So, what was the crime of sedition? To help us understand, here are the instructions given to jurors for seditious conspiracy. The government’s burden of proof in this trial was basically nonexistent—not that a jury picked from a city of nearly all Democrats requires much evidence before finding a Trump supporter guilty of any concocted charge. In the indictment,
This essentially could apply to any protest in the future and certainly could have applied to the 2017 inauguration riots and 2018 Kavanaugh demonstrations.
What follows is a legal document that can’t be cut and pasted, and it’s well worth it to follow the link and read it. It’s not tremendously lengthy. The gist of it, however, is that – like conspiracy laws in general, which I’ve always found dangerously broad, even back when I was a Democrat and a law student – not all that much is required: at least two people getting together to oppose by force the authority of the government or to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the government. And though force is a required element of the conspiracy, the term is redefined as including the mere threat of violence without any actual acts of violence. Thus, protected speech and protest become crimes under the conspiracy umbrella, if and only if the government chooses to prosecute. In addition, these J6 defendants also got a terrorism enhancement in sentencing, which is highly inappropriate but expanded their sentence lengths very significantly.
Julie Kelly adds:
During closing arguments in the trial, one prosecutor told the jury a “wink and a nod” represented an agreement to join the conspiracy. What a joke.
The left would be outraged at such things if applied to them, but the J6 defendants are no leftists. The cases will be appealed, and one of the commenters to Kelly’s article maintains that SCOTUS will overrule this verdict:
Seditious conspiracy – up to 20 years imprisonment – will be tossed out 9-0 by Supreme Court as overly broad and vague statute, never successfully charged before like this (most all such charges dismissed), except for Puerto Rican nationalists firing 30 rounds onto the House of Reps floor from the gallery in 1954. Gotta get there fast through appeals process. This Civil War statute is a joke as the jury instructions illustrate, as so well pointed out by Julie.
Obstruction of an official proceeding felony (1512c2) – also up to 20 years imprisonment, will also be tossed out at least 6-3 (s/b 9-0) as inapplicable as it only involves the administration of justice where evidence is being presented – and never charged before like this. Two cert petitions have already been filed with SCOTUS as this issue has already been through the Cir Court.
Forget about Judge Kelly. He will be made to look like the fool that he is.
Would that this were true. Maybe it is true. I’m not anywhere near as sanguine as the commenter. And at least some of the overrulings had also better include concurrence from the liberal/left wing of the Court, because if they don’t join, watch for the left to up its campaign to delegitimize SCOTUS and to pack the Court if at all possible.
New York is a so-called “sanctuary state,” one of eleven, and New York City is a sanctuary city. As such, it won’t cooperate with federal immigration authorities on reporting or deporting illegal aliens, and supposedly has a welcoming and protective attitude. A number of those states instituted their sanctuary policies when Trump was president, in a show of opposition to mean old Trump. New York, however, has an earlier history with that status:
New York City became a sanctuary city under Mayor Ed Koch in the 1980s.
Elected officials wanted to make sure asylum seekers would not be afraid to report crimes or enroll their kids in public school and get medical care over fear of being deported. …
Sanctuary city policies have evolved over the years under new administrations and city councils.
Just before President Trump took office then Mayor Bill DeBlasio and the city council speaker re-affirmed the city’s commitment to protecting immigrants.
But talk is cheap. A huge influx of illegal arrivals is fine for nasty states such as Texas, which after all were already full of … Texans. New York didn’t really mean it wanted to deal with illegal immigrants in any sort of numbers. Mayor Adams is not pleased:
Mayor Eric Adams warned that the raging migrant crisis will “destroy” New York City and tore into President Biden for ignoring his pleas for help, saying the White House has given “no support” for the thousands of asylum seekers arriving each month.
“I’m gonna tell you something, New Yorkers, never in my life have I had a problem that I didn’t see an ending to. I don’t see an ending to this,” Adams said at a town hall on the Upper West Side Wednesday night. “This issue will destroy New York City. Destroy New York City.”
Hizzoner took aim at Biden for not stepping in with federal assistance as the city has received more than 110,000 migrants in the past year.
“Month after month I stood up and said this is gonna come to a neighborhood near you. Well, we’re here, we’re getting no support on this national crisis, and we’re receiving no support,” Adams said.
Some are being bused from Texas – estimates are 13,000 total – but since it is also estimated that 10,000 are coming per month to New York City, it seems that the Texas-sent contingent is only a small part of the whole.
“All of us are going to be impacted by this. I said it last year when we had 15,000 and I’m telling you now with 110,000. The city we knew, we’re about to lose, and we are all in this together, all of us,” he added.
