Restoring order is a top priority, or should be

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: Here’s a recommended article by Andrew C. McCarthy entitled, “The President Has the Constitutional Power to Restore Order. He Must Act.”]

We hardly needed any more proof that our society is in terrible trouble. But we’ve gotten it in the failure of government authorities to restore order in riot-torn cities a timely fashion. That’s one of the most basic functions of government, and too many people have lost either the will to do it or the skill to do it.

That loss of will can be a result of leftist ideology (including the cultivation of guilt in those with “privilege”) or of cowardice, although I suppose the two are not mutually exclusive. But civil society requires that people feel a sense of basic safety in their homes, their workplaces, and their property, or it descends into chaos because there never will be enough police to ensure safety in an environment in which those things are not generally respected.

That used to be a universally accepted truth. Not so much anymore.

Some time ago I read an article on the history of the night watchman. Prior to reading it, I had imagined night watchmen to be picturesque figures, lanterns in hand, but I had never thought deeply about their function, which was to be the first policemen back in the days when city streets at night were not otherwise illuminated:

It had been recognized for centuries that the coming of darkness to the unlit streets of a town brought a heightened threat of danger, and that the night provided cover to the disorderly and immoral, and to those bent on robbery or burglary or who in other ways threatened physical harm to people in the streets and in their houses.

The anxieties that darkness gave rise to had been met by the formation [in London] of a night watch in the 13th century, and by the rules about who could use the streets after dark. These rules had for long been underpinned in London and other towns by the curfew, the time (announced by the ringing of a bell) at which the gates closed and the streets were cleared. Only people with good reason to be abroad could then travel through the city. Anyone outside at night without reason or permission was suspicious and potentially criminal…

During the 1820s, mounting crime levels and increasing political and industrial disorder prompted calls for reform, led by Sir Robert Peel, which culminated in the demise of the watchmen and their replacement by a uniformed metropolitan police force.

Note, also, that the cities had gates that could be closed.

Our modern police forces patrol the streets in vehicles, but the police forces’ numbers and training and the politics of blue cities often make the police alone inadequate to deal with a large group of rioters bent on destruction. It doesn’t matter if the majority of people in the crowd are bona fide “peaceful protestors” if a significant and dangerous number are not, and if authorities wink at the violence and allow it to happen.

That endangers everyone – black, white, or purple. It also sends a signal to anyone else bent on destruction that it will be tolerated and then it’s open season on the rest of the population.

It is intolerable that we have people in the desperate situation of the woman in this video, crying because her neighborhood has been destroyed. It didn’t have to be this way. But as soon as the police station in Minneapolis was allowed to burn, that was the sign that told the rioters, the nihilists, the sociopaths, whoever in that crowd was looking to destroy and harm, that there would be no negative consequences and few risks to their own hides from their behavior.

And so, as they used to say, burn baby burn. If anyone thinks he or she is immune because of leftist sympathies, or race, or anything else, think again. The perpetrators do not care.

And the press is actively engaged in the struggle, at least in the sense of words, and they’re not on the side of the enforcement of order. Their support and sympathy for the rioters (unless, of course, they can foster the idea that they’re from the far-right) can be overt, but more commonly it’s subtle. For an example of the more subtle type, we have this AP article published at Politico [emphasis mine]:

Cheering protesters torched a Minneapolis police station that the department abandoned as three days of violent protests spread to nearby St. Paul and angry demonstrations flared across the U.S over the death of George Floyd, a handcuffed black man who pleaded for air as a white police officer kneeled on his neck.

A police spokesman confirmed late Thursday that staff had evacuated the 3rd Precinct station, the focus of many of the protests, “in the interest of the safety of our personnel” shortly after 10 p.m. Livestream video showed the protesters entering the building, where fire alarms blared and sprinklers ran as blazes were set.

Yes, of course there were protests, but those who set the fires were not just “protestors” any more (if they ever were to begin with) when they committed this act. Minneapolis’ youthful mayor later took responsibility for ordering the police station evacuated. At a press conference, when a reporter asked him, ““What’s the plan here?”, Frey answered “With regard to?”, as though it wasn’t obvious what the reporter might be referring to.

In that entire AP article, fires are mentioned many times but quite often there is no agent responsible for setting them. On reading certain parts of the article, a person might be forgiven for thinking that a bunch of buildings in Minneapolis were loaded with old oil-soaked rags waiting to spontaneously combust.

At least one person is quoted as being upset about the fires and the people who set them, and wasn’t afraid to say it:

“We’re burning our own neighborhood,” said a distraught Deona Brown, a 24-year-old woman standing with a friend outside the precinct station, where a small group of protesters were shouting at a dozen or so stone-faced police officers in riot gear. “This is where we live, where we shop, and they destroyed it.” No officers could be seen beyond the station.

