumen, and lets his underlings do as they wish so long as it allows him to do his “celebrity” thing? This is a man who thinks that making a developer pay for the “privilege” of pasting the Trump “brand” on something is how to reap billions. But not everyone is so sure; an "indignant" Trump pulled out of a resort deal in Mexico when the developer insisted that Trump couldn’t just get something for nothing, and had to pay part of the development.

The truth is that in the Trump Organization, corruption starts at the top with a man who doesn’t like “rules” to get in the way, and gave tacit permission for his underlings like Weisselberg to do as they wished for financial benefit as long as they served his requirements. Perhaps Trump didn’t assume it would all be done illegally, or if it was, it was assumed that it was unlikely to be caught. If Trump didn’t “realize” the extent of the corruption, it just shows how incredibly incompetent he was in running his own business or knowing what people were doing. Trump’s supporters have to believe that, because the alternative is that everyone is lying and Trump is as guilty as hell.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

While we have to deal with "minor" annoyances, Russia, China and Iran have their own way with dealing with "troublemakers"--except that the "trouble" usually starts at the top

 

Aren’t we lucky to live in a “free country” that allows far-right cranks in Arizona to strive to invalidate a lawful election with no evidence of fraud because they can’t stand losing so much that they can’t help but act like losers? Or we allow this Nazi clown to act out recently at Sea-Tac Airport (yes, the same place Amber Heard was arrested for domestic violence against her then partner in 2009):

 

I find it curious that this is being a called an “anti-Semitic” act, despite the fact that this man was calling for a “race war” and was pointing at a blonde white female airline employee trying to get him to shut up, telling her she was an “alien” and “reptilian” and deserved to go into a “gas chamber"; it probably shouldn't surprise anyone that he was headed to Texas, where there are a lot of "aliens" to hate. People also seem to forget what religion xenophobe and white nationalist Stephen Miller belongs to, and accusations that this was purely an “anti-Semitic” act is in my mind self-serving; after all, the Nazis committed genocide against Roma (Gypsies), as well as mass-murdering millions of Poles and Russian prisoners.

Anyways, that is what “freedom” allows people to do in this country. But when people demand freedom where it is heavily restricted, merely acting like you are off your medication (or should be on it) is probably the safest course of action when protesting against the powers that be. Let's look at three different ways in which three different countries today “handle” people protesting their rights, or for more rights.

First, there is Russia, where there seems little evidence of protest on the streets because the citizenry seems to have become used to living under regimes where human life has little value, or at least if it is someone else’s. The country seems to be on the verge of chaos if the Ukraine war continues as it does, although Ukraine is in desperate need for civilian assistance if its people are to survive the winter after Russian missiles have knocked out power stations. 

The "people" in Russia may not be interested in causing too much trouble, especially for men if it means they're handed a draft notice, but Russian oligarchs, politicians, Kremlin media mouthpieces and even a “mobster” seemingly are the ones doing all the “protesting,” not because they care about the lives of the men being slaughtered on the battlefield, but concern for their own if they are deemed responsible for a failed war that has killed quite a few. One Kremlin propagandist even expressed some fear about the Hague, where Russians could be tried for war crimes against Ukrainian civilians.

Newsweek is reporting that a Russian “mob boss” named Grisha Moskovsky is expressing the fear that the use of prison inmates given the carrot of amnesty and money to serve in the mercenary Wagner Group could lead, after the war, for them to remain under arms as a storm trooper militia by an anti-Putin faction angered by his failures, and perhaps even more nationalist and eager for nuclear holocaust than he is. The Chechen war lord Ramzam Kadyrov is also accused of being a potential “gang” leader who could cause unrest in Russia. Politico has already predicted a post-Putin Russia would be a “Shakespearean knife-fight for power; unleashed regional leaders; a nuclear arsenal up for grabs.”

So if Russia is a country where the people just sit and watch what their “leaders” are doing without attempting to offer any “input” or demand accountability (I have no faith in the "ordinary" Russian), what about in Iran? Iran of course is a theocratic dictatorship masquerading “democratic” institutions as just a way to fool the citizenry into thinking they have a “voice.” If anyone actually uses their voice, the dictators just send out their thugs to silence them, or kill them. But what to do about a nation-wide protest calling for greater freedom? In Iran, people are not asking for much on the surface; after the killing of a woman who showed “disrespect” on how she wore a wearing hijab, women took to the streets demanding that hijab-wearing should be a “choice.”

