E. Jean Carroll awarded more defamation money

The New Neo Posted on by

It was a foregone conclusion that the NY court would once again rule that Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll, award her money for it, and that he would plan to appeal:

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, an appointee of former President Clinton who oversaw the trial, had already ruled Trump defamed Carroll. The jury merely considered the issue of damages.

The former president claimed — and still does — that Carroll was lying and made up the accusation to sell her book. He told The Hill in a 2019 interview that Carroll was “not my type.”

At a CNN town hall event last May, Trump called Carroll a “whack job” and insisted he did not know her.

I don’t think lawsuits like this one should be actionable, whether they be against Trump or anyone else. It should not be legally actionable defamation to say your accuser is lying about you and that you’re not sexually attracted to her. Nor was Trump ever found criminally liable for raping her, because the statute of limitations had run out by the time she made her accusations. I doubt her rape case would have held up in a criminal court anyway – unless it was a court composed of jurors or a judge who hated the defendant.

I don’t know when this sort of lawsuit became a thing. I don’t recall it from my law school days. I’m having trouble finding articles that describe the history of the legal doctrine that allows it; this one is about all I could locate, although it’s not as informative as I’d like. The gist of it is that such actions rest at least somewhat on a 1990 case known as Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Company, which involved these facts:

Michael Milkovich, Maple Heights High School’s wrestling coach, testified at a hearing concerning a physical altercation at a recent wrestling meet. After the hearing, Theodore Diadiun published an article in the local newspaper saying that anyone at the wrestling meet “knows in their heart” that Milkovich lied at the hearing. Milkovich sued Diadiun and the paper for defamation, alleging that the article accused him of perjury, damaged his occupation, and constituted libel.

However, the fact situation is quite different there from Trump’s. IMHO, a person who feels he’s been unjustly accused of rape or any other crime should be allowed to say so and to call his accuser a liar without incurring liability.

Who stands with Texas

The New Neo Posted on by

I was wondering about the position the border guards would take. Would they stand with the Biden administration or Texas?

For the moment, it’s Texas for the win:

In other news, twenty-five state governors have pledged support for Texas. The map of the twenty-five states has an interesting shape: with blocks in the central areas, north central areas, and the southeast, plus little old New Hampshire up there in the upper right all alone and big old Alaska in the upper left all alone.

The International Court of Justice [sic] issues an admonition to Israel to do what it’s already been doing; plus UNRWA decides that inciting future terrorists is fine but employing active terrorists and kidnappers might be a no-no

The New Neo Posted on by

The International Court of Justice has decided that finding Israel guilty of genocide against Palestinians was just too big and sticky a pill for even its Israel-hating jurists to swallow this time, and settled for a stern warning to Israel to make sure not to commit genocide. The Court even managed to cough up a demand that Hamas return the Israeli hostages.

Israel will of course comply, not because the ICJ has any teeth, but because Israel has never had any intention to commit genocide, and anyone with a functioning brain knows it. Hamas will of course not comply. The whole sorry “legal” spectacle has been another example of the impotence of “international law” in such matters, except as propaganda:

The substance of the ruling is not specific, but generally demands Israel live up to its obligations under the genocide convention. It did not “order” an immediate ceasefire.

It’s a toothless order, but will be used against Israel despite it not being a finding that Israel committed genocide. …

The only bright spot was the statement at the end that the ICJ expresses concerns for the hostages and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.

The vote was 15-2. The Uganda judge wrote a dissent that read in part this way:

South Africa has not demonstrated, even on a prima facie basis, that the acts allegedly committed by Israel and of which the Applicant complains, were committed with the necessary genocidal intent, and that as a result, they are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention — Similarly, since the acts allegedly committed by Israel were not accompanied by a genocidal intent, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the rights it asserts and for which it seeks protection through the indication of provisional measures are plausible under the Genocide Convention — The provisional measures indicated by the Court in this Order are not warranted.

Interestingly Israel-friendly. I looked up Israel/Uganda relations and didn’t find a whole bunch about the current situation, but it doesn’t seem antagonistic these days. I was also surprised to read that Uganda has a Jewish community of converts, and that Chabad has a center in the country.

