The Trump Verdict: "It Smells Rotten Because It WAS Rotten"

Agreed.

Taibbi: Trump Still Leads in the Polls

Well, yeah, but, of course, all those polls were conducted before the conviction.

Currently Trump leads in all seven big battleground states (which is all that really matters) according to the RCP average.

But don't we have to expect that to change?

I'd guess (and it's not much more than a guess) that the conviction will probably make a significant difference, and do what it has always been intended to do: win the Dems the election.

So, a big victory for the blue crazies.

But, I mean, hey, look on the bright side: no Trump!

I mean...probably...

Of course that's about as comforting, in this case, as the decrease in the flu that COVID produced...

BUT I SAID LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE DAMMIT

Sohrab Ahmari: Alvin Bragg's Anti-Democracy Verdict

This is the crux of the matter, really.

Shaun McGuire: I Just Donated $300k to Trump

I don't agree with all of this, but I think it's very right in general. The stuff I tend to disagree with is stuff that he knows a lot more about than I do--e.g. he thinks that the Russians did significantly interfere with the 2016 election. I am under the impression that their interference was pretty routine and pro forma. He also thinks that the decision to leave Afghanistan was worse than I tend to think it was. He thinks giving up Bagram airfield was disastrous--I'd never thought much about that.

   But I think this is a smart and interesting post, and, again, I agree with most of it.

   More to the point of the moment, I certainly agree that the lawfare against Trump, including Bragg's seemingly absurd "hush money" case is absolutely appalling. The weaponization of the legal system against Trump and Republicans is something everyone should be outraged about. Unfortunately I've come around to the view that prominent Republicans may simply not be able to receive fair trials in NYC or DC. 

   It doesn't help that Bragg's case seemed so ridiculous and convoluted that, on those grounds alone, it seemed to me to be almost impossible to deny that there was reasonable doubt afoot... But I'll have to go through it all more carefully when the hivemind produces more detailed analyses.

   I'd emphasize the Democrats' capitulation to the radical left more, of course. They've simply gone off the rails--to such an extent that Trump has become the lesser of the available evils. For years, IMO, this has been less about Trump than about the madness that has possessed the other side.

   And, of course, Trump is far, far less bad than the left-wing noise machine wants to have us believe. He was actually a good President, with a very solid record of accomplishment. I just don't think he has the temperament required by the office. Whatever my disagreements with Obama, at least the guy had the right temperament--in spades.

   At any rate, I think this is a good, short statement of the case for Trump over Biden (or any plausible Democrat).

   Unfortunately, my exasperation with the Blue Team has become so acute that it's becoming difficult for me to remain at all objective. So I'm going to try turning my attention away from this stuff for awhile. Maybe that'll help.

Alex Berenson: The Show Trial of Donald Trump

link

James Lynch: Trump Found Guilty on All Counts in "Hush Money" Trial

 link

Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg and his team of prosecutors pursued the case against Trump in front of Judge Merchan. The prosecution relied on an expansive legal theory to expand the business-records charges to felonies, arguing the falsifications were used to cover up alleged campaign-finance crimes, namely hush-money payments designed to help Trump’s electoral prospects. However, those federal campaign finance crimes are not being pursued by federal prosecutors, and the prosecution did not discuss the underlying crimes until the closing argument took place on Tuesday.
Bragg is an elected Democrat and Merchan previously donated to the Biden campaign. One of Bragg’s prosecutors previously received payments from the Democratic National Committee and another donated to the Biden campaign. Similarly, Merchan’s daughter is a Democratic strategist whose clients have fundraised off the Trump prosecution.

Rich Lowry: "Yes, It Was Rigged"

link

"5 Easy Actions Employers Can Take to Help Menstruators [sic] Thrive at Work"

#Menstruation affects half the U.S. workforce but talking about it at work can be taboo. For #MenstrualHygieneDay, here are 5 easy actions employers can take to help menstruators thrive at work. https://t.co/IwXzPD9huY #PeriodFriendlyWorld #MHD2024

— U.S. Department of Labor (@USDOL) May 29, 2024

From the linked article:

To commemorate this Menstrual Hygiene Day, the Women’s Bureau is breaking down the stereotypes and stigmas that have made menstruation a taboo topic in the workplace. Menstruation is a natural part of half our population’s life, and yet it has been overlooked in the context of work - perhaps because it is seen as a personal issue or uncomfortable to discuss. The taboo nature of menstruation has likely contributed to the lack of understanding about its impact on workers, which can include challenges related to symptoms of premenstrual syndrome; unexpected or heavy bleeding; and pain from cramps, headaches or migraines while at work.
Implementing workplace policies that address menstruation can enable menstruating employees to continue to fully participate in and contribute to the workforce while mitigating adverse effects to their mental and physical health.

Hm. 

   I mean...how do they know that menstruation is "part of half our population's life"? I mean...they don't keep track of menstruation...yet... And anyone can be a menstruator, according to them. I mean, clearly it's not associated with any particular demographic group...y'know...race or ethnicity or age or...I feel like I'm forgetting something...but, anyway, obviously if it were associated with any identifiable group, they'd just say so... But menstruation can happen to anybody! It's purely notional. You could be identifying as a menstruator deep down on the inside and not even know it! So...the question remains...how in the world do they know that half the population are "menstruators"?

