Buh-bye, de Blasio

The New Neo Posted on by

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Before I read this article on de Blasio’s leavetaking, I had forgotten that he got his big break in 2013 when frontrunner Anthony Weiner imploded in a sexting scandal. That may help a little to explain how New Yorkers elected de Blasio, but why they re-elected him is a bigger mystery. And yes, I know it’s a deep blue city. But still.

When I read this sentence – “During his first inauguration speech, de Blasio pledged a ‘dramatic new approach’ to running the world’s greatest city” – I misread it briefly as “de Blasio pledged a “traumatic new approach'”, which I think fits a lot better.

The article goes on to list de Blasio’s failures.

Let’s see what new mayor Eric Adams will do.

Scott Adams on voting fraud

The New Neo Posted on by

This is somewhat my attitude, too, and has been from the start:

It’s never going to happen, though. The government will never be required to prove fairness. How could that be done, anyway? It’s like proving innocence. The most that can – and should – happen is that states put effective protections against fraud in place.

But when many protections against fraud are removed or undermined, as they have been in some states over the years and especially immediately prior to the 2020 election, and there is no reliable way to prove fraud after the fact even if it has occurred, then trust in the voting process is gravely and perhaps fatally undermined.

Which is exactly what occurred.

Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty in the Epstein case

The New Neo Posted on by

No surprise here:

“The road to justice has been far too long. But, today, justice has been done,” US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Damian Williams said in a statement. “I want to commend the bravery of the girls — now grown women — who stepped out of the shadows and into the courtroom. Their courage and willingness to face their abuser made this case, and today’s result, possible.”

Maxwell’s lawyers had argued in closing statements that she was an innocent scapegoat in the Epstein saga — while prosecutors convinced the 12 jurors she was a “sophisticated predator” who exploited young, vulnerable girls.

The Oxford-educated heiress — youngest child of the late publishing tycoon Robert Maxwell — was convicted on nearly all counts, including sex-trafficking of minors, the top charge that carries a maximum of 40 years in prison.

Everyone seems to think there’s no doubt about Maxwell’s guilt. That is probably the case. But what troubles me is how little I know of the details of the evidence against Maxwell. Granted, I haven’t researched the case in great depth, but my efforts to find out more than the bare bones of the women’s testimony have been largely unsuccessful.

I know there were four accusers in the trial, and three of them were anonymous. I understand the reasons for that – they were minors at the time of the offenses. But they are no longer minors and I know almost nothing about them. For example, when did they come forward? Did they know each other? Had they read or heard of the testimony of the others when they came forward, or not? Did their testimony change over time? What corroborative evidence was there, if any, to back up their claims?

You may think I’m being picayune here, but I would say this about any such case. I’m consistent, anyway.

One question I had – were the accusers also involved in civil suits against Epstein and/or Maxwell? – is partially answered on Maxwell’s Wiki page. There have been multiple civil suits – one by the named accuser in the criminal trial, and others perhaps by some of the other accusers. All of the suits are of fairly recent vintage, although the offenses occurred many years ago.

I have no trouble believing that Maxwell is every bit as evil as her portrayal in this trial and in the civil suits. But for her, and for any other person so accused, I’d want to know a lot more information than seems readily available. In addition, of course, there’s the question of the protection of the names of the adult men who participated in the abuse of these minor girls. Draw your own conclusions there.

[NOTE: The allegations in this case remind me of the very sordid doings of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, which I outlined previously in this post.]

Defense claims entrapment in the Whitmer kidnapping plot case

The New Neo Posted on by

The defense is saying the alleged Whitmer conspiracy kidnap plotters were entrapped by the FBI. I can’t find the actual document filed with the court, but here’s a report:

Defense lawyers Saturday said there was no kidnapping conspiracy.

“…the government initiated this case, despite the fact that it knew there was no plan to kidnap, no operational plan, and no details about how a kidnapping would occur or what would happen afterward,” the lawyers wrote.

Informants were the driving force in a case, cultivating a “sense of patriotism and right-doing,” before FBI agents arrested the men in October 2020, according to the defense team.