Hey Mayor Adams, maybe it’s time to stop being a Democrat and supporting Biden. Because it is Biden and the Democrats who have created this situation, perpetuated it, and defended it. Mayor Adams is one of those people who have been mugged by reality, but I am virtually certain he will not take that next step.
The second installment of “sports you may not have known were sports.” This awakens some dim childhood memories of circuses. The horse seems to take it all in stride:
Julie Kelly has long been one of the best reporters on J6. Now she takes up the subject of Tanya S. Chutkin, the judge presiding over Trump’s DC case.
An excerpt:
But even as she warns Trump about his “inflammatory” language, Chutkan has routinely issued politically charged rulings and made incendiary statements of her own while presiding over some 30 cases involving Trump supporters charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, melee at the U.S. Capitol. …
These include her public assertions that the 2020 election was beyond reproach, that the Jan. 6 protests were orchestrated by Trump, and that the former president is guilty of crimes. She has described Jan. 6 as a “mob attack” on “the very foundation of our democracy” and branded the issue at the heart of the case she is hearing – Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen – a conspiracy theory.
Although judges often make comments from the bench, Chutkan’s strident language raises questions about her impartiality in handling the case against the presumptive GOP nominee for president in 2024.
I suppose you could say it “raises questions.” But I think it actually answers them. This is an exceptionally biased judge, and she has been given a lot of power to interfere with the 2024 election.
And there’s very little chance of changing that, because there is still a presumption in favor of judges’ impartiality:
GOP Rep. Matthew Gaetz of Florida recently filed a resolution to condemn and censure Chutkan for exhibiting “open bias and partisanship in the conduct of her official duties as a judge.”
But if the aim among Trump loyalists is to get a new judge assigned to the case, it’s a steep legal hurdle. Stephen Gillers, a professor of law at New York University, said that typically a judge can be recused for bias or the appearance of bias “only when the purported bias comes from a source outside the judge’s work as a judge.” He continued, “Almost never will a judge be recused for opinions she forms as a judge – in hearing cases and motions. Judges are expected to form opinions based on these?’intrajudicial’ sources. It’s what judges do.
Judge Churkin was appointed by Obama in 2013. No surprise there. He knew exactly what he was doing in making sure DC would be a fertile venue for bringing political federal cases against the enemies of the left.
I come across it constantly in comments and in blog posts on other sites: assertions that some politician, or every politician, in the Republican Party never spoke on a certain topic, never fought against a certain pernicious action of the left, never tried to do a certain thing. And yet very often when I’ve checked – usually a rather simple and quick search – I find it’s not the case and that the person has in fact done some form of that thing or spoken out on just that topic.
The internet has made it rather easy for us all to do such searches. And yet people don’t seem to be doing them much. I think it’s because we all have so much anger at what’s happening to our country that there’s an urge to strike out not just at the left – that’s easy – but at the supposed right who haven’t been able (or in some cases even willing) to stop it. I’ve noticed this as long as I’ve been blogging, which is nineteen years at this point (yikes).
Just to take one example, there’s this comment by “wendybar” I noticed today at Althouse’s. It was on a thread about the Draconian sentence handed down for J6 defendent and Proud Boy Enrique Barrio, who wasn’t even present at J6:
Quit f****** pretending anybody is “protecting democracy”.
Trump is, because he is right. These J6 prisoners are now martyrs for freedom. This is the biggest “issue” in the coming year…
DeSantis and the GOPe field…silent.
I would like to see every GOP candidate – and even some Democrats (a person can dream, right?) speak out against the persecution of the J6 defendants. I agree that many have been way too silent. But have they all been silent about the J6 sentences? No. It was simplicity itself to find coverage of this story from late May, when Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes had just been sentenced to 18 years in prison:
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said Thursday he would prioritize pardoning “victims” of “political targeting,” potentially including the defendants involved with the January 6 attacks on the capitol, a move that could alter sentences like the 18 years handed to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes Thursday. …
From the start of his presidency, he would be “aggressive about issuing pardons” to groups he believes have been politically targeted, such as pro-life demonstrators, he said.
While some cases may involve a true violation of the law, DeSantis said he believes there is an “uneven application of justice” in many incidents—he used the example of a Black Lives Matter protester not getting prosecuted the same as someone involved in January 6.
The article says that Vivek wrote in April that he’d pardon “all federal defendants prosecuted on political motives,” including the January 6 defendants. Also noted is the fact that Trump said back in 2022 he would “treat them fairly – And if it requires pardons we will give them pardons.”