   (Also, isn't it weird that a symptom is "migraines at work?")

   If anybody figures this out, lemme know...

   But, until then: happy Menstrual Hygiene Day!

 

Just Sent a Donation to Trump/WinRed

Just sent a couple hundred bucks to Trump at WinRed (I'm not sure he has a separate campaign site yet. Biden's pops up immediately...but if Trump has one, Bing isn't showing it).

   Now, I'm still willing to reconsider. If, say, Turley or Andrew McCarthy or someone changes his mind and makes a cogent case that, somehow, this giant steaming pile of malicious prosecution actually makes sense after all...but I really doubt they will.

   Alvin Bragg belongs in jail. But sadly, that's never gonna happen.

   Donate. Volunteer. Vote.

   Trump's certainly not my preferred candidate. And he probably isn't yours. But the alternative reveals its real nature more clearly by the day.

   And don't forget:

Trump Verdict: Guilty

LOL now I'm definitely voting for him.

The progressive left is now undeniably more dangerous than Trump...

Roanoke College Poll Has Trump and Biden Tied in the OD

An outlieroutlier...but cause for optimism...or whatever...

Turley: Judge Merchan's Dishonest/Errors Make It Almost Impossible for the Jury to Acquit Trump

Madness.

   After detailing the jaw-dropping errors/dishonesty that Merchan has allowed/perpetrated, Turley writes:

Given the instructions and the errors in this trial, it would seem that an acquittal is almost beyond the realm of possibility. That leaves either a hung jury or a conviction. However, the framing of this case and failure to protect the rights of the defendant have undermined the perceived legitimacy of the proceedings and any possible verdict.
With Trump in a tight cage, Merchan just left it for the jury to deliver the coup de grace. We will see. I remain hopeful that a couple jurors will balk at this manufactured criminal theory. Canned hunts are great for trophies, not so much for trials.

The tactic seems to be: convict Trump, by hook or by crook, in order to torpedo his candidacy. The verdict will be overturned on appeal...but that doesn't matter. The real aim will have been accomplished. 

Turley Seems to Now Think Trump Will be Convicted

He now seems to think, basically, that the prosecutor, the judge, the trial, and the judge's instruction to the jury have been so crooked that a conviction is difficult to avoid--which, he things, will inevitably be overturned on appeal.

   But one view is that railroading Trump will win the election for the Dems regardless of what else happens. The decision won't be overturned before November, and most people only read the headlines anyway.

...Yesterday was chilling as the judge allowed the prosecutors to engage in what some of us view as highly improper arguments. That included effectively testifying on facts not in the record. Merchan's view of "argument" was considerably broader for the prosecution than the…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 29, 2024

Yale Students Call for "Open Intifada"...Basically Everywhere

21st-Century retardation.

Presidential Odds: Trump 57.2%, Biden 40.9%

Uh...yay?

   What a damn mess.

   Best case scenario(?): Trump picks a good VP and then bails. (Though I guess none of the proposed veeps on the alleged short list really knock me out.) The Pubs keep the House and take the Senate, undo the worst dumbassery of the last four years in a spasm of undoing...then we go back to divided government in the midterm. Or, if the Dems stay on the crazy train, I guess it'd be better for the Pubs to just keep both houses...which they won't. I don't think the Pubs will really yank funding for Ukraine--which I guess I still think would be a bad idea.

   Actually, I barely even know what I wish would happen anymore. Unless/until the Dems return to their senses, which seems decreasingly likely to me, I just kind of think we're screwed. Maybe a Trump landslide / huge electoral loss would slap some sense into them...but it seems to me that rarely works. The losing party generally just makes up a story about how they weren't able to "get [their] message across to the voters." They never really seem to admit that their message just sucked...and their message sucked because their ideas sucked. Not even to themselves.

   This may not be the darkest timeline...but it may be the stupidest.

Newspeak Watch: "Justice-Impacted Individual"

LOOOL

This is almost a throwback to classic paleo-PC Newspeak. I'd have to think more about what the essential characteristics of this stuff are, but they're something like:

(a) Obfuscation

(b) Inaccuracy

(c) Pseudo-technicality

   'Justice-impacted individual's got 'em all...

   First, of course, it wears its pretention to technicality on its face. It's got the ring of technical jargon to it. This is not merely to bamboozle the mundanes; rather, the PCs seem to genuinely believe that they are technicians or engineers of some kind, working and speaking with genuine precision. It's the utterest bullshit...but that's what they think. 

  But the actual compositional meaning of the term is a laughable wreck. Justice "impacted" these individuals? Justice did? The...what? Universal? That's a helluva thing... As you may be able to puzzle out, the term is actually supposed to pick out people who interact with the "justice system" in certain ways. Now, as this is a blue-state scam (of course) (Illinois (which basically now means: Cook County)), it's only about criminals Sorry! "offenders!" No, sorry! "newcomers!" No, sorry! That's a different bit of bullshit...

   So, this isn't supposed to refer to victims...nor anyone else "impacted" by the system in any other way...just crooks. 

