Senator Menendez (D-NJ) and his wife are indicted for bribery: what might be behind it?

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the news:

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and his wife have been charged with bribery over their alleged acceptance of “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in return for the use of the senator’s influence to enrich three New Jersey businessmen and benefit the Egyptian government, according to an indictment filed in Manhattan federal court that was made public Friday.

The charges include conspiracy to commit bribery, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right. The bribes the couple received included “cash, gold bars, payments toward a home mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job, a luxury vehicle and other items of value,” the indictment alleges.

Federal agents said they discovered many of the items when they executed search warrants on the couple’s home in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, in June 2022. …

Menendez will step down as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee while the case proceeds, a source close to him said on Friday.

Menendez denied the charges and said that prosecutors have “misrepresented the normal work of a Congressional office” and are attempting to “dig my political grave.”

Neither of the articles I linked mentioned politics, but that’s what the discussion is about on blogs on the right. Why Menendez, and why now? He’s a Democrat, after all; aren’t they ordinarily immune? The amount he is alleged to have gotten is relative chicken feed compared to the Bidens’ take.

Menendez may indeed be crooked. I’m going to assume there’s a great deal of that sort of thing going around. He’s been indicted before on similar charges involving different people, and I’ve written about that. Let’s take a look. For example, in March of 2015 I wrote this about the charges back then:

This case has been smoldering for quite some time. So the timing of the [announcement of pending charges against Menendez] could be just a coincidence. But it’s certainly “interesting” that it has come right after the Iran deal controversy in which Menendez featured so prominently as a leading Democrat who joined with Republicans to vociferously criticize Obama …

Menendez has long been a critic of the Iran deal, perhaps the only Democrat who can claim that status. He also recently (September 6) voiced “concerns” about Biden’s Iran prisoner swap. It seemed to me back in 2015, and it seems to me now, that he is being punished for this sort of thing. Otherwise, he would be protected Isn’t Biden working on a new Iran deal? And now Menendez won’t be chairman of that Foreign Relations Committee. The case also might be seen as a distraction from Joe’s bribery woes.

NOTE: By the way, Menendez and his wife were married in 2020, so this is a recent relationship.

Who “deserves” it?

The New Neo Posted on by

I often see remarks such as that of commenter “Wendy Brown,” who writes (the first sentence in the comment is a quote from another comment in the thread):

“If Trump is the nominee, a large segment of the GOP and the independents won’t support him.”

Then they deserve Joe Biden and his open borders.

And if Trump is not the nominee, and a significant segment of his supporters in the GOP as well as some independents decide to not support the eventual GOP nominee, do they also “deserve Joe Biden and his open borders”?

One of the main troubles with this sort of sentiment is that “Joe Biden and his open borders” – or whatever a victorious Biden and the Democrats would do – isn’t just visited on the segment who voted for him. Such consequences are visited on the entire country.

So it always puzzles me when people write that sort of thing about “deserving.” It reminds me of being a child in school, when certain people in the class misbehaved and we all were made to stay after school in detention. I bristled at the idea of group punishment for the actions of a part of the group, and I would sit at my desk for the duration, silently seething.

As a country we are all carried along by whatever happens as a result of an election. As Obama once famously said, “elections have consequences.” Indeed they do, and with the parties far more polarized than they used to be, the consequences can be more and more dramatic and dire. Those on the right who nitpick about this and that, and refuse to vote for the nominee, are definitely enabling the election of the left. But although I don’t think we all “deserve” the consequences, we all experience them.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

Each of these events deserves a post of its own. But I’m only one person:

(1) Kendi’s in trouble, a case of leftists eating their own. I’ve written a lot about Kendi before; see this.

(2) Here’s my current position on Trump. I think he will be the nominee, and I think he will probably be defeated in the general. I prefer other candidates but not only do I think they won’t be nominated, I also think they’d probably be defeated in the general, for a host of reasons too numerous to mention here. And so I welcome any news that Trump has done something savvy that will enhance his changes of winning the general if nominated, and I consider that this news fits that description:

Politico reports that the Biden camp is concerned that Trump’s campaign may be a bit more savvy than it has been credit for. Trump is skipping the next debate to go to Detroit. There, he will speak to striking auto workers.

(3) Jonathan Turley writes about yesterday’s testimony from Merrick Garland:

(4) The border is no more, but Governor Abbott vows to fight:

Governor Greg Abbott announced an hour ago that he officially declared an invasion at the southern border today and he’s going to begin repelling it.