I can’t find anything on the other candidates. That doesn’t mean they haven’t spoken on the subject, although I would be surprised if any of them have issued statements such as those of DeSantis or Ramaswamy. That’s because the rest of the candidates are either running on an anti-Trump platform or are part of the less conservative wing of the GOP.
J6 has generally been one of those third-rail issues – a lot of people on the right are afraid to touch it, because they think it labels them as being on the so-called “far right” and therefore anathema to middle America. I’m not sure it would actually have that effect, and what’s more, I think it’s of vital important to speak out against our incredibly twisted and partisan justice system of politically-motivated trials and especially the lengthy sentences.
NOTE: As I’ve said many times, I strongly believe Trump will get the nomination. The election itself is quite far away, and many events could happen prior to that time (including a change of candidate for the Democrats), but I also believe the GOP is likely to lose the general.
Once again, I offer a huge “thank you!” to every single person who has contributed so far, and to all those who contribute at other times of year. I am so very grateful to you all, and to all the readers and commenters here.
Just a reminder for the rest of the year: if anyone wants to contribute to thenewneo, click on the Paypal button either to the right or at the bottom of the page, depending on what sort of device you use when reading the blog. If the Paypal button isn’t showing, disable your adblocker and that should make it visible. And of course there’s also the Amazon portal.
Tourists are flocking to the Big Apple to check out its exploding rat population — and tour guides are tailoring excursions to introduce them to the city’s most beady-eyed natives.
Kenny Bollwerk maps out late-night rat routes near Rockefeller Center and in Flushing and Sunnyside, Queens.
Luke Miller, owner of Real New York Tours, adds a stop to Columbus Park near Chinatown for tourists with a yen for vermin. …
Such fascination may have begun seven years ago when New York City’s most famous rodent, the Pizza Rat, drew 12 million viewers to an online video of it trekking down subway stairs.
Why are there so many rats in New York? Like many other elements of life these days, it seems to be a result – a bonus, let’s say – of the pandemic lockdown rules. Thanks, health authorities! In the case of the rats, the cause seems to have been the proliferation of outdoor dining without a great deal of forethought about rat amelioration.
But even without the encouragement afforded by outdoor dining, no wonder rats were fairly ubiquitous even before the present surge:
[New York City’s] rat population is dominated by the brown rat (also known as the Norway rat). The average adult body weight is 350 grams (12 oz) in males and about 250 grams (8.8 oz) in females. The adult rat can squeeze through holes or gaps the size of a quarter (0.955 inches), jump a horizontal distance of up to 4 feet (1.2 m) (or vertically from a flat surface to 3 feet (0.91 m)), survive a fall from a height of almost 40 feet (12 m), and tread water for three days.
For much of my early lifetime, a rat civil war was going on in New York City. Who knew?:
As recently as 1944, two distinct species were prevalent: the brown rat (Norway rat) and the black rat (ship rat, roof rat). Over the next few decades, the more aggressive brown variety displaced the black rats, typically by attacking and killing them, but also by outcompeting them for food and shelter. By 2014, the city’s rat population was dominated by the brown rat.
Both rat species once coexisted with each other in human dwellings by filling different niches; black rats are arboreal, preferring dry, thatched roofs and attics, while brown rats are mainly burrowers, seeking cool ground levels and basements.
Black rats were the first to travel from Asia to Europe in significant numbers. They most likely traveled on trade ships from India to Egypt around 3000 BC…
Over a millennium after black rats, brown rats arrived in Europe. In 1727 AD, an enormous number of brown rats left eastern Asia for Europe. Although small groups of brown rats probably already lived in Europe, there had never been a mass exodus like this: Witnesses saw thousands of brown rats swim across the Volga, the largest European river, as they headed westward across Russia. Some speculate that an earthquake caused this migration, but it remains a mystery. Reaching England in the late 1720s, their arrival from the East was misattributed to passage on Norwegian ships and so they were labeled Rattus norvegicus.
Brown rats quickly spread throughout Europe, displacing the black rat, and entrenching themselves inseparably with the European lifestyle by 1800. Favorable factors helped brown rats displace black rats. The Great Fire of London in 1666 caused previously wooden buildings and thatched roofs, perfect for black rats, to be replaced by lead, tile, and brick. Burrowing brown rats could still dig into and around these new buildings, but black rats lost their upper-story lodgings. Similar housing updates were occurring throughout Europe. This, combined with brown rats’ physiological advantages over black rats, helped clinch the victory. While black rats weigh around half a pound, brown rats weigh nearly one pound, with records of 3.5 pounds. Brown rats can also survive harsh weather and eat nearly anything. While black rats are still dominant in the tropics today, brown rats are now found nearly worldwide thanks to their travels with humans.