   But, of course, that's one of the standard ploys of PC newspeak: obscure the directionality of the term. Not 'immigrants'--'migrants'! That way it doesn't specify which way they're going! Even though it's a euphemism intended to be used only for people sneaking in... So if someone is concerned about "illegal migration," for all we know they're talking about Kansans sneaking into Mexico...

And a "justice-impacted individual"...well...it technically means criminals...but you can't tell that from the word... This allows us to obscure the difference between perpetrators and victims!

   The fake air of technicality does not bring precision, but, rather, imprecision. Which is exactly what they actually want...

   Political correctness is Orwellianism.

   And it is the cornerstone of the contemporary progressive left.

Memorial Day

Do not forget.

Michael Cohen: The New Michael Avenatti

The blue team seems to love Michael Cohen now that he testified against the bad Orange Man. This brings to mind...:

Europe's Strategy re: Jihadist Immigrants

via Instapundit:

Europe's 🇪🇺 strategy for dealing with Jihadist immigrants:

1. Nothing is going to happen
2. Maybe something is going to happen, but there's nothing we should do
3. We should do something, but there's nothing we can do
4. Maybe we could have done something, but it's too late now pic.twitter.com/WasdvFibaG

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) May 26, 2024

Roger Pielke, Jr. on the COVID Coverup Hearings

We don't know that COVID originated in a lab leak. But we do know that there was a concerted effort to convince us that it didn't. These hearings are about the core coverup among the major players--including Anthony Fauci and perhaps other government officials.

   Of course we didn't know about this in 2020. But we did know that the left generally did what it routinely does now: it chose a side--the least plausible side, as usual--and decreed opposition thereto to be politically incorrect. Any even vaguely rational and objective person could see that the lab leak hypothesis was at least plausible--in fact, it seemed rather clearly to be the most likely of the available hypotheses. Reports, papers, op-eds and news stories in the MSM were created, trumpeted, and used to promote the politically correct position. I was informed by an interlocutor on the internet that I had strayed into "tinfoil hat territory" by taking the lab-leak hypothesis seriously. I watched a discussion among four virologists in which they derided LLH, using arguments that even I could tell were laughably shoddy. 

   Appalling as this all is, of course, it's the world we've been living in for a decade: the left produces (or merely latches onto) abject absurdities, and the institutions the left controls fall immediately into line: science, science communication, the news media, universities... Anyone with the wit and independence of mind to question the Official Story is deemed a kook...or, worse, a conservative...

   Women have penises, men can get pregnant, Trump is a Russian asset, the USA is made of racism, "white supremacy" pervades the world, race and sex have no basis in biology, but are both "social constructs,' i.e. human creations by fiat, everyone has a purely private internal "gender identity"...even children, who must be sexually mutilated do their bodies match it, lest they off themselves, the world is on the brink of climate apocalypse and only socialism and world government can save it, nations and borders are racist, women never lie about rape, all white people are by definition oppressors, the police are committing genocide in the streets against blacks, nothing--not science, not medicine, not math, not piloting an airplane--can be accomplished without "DEI"...and, of course, the Wuhan coronavirus just happened to appear, by purely natural processes, in the back yard of the Wuhan Institute of virology...

   What madness.

The Gender-Addled Left is Still in Denial about the Cass Report

The report.

Dershowitz: What I Saw at the Trump Trial Shocked Me

This is basically what conservatives have come to expect from the progressive-biased media and courts (and, we could add: bureaucracy, media, and other such institutions):

I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France, Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states.
But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse yesterday.
The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn.
Many experienced lawyers raised their eyebrows when the judge excluded obviously relevant evidence when offered by the defense, while including irrelevant evidence offered by the prosecution.
But when the defense’s only substantive witness, the experienced attorney Robert Costello, raised his eyebrows at one of New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s rulings, the court went berserk.
Losing his cool and showing his thin skin, the judge cleared the courtroom of everyone including the media.
For some reason, I was allowed to stay, and I observed one of the most remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually threatened to strike all of Costello’s testimony if he raised his eyebrows again.
It would have punished the defendant for something a witness was accused of doing.
Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness.
The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty.
Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant.

Turley: "Are You Staring Me Down: Judge Merchan Becomes an Oddity in His Own Courtroom"

It certainly sounds like a kangaroo court, if Turley is to be believed. Especially this stuff:

After gutting any use of a legal expert to testify on the absence of any such violations, the judge allowed the jury to hear Michael Cohen state that the payments to Stormy Daniels were clearly campaign violations.
All that Merchan would offer is a weak instruction telling jurors not to take such statements as proof of a violation.
The alleged campaign-finance violations allowed Cohen to try to implicate Trump. However, it is doubtful that Trump could have been convicted on such a charge in any other venue.
It is precisely what the Justice Department tried and failed to do with John Edwards, a Democratic candidate.
After that unmitigated failure, the Justice Department dropped this theory of hush money as a campaign contribution.
Indeed, after reviewing the Trump payments, not only did the Justice Department decline any charges but the Federal Election Commission did not even seek a civil fine.
On Monday, Judge Merchan’s orders became even more inexplicable when Cohen’s former attorney Robert Costello took the stand.
Merchan immediately started to sustain a flurry of prosecutors’ objections as Costello basically accused Cohen of multiple acts of perjury.
At one point, Costello — one of the most experienced lawyers in New York and a former prosecutor — exclaimed that one of the judge’s rulings was “ridiculous.”
The judge chastised Costello and even challenged him: “Are you staring me down?”
In fact, it was hard not to stare. What is happening in the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan is anything but ordinary.