Netanyahu’s comment on the ICJ ruling was as follows:

I think this encapsulates the situation: “The charge of genocide leveled against Israel is not only false, it’s outrageous.”

In case you’re wondering, the ICJ is “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.” In other UN news, our State Department made this announcement:

The United States is extremely troubled by the allegations that twelve UNRWA employees may have been involved in the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel. The Department of State has temporarily paused additional funding for UNRWA while we review these allegations and the steps the United Nations is taking to address them.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke with United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres on January 25 to emphasize the necessity of a thorough and swift investigation of this matter. We welcome the decision to conduct such an investigation and Secretary General Guterres’ pledge to take decisive action to respond, should the allegations prove accurate. We also welcome the UN’s announcement of a “comprehensive and independent” review of UNRWA. There must be complete accountability for anyone who participated in the heinous attacks of October 7.

UNRWA has been educating Palestinians in hatred of Israelis and Jews for many decades, and the evidence has been overwhelming for many decades. What’s new? Evidence of direct involvement of UNRWA employees in terrorist acts as perpetrators. Otherwise, I don’t see UNRWA or the UN doing any soul-searching about its role in brainwashing Palestinians and the rest of the world to hate Jews. Any “decisive action” would probably be limited to firing these particular people if the evidence of their guilt is overwhelming (perhaps video evidence and/or testimony of released hostages?). I would be very surprised if it amounts to any more than that.

What’s going on at the border in Texas?

The New Neo Posted on by

Why is Biden – or the Biden administration – making such a stink about Texas’ barbed wire on the border? It would seem to me that now, not too long before a presidential election, wouldn’t be the ideal time for the administration to draw more attention to its lax attitude towards illegal arrivals into the US. After all, it’s not a very popular policy.

Of course, those who believe that the Democrats are going to be heavily into fraud this election cycle and therefore have nothing to fear would also assume that the administration simply don’t care how it looks to the voters. But even so, surely there’s a limit to how much election fraud is possible, and there must be a point beyond which angering the electorate might matter in the outcome?

Andrew C. McCarthy has this to say about the Texas standoff [emphasis mine]:

This dispute will play out politically more than legally. The “Civil War” talk is hyperbole, driven by Democrats who grasp that Biden’s position is not politically sustainable, especially with Election Day just months away. This is why Biden is desperate to cut a deal with moderate Senate Republicans. When that falls apart — not because of Donald Trump’s machinations but because it is a terrible deal for the country — Biden will either have to cave (i.e., engage in actual border enforcement and refrain from interfering in state border enforcement) or seek election as the president who is suing the beleaguered people of Texas on behalf of illegal aliens — having ushered into the country more than 6 million of them (more than the population of 33 states).

If we’re going to talk about who is defying the law, that’s easy — it’s Biden, not Texas. When it is said that the states must comply with federal law, that means statutory law, not the whims of the executive branch. Biden’s policy is not federal law. Federal law, which the president refuses to faithfully execute, calls for detention. As I have explained before, Biden’s actions are in gross violation of the law.

Nor is Texas, by insisting on keeping the barrier, defying the SCOTUS ruling. The Court only declined to stop the feds from removing the wire. That doesn’t mean that Texas can’t stop the feds from removing the wire, and it doesn’t mean that Texas can’t replace the wire if the feds manage to remove it.

After the SCOTUS ruling, the Biden administration issued some demands:

The DHS maintained in its letter that it had the upper ground in terms of legal ground that allowed its personnel to be on city land along the border. It cited the U.S. Code, in which the department acquired permanent real estate interests in and around Eagle Pass in 2008 to build border wall barriers in the vicinity.

“Because the Department owns property rights to the areas depicted on the attached map, we demand that you immediately remove any and all obstructions on it,” Meyer said. …

The Biden administration had threatened Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) with legal action on Jan. 14 if Texas did not relinquish control of land, but has not followed up with a lawsuit.

As far as I can tell, that’s where it stands at the moment.

Our lopsided system of justice marches on: Navarro sentenced for contempt of Congress

The New Neo Posted on by

Peter Navarro gets sentenced to four months in prison because he was an aide to Trump.