“What that cop did was wrong, but I’m scared now,” Brown said.

As well she might be.

The AP writers followed that quote from Brown with this one, which gives you a good idea of the attitude of at least one (and probably a lot more) of the perpetrators:

Others in the crowd saw something different in the wreckage.

Protesters destroyed property “because the system is broken,” said a young man who identified himself only by his nickname, Cash, and who said he had been in the streets during the violence. He dismissed the idea that the destruction would hurt residents of the largely black neighborhood.

“They’re making money off of us,” he said angrily of the owners of the destroyed stores. He laughed when asked if he had joined in the looting or violence. “I didn’t break anything.”

Simplistic leftist rhetoric, and laughter at the plight of the residents. And he doesn’t feel the least bit afraid of what might happen to him as a result.

Why am I focusing so much on the way the article is written? Because it’s symptomatic of the role of the press today, which feasts off the crisis and yet refuses to describe it properly, continuing to play the PC language game for political reasons.

The larger message has already been received, and not just in Minneapolis, but across the nation: most local and state authorities in blue states refuse to do anything effective to stop those who would destroy. And it’s much easier to destroy than to build.

[NOTE: See this for some more choice words from the mayors of American’s blue cities. And the photos that happen to be displayed there are mostly of white “protestors,” many of whom are attacking high-end shopping districts and scrawling anti-capitalist slogans. Antifa-style class warfare.]

NY: Corporate lawyers and “angels”…

The New Neo Posted on by

…caught throwing Molotov cocktails at police cars.

And being stupid enough about it to get arrested. I guess it’s not all white supremacists:

…Mattis is a corporate lawyer with Times Square law firm Pryor Cashman.

Authorities say Rahman, 31, tossed a bottle filled with gasoline through a broken window into the cruiser just before 1 am Saturday but the Molotov cocktail failed to ignite. Rahman jumped into a van driven by Mattis and they sped off, court papers allege.

The attempted torching was captured by video surveillance cameras outside the precinct stationhouse on DeKalb Ave., according to court papers.

Cops gave chase and stopped the van nearby on Willoughby St. They found the makings of another Molotov cocktail in the back seat along with a gasoline container, authorities say…

The super of Rahman’s building called her “an angel” who recently lost her legal job.

Neither has ever been arrested before. Mattis is a Princeton graduate, and went to NYU law school. The article states that he was “furloughed” from the firm Pryor Cashman in April (it doesn’t say why, but perhaps a COVID-caused turndown in business?). The following is the statement put out by the firm’s managing partner. So virtuous, so PC, so full of sympathy:

“As we confront critical issues around historic and ongoing racism and inequity in our society, I am saddened to see this young man allegedly involved in the worst kind of reaction to our shared outrage,” Shechtman said in a statement.

Oh, I can easily think of worse reactions. For example, at least the police car was unoccupied at the time.

The 60s keep calling, and I’m not sure what they want back, but they can have it. For me, this is (among other things) in harmonic vibration with the domestic terrorism of that era, in which quite a few of the perpetrators of the violence were the privileged graduates of very fine schools, and police (“pigs” – remember?) were often the targets.

And hey – some of those 60s radicals are now, in their golden years, teaching at some of those same very fine schools. Here’s one of them, just to refresh your memory:

Kathy Boudin was born on May 19, 1943, into a family with a long left-wing history. She was raised in Greenwich Village, New York City… Kathy Boudin attended Bryn Mawr College and was valedictorian of the class of 1965.

Boudin fell in love with David Gilbert in the 1970s and gave birth to their son Chesa in 1980. When her son was 14 months old she was arrested and subsequently incarcerated for murder and bank robbery. Her son was raised by former Weatherman leaders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Boudin is currently “an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work, where she is now the co-director and co-founder of the Center for Justice at Columbia University.” Ayers and Dohrn have also been very active in educational circles, molding young minds.

And Chesa, what of baby Chesa? I wrote this post about him in November of 2019, shortly after he won election as DA of San Francisco. Among other things:

Boudin’s candidacy and election is no accident whatsoever. It is part of an extremely organized movement to get leftist radicals into such positions in cities and even states around the US, funded in part by George Soros’ deep pockets.

[ADDENDUM: (Hat tip: commenter “Ken.”) See also this for more information about the “angel” lawyer, Rahman.]

More from “British guitarist”: analysis of Bobby Gentry singing “Ode to Billy Joe”

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: For much-needed relief from politics and riots.]

I remember the song well; it was a big hit in 1967, that seminal 60s year. But it was hardly typical of the times. It was a quiet song that told a story, a mysterious one at that. I recall rather liking it at the time for its catchy tune and intriguing lyrics, but it was far from a big favorite of mine.