But I'm not objective. Despite thinking Trump shouldn't be President, I think the other side is far more dangerous. And I'm appalled at the open lawfare being deployed against a Presidential candidate--regardless of who that candidate is or what side he's on. Trump is subject to a barrage of implausible charges and ad hoc modifications and applications of law (e.g. the (temporary, no less!) suspension of the statute of limitations for the E. Jean Carroll case). Whereas--just to gesture at an important touchstone--the prima facie case against Biden for influence peddling is clear and alarming...but it's being hushed up and outright denied by the media (which is sticking to its story that there is "no evidence whatsoever" against him), and slow-walked by the DoJ. 

Norman Eisen: "Trump's Defense Ends on One Disastrous Witness"

i.e. Robert Costello.

Eisen isn't exactly the most objective observer, but what he writes is consistent with other evaluations of Costello's performance I've seen.

"The Dodgy Data Behind the DEI Crusade"

   First, note that "workplace harmony" was not a reason originally cited in favor of "diversity" initiatives--which was the successor to the now-expanded idea of "DEI."

   To riff on that point for a second: note that the more the idea expands, the easier it is to rationalize (in the bad sense of 'rationalize'). First there was "diversity." Then that was, without democratic ratification, expanded into "diversity, equity and inclusion." Now the left seeks to expand that in various ways, though no single way has been agreed upon. Candidates for expansion of the acronym (not: not actually an acronym): "access," "belonging," and "(social) justice." (The latter expansion yielded the abbreviation 'JEDI,' about which lefties were ecstatic...though then UnScientific UnAmerican puplished an essay arguing that this was politically no bueno because the Jedi are white male colonizers who use violence to solve their problems... This is what counts as an argument on the left these days...) And what's really meant is something more like: diversity or equity or inclusion or [additional BS ideas to be added later]. By repeatedly expanding the abbreviation, and treating it like a disjunction, the left can basically re-engineer institutions however it wants...especially if something like "(social) justice," that protean nonsense term, is added.

   Second: political correctness, i.e. the subordination of the epistemic to the political, is almost a defining characteristic of contemporary progressivism. That DEI is good is an axiom. As is that it increases the effectiveness of organizations. The left will never subject that to actual empirical investigation. That's not how they roll. Any study they conduct will aim at bolstering their axiom, not testing it. 

   Third, of course: DEI does not improve the effectiveness of organizations. We have studies supporting this, but we don't really need them: if the goal is greater effectiveness, then we should merely be shooting for greater effectiveness. In hiring: if you want to find the best person, aim to find the best person--regardless of race, sex, etc. Don't aim to find the politically correct kind of person and hope for the best. The only even halfway decent idea associated with DEI in this respect is: aim to take a wider view, recognizing that you may have a parochial view of who the best person is. Consider the possibility that people who don't satisfy narrow criteria may add something to your organization that would increase effectiveness. MMT might seem stupid, but if, say, the econ department is hiring, and you've got all the other bases covered, maybe someone who studies MMT will add an important perspective...even if he's wrong. That isn't crazy. But that's not what's being done. DEI as it stands is a cover story for racial etc. preferences. It's a wildly dishonest view/policy/whatever-it-is.

Althouse: Nobody Knows What the Charges are Against Trump...and the Prosecution's Theory of the Case Seems to be Changing, Anyway...

Old and busted: show me the man and I'll show you the crime.

The new hotness: Crime, shmime.

GLoBaL GuBmInT 2 BeaM fAkE SecoNd cOMInG 2 ur BRaIn w/ VOICE TO SKULL TECHNOLOGY

Damn nanobots...

Ezra Klein: Seven Theories for [sic] Why Biden is Losing to Trump

link

It's kind of hard for me to resist projecting my own reasons onto others: Biden is a frictionless central cog facilitating the smooth functioning of the mechanism of far-left crazy that has taken over the Democratic party. The closest Klein really comes to that one is Biden is too liberal.

Born Again Russiagaters: The Left's Religious Faith In The Russian Collusion Hoax

facepalm

   Scarborough is an idiot. To such an extent that I feel stupid even noticing him. So why? I dunno.
   Of course one of the left's fallback positions after the disintegration of Russiagate has been to conflate Russia tried to interfere with the election with Trump colluded with Russia. That seems to be mostly what Scarborough is doing, though later in he resurrects Manfort and "Russian outreach." Eventually I just started skimming, because this is unworthy of serious attention.

   No one significant has ever denied that Russia tried--in some sense of 'tried'--to interfere--in some sense of 'interfere' with the 2016 election. Basically like they always try--in some sense of 'try'--to. There's apparently a kind of background noise in every election, a buzz of low-grade election "interference" between nations. I've read that Israel has done it to us. And we have done it to other nations.