“…informants, of course, not only contacted the defendants face to face but also coaxed, persuaded, cajoled, played on sympathies, cultivated friendships, took advantage of the defendants’ financial conditions, and suggested that the offense they proposed ‘would further a greater good,'” the lawyers wrote.

“These defendants had no desire whatsoever to kidnap anyone,” they added.

I’ve written many posts about this case before, and from what I’ve learned so far I agree with the defense.

Here’s Frei on the same subject:

Frei believes the defendants’ chances of prevailing on this issue are small. I agree, unfortunately. Entrapment is an affirmative defense that must be proven and there is no presumption in favor of it. Therefore it’s an uphill battle, because although the burden of proof for defendants’ guilt is on the prosecution, the FBI agents and informants probably have plenty of such proof of defendants’ acquiescence in the supposed plot, and the standard for proving entrapment is a tough one to meet. Also see this [emphasis mine]:

Entrapment can be a difficult defense to assert because it requires the defendant to establish that the idea and impetus for the crime was introduced by government officials, and the defendant was not already willing or predisposed to commit the crime. It is also important to note that entrapment can only occur with a government official, such as an FBI official or a police officer, not a private individual. Additionally, since it is an affirmative defense, the criminal defendant has the burden of establishing that entrapment occurred.

The huge miscarriage of justice in the Potter case

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a good summation by Andrew Branca of the travesty of the Kim Potter conviction:

it’s my professional opinion that the conviction of Potter on charges of manslaughter is a blatant miscarriage of justice based on the fact that manslaughter in this case properly required proof beyond a reasonable doubt of reckless conduct, that reckless conduct in this case properly requires the conscious disregard by Potter of an unjustifiable risk of death or serious bodily injury to Daunte Wright, and that the jury was presented with exactly zero evidence that Potter consciously disregarded the risk that resulted in Wright’s death.

Indeed, it was uncontested throughout the trial that Potter never even knew she had a gun in her hand during her encounter with Wright, and one cannot consciously disregard a risk that one does not know exists.

To the extent that Potter ought to bear responsibility for unintentionally killing Wright, that responsibility is at worst based on negligence, the unknowing creation of an unjustified risk, and subject her to merely civil liability. Absent a conscious disregard of risk, for which no evidence exists in this case, her conduct cannot qualify as recklessness raising criminal liability…

This distinction…is extremely old and well-established law…

Branca adds that the prosecution was allowed to misstate the law in order to convict Potter, and the judge did not correct their statements and did not give the jury the proper law in her instructions prior to their deliberations.

A travesty, indeed. I keep writing about this verdict because it troubles me greatly in terms of the disregard of the law in order to get a political outcome. It has tremendous repercussions in terms of police reluctance to do their job. Who does this hurt the most at this point? Poor minority groups who are the main victims (and perpetrators) of violent crime.

Alan Dershowitz weighs in as well:

“Horrible tragedy, not a crime. It’s not a crime to make a mistake, and she was falsely convicted of anything.”

Judge Regina Chu “acted lawlessly” in denying bail for Potter, and Democrat state Attorney General Keith Ellison engaged in “a complete abuse of justice,” Dershowitz told co-hosts Carl Higbie and Amanda Brilhante.

“This judge acted lawlessly,” Dershowitz said. “The law in Minnesota is you are entitled to bail pending appeal, if your appeal isn’t frivolous – and it isn’t frivolous – and not likely to flee – she’s not going anywhere – and if you’re not a danger people,” Dershowitz said, noting the judge has failed to strictly apply those criteria to a repentant 26-year police veteran.

“She engaged in completely lawless behavior, and I think if Potter’s lawyers appealed the denial of bail immediately to the appellate courts, she may very well be released, pending appeal.”

I agree with his analysis of the law, but I disagree with his prediction about Potter’s likelihood of release on bail if the denial is appealed. My disagreement isn’t based on law; it’s based on politics.

Oh, so now the CDC tells us

The New Neo Posted on by

The director of the CDC has made an announcement:

The newly updated CDC guidelines don’t require testing at the end of isolation because PCR tests can stay positive for up to 12 weeks, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told “Good Morning America” Wednesday. “So we would have people in isolation for a very long time if we were relying on PCRs,” Walensky explained.