The affable, amiable, and deeply knowledgeable “British guitarist” has a lot to say about it, though, which has deepened my appreciation of the subtle poetry of the lyrics and Gentry’s understated delivery, which is perfect.

Did you notice that lyric towards the end: “There was a virus going ’round; Papa caught it…”?

The release of the Flynn/Kislyak transcripts

The New Neo Posted on by

The release of the Flynn/Kislyak transcripts has infuriated me even more than I thought it would.

After all, I already know the outlines and many of the details of the attempt to prevent and then overturn the 2016 election of Donald Trump by the preceding administration and its allies in government agencies. I already knew that it had been covered up and lied about by Democrats and the press with a tremendous brazenness. And I already knew that, if the transcripts were ever released, they were likely to exonerate Flynn rather than implicate him.

I even already knew that, if that were so, the Democrats and the MSM would continue to lie about the transcripts and spin and spin and spin. In this, they would be relying on several factors. The first is the monolithic nature of the message that the press would back up, in a solid phalanx. The second is the fact that most people not on the right would be inclined to either ignore the whole story as too complex and boring, and/or take the press’s word for it. After all, most people probably think it would be bizarre for newspeople to lie about something so easily refuted. And yet, the press does it all the time, relying on – among other things – the fact that most people are not news junkies and would rather be out there living their lives (COVID notwithstanding).

But still, despite its predictability, seeing it all played out has been remarkably infuriating as well as frustrating. Part of my outrage is at what it signifies for the future of the republic, due process, and the peaceful transition of power on which we in the US have relied till now, and perhaps to a certain degree taken for granted. And still another part of my outrage is less general and is about what happened to one particular person named General Flynn. He may, however, get some good news this Monday, when his nemesis Judge Sullivan will be answering to the higher court and attempting to explain his bizarre recent rulings in Flynn’s case. At this point, though, nothing would surprise me.

A few days ago Andrea Widburg wrote this at American Thinker, which expresses some thoughts I’ve had for a long time:

One of the problems with Obamagate is that it’s incredibly complicated. It began under the Obama administration and involved the alphabet agencies (the CIA, the FBI, and the DOJ), as well as President Obama, the national security adviser, the director of National Intelligence, the FISA court, and overseas intelligence agencies.

The wrongdoing included false affidavits; spying on innocent people, including the president-elect; unmasking; and set-ups, such as perjury traps and spies inveigling people into ambiguous statements that could be used against them. It then escalated to an attempt to overthrow the Trump presidency through a two-year-long investigation that destroyed several people’s lives, even though the special counsel’s office knew from Day One that neither Trump nor his team had done anything wrong.

What I stated above is just the super-simple, short version. Meanwhile, on the other side, for three years, all that the left had to do was holler “Russia! Russia! Russia! Collusion! Ukraine! Putin!,” and everyone fell in line.

The problem for the forces of justice is that it’s tough to get people excited about wrongdoing that they can’t understand. Watergate was simple: a bumbling break-in followed by a foul-mouthed president who tried to cover it up. With Obamagate, though, within a few minutes of reciting multiple dates, dozens of names, three different continents, myriad documents, endless lies and cover-ups…well, people’s eyes glaze over, and they start thinking, “This really does sound like some sort of crazy conspiracy theory. There are too many moving parts.”

Absolutely. And the Flynn/Kislyak transcripts are another part – a very important part – of this larger and complex picture.

At any rate, here’s a roundup of some things to read on the subject of the Flynn/Kislyak transcripts.

From Sean Davis at The Federalist:

The transcripts, which were declassified by former acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Ric Grenell and current DNI John Ratcliffe, were provided to Congress by Ratcliffe, who began working in the position earlier this week following full Senate confirmation of his nomination. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairmen of the Homeland Security and Finance committees, respectively, had repeatedly called for the transcripts to be declassified and provided to Congress…

According to the charging documents from Mueller, Flynn allegedly falsely claimed to Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) agents that he did not ask Kislyak to “refrain from escalating” in response to U.S. expulsion of Russian diplomats and falsely claimed that he did not ask Kislyak to help defeat an anti-Israel resolution pending before the United Nations at the time. Mueller also claimed that Flynn lied when he said he didn’t remember Kislyak telling him that Russia would “moderate its response” to the expulsions.