   At any rate: no one ever denied some laughably half-hearted Russian diddling around--e.g. the Beat it Jesus meme. Democrats seized on these things and pretended they were unusual and significant, and then conflated them with their own campaign of dirty tricks that we now know as Russiagate. And--voila!--Russian collusion!!!!

   This time around, it wouldn't actually surprise me a lot if such nonsense had more of an effect--the right has primed itself to believe almost anything bad that anyone says about Ukraine. That's something worthy of attention, I'd say. Not as significant as the "disinformation" campaigns being waged for the Blue Team by our own mainstream media...but just because something isn't the biggest problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Kristen Waggoner: Biden Turns Title IX into a Weapon Against Women and Girls

Madness.

   As concerned as I am about the practical effects of gender madness, my central objection remains theoretical: it involves the outright denial of plain facts that are right before our eyes. The radical left--which now, lamentably, includes the Democratic party--has managed, on the basis of a few neologisms (e.g. "transwoman), a lot of shrieking and name-calling, and a few laughably fallacious and almost incidental arguments, to convince its partisans of the truth of outright contradictions: some women are male, some men are female. 

   These are absurdities on the level of 'war is peace.'

   The declaration of outright, obvious falsehoods to be true is the insane cornerstone of political correctness, itself the cornerstone of contemporary woke progressivism.

   To call this madness is not hyperbole; it is an accurate description.

   As much as I would like to keep Trump away from the Presidency, I consider the ascendency of radical-left political correctness to be the greatest threat to the United States I have seen in my lifetime. The madness of gender ideology alone would probably be enough for me to vote for almost whoever ran on the opposing ticket...but, of course, it is merely the contemporary left's flagship delusion. It is surrounded by a whole panoply of other lunatic views.

   A faction that can basically command its adherents to believe such lunacy poses, to borrow a favored phrase of that very faction, an existential threat to the USA...and to liberalism, and to the West generally.

Peak Political Correctness?: "His Pregnancy Came As A Shock: Florida Abortion Law Made It Harder"

LoOoOoooOOoOOOoL

Surely...surely we must be approaching peak PC...right?

Honestly, where is there to go from here?

The Partisan Divide on the Trump/Bragg "Hush Money" Case

The Red Team seems convinced that the case is absurd, a paradigm case of Blue Team lawfare. The Blue Team seems convinced that the case is legit, and a slam-dunk: Trump is going to prison. Re: Cohen's testimony, the Red Team seems convinced that his testimony was a big-ass nail in the coffin of the case. The Blue Team seems divided: some (e.g. the loathsome Joe Scarborough) have argued that the testimony was perfect, and a nail in Trump's coffin. Others have said just the opposite, basically agreeing with the Red Team assessment. (That divided view among the Blues is itself a sign that the Reds are probably right about this one.) The experts I respect on this, e.g. Turley and Andrew McCarthy, have generally thought that the Red Team is right on both counts. (Both Turley and McCarthy lean reddish, but in different ways.) I basically trust Turley and McCarthy about such matters. And to the extent that I deserve an opinion on this, I think the Red Team is right in this case. And, in fact, I think all the legal cases against Trump are basically lawfare. Note that both Turley and Bill Barr think that the documents case is the most legit--and poses a real threat to Trump. The complications there are: (a) Biden is as guilty of the same thing as Trump is, and (b) the FBI seems to have mishandled and distorted the evidence in the Trump case.

   At any rate, it's still surprising to me how powerful the echo chambers are. I, of course, think that the Blues are currently significantly crazier than the Reds, and that their echo chambers are larger and echoier...but YMMV.

Taibbi: Republicans Betray Causes They Supported Ten Minutes Ago

"The Great Bipartisan Constitution-shredding project of 2024 continues at breakneck speed." (audio)

   Another thing conservatives are largely right about: the Dem/Pub divide doesn't matter so much. It's really America vs. the Uniparty.

   In a similar vein: I read that creationism is making a comeback. The right are amateurs at Lysenkoism compared to the PC left. But they're far from immune.

The Blue Team Insists That The Absurd Bragg Case Against Trump Is A Slam Dunk

link

The Blue Team echo chamber is strong:

The resistance commentariat insists that Trump is going down. Republican Never Trump lawyer George Conway writes in The Atlantic that Bragg’s case is “kind of perfect.” MSNBC host and former Republican operative Nicole Wallace assures viewers that Trump’s lawyers “bombed” their cross-examination of Cohen. Former Justice Department official Andrew Weissman praises Bragg’s “crackerjack team of experienced attorneys” for building an airtight case.
But missing from this wall-to-wall coverage is any mention of the underlying crime that Trump falsified business records to advance his campaign. And that is a fatal flaw in the case, because New York law stipulates that falsifying business records can only be charged as felonies (as Bragg has done) if it’s done to further another crime. Trump has not been charged with another crime, though Bragg has floated the theory that the business records were falsified to deprive 2016 voters of information about his tryst with Daniels.
There are other flaws as well. Robert Costello, one of the lawyers who worked closely with Cohen at the U.S. Attorney’s Office at the Southern District of New York, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that his old office declined to prosecute the hush money case against Trump because Cohen was “totally unworthy of belief.”

   As many outside the echo chamber have noted, Bragg might well get a conviction with an NYC jury, but the case will never withstand appeal.