These protests have morphed into opposition in general and calls for regime change, meaning ousting the theocracy and the Revolutionary Guard that is propping it up. Yesterday the Associated Press reported that the protests continue to go strong three months into it, despite the arrest of 18,000 protesters and the killing of 451 up to that point. The regime, of course, continues to blame “foreigners” for instigating and supporting the unrest, even as the Iran soccer team at the World Cup refused to sing the Iranian national anthem in apparent support of the  protests:

 

 

As I noted before, the regime really has themselves to blame for this; it could have announced that the actions of the “morality police” in the killing of Mahsa Amini was unacceptable and those involved would be punished. Instead they gave their tacit support for the killing, and this proved too much for people who were already unhappy with the regime and just needed this one spark to ignite the fire. 

We can probably predict how this will all end: more bloody repression before the protests begin to subside. It is difficult to see the Islamic rulers giving up power, although it is still possible that they will feel their power so threatened that they will inch toward a system where religious intolerance has a less powerful role in shaping government and social policy.

And then there is China, a country that suddenly finds itself in the midst of mass protests. However, while some protesters were calling for the ouster of Xi Jinping, these protests initially were more about his policies than a protest against the government. Because this isn’t about “freedom of speech” or regime change (although you will find those who claim they want a more democratic form of government), the Chinese government is not (yet) engaging in mass arrests, like they would do concerning the Uyghurs, whose Islamic culture the Chinese authorities are trying to eradicate by arresting all their imams. According to the BBC last year,

Many of the detained clerics faced broad charges like "propagating extremism", "gathering a crowd to disturb social order", and "inciting separatism". According to testimony from relatives, the real crimes behind these charges are often things like preaching, convening prayer groups, or simply acting as an imam.

But for ethnic Chinese, just reducing their access to “forbidden” social media platforms where they can express their discontent over regime policies is deemed sufficient. Today, however, many Chinese have decided there are just some things that are just too much to bear, and that is the ongoing “Zero COVID” policy, when there are lockdowns when just one case is found in a certain locality.  Whether or not these lockdowns actually work is a matter of opinion; according to Worldometer’s numbers, China still ranks only 227 out of 230 reporting countries or territories in cases per 1 million, but most observers believe the “official” numbers to be a public relations stunt.

But as long as the regime isn’t being directly threatened, it can afford to see some sense in being “practical.” Unlike the Iranian regime, whose paranoia allowed a problem to fester and then ignite into flames, just admit that they may have gone just a little too far and pretend that they “hear” the “people.”  Yesterday the AP reported that mass protests erupted after a Beijing apartment complex that was under quarantine was set ablaze and many residents died in the fire because they could get past locked doors and gates, and maybe realizing that this has upset some people might be a good idea.

After calls for Xi to resign, there have been some “modifications” in the lockdown procedures, but only just. Restrictions of movement would be reduced to allow access to food and health care,  and there would be reductions in mass testing and allowances for mass transit to resume in “low infection” areas. But it was announced that the policy in general remains on the books and enforced where “necessary,” and this has again increased calls not only for Xi to step down, but communist party rule ending as well, which predictably has led to arrests of protesters who have expanded their demands.

Thus we see that China isn’t really that different from Iran at its core; its “religion” is the Communist Party, and there is no threatening its existence. So the “outlier” here is Russia, which unlike most countries with internal problems, its “protesters” are those with the most to lose, meaning the minority in government, business and the media—while ordinary people mostly just sit and watch the show because their wants and desires are subservient to the state, as they always have been in Russia.

City of Lies: a film the guilty tried to kill

 

Today, I am going to focus on some positive news for a change in the Depp/Heard soap opera, which normally means “bad” news for Amber Heard—including Heard’s official appeal brief that is not impressing anyone save her fanatical stans; Adam Waldman was reinstated on Twitter, and he didn't waste time in posting new evidence refuting Heard's abuse claims; and it is reported that Michele Dauber was "persuaded" to delete her own Twitter account. It may have something to do with a lawsuit against Stanford in regard to a recent suicide by a female student, and there are those who suspect that Dauber's constant twitter bile contributed to an atmosphere in which the suicide could take place.