That anecdote about the mass rat migration in 1727 seems like a tall tale, but I’ve seen several references to it and I suppose it might be true. Weird.
As noted, the Norway (brown) rat has nothing to do with Norway, although it exists there as it does everywhere on earth except Antarctica and Alberta, Canada.
Alberta, Canada? you ask. What’s so special about Alberta?
Alberta, Canada, is the largest rat-free populated area in the world. Rat invasions of Alberta were stopped and rats were eliminated by very aggressive government rat control measures, starting during the 1950s.
The only species of Rattus that is capable of surviving the climate of Alberta is the brown rat, which can only survive in the prairie region of the province, and even then must overwinter in buildings. Although it is a major agricultural area, Alberta is far from any seaport and only a portion of its eastern boundary with Saskatchewan provides a favorable entry route for rats. Brown rats cannot survive in the wild boreal forest to the north, the Rocky Mountains to the west, nor can they safely cross the semiarid High Plains of Montana to the south. The first brown rat did not reach Alberta until 1950, and in 1951, the province launched a rat-control program that included shooting, poisoning, and gassing rats, and bulldozing, burning down, and blowing up rat-infested buildings. The effort was backed by legislation that required every person and every municipality to destroy and prevent the establishment of designated pests. If they failed, the provincial government could carry out the necessary measures and charge the costs to the landowner or municipality…
By 1960, the number of rat infestations in Alberta had dropped to below 200 per year. In 2002, the province finally recorded its first year with zero rat infestations, and from 2002 to 2007 there were only two infestations found. After an infestation of rats in the Medicine Hat landfill was found in 2012, the province’s rat-free status was questioned, but provincial government rat control specialists brought in excavating machinery, dug out, shot, and poisoned 147 rats in the landfill, and no live rats were found thereafter. In 2013, the number of rat infestations in Alberta dropped to zero again. Alberta defines an infestation as two or more rats found at the same location, since a single rat cannot reproduce. About a dozen single rats enter Alberta in an average year and are killed by provincial rat control specialists before they can reproduce.
Only zoos, universities, and research institutes are allowed to keep caged rats in Alberta, and possession of unlicensed rats (including pet rats) by anyone else is punishable by a penalty of up to $5,000 or up to 60 days in jail. The adjacent and similarly landlocked province of Saskatchewan initiated a rat control program in 1972, and has managed to reduce the number of rats in the province substantially, although they have not been eliminated. The Saskatchewan rat control program has considerably reduced the number of rats trying to enter Alberta.
As I said—war, in this case not a rat civil war but an interspecies conflict. In 2017, when I did much of the research for this post (large portions of which existed in draft until now, minus the introduction about New York), New Zealand was about to embark on a similar endeavor under circumstances somewhat less favorable to human victory. The plan is to eliminate rats and several other types of vermin by 2050; here’s an interesting update on how it’s going.
I cannot stand rats, not even pet rats. I’ve seen huge ones in the NY subways near the tracks, and that was long before COVID. I’ve seen them rooting around in New England near various buildings. The Eastern ones are brown rats, but in California I’ve seen the black variety. Back when I was married and we used to visit my then-husband’s parents in California and swim in their pool, he was kind enough to stay mum about the fact that once or twice he had found a drowned rat in the pool and quietly removed it before I saw it because he knew I’d probably never go in that pool again if he were to tell me about it in real time (I only learned much later; he told me after the house was sold). And when I originally did the research for this post, I had just experienced a startling late-night encounter with a rat in a house in California. I may or may not tell that tale sometime.
I wish to interject, as an ex-leftist, that the left is not a group of masterminds calculating their next move as in chess.
The left is a complex set of subgroups working in affinity but not top-down. They throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.
In 1999 the Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization were the big deal. Old leftist strategy: rich vs poor.
In 2011 Occupy Wall St. continued the rich vs. poor, but though expectations were sky-high the whole project collapsed. It didn’t capture mainstream popularity and the tent city squalor (looking forward to today) was considered a horror even by liberals.
However, what sold like wildfire was Obama’s blatant sowing of racial division. So that’s where we are today.
The left does what works, at least in terms of maintaining and extending its power.
No question that the left is not a monolithic group, much less one composed entirely of “masterminds.” But it doesn’t have to be. Like all groups, there are leaders and followers, and like many groups, the organization of the many elements on the left is loose or sometimes nonexistent or even in conflict. Remember this old clip from the brilliant Monty Python 1979 movie Life of Brian?
Lots of “splitters.”