The transcript of the December 29 conversation, which was cited by Mueller, does not include a request from Flynn that Russia “refrain from escalating” in response to U.S. expulsions of Russian diplomats. According to the transcript, Flynn asked Kislyak for Russia’s response to be “reciprocal” so that the U.S.–not Russia–would not be forced to escalate beyond the expulsions. The transcript makes clear that Flynn fully expected Russia to respond to the situation by expelling U.S. diplomats in response to the Obama administration’s move to expel nearly three dozen Russian diplomats from the U.S., and that his primary concern was preventing a situation where the U.S. would have to escalate tensions in response to Russia…

Mueller’s operation also conflated discussions of financial sanctions levied against Russian entities and individuals via executive order on December 28, 2016 with the expulsion of Russian diplomats, which were two separate and distinct issues. In fact, the specific executive order cited by Mueller in his charging documents against Flynn pertained only to Treasury-enforced financial sanctions against nine Russian intelligence individuals and institutions, not to the separate expulsions of Russian diplomats, which were enforced by the U.S. State Department…

The transcripts show that while Kislyak obliquely raised the issue of financial sanctions against certain Russian intelligence officials, Flynn himself never discussed the financial sanctions against Russian individuals and entities levied by the Obama administration. Instead, Flynn focused on preventing U.S. “tit-for-tat” escalation following the Obama administration’s expulsion of Russian diplomats. Although Obama officials claimed via leaks to the press that Flynn, a decorated combat veteran and retired three-star Army general, was illegally operating as a secret Russian agent, the transcripts show that Flynn’s primary focus throughout his conversations with Kislyak was ensuring that Russia and the U.S. could work together to defeat Islamist terrorist and the growing influence of ISIS throughout the Middle East. Obama officials never explained how working with international partners to defeat ISIS constituted a federal crime.

Here’s a piece at Red State by Nick Aramas that has a good roundup of reactions on Twitter.

I offer a couple here:

You can find more in a series of tweets by TechoFog here.

Margot Cleveland – who has written a lot of good stuff about this entire mess over a long period of time at The Federalist – can beg all she wants. I would join her in that begging, except I have a strong belief that it will never happen. As I said earlier – too complicated, too much energy required, and people’s minds have mostly been made up. And the left counts on that.

However, there are going to be more revelations of the sort as time goes on. Maybe – maybe, although I don’t count on it – the sheer weight of the evidence will be convincing enough to enough people that it will matter.

The riots and the hard, organized left

The New Neo Posted on by

The current riots are organized, paid for, and purposeful. And local authorities of the Democratic persuasion have no idea what to do to combat the forces involved, and/or no will to do so.

From Scott Johnson at Powerline (based in Minneapolis) [emphasis mine]:

The Minnesota state authorities held a press conference at 10:00 yesterday morning. Governor Walz led the parade with a classic yammer yammer yammer blah blah blah performance. I have embedded the video below. He is — they are — over their head, out of their depth, out of it, clueless…

I wrote yesterday that 500 National Guard soldiers constituted a force too light to deal with the widespread disorder in the Twin Cities and that proved to be the case. Anticipating further difficulties, the authorities declared 8:00 p.m. curfews in St. Paul and Minneapolis. Undermanned, overwhelmed, the forces stood down as the second hand crossed the 12 at 8:00 yesterday evening.

We are under assault by terrorists and anarchists conducting offensive operations throughout the Twin Cities. The unified command of soldiers and law enforcement officers withdrew to defend critical and targeted infrastructure. As arsonists set fires, as looters continued their activities, as terrorists destroyed businesses, law enforcement forces withdrew and redeployed…

We need the deployment of overwhelming force to conduct offensive anti-terrorist operations and retake the cities. Governor Walz called a press conference overnight to acknowledge that events had overtaken his plans.

These groups – let’s call them Antifa, for want of a better name and because although it’s probably not only Antifa it is certainly at least Antifa – may have been relatively quiet in the months prior to these riots. But they’ve not been idle.

More from the clueless governor and the even-more-clueless mayor:

“The terrifying thing is that this resembles more a military operation now as you observe ringleaders moving from place to place,” [Walz] said.

“I will take responsibility for underestimating the wanton destruction and the sheer size of this crowd,” Walz said. He said repeatedly that the sheer scope of the crowds and violence have been shocking, and that there was no way for for authorities to anticipate or prepare for such an onslaught…

…Frey made an impassioned plea for an end to the violence, saying that it was only hurting residents, not “getting back” at the police. “If you have a friend or a family member that is out there right now, call them and tell them to come home,” he pleaded. “It is not safe. It is not right.”

I believe that although Walz and Frey are on the left, they qualify as what’s known as “useful idiots.”

I also believe that, as in the past, one of the aims of the hard left in this is to provoke a violent backlash from law enforcement that will garner sympathy for the “protestors” from run-of-the-mill liberals. That’s always part of the mix, too. But it’s also okay with the hard left if they only get a wishy-washy and ineffectual response from the useful idiots in charge, instead – such as has occurred so far in Minneapolis. It’s all good. After all, they tend to choose the bluest of cities for a reason.