I haven’t looked at a film here in a while, so I will take a look at one that the studios and other powers tried to “cancel,” City of Lies, which was originally shot in 2018, but is available on Blu-ray/DVD. It was reported two weeks ago that it is one of Netflix’s most watched on its streaming service. That is good news for Johnny Depp's career, which has been influenced by a rather eclectic taste in film projects, which would explain his many collaborations with Tim Burton. Only occasionally has he made “mainstream” films, like Donnie Brasco, co-starring Al Pacino. The POTC film series fit right in with the fantasy world of big-budget sci-fi films, so it is easy to overlook the fact that Depp has made films as divergent as What’s Eating Gilbert Grape and City of Lies.

The City of Lies production received attention due to the alleged confrontation between Depp and a crew member—which was recently settled out of court for a token sum, mainly to avoid the cost of a trial and the fact the plaintiff’s claims were contradicted by witnesses—and the suspicion that due to the ongoing bad publicity by Heard’s claims would hurt a theatrical release, since it occurred at the time of her op-ed. But there have been other suggestions put forward that make much more sense, which become clear when one views the film. The LAPD comes off as a practically criminal organization despite the efforts of its police chief to root out the bad apples, and if the film had been seen by a wide audience it likely would have reignited questions about not just police involvement in criminal culture, but race politics and the acceptance of crime in some communities as well.

According to Rotten Tomatoes, 50 percent of critics gave the film a positive review, and 50 percent a negative review. Where you fall probably depends on either your “politics” or your willingness to be patient. One negative review claimed that you would get a better “understanding” of the subject of the film—the failed search for the killers of rapper Christopher Wallace, aka The Notorious B.I.G—in 1997 in Los Angeles by watching a documentary.

That is possible, but what you get from this film unlike from a documentary is a “feel” for the violence and criminality on the street level, which I am sure disturbed some critics in a media environment (including film and television) that provides a not entirely accurate depiction of the world we live in, and generally avoids “offending”—or reinforcing—the sensitivities of certain demographics instead of portraying reality. 90 percent of murder victims are not white women as the various media would have you believe, but nearly half of them are black, as are the perpetrators.

City of Lies takes you into that world of violence in a way which a documentary on the case would seek to avoid doing. As mentioned this film is for the patient viewer since it jumps from the past and present to tell its story, but given that everyone seems to be attempting to confuse matters in order to conceal the truth seems to be the point of it all. The film utilizes flash backs to a detective’s past efforts to solve the case, and back to the present as the detective and a journalist seek to revive a case that is apparently of little interest to law enforcement, prosecutors and those who the victim collaborated with—and for a reason.

The film opens up with a radio report of chaos during The Notorious B.I.G.’s funeral in New York (from here he will referred to as Wallace, as the principle characters insisted he be called). Back to Los Angeles, where we see a man in a truck who looks like a redneck in an apparent road rage incident with a black driver listening to rap music. 

 

 

The black driver plays the “what are you looking at” game, and the white driver tries to ignore him, but the black driver tries to force him off the road for a throw-down, which the white driver avoids:

 

 

Eventually the black driver pulls alongside the white driver again, and a driver behind him sees him with outstretched arm...

 

 

...and we hear shots fired. The black driver’s vehicle careens into a gas station; what appears to be county sheriff's deputies arrive almost immediately, calling for the white driver to throw down his gun and surrender. He pulls out a badge indicating that he is an undercover cop:

 

 

 

We then see detective Russell Poole (Depp) arrive at the scene...

 

 

...met by his superior, Lt. O'Shea, who would be a nemesis in learning the truth. In a voiceover, Poole notes that the Wallace case nine days earlier and this case were connected, and when he discovered that he lost "everything that mattered." 