But let’s not make the mistake of thinking there are no planners, and no very clever ones. There are many planners on the left, and there are also groups with hierarchies. Not everything they try works, but I have little doubt that they strategize and plan. Why do we know Alinsky’s name, for example? Because his most well-known work was a set of tactical rules for guiding the left to victory. And of course Obama was an Alinskyite – in fact, a trainer:
Alinsky synthesized his theory of political agitation is his famous 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals”, considered a founding text of modern community organizing and a classic of radical-leftist agitation-propaganda theory.
Obama received a comprehensive course in Saul Alinsky during his years as a community organizer in Chicago, an experience Obama recalled as “the best education he ever had.”
Years later in 2007, The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza interviewed then-senator Obama and found him still “at home talking Alinskian jargon about ‘agitation,’” and fondly recalling organizing workshops where he had learned Alinsky-esque concepts like “being predisposed to other people’s power.”
In those years, Obama was schooled by disciples of Alinsky himself, including Mike Kruglik, who remembered Obama as “the best student he ever had,” a “natural … undisputed master of agitation.” …
… He then went on to teach Alinsky concepts and methods at community organizing workshops and seminars in Southside Chicago.
Obama also served on boards in Chicago, including the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation, which dispensed grants to groups specializing in Alinsky-style agitation.
Gramsci was another planner, and a very successful one in terms of his ideas taking hold. One familiar name is Bill Ayers, who started out as a terrorist but later marched a la Gramsci through the institution of education, with great success for the leftist cause:
In short, Ayers uses his position as a professor of education at the University of Illinois to inculcate his students with the notion that they are revolutionaries sent to the schools to brainwash students. …
[Sol] Stern’s conclusion?
If Barack Obama wins on Nov. 4, [2008] the “guy in the neighborhood” [Obama’s disingenuous description of Bill Ayers during the campaign] is not likely to get an invitation to the Lincoln bedroom. But with the Democrats controlling all three branches of government, there’s a real danger that Mr. Ayers’s social-justice movement in the schools will get even more room to maneuver and grow.
We’ve seen it come to pass.
Education is the foundation of the growth of the left’s power, and it is no accident; there was a plan. If all leftists weren’t in on the planning – and they certainly were not – that doesn’t mean there weren’t prescient and insightful planners. One who is less famous in this country and yet influential was Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. Here’s a description in an admiring leftist periodical:
… Freire continues to be a lodestar for teachers working in poverty-stricken communities across the globe, and for just about anyone who’s searching for a sense of justice in an unjust world.
Every critically minded educator has at some point used Freire in their teaching — either to gain some insight into the upside-down world of the oppressed or as the inspiration that led them to view teaching as a way to overturn society’s asymmetries of power and privilege.
And all of this was happening in a way that meant that most people didn’t notice it until it had reached critical mass, which made it more difficult to guard against.
DeSantis is a racist and Vivek is a white supremicist, according to the leftist MSM.
No surprise for any of this. Any Republican contender will be painted with that brush for a simple reason: the propaganda works with a lot of people who are already convinced that all people on the right are racist, no matter what their color and no matter what their history and no matter how tenuous and ridiculous the so-called evidence. It becomes a case of confirmation bias, and it’s very very powerful.
These accusations have become one of the sole tactics of the left in its political campaigns. A lot of people will put up with an awful lot – crime and mismanagement and even mental and emotional abuse of their own children – in order to not ally themselves with supposed racists. The left knows this and plays on it. They don’t have too much else to offer except a free lunch, which is of great appeal to some. But those who are relatively (or very) well off are looking to virtue-signal by making sure they never, never ever, vote for someone the MSM has labeled a racist.
And it is so extreme that it actually doesn’t matter whether the candidate is white or not. Vivek is an honorary white person – but conservative black candidates such as Larry Elder are also honorary white people, and white supremacists at that, when they dare to run for office.
“Racism” isn’t the only attack the left mounts, of course. Not caring – Bush and Katrina, for example – is another. Being just plain mean is another that’s related; remember the attacks on mild-mannered Romney for putting his dog in a crate on top of his car many years ago, or teasing someone in high school?
I accepted long ago that all Republican candidates will be demonized in this way. Some people feel that Trump is the only person strong enough to take these insults and deflect them. But what I’ve seen is that because of Trump’s abrasive and brash personality, people are very inclined to believe these things of him. He fights, but so has DeSantis over the course of some very vicious attacks even before he announced his candidacy.
Who can better deflect such things, and for which man are they more believable to a greater number of voters? I can’t say I know, because I don’t. But I know the election may hinge on such things – that is, if fraud (or lawfare against Trump) doesn’t win the day for the left anyway.