He sent a letter to Joe Biden and declared that he’s sending troops to the border and they are building a wall, deploying razor wire and marine barriers to protect his state from the Mexican drug cartels since Biden won’t do it:

He wrote: “The federal government’s failure has forced me to invoke Article I, § 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, thereby enabling the State of Texas to protect its own territory against invasion by the Mexican drug cartels.”

(5) Speaking of the border, see also this:

When White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre repeats the talking point that President Biden has “done more than anyone else” to secure the border and deal with illegal immigration, as she did again last week, what she really means is that under Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, uncontrolled illegal immigration is not something federal officials are trying to stop, it’s something they’re trying to facilitate and manage.

The numbers tell the tale.

Note that word “facilitate.”

On the selection of Republican presidential nominees

The New Neo Posted on by

I noticed a discussion in today’s open thread about the process of choosing the GOP’s presidential nominees over the years. As I’ve often noticed before – not just on this blog, but generally in blogs on the right – there’s a suggestion on the part of some people that the GOP leadership is doing the choosing. It’s as though we were still in the days of the “smoke-filled rooms” of yesteryear, when the party bigwigs really did choose the nominee. But for many decades that’s no longer been true; the GOP primaries are even more populist than the Democrat ones, due to the latter being subject to superdelegates.

That doesn’t mean the Republican party leadership has no say. There are various ways to try to manipulate things, including (but not limited to) setting the primary schedule and making decisions about how the debates will be run. But the people get to vote in primaries. What I have observed is that there are usually so many candidates that the vote is very split in the early days, and if there are too many candidates from one wing of the party, it’s hard for a clear frontrunner to emerge and someone else can take the lead even though that person may not have anywhere near a plurality. Things narrow down over time, but often a candidate is nominated whom a large wing of the party dislikes.

The other thing people often ignore is that in many years the field just isn’t all that good. As commenter “Bauxite” writes:

But if you look at the GOP primaries from 2008 and 2012, I think they reinforce the conclusion that the party had historically weak candidate pools in those years. In 2008, McCain was still the hated insurgent and ended up as the “establishment” candidate simply because they didn’t have anyone better. If you remember, McCain’s primary campaign was going so poorly at one point that he was down to handful of staffers and flying to campaign events on commercial flights. Romney in 2012 had a whale of a time putting away Newt Gingrich (already a decade and a half after he resigned the Speakership in failure) and Santorum (who had been pounded in Pennsylvania in 2006).

So yes, after all of the GOP victories during the Obama years, we have a much stronger crop of presidential candidates than we did in 2008 and 2012. I would take DeSantis, Haley, Scott, and Bergum over anyone who ran in 2008 and 2012.

Yes, but it’s almost a done deal that in 2024 Trump will be the nominee. The reason is that he already has about half the GOP voters in his pocket. That’s really not all that many, considering that he’s a sort-of-incumbent. But ’tis enough, ’twill serve.

Whatever happened to “independent journalist” John Sullivan, who filmed the killing of Ashli Babbitt?

The New Neo Posted on by

In connection with yesterdays’ thread about a man claiming to be an “independent journalist” who has been convicted for the Capitol breach on J6, commenter “gallchobhair” has this question:

Does anyone happen to remember what ultimately happened to “journalist” John Sullivan, who gleefully filmed the Ashli Babbitt murder? If I recall correctly, he got off pretty much scot free.

I hadn’t thought of him in a long while, but he certainly got a lot of attention at the time. Most of the articles about him were written in the initial weeks after the event. But I found an update from this past August:

John Earl Sullivan, arrested in Salt Lake City, no date listed. Indicted on 2/3/21 and pleaded not guilty to six counts. Remains free on personal recognizance.

You can see that he was quickly arrested and indicted and then released. That was two and a half years ago. I found more in an article from May of 2021 which stated that money Sullivan had gotten from the sale of the Babbitt video was confiscated by the feds. And in his Wiki profile, it says this about the conditions of his quick release:

He was released as the authorities did not have sufficient proof to keep him in custody, and under the conditions that he keeps a job where he has to work full-time; remains at home except to go to work, church or court; only posts to social media to request jobs; does not leave Utah and surrenders his passport to the authorities; does not work anymore with Insurgence USA though still being allowed to handle its financial transactions and tax returns; has a mental health evaluation; does not possess firearms.