We then see scenes from the Rodney King and O.J. Simpson case, where white police are accused of abuse against black suspects, and the anger that resulted:

 

Then rapper Tupac Shakur was shot during a time when there was allegedly a "war" between "east" and "west" coast rappers:

 

Six months later Wallace was killed in what many believed was a "revenge" killing. We see Poole, who was at the time one of the detectives on the case, stating to reporters that his family deserves to have answers:

 

Back to the present, we see a man knocking on Poole's door; when he doesn't answer, the man walks in...

 

 

...he is a reporter, Jack Jackson (Forest Whitaker). He sees a wall entirely covered with notes and photos in regard to the Wallace case, this man is obviously obsessed with the case:

 

 

Jackson is confronted by Poole, who is unwilling to discuss the case with him because he assumes he is just an opportunist not interested in the truth:

 

 

Going back to his newsroom, Jackson has a crisis of conscience, deciding that maybe he wanted to find out the real truth 18 years after the murder. But at a bar he is told by the city attorney Stone to give up on the case, and not listen to Poole. Jackson sees him sitting with police officials; what is really going on here?

 

 

Jackson returns to Poole's apartment, which Poole says he expected:

 

Poole tells him everything on this wall is a dot, and his job was to connect those dots:

 

Recalling the case, Poole notes that a member of the Nation of Islam was present at the scene of Wallace's killing, and seemed to act suspiciously:

 

 

A fan asks for a autograph from Wallace, and he will later provide crucial information:

 

 

A car pulls up alongside Wallace's vehicle on the passenger side, and multiple shots are fired. He is hit four times and dies soon afterward:

 

 

Back to the previous apparent road rage incident turned into a racial one despite the fact a gun was found on the floor of the black driver's vehicle, and that witnesses corroborated the white officer's version of events. The officer, Frank Lyga, is surprised to be informed that the black man he shot was also a police officer named Gaines:

 

 

O'Shea suggests to Poole that this has to be wrapped up neatly with no loose ends. Lyga insists to Poole that Gaines was not LAPD, but a "straight-up gang banger." As he walks away, Poole is told that Gaines' vehicle was registered to a rap music company, Death Row Records:

 

 

Poole tells Jackson that although it was a legitimate business, Surge Knight  ran it like a gangster, sending out his thugs to beat on anyone who he thought needed it:

 

 

Poole also relates how he sat outside Death Row's office when he observed a woman and her children arrive. She is accusing someone there of killing her husband; she stops when she is threatened by a man in dreadlocks...

 

 

Poole comforts the woman, who tells him that Gaines was her husband, and that he worked for the company as "security," and they had him killed:

 

 

Poole calls O'Shea to tell him what he has discovered, but is told that he is nuts and needs to leave it alone:

 

 

Poole then discovers a note from someone to meet him. It is the man in the dreadlocks, who identifies himself as an undercover FBI agent. He relates that he has discovered that elements of the LAPD is employed by Death Row and generally serves as its "hit" squad and engages in other illegal activities. He confirms that Gaines was involved in Wallace's murder:

 

At Lyga's inquest hearing, Poole is unwilling to tie the case in a neat knot, and angers O'Shea by stating that he is isn't prepared to make a definitive statement, that there are leads that needed to be looked at:

 

 

Poole relates that he was eventually assigned to the Wallace case, where he joins the team with Det. Miller, who also seems eager to discover the truth:

 

 

One piece of evidence was that Wallace was killed by rare 9mm bullets. One potential witness is offered parole for information, who identifies the Nation of Islam character:

 

 

Jackson believes he can work with this information, but Poole warns him that this suspect is untouchable, since there is no direct evidence that he was involved in the killing. Then give me a name, he says; Poole gives him one, but back at the news room, he is told that the name was the given one for rapper MC Hammer:

 

 

Jackson admits to Poole that he "deserved" that. Poole relates talking to a Las Vegas detective who spoke to Knight, who was evasive. He said that Vegas wasn't interested in the pursuing the case of Tupac's killing or its relation to Wallace's. He also criticized the LAPD, noting that eyewitness sworn statements contradicted each other, and taking them to court would be futile...