More here:

Many Americans seem to be under the impression that the violent demonstrations are being mostly carried out by black residents of Minneapolis. Indeed, several of the videos showing the looting and mayhem display black individuals engaging in this destructive behavior.

However, what many of these reports and videos fail to mention is the fact that most of these people have traveled to Minneapolis from other cities to participate in the looting. The city’s police chief confirmed as much during a recent press conference.

But there is another more insidious element to this equation. Other videos clearly show that white agitators, many of whom belong to the far-left anarchist organization known as Antifa, have shown up to incite and perpetuate violence and pandemonium.

Civil rights attorney Rogan O’ Handley tweeted a video and noted that “white leftists are now openly destroying impoverished black communities.”

And the useful idiot authorities? Why, according to the governor, it’s white supremacists who are to blame.

Locals whose property has been destroyed are devastated.

Those of us who lived through the 60s already have seen a version of this. But this iteration is slicker and far more well-funded. Yes, there are also locals protesting Floyd’s death, and the vast majority of them really are peaceful demonstrators. But as for the organized rioters, who have come in large numbers, are they even leftists in the conventional sense, or are they more anarchists, or perhaps organized nihilist sociopaths (see Dostoevsky)?

Whatever they are, they do not care about the welfare and livelihood of property owners of any race, creed, or color. To the leftists, they are just the eggs that have to be broken for the omelets to be made. For the angry nihilists, they are just in the way, and how dare they own property that’s ripe for the taking?

More:

Some [property owners] tried to protect their businesses against looting by taping messages of solidarity in their windows, including “African owned business” and “We support our small diverse and minority businesses.” But those windows were broken overnight, too, leaving security guards sweeping up the shattered glass Friday.

Elmi and his restaurant supplier, Mohammoud Abdi, said the damage reminded them of their youth in Somalia, where they watched militants roam and the government lose control of the country.

“We don’t have law and order,” said Abdi, 47. “This is not helpful to George’s family.”

A few doors down, Eloy Bravo was supervising a crew boarding up the windows of his ransacked Lupita Nail Salon.

Bravo, 50, and his staff of eight had been looking forward to reopening June 1 after closing temporarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Looters hauled away more than $10,000 worth of supplies and equipment, including the cash register.

“We were so excited. Now, I may have to close,” Bravo said.

He started the salon after moving from his native Puebla, Mexico, 15 years ago. He initially came for vacation but fell in love with residents, who he called “kind and friendly.”

Bravo lives in the suburbs, and he was stunned Friday when he arrived to see the damage on East Lake Street.

“What did I do for people to come and destroy what I built in 15 years?” he said.

That La Times article was brought to my attention by commenter “AesopFan”, who added: “Let’s start with the most likely possibility: you voted for Democrats.”

The reasons the riots happened in the first place are more complicated than that, and they go deep. But it’s also true that electing Democrats makes an effective reaction virtually impossible.

[NOTE: By the way, on a personal note, I don’t know why so many people are nostalgic for the 60s. I’m not. It was a time of my life when I was young and supposed to be having fun, but I found them extremely stressful. Assassinations, war, riots, the breakdown of standards, domestic terrorism, aimlessness, and a lot of vapid stupidity. The music was great. The fashion was fun. That was it.]

[ADDENDUM: The interview on this video is almost unbearably sad. This woman lives in a black neighborhood of Minneapolis and is devastated at how the destruction around her has shattered the world she knows and relies on.]

Why is an angry mob attacking CNN in Atlanta?

The New Neo Posted on by

No one seems to know.

Is CNN not far enough to the left?

Did someone at CNN call them “rioters” instead of “protestors”?

Or is just the urge to destroy whatever’s handy?

Seriously, though – I bet the folks at CNN are rather puzzled. I certainly am. As was this participant:

One protester breached the building and was immediately arrested by cops as Valencia shouted questions at him, asking why he was there. “Change,” he replied.

Note the use of “protestor” for a man in the act of breaking into the building.

Change? Hope and change? Hasn’t CNN done enough to help the cause? Is this a case of the left turning on its own in an excess of destructive energy?

Breaking: Finally, the transcript of the Flynn/Kislyak call

The New Neo Posted on by

I haven’t had time to read the transcript, and I’m about to go out for a while. But I wanted to post a link to a post about it and to the transcript itself, which is published there (the print is small for the text of the call, and you can read it in a bigger version here).

No wonder they tried to just talk about it, but never release it. It seems to be quite innocuous.

This is just my preliminary reaction, based on what other people are reporting. I plan to take a closer look myself later tonight.

And I assume that the left, the MSM, the Democrats – all of them – will continue to describe this call as some sort of outrageous action on the part of Flynn.