Oh, excuse me; I got that wrong. It just appears that’s the reason he was sentenced, because those on the left often commit the same offense – contempt of Congress – and pay no penalty. Sound familiar?:

Peter Navarro, who served in the White House under former President Donald Trump, was sentenced Thursday for flouting a House Jan. 6 committee subpoena.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta sentenced Navarro to four months in prison and ordered him to pay a fine of $9,500.

“Flouting a House committee subpoena.” Have you ever heard of such a nefarious thing? Quelle horreur!

More [emphasis mine]:

A former adviser to the president on trade and manufacturing policies, Navarro was convicted in September of two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena for documents and a deposition from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. The subpoena required Navarro to appear and produce documents in February 2022, and sit for a deposition in March 2022, but Navarro refused to provide the materials and testify. As a private citizen, he was indicted on June 2, 2022.

In announcing the sentencing decision, Mehta cited how Navarro had claimed a “two-tier system of justice” and described the Jan. 6 committee as a “kangaroo court.”

“I have made clear my confusion about his arrest when he could have been offered self-surrender… The idea that he is subject to a two-tiered system of justice when he’s sitting here with 4 very capable lawyers is a real head-scratcher,” the judge said. “The words executive privilege are not magical dust… it’s not a get out of jail free card. To not engage with the committee to work through the issues… to simply not engage, there’s no basis for it.”

Is this judge for real? Surely he’s aware that the DOJ has huge resources and those it charges must pay, and those “4 very capable lawyers” don’t come cheap. The decision to charge is the first disparity. That “kangaroo court” aspect was in full flower in the J6 defendants’ cases, because if the same thing had happened with the perps being on the left, they either would not have been charged or gotten a mere slap on the wrist. Anyone paying attention knows that, and also knows that if people are Democrats and they are in contempt of Congress they don’t get charged by the DOJ and they don’t go to prison. Also, of course, guilty verdicts for people on the right are a given if they are tried in a DC court – the supposedly clueless Mehta is in DC – whereas for people on the left it’s a different story.

None other than the WaPo pointed out back in 2022 (when Steve Bannon was the target) that prison terms for contempt of Congress are a real rarity:

Stephen K. Bannon could become one the first people sent to jail for contempt of Congress since the “Hollywood Ten” in 1948.

A federal jury in D.C. on Friday convicted the former White House chief strategist on two charges of refusing to comply with a subpoena to testify before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by supporters of former president Donald Trump. Each of the two charges is punishable by 30 days-to-one-year in jail, as well as a $100,000 fine. Sentencing was scheduled for Oct. 21.

Contempt of Congress is rarely prosecuted and even more rarely leads to jail time. Among the last people to be locked up for it were the 10 men known as the “Hollywood Ten” — movie writers, directors and producers who refused to tell the controversial House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) whether they were Communists.

That was close to 75 years ago and the politics were rather different, to say the least.

Can’t even imagine why Navarro would call the proceedings a kangaroo court or evidence of a two-tier system of justice.

“The server cannot process this request … “

The New Neo Posted on by

” … because it is malformed. It is not advisable to try again. That is all we know.”

That’s a message I got today when trying to sign in to an email account. It was accompanied by a little schematic drawing of an old-fashioned science fiction type of robot in broken pieces.

I tried again. It worked just fine.

What gives? I’ve never gotten a message like that before. And who is this “we,” kimosabe?

It’s not exactly “Gazans for Israel’s right to exist,” but it’s something

The New Neo Posted on by

I believe this may just reflect the desire for a pause in the fighting so they can destroy Israel another day. Nevertheless, this is interesting. although the group is small:

By the way, I’m puzzled by people who say that if Hamas returns the hostages the war ends. Israel can’t afford to do that; Hamas has shown its hand.

Watching the sausage being made in Arizona: Lake versus DeWit

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s a saying that laws are like sausages and it’s best not to watch them being made. Politics can be an ugly, smelly, and repellent business as well.