 

 

...which angers Miller, who believes that good cops who brought solid cases only lost their pensions for doing do so. But Miller is surprised to learn from Poole that the FBI have infiltrated Knight's organization and LAPD officers are working for him. Miller insists that Poole show him the evidence, and Poole walks him through the shooting:

 

 

How would a police officer at the scene communicate with another to set up the killing without leaving evidence? By using a walkie-talkies:

 

 

Poole tells Jackson that Miller bought this story for just one night, before he realize that O'Shea and others in power wouldn't allow this to see the light of day. Next we see a robbery in progress:

 

 

The teller is convinced to tell the truth, that her boyfriend--an LAPD officer--had her help set up the robbery:

 

The FBI arrives at the officer's pool party where we see kids playing with water guns..

 

 

 ...and to arrest him:

 

Investigating the officer's home, Poole finds evidence the officer was a gangster, and the type of bullets found at Wallace's murder scene:

 

 

The officer is visited by the LAPD police chief himself, who demands that he reveal where the money is. The officer laughs at him when told he may face 15 years in prison, like any gangster who thinks 15 years in prison is chicken feed for all the crimes he's committed, including murder:

 

 

Poole reveals that Miller flew to New York to interview Wallace's witnesses and colleagues, but they did not want to pursue the case themselves, which pretty much ended any further serious investigation into the case.

Jackson asks a colleague to convince the DA to provide the case files of the Wallace killing, and much of the evidence is redacted heavily:

 

Poole won't let go of the case. He interviews the fan, who identifies Gaines as man he saw at the murder scene using a walkie-talkie:

 

Jackson, thinking that he can convince his police contacts to look into the evidence, his told that Poole is just a crackpot and not to listen to him:

 

 

After he leaves the bar, he confronts Poole with what he has been told about him...

 

...but afterwards is arrested by police without any apparent justification:

 

Jackson realizes that the police are corrupt, and that his arrest was a threat to him to stop his investigation. He finds Miller, who confirms that Poole was one of the best and most ethical cops he ever met, and that there was an effort to conceal the truth:

 

Jackson returns to Poole, who reveals that many were trying to create a racial wedge in the LAPD. He was taken off the Wallace case by O'Shea, and told to take a case which was clearly meant to frame Lyga for taking drugs out of the evidence room. Poole discovered that taking items from the evidence room was extremely lax and anyone--even Donald Duck--could:

 

 

Angered, Depp deliberately encounters the police chief and insists that Wallace's family deserved to know the truth, but is scolded by O'Shea. Poole seeks out the district attorney to file a complaint against the LAPD, and receives this response from his colleagues:

 

 

One night Poole encounters an officer shooting a drug dealer in a buy the officer set-up and was attempting to run off with the drugs without paying. Poole calls in the truth, and detains the officer until backup arrives:

 

The chief confronts the officer in prison and demands that if there are dirty cops in his department, he wants him to be a man and be a witness to that:

 

 

But the former office hesitates to say in court that his cohorts were working for Death Row Records as expected, instead declaring some made-up organization:

 

As a last resort, Poole agrees to testify in the charges against Lyga, to put into the public record that Gaines was suspected of working for Death Row and was present at Wallace's killing. But someone got to Lyga's attorney and a "deal" was made:

 

After visiting Wallace's mother, Poole makes one final effort in the present to move the case, taking it to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, but is told his warrants are too old and they can do nothing with them:

 

 

Poole suddenly falls ill with a heart attack:

 

 

Jackson rushes to the hospital where he encounters Poole's former wife and estranged son, who now regret that they ignored him and his quest for the truth:

 

Remembering the last time he saw Poole, walking away with regret from his failed quest...

 

 

...he writes a story in praise of him:

 

And tells the city attorney where to get off when he offers congratulations on the article:

 

 

City of Lies leaves us as it should: we suspect the truth, but when society wishes it conceal it to keep the guilty either unaccountable, or does not wish societal dysfunction or criminality too closely revealed in order to maintain a narrative of victimization, then the lone people seeking the truth must be crushed. We know the truth, but others decide it is better for us not to know it. 

Perhaps this is a message than many people (including some film critics) do not wish to be confronted with, and there is clear reasons why the LAPD and the city of Los Angeles did  not want to see this film widely distributed and discussed. For that reason alone it is an important film that needed to be made.