Also:

Derek Chauvin charged in George Floyd’s death

The New Neo Posted on by

This was very quick:

The cop who was caught on camera using his knee to pin George Floyd’s neck to the ground is being charged with unintentional murder and manslaughter — but may face more serious allegations, a Minnesota prosecutor said Friday.

The three other cops at the scene will likely also face charges in Floyd’s racially charged death, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said…

Under Minnesota law, third-degree murder covers “eminently dangerous” acts that cause death without the intent of doing so, and is punishable by up to 25 years in prison.

“We are in the process of continuing to review the evidence,” Freeman said. “There may be subsequent charges later.”

Freeman said Chauvin’s arrest was “by far, the fastest we’ve ever charged a police officer.”

I think it’s pretty clear why this happened so fast. The first reason is that Chauvin’s actions appear awful. The second is that there has been no evidence of Floyd’s resisting arrest or any particular reason why such a degree of force would be necessary or why it would need to take that particularly dangerous form. Perhaps most urgently, the speed probably reflects the hope is that such quick action will cool down the violence that has gotten way out of control.

Subsequent revelations may change things. Just to take a single example, an autopsy could show that Floyd had some other condition that led to his death and that what Chauvin did was not contributory. But I very much doubt anything like that will occur, although it’s possible. What is more likely is that something will be revealed that will cause Chauvin to be charged with an even higher degree of murder.

Whether or not the speed of the charges against Chauvin will actually calm the situation down is unclear, because there are many forces invested in having the unrest continue. Already, however, plenty of damage has been done. Just to take one example, see this.

In addition, there’s been a lot of brouhaha about Trump’s tweet I quoted in this earlier post today:

These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

Legions of Trump critics are saying he’s threatening to kill looters. Trump says no:

Trump tweeted Friday afternoon that he was stating “as a fact” that looting could lead to violence, rather than advocating for it.

“Looting leads to shooting, and that’s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night — or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot,” Trump wrote.

“I don’t want this to happen, and that’s what the expression put out last night means,” he continued. “It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It’s very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media. Honor the memory of George Floyd!”

It’s one of those cases, though, when I believe Trump was trying to be too cute with the rhyme, and should have made himself much clearer. He gave his critics verbal ammunition against him. After all, Trump knows better than anyone that there are legions of “haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media” – in particular, to insist on the worst possible interpretation of what Trump writes, says, or does.

[NOTE: Oh, and Amy Klobuchar’s chance to become Biden’s VP choice seems to be collateral damage. When she was Hennepin County attorney, she apparently failed to act on a previous shooting case in which Chauvin was also implicated.

In addition, when I read that Floyd’s family had hired Benjamin Crump as their attorney, that name had a very familiar ring. Crump was the attorney for Michael Brown’s family in the Ferguson case, as well as the Martin family in the George Zimmerman case, among others.]

ADDENDUM 7:15 PM: Preliminary autopsy report here. This is by no means the final word:

The full report of the ME is pending but the ME has made the following preliminary findings.

The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, this underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.

The defendant had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in total. Two minutes and 53 seconds of this was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive. Police are trained that this type of restraint with a subject in a prone position is inherently dangerous.

If the hold is considered “inherently dangerous” – and it certainly appears to be very dangerous – and Chauvin used it anyway, I think he will still be liable even if Floyd died of a heart attack. The police treatment will be said to have contributed substantially, which it almost certainly did. However, I am no expert on the law in such a situation, and I could be wrong.

Minneapolis descends into chaos

The New Neo Posted on by

And its government is nowhere to be found. The furious mob (oops, I mean “protestors”) is allowed to destroy at will.

You can read about it and see photos from James Lileks here. Please read the whole thing, but the following is of particular interest to me and an angle not too many people are covering (the first line is some graffiti Lileks spotted and photographed):

“When our turn comes we will make no excuses for the terror.”

Karl Marx. There’s more than a few of his fans about, I think. It would not be ridiculous to assume that people previously given to direct action for ther sake of destroying the existing order wouldn’t show up at these events and lend a helping hand, would it? People on reddit and twitter think there are neo-Nazis in the riots, trying to start something, but you know, I’m looking at the guys who have a lot of practice with the whole “break things because you’re all fascists” pasttimes.

A housing development under construction was burned. It was supposed to supply below-market-rate housing: ah well. No matter. It is better that people suffer today if it brings about the necessary future. Every one and every physical thing is expendable.