So this just might give you indigestion:

The UK’s Daily Mail has released audio of Jeff DeWit, the leader of Arizona’s Republican Party, that appears to show him trying to bribe MAGA stun-gun Kari Lake not to run for the Senate. The tape starts with DeWit asking Lake to name her price to stay out of politics for two years.

“Just say, is there a number at which—” DeWit begins to ask before Lake interrupts and asks, “I can be bought? That’s what it’s about.”

“Not to be bought. To take a pause for a couple of years,” DeWit continues.

“No, no. Ten million, 20 million, 30, no. No. A billion, no, no,” Lake fires back. “This is not about money, it’s about our country.”

DeWit continues by stating that there are “powerful people” “back East” who want Lake to take a break from politics. He even states he, too, wants a “fresh face,” referring to the impending Senate election in Arizona this November.

My guess is that Lake herself made the recording of DeWit.

Today DeWit resigned, saying (among other things) that the conversation was taken out of context and selectively edited. It’s possible, I suppose, and I would like to have access to the entire conversation. But the part that was released certainly sounded bad for DeWit. However, could he just be reporting what others have offered her in order to quit? – although why he’d be their mouthpiece if he’s innocent I’m not sure. Is there another part of the recording in which he says that he backs her and he’s just warning her that others are out for her? That would be interesting, although not definitive.

About party affiliation and the NH primary

The New Neo Posted on by

I want to clear some things up about the New Hampshire primary. In New Hampshire, there are 44% who are Democrats or lean Democrat, 35% who are Republicans or lean Republican, and 20% who report no lean. The latter group would represent the true Independents, if there be such a thing. The state has Republican state officials and Democrat federal representatives, which I suppose makes it officially purple. But on the federal level it is blue. Except for the year 2000, New Hampshire has voted for the Democrat in every presidential election since 1992.

But the voter registration rolls are a bit different. Because New Hampshire has long had an important position in the primaries, many people who are not Independents nevertheless register as “undeclared” (there is no other way to register as an Independent in NH). This gives them the freedom to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primaries. All they have to do, as an undeclared voter, is to ask for either ballot when they enter the polling venue. They can’t vote in both, of course. But they can vote in either.

This means that there is great incentive for people to register as “undeclared.” Voting in one primary or other changes their affiliation to that party, but they can change it right back that very day before they exit the place. That’s how it works, and so it was tailor-made for people on the left to vote for Nikki Haley if they wished to do so. But that’s not just a phenomenon this year; it happens in other years, in particular when the other party has an incumbent and therefore a non-competitive race. If both races are competitive, it’s less likely to feature crossover undeclared votes for the simple reason that there is far more motivation to vote in the primary of the party one wants to vote for in the general.

As far as registration numbers go, 30.28% of the voters are registered Democrats, 29.82% are registered Republicans, and 39.90% are unaffiliated (also sometimes called undeclared at other sites). Therefore I think we can safely say that at least half of the undeclared voters actually lean to one party or other, and more of them are Democrats. The people who are registered as being members of a certain party are also able to change their affiliation, with a deadline a few months prior to the primaries.

All of this is relevant to the statistic I’ve read, which is that 70% of Haley’s votes were not registered Republicans. This is made easier by the NH system of primary voting. I don’t know how it compares to other “moderate” candidates in previous years, though, because I’ve never read statistics on it, but a quick search located this:

In 2000, 62 percent of undeclared voters chose the Republican ballot — and 61 percent of that group voted for John McCain, helping him defeat George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary. But in the 2008 primary, when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off on the Democratic side, the group flipped, with 62 percent taking the Democratic ballot. Mrs. Clinton emerged as the winner.

This year [2016], undeclared voters are finding their decision especially daunting.

“I am truly, completely undecided,” said Barbara Wilson, 64, of Henniker, who said she liked both Democratic candidates, as well as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. “I have no earthly idea what I’m going to do at the end of the day.” …

Then there is strategy to consider, with some undecided voters debating not just which candidates they like best, but also which primary would allow their votes to have a greater impact. The Democratic primary has been fairly static, with Mr. Sanders holding a sizable lead over Mrs. Clinton. But the Republican race feels up for grabs.

So you can see that this is an old story in New Hampshire.