You may recall that Sullivan was somewhat of a mysterious figure who was suspected of being in league with the left. What do the authorities mean about not having sufficient proof? From what I’ve read, they had plenty of video of Sullivan’s activities, which were not among the most innocuous. It seems to me that some people were kept in custody for a long time with a lot less proof of any particular wrongdoing, but it’s hard to get any details on this. I’d love to see a breakdown of which people they kept incarcerated and why, versus those they quickly released.

The charges against Sullivan: “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Civil Disorder; Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, o rPicketing in a Capitol Building; Aiding and Abetting.”

Will Sullivan ever be tried? Perhaps, but I predict that if he is tried he will get some sort of sweetheart deal like Epps: a misdemeanor charge, perhaps even with a suspended sentence, and a promise not to prosecute him for other actions committed on January 6th.

NOTE: Stephen Horn, the J6 “independent journalist” who was convicted a couple of days ago, also had not been incarcerated after his initial arraignment. And his trial also took a long time to occur. However, his involvement in any riot activities was far less than Sullivan’s – in fact, as far as I can tell, it was non-existent.

J6 independent journalist convicted

The New Neo Posted on by

The DC jurors also convicted a ham sandwich along with Steven Horn:

Stephen Horn was found guilty of entering or remaining in a restricted area, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in the Capitol building.

In a post to X, Horn wrote, “I told the same truth to the jury that I posted along with my video on January 7th: ‘I did not enter the capitol building as part of the protest, or for cheap thrills, but to accurately document and record a significant event which was taking place.'”

It doesn’t appear that anyone thought he was there for any other reason. I’m surprised they didn’t try to charge him with spying for his attempt at reporting.

The J6 convictions are a travesty; that’s the reason for my “ham sandwich” remark in the first sentence of this post. It is probably good advice to anyone on the right wishing to demonstrate – even peacefully – against anything to avoid doing it in DC, because if the federal government wishes to get you they will get you by using the DC “justice” system to do it.

There’s also this:

And we should not forget Ray Epps, a curious case of DOJ leniency – almost as curious as Hunter Biden’s initial plea deal, and probably motivated by similar factors:

Housing first

The New Neo Posted on by

They’re the homeless, right? So they need housing, right? Only problem is that “homeless,” once a relatively descriptive term, has become only the tip of the iceberg of the problems of the “homeless” – now often referred to by the woke with the euphemism “unhoused.” That makes the problem seem far more simple than it is and far more soluble. But mental illness, substance abuse, and criminal activity of many kinds are a lot more difficult to deal with, and to a large degree they are the drivers of homelessness today.

Therefore, I don’t see how the solution called “housing first” could even have looked good on paper. Maybe it appealed because it didn’t cast blame; the problem and the solution would reside outside the messy realm of personal responsibility or personal flaws. And a “housing first” approach does make one aspect of the problem less visible by getting at least many of the homeless off the streets, and makes the city look less like the slums of Calcutta.

Only problem is, that’s probably all it does [emphasis mine]:

One resident threatens a security guard with a Taser. Another menaces a tenant with a “big kitchen knife.” Serious mental illness either goes untreated or is not treated effectively. One “savvy and resourceful” resident uses her apartment to fence stolen retail goods to fund her heroin habit. Not only is drug use normalized, causing a wave of overdoses; drug dealing in the building is also common. The local police precinct considers the building a “hot spot.” Those few residents who don’t use drugs report feeling socially isolated. Meantime, the program promotes “communal use,” so as to reduce the risk of fatal overdoses.

At the end of the article, readers learn that 16 inhabitants of the building died, mainly of suspected overdoses, in just the first eight months of this year. With 305 apartments for the formerly homeless in the building, this represents a death rate of about 5 percent, though the actual rate is probably higher because apartments were not filled until partway through that time …

The program’s high death rate owes to several factors. Private apartments are more accommodating to drug use than congregate-style shelters. They also provide addicts more time and funds to get high—a problem that researchers have elsewhere called the “check effect.”

Most importantly, this Housing First program, like many nationwide, gives preferential treatment to those addicted to drugs and alcohol. Those who stay sober and are trying to get their life together are left on the street, while those who can show they are abusing drugs get a brand-new private apartment. To say that this sends the wrong message to the homeless is an understatement.

It seems like the program “works” by rewarding those homeless people with the worst behavior, allowing them to go to the front of the housing line. These are perverse incentives.