And of course, there are also leftists in charge of the city’s government. The mayor of Minneapolis – to whom I’d previously paid not a particle of attention – is very young (often referred to in the descriptions I’ve read as the “Boy Mayor”) and seems right now (and perhaps always?) to be good only for ineffectual platitudes:

We have witnessed a massive failure of leadership in the City of Minneapolis and the State of Minnesota. Boy Mayor Jacob Frey has been exposed as a childish nonentity. Meanwhile, what about the Minneapolis City Council, which is responsible for the city’s Police Department? It is one of the most far-left political bodies in the U.S., and so far it has not been heard from, as far as I have seen. Governor Tim Walz, too, has been AWOL, although I do have to give him a little credit for his State Police cracking down on CNN. Amid the general incompetence, President Trump is threatening to step into the breach…

This is followed on the post by a graphic (which can’t be copied) that features a photo of Trump and two tweets:

I can’t stand back & watch this happening to a great American city, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right.

These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

Twitter has blocked that last part of Trump’s second message for “glorifying violence.” Yes, that’s right – it’s Trump who glorifies violence. If you want to see the thread as it stands now – complete with the lovely reactions of the left on Twitter – go here. And you can read Twitter’s reaction here.

The left, the Twitter censors, and the MSM could not care less about stopping violence, as long as it’s the approved sort of violence. Au contraire.

Meanwhile, Minneapolis burns.

What’s going on with Judge Sullivan? [Part III]

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: Trying to write about the Flynn case and Judge Sullivan is like swallowing an elephant whole and trying to digest it. Maybe several elephants. And I need to do it prior to June 1, when Sullivan (and/or his lawyer?) is supposed to answer to the court on the writ of mandamus. In the meantime, I’m trying, but this is far more perfunctory a treatment than I intended. There’s a lot more to be said, but I’ll leave it at this post – for now.

A reminder: here’s Part I. Here’s Part II. Here’s a post that deals with Flynn’s original lawyers’ conflict of interest as well as the FARA issues in the case. Also, see this for more background. And in particular see this as well as this about the “secret side deal” in which both the prosecutor and Flynn’s original attorneys illegally kept the deal about protecting Flynn’s son secret, so that they wouldn’t have to reveal it later in subsequent trials in which Flynn testified for the state against others who’d been accused. A huge outrage, and only revealed in late April, in documents Flynn’s defense lawyers suddenly “found” after the Jensen investigation probably motivated them a bit more strongly to turn them over voluntarily.

And a question for all you lawyers out there: do you know whether the Brady disclosure rules apply to defendants who have pled guilty, or just to those who’ve been tried? I’ve found a few tremendously long law articles on the subject, but they are fairly old, and rather than plow through all that outdated material, I’m looking for a short and current answer.]

During Flynn’s December 18, 2018 sentencing hearing, Judge Sullivan suddenly began talking about Flynn’s possible treason. This was a turning point in the trial that signaled to everyone that Sullivan was going off the deep end in his pique at Flynn – probably through a combination of rage and politics, as well as hubris and the desire for the spotlight. But it also signaled that Sullivan wasn’t even aware of the facts of the case.

Is Judge Sullivan also – as Ace puts it today, relying on a lawyer named Robert Barnes – stupid? Is he dependent on his clerks, and has he hired the lawyer to answer the writ because he’s unable to come up with any justification for his actions? I don’t know for sure, and it wouldn’t be possible to tell from his written work, which could be the product of clerks. But some of Sullivan’s remarks during that December 18, 2018 hearing, and in particular what he said about treason, certainly make me suspect that cognitive problems – whether long-term or recent and age-related – could indeed be part of the mix.

So that’s go back to the treason-talk episode. Sullivan said (p. 33 of the transcript) [emphasis mine]:

Moreover, you lied to the FBI about three different topics, and you made those false statements while you were serving as the National Security Advisor, the President of the United States’ most senior national security aid[e]. I can’t minimize that.

Two months later you again made false statements in multiple documents filed pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. So, all along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States.

I mean, arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for [indicating]. Arguably, you sold your country out.

Flynn had filed a FARA document prepared by lawyers who were supposedly the best in the field, paid a hefty sum for that service, and all he was accused of was making some false statements on the complex forms, not even necessarily intentionally. Most importantly of all, he ended his connection with all of that before he was serving as the National Security Advisor to the president.

Either Sullivan’s outrage was so hot that he made a stunning error there, or he didn’t even know the facts of the case in the first place. I think both were true.

In the middle of the tirade, Sullivan mentioned incarceration once again, and added that even after Flynn offers help with the other case, Sullivan might still incarcerate him. He also mentioned the usually-moribund Logan Act, and the prosecutor hastened to respond that they aren’t considering charging Flynn with that.

Then Sullivan suggested a recess, for Flynn to think over whether he wants to be sentenced now or to wait till he has totally fulfilled his obligation to help the government (by testifying against his two associates indicted for FARA violations). What else could Flynn say at that point but that he wanted a delay? It was clear that if he was sentenced by Sullivan that very day, it would be to prison, no matter what the lawyers – including the prosecutor – might be recommending.