   But the goal is to torpedo Trump's campaign--and it might well do that.

   Unfortunately, also:

Trump already has proven that he will not recognize the results of elections that he doesn’t win. Bragg’s prosecution gives Trump and his supporters a ready-made excuse not to accept the results of the 2024 election should President Joe Biden prevail.

   The wingnut echo chamber is also strong--though not as prominent and well-organized. Comments on various conservative discussion forums vary by the nature of the site, but on some prominent ones (eg Instapundit) it is an article of unshakeable faith that the election was stolen via outright fraud (e.g. printing fake ballots). Especially if Trump remains ahead in the polls, if he loses, they will explode. Many such folk insist that it has been proven that Biden "really" lost the election.

   It's especially nutty given the extensive evidence that the Dems did cheat--not by changing vote totals and the like, but by election rigging: e.g. pumping money illicitly into government GOTV efforts exclusively in Democratic districts (Zuck Bucks and the like), indiscriminate mailing of absentee ballots, illegally ignoring laws about checking and accepting such ballots, courts rewriting election laws, etc.  [Absurd, IMO, because there are sound objections to the election laying right in front of their faces...but they ignore them and blindly believe the outright fraud hypothesis.]

   Trump's attorneys told him that he had to fight these things before the election. But he didn't because he is a lazy dumbass. Instead he let them slide and then shrieked about fake ballots and whatnot after he lost.

   And then there are some prominent cases of refusal to investigate obviously fishy cases as in Fulton County, GA, and Milwaukee... In GA we pretty much know that the rules were not followed. These cases won't add up to enough to swing the election...still, they ought to be investigated, not concealed.

   Anyway.

Things I Was Wrong About

An at-least partial (non-chronological) list of somewhat recent dumbassery on my part:

[1] Putin is not going to invade Ukraine.

[2] Trump is not going to try to stay in power if he loses.*

[3] SCOTUS is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade.

[4] Hubert is not ready to Carolina's head coach.

[5] Trump is not going to win.

[6] Trump is going to be a terrible President.

[7] The Democrats are not going to capitulate to the radical pomo prog left.

[8] Rachel Dolezal is going to be the end of transgender madness.

[9] Same-sex marriage is not going to be legal in my lifetime.

[10] If political correctness ever returns, so will New-Agey woo.

  

*It's not clear [2] counts, as what he did wasn't what the left was claiming, nor what I was denying. He didn't launch a coup, or just refuse to leave, he brough what was, IMO, an at-least minimally plausible legal challenge (the Eastman argument). But still.

   Thinking [1] was idiotic. I didn't know anything about what was going on.

    Also, I changed my mind about [3] after ACB replaced RBG. But, still, before that I just didn't think it would ever happen.

   I was really fond of [10], which I made like 35 years ago. There's been a minor return to woo--e.g. an Astrology fad. UFOs doing really count, as that's sci-fi dumbassery, not New-Age woo (NAW). I think you can reasonably suggest--and I think I have--that social constructionism, especially in conjunction with transanity, has incorporated NAW into political correctness. The idea of a secret gendersoul that only you can access via introspection is pretty wooey...but it's more on the side of pseudoscience than NAW.

   I got some stuff right, too, e.g.:

[A] The Democrat's position on illegal immigration is moving toward open borders. (ca. 2011?)

[B] Russiagate is obviously nonsense.

[C] Biden will be a terrible President.

   Pretty short list...but I could be forgetting something... [B] isn't a predication. But it became obvious by late 2017, when I was still on the Blue Team, and no one I knew (except the one extremely conservative conservative who basically redpilled me) thought it was all true. I still had comments on this blog at the time,* and some commenters claimed that Trump being a "Russian asset" was the only explanation of the facts. That was actually a somewhat common Blue Team refrain at the time. Anyway: not a predication. Just an inference from obvious evidence that no other Dems I knew at the time would admit.

   [C] was obvious, and I argued for it repeatedly. Granted, I underestimated how bad he would be. But I said he'd be bad. Also: he's bad largely for the reason I said he'd be bad: he can't/won't stand up to the crazy leftist wing of his party.

   [B] is obvious by now. But, hey, I say it was obvious then.

Lysenkoism Watch: "From Caregivers to Social Reformers," or: the Leftist Corruption of American Medicine

Utter madness...but then, we can say that about so many things now that the characterization loses its bite...

Another instance of the left's totalitarianism--nothing is safe from its crazy ideas. It's not enough that they be promoted at universities. It attempts to inject them into everything.

Blame Canada: Taibbi on Trudeau's Orwellian "Hate Speech" / Pre-Crime Bill

Just fucking insane.

Fulton County Violated GA Election Laws, e.g. Scanned 3k Ballots Twice; Did Not Change Outcome

Pretty much what I guessed.

Again, the really significant violations were the ones e.g. in PA that involved illegal re-writing of election law, e.g. by courts.

I've never really doubted that Biden won--on that score, seems to me that the righties have just lost their damn minds. 

OTHO, the lefty claim that 2020 was the "fairest and most secure election ever" is laughably absurd.

Matthew Yglesias: "Am I an Out-of-Touch Elitist?"