Wait, what?…

This follows them shortening the isolation period from 10 days to five days for those who were asymptomatic at that point, although they recommended that the people continue to wear masks for five days. Dr. Anthony Fauci revealed that at least part of the reason was economic — because otherwise there could be so many people out society could grind to a halt.

What are we to make of this? What I make of it is that the Democrats have decided their draconian approach to COVID is losing them votes, compliance is getting iffier, and they’re not even doing well in the courts. Time to lighten up.

Are we to understand that they’ve just found out about the false positives with PCR tests? I find that extremely implausible, and they don’t even seem to be asserting it – just that economics dictate the change. They also seem to be implying that because Omicron is so contagious (and probably so relatively mild), it’s just not practical to continue the old rules. But what were those old rules based on? Very little – sort of like the guidelines that had us washing our fruits and vegetables and plastic containers in some sort of soapy bath for a while, or the articles from just a week or so ago that said despite its seeming mildness Omicron would cause a great many people to die.

Not everyone who comes down with COVID right now has Omicron, either, so the new rules don’t make sense for that reason – or rather, they probably make a lot of sense and would have made sense if they’d been implemented a long time ago. But it’s been clear pretty much from the start that politics has ruled the rules. Initially the political goal was to harm Trump, and now it is to help Biden if possible. The problem for the CDC and the administration is that much of the American public doesn’t believe them anymore about much of anything. They have squandered that initial trust.

Deaths: Harry Reid; John Madden

The New Neo Posted on by

RIP.

Two very different figures who would not ordinarily be mentioned together have died in tandem.

I’ll say little about Harry Reid, except that when he retired from public life I celebrated his exit.

As for Madden, I can’t say he’s been on my radar screen – not a football fan – but I know that he’s generally quite a beloved figure as coach and sportscaster and so I though people might want to talk about him in the comments.

Of course students have been damaged by school closures due to COVID

The New Neo Posted on by

No surprise here, but very sad nonetheless:

So apparently even the NY Times is acknowledging the situation.

At the very beginning of the COVID pandemic when we knew less about it, closing schools very temporarily seemed arguably prudent. But it rather quickly emerged that it really wasn’t going to matter, and that such closings would be detrimental in a host of ways, chief among them psychological damage to the students involved. And yet many states and cities (blue) continued the closings for a long time, mostly in order to placate the leftist teacher’s unions. It has been quite obvious for a long time that teacher’s unions are not interested in the well-being of students.

Biden says there’s no federal solution for COVID

The New Neo Posted on by

Apparently, when Trump was president there was a federal solution, and Trump failed to provide it.

Bad Trump. Bad bad Trump.

And when Biden was a candidate, there was a federal solution – a secret, magic one – and Biden would provide it if he were elected and it would shut down the virus.

And some exceedingly gullible and ignorant people apparently believed this would be the case.

But now that Biden is president and he has failed to provide that solution, it seems that it’s because no such solution exists. Fancy that:

Look, there is no federal solution. This gets solved at a state level. I’m looking at Governor Sununu on the board here. He talks about that a lot.

Sununu is the Republican governor of NH, a state that has been fairly open since June of 2020 and which, despite a recent rise in cases, has been doing relatively well all along in terms of hospitalizations and deaths.

But nothing about COVID is “solved” at the state level; there’s just too much we don’t know about how to stop its spread. The best a governor can do – and I believe that for the most part Sununu and most other Republican governors have done it – is to monitor the situation, try to protect the most vulnerable such as the very elderly, and keep the schools and economy going in as close to a normal fashion as possible.

By the way, in that same phone call in which Biden admitted there was no federal solution, he added the following lies:

And as — as I said last week, Omicron is a source of concern, but it should not be a source of panic. If you’re fully vaccinated and you get your booster shot, you’re highly protected. If you’re unvaccinated, you’re at a high risk of getting severely ill from COVID-19, being hospitalized, and, in rare cases, even dying.

Actually, far as we know, no one is “at high risk of getting severely ill” from the Omicron variant, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated. For that matter, unless a person is very ill from something else to begin with, or is mega-old, there isn’t much of a risk even from the other COVID variants, statistically speaking. And even in those groups, the risk from other variants is not really “high” in the absolute sense, although it is definitely higher.