You seem like an alright guy, man...but the answer to this question is painfully obvious.

Princeton Douchebags on Hunger Strike: "Demand" Amesty for Students Who Occupied Building, Discussions of Divestment from Israel

facepalm

Yes, but see, you have nothing to negotiate...sorry..."demand"...with. You being hungry doesn't matter to me at all...and it shouldn't matter to Princeton. 

So fuck off is what I'm saying.

You know, the left has an almost-unique talent for taking causes and making them distinctly unsympathetic... I'm not inherently uninterested in the fate of civilians in Palestine. Though Israel has just cause for going to war, and is, so far as I can tell, conducting the war in a just manner...and though the majority of Palestinians support Hamas and the 10/7 attack...still, I'm not unconcerned about children and other innocent civilians...

But the left is just such a bunch of douchebags that I have to fight the urge to be too opposed to whatever they support.

And I really, honestly, could not care any less about a bunch of rich, privileged (in the normal, ordinary sense of 'privileged'), leftist Ivy League douchebags (allegedly) being hungry because they (allegedly) refuse to eat...

Turley: The Prosecution Is The Punishment

Judge Merchan allows Alvin Bragg to elicit testimony from Stormy Daniels solely in order to embarrass Trump. Later Merchan said that the jury may have to ignore much of what was said...

   The point is to destroy Trump by any means necessary. It's a "whole-of-government" approach!

Trump: shouldn't be President.

Contemporary Democrats: absolutely, positively cannot be allowed to get anywhere near power.

That Time Of Year, or: No, I Will Not Raise Your Grade Just Because You Asked Me To

A few rules and tips for end-of-the-semester grade-grubbing:

1. Do not engage in end-of-semester grade-grubbing.

2. If you ARE going to ask me to raise your grade, do so in person, not via email.

3. Don't ask me to raise your grade.

4. No, there is nothing you can do, now that the final exam is over, to raise your grade. In fact, this is the only time in the past four months such that there is absolutely nothing you can do to raise your grade. (And the only thing you can ever do to raise your grade is: do better on the assignments. And the means to that end is: work harder on the assignments.) 

5. No, there is no extra credit in this class. The syllabus makes it clear how grades are determined, and does not list "extra credit." In fact, it explicitly says there is no extra credit in this class. If there were extra credit, that would not be an option for any student after completion of the final exam. And certainly not after final grades are posted. And doubly certainly not after they are submitted to the Registrar and reported to you. (And: as a colleague once put it: asking for extra credit is asking to receive a 'B' for doing additional 'C'-quality work.)

6. No, telling me that you attended class a lot doesn't change anything. Attendance is at your discretion. Your reward for attending class is understanding of the material...and the higher grades that understanding brings.

7. No, I will not "round up" your grade. But, good news: I also won't round it down.* You've got to draw the line somewhere. So you might as well draw it where it belongs. You can't just give points to select students--especially not just because they asked. And raising everyone's grade by some amount--no matter what amount--will almost always raise another student's grade to be near the cut-off. So down this road lies everyone getting an 'A'

8. Grade-grubbing is really bad form. It makes me think less of those who do it. Though, of course, those who do it probably don't care.

9. blah blah blah

* I actually had a student once send me a terse email at the end of the semester asserting that I had miscalculated her grade. Alarmed, I checked, but it was, unsurprisingly, correct. I informed her of this, and she responded that the error she had in mind was: not rounding up (by over half a percentage point, incidentally). My response was neither happy nor friendly.

LA TImes: "Of Course The Death Penalty Is Racist; It Would Be Wrong Even If It Weren't

Unintentionally hilarious; also probably bullshit.

   Not what you'd call an inherently funny topic...but it's really the "of course it's racist!" bit. I mean...of course it's racist...everything's racist!...according to the almost-literally-insane postpostmodern worldview of the progressive "elites" who run the show at places like the LA Times... They're so locked into their cultish, quasi-religious collective delusions that they can confidently proclaim things like this with abject, dogmatic certainty. Immunity to evidence could almost be a defining feature of progressivism. Well, if the crackpot right weren't also afflicted...

   Though, I'll admit, it is somewhat heartening to see progressives express the opinion that, just maybe, there ought to be limits on government power... (Though both extremes are loony and inconsistent about that.)

   Anyway: journalists aren't journalists anymore. They're activists. They don't, in this post, consider a single argument against their view. And, look: I'm no expert on this. But I've read enough to know that these arguments are very likely bullshit. People who actually know about this topic, and who aren't in the cult, can take apart most such arguments. My prediction about this essay: they're relying on contentious numbers and, especially, a broad and malleable conception of "same type of crime." Blacks and Hispanics commit more violent crimes, on average, than whites and Asians. It would be no surprise if they committed more crimes at the very end of the curve where the death penalty becomes an option. Pervasive ("systematic") racism is an axiom of the left, not a conclusion. It almost always turns out to be bullshit. Their claims about racism in policing have almost all turned out to be bullshit--though with some unclear cases, as I understand it, as with application of stop-and-frisk. Most cases against the death penalty are bullshit, too. Organizations like the Innocence Project are just packed with liars and activists. They are religiously devoted to both the proposition that everything is racist and that the death penalty is bad. 

   So, by a kind of half-assed induction, I conclude that there's no reason to even investigate the claims of this screed. If somebody I trust on the subject, like Peter Moskos or Sean Fitzgerald (Actual Justice Warrior) or Nate the Lawyer were to discuss this topic, I'd certainly take what they said seriously, and likely accept their conclusions unless I saw some overt error. But the LA Times is a joke--at least when it comes to anything that involves politically contentious or culture-war-y issues.

   So this is the kind of thing I either don't even read, or (as this time) skim, forget, and move on.

The Left In Yet Another Nutshell: Yo, Islam, Hope You Like Gays Edition

They're your problem now, Islam:

Trans TikToker contemplates converting to Islam and is 'super excited' to learn 'Allah is beyond gender' 🤡 pic.twitter.com/VvkNzy9Crc

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 5, 2024

Famously Pessimistic Trump Pollster Feels Good About Their Chances

Uh...yay?

November 6th is going to be a somber day no matter what.

Newspeak Watch: "Latine"

LOoOoOoOOoOOooL

As I've said many times: the contemporary left is a very literary/linguistic movement. And ever since the paleo-PC days of yore, they've loved nothing more than making up new pseudo-technical Newspeak. "Latinx" was always hilariously characteristic of this postpostmodern left. Prior to that was 'Latino/a' (or a/o?). Others have pointed out that 'Latin' would be the natural, non-stupid/goofy, non-neologistic term to use...if you gotta use such a term. But that is obviously no good at all! That's, like, WHITE SUPREMACY, man... Or some shit. Sometimes they just press an already-existing word or phrase into service--as they did, say, with 'white supremacy'--or, before that, 'partner'... But that's def. second best! Best is a really, really stupid-sounding new term. Probably my favorite of the past few years was 'misogynoir'...a portmanteau of different components guaranteed to send a frisson of political excitement down the spine of any popomo lefty... Not that you can't puzzle it out, but, of course, it means something like: aversion to black women. Oh, damn, I almost forgot 'transmisogynoir'...an even stupider and more hilarious term...

   At least "Latine" doesn't build in absurd presuppositions like "trans woman" or "assigned female at birth." It's merely irritating. So I guess we can be grateful for that...

IVF and Pre-Natal Sex-Selection: So Much for "Sex is Assigned at Birth"

Yeesh.

So if sex is "assigned" at birth, what are these parents and procedures selecting for?

GW Anti-Israel Protesters Chant "Guillotine," A Reference To Cutting Off The Heads Of Non-Anti-Israel Administrators and Faculty

This seems to me to be basically like the retarded shenanigans of the Capitol Rioters with their toy gallows. That is: not genuine threats...but stupid. (Of course some on the left have tried to claim that, not only was the toy gallows at the Capitol a real threat, it was a real instrument of execution...but that's even dumber.)

   It does, I'd say, tell us something about their ideals, though. Many have pointed out that the neo-PCs are reminiscent of the Jacobins...I guess these protesters, at least, agree... They don't seem to think that's a bad thing...

Arrested Emory Prof. Caroline Fohlin Admits Hitting A Cop During Arrest of Student

Jeez, these people...

   First, I've gotta admit, the first thing that struck me about this clip when it hit the news was the absurdity of Fohlin repeatedly yelling "I'm a professor!"...as if that gave her some sort of immunity to arrest. I guess that sort of delusion might be a consequence of getting a plum gig at a place like Emory...

   But, second: she ended up on the ground because she was resisting arrest. She was squealing about being put on the ground--and, honestly, she's probably never been knocked down in her life. But she wouldn't have ended up there if she didn't resist arrest.

  Third: she admitted that she hit a cop on the head--"very lightly"--to interfere with his arrest of a student. 

  So: resisting arrest for interfering with the arrest of another person who was resisting arrest...

  I'm sympathetic to the view that American cops have gone a bit too far with the use of nonlethal force. Though I don't know enough to really deserve an opinion on it, to be honest. But in this case the use of force seems justified, and the degree of force plausibly appropriate. Obivously I could be wrong.

Conservatives Going All Shaky On The First Amendment Re: Anti-Israel Speech?

I've been too busy to figure out the details...but it sure seems that way.

I don't know why this sort of thing ever surprises me--if that is, indeed, what's happening.

Double standards are maybe the commonest thing in politics.

Now, the asymmetry is pretty obvious:

The left wants to prohibit non-leftist speech by any means necessary--this includes speakers on campus, expression on social media, even private speech between individuals.

They're also conducting borderline-violent demonstrations and "occupations" of campuses, often in violation of trespassing policies and laws.

So, yeah, they're still the major problem.

However, it looks like some of the legislation being pushed by the right is basically just leftist anti-"hate-speech" crap, with e.g. 'transes' scratched out and 'Israel' written in. One I saw seemed to make it illegal to say that Jews killed Jesus or to employ double standards in criticisms of Israel. It's finals time, and I'm only semi-paying attention to this stuff...not even looking up a link, as you can see.

Just complaining and expressing my near-total lack of surprise at what may or may not but probably is going on.

Anyway. The right's always been a bit shaky on free speech, and has turned into its Staunch Defender basically as part of their anti-woke initiative.