But right before they recessed, Sullivan got so angry that he couldn’t resist one more dig, and that was this (p. 35):

[SULLIVAN]: …is there an opinion about the conduct of the defendant the following days that rises to the level of treasonous activity on [Flynn’s] part?

MR.VAN GRACK [prosecutor]: The government did not consider–I shouldn’t say– I shouldn’t say did not consider, but in terms of the evidence that the government had at the time, that was not something that we were considering in terms of charging the defendant.

[SULLIVAN]: All right. Hypothetically, could he have been charged with treason?

MR.VANGRACK: Your Honor, I want to be careful what I represent.

[SULLIVAN]: Sure.

MR.VANGRACK: And not having that information in front of me and because it’s such a serious question, I’m hesitant to answer it…

One day after that sentencing hearing, which ended without a sentence being pronounced, Andrew C. McCarthy wrote this [emphasis mine]:

…[I]t’s tough to fathom how a judge could spin such a thing into treason when (a) the foreign power, Turkey in this case, is a NATO ally (at least technically), (b) General Flynn was not a U.S. government official when he acted as Ankara’s agent, (c) the prosecutor did not think it was an important enough crime to charge against Flynn, (d) Flynn is a decorated 33-year combat veteran who has written a book detailing a strategy for defeating America’s actual enemies, and (e) the prosecutor, in fact, has proposed a sentence of no jail time for the process crime that was actually charged in the case.

After calling a brief time-out in the proceedings, a contrite Judge Sullivan returned to the bench and retracted his loopy treason comments. All in all, it was a disgraceful performance: Flynn’s is not a complicated case, yet Sullivan failed to have a grip on basic facts.

When they all returned after the recess, Sullivan realized his error and backpedaled and even apologized as well as trying to pretend it was no biggee, as I described in Part I. What had happened with Sullivan during that recess? I have a feeling that someone had informed him of his error – perhaps one of his clerks – and he realized that he’d stepped in it.

And I very much doubt that any of this has had the effect of making Sullivan less angry at Flynn. I think the embarrassment made him even more angry, more motivated to blame Flynn, and more determined than ever not to let him off.

I believe that’s still operating with Sullivan right now. His actions since Barr’s DOJ pulled out of the case have been so outlandish, so egregious, so obviously incorrect in legal terms, that I think he has indeed reached Captain Ahab levels.

Again, that doesn’t mean that’s all that’s going on with Sullivan. Not at all. I think politics is part of it. I think he’s also angry at Powell (I might write more about that later), at Barr, and of course at Trump. I think he’s gotten a lot of encouragement and assistance from a bunch of legal leftists and/or Trump-haters such as Judge Gleeson, who wrote the editorial in the WaPo egging Sullivan on.

But I also think Judge Sullivan has had the rug pulled out from under him at the moment, finally. Till now, he has held all the power and exercised it as he sees fit. He has come down hard and sometimes irrationally not only on Flynn, but on Sidney Powell as well (for example, with a ridiculous accusation of plagiarism when her cite was a hyperlink rather than being done traditionally).

I don’t think Sullivan expected the higher court to respond to the writ of mandamus the way it did, and why would he? It’s highly unusual to even answer such writs, and it’s perhaps unprecedented to ask the judge in the case to personally respond. I don’t think he’s at all prepared to justify his actions. I don’t even think he is aware of any legal justification, except what others (such as Gleeson: “The Flynn case isn’t over until the judge says it’s over”) have provided. Sullivan’s clerks may even be throwing up their hands and saying “don’t look at me; I can’t defend your cockamamie actions.”

No wonder he hired a lawyer to help.

COVID-19 research: the press interprets

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an article from Time entitled “Up to 80% of COVID-19 Infections Are Asymptomatic, a New Case Report Says.”

Sounds as though that’s good news, right? Ah, but Time doesn’t think so:

The research shows just how prevalent asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 may be—a reality that both suggests official case counts are drastic underestimates, and emphasizes the importance of practicing social distancing even if you feel healthy.

Researchers have known for months that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is possible and common, but without population-wide testing, it’s been difficult to estimate how many people get infected without showing symptoms. The new paper provides an example of how widespread asymptomatic transmission can be, at least in a contained environment.

I went to the study thinking I’d read some interesting data about asymptomatic transmission. Here’s the paper. It actually does not even address the issue of asymptomatic transmission or social distancing.

What it does report is that in the closed environment of the ship, 59% of passengers and/or crew ended up testing positive for COVID (128 out of 217 total passengers and crew), but 80% of them were completely asymptomatic. That conforms to many statistics we’ve read from other places. It could just as easily be used to argue for what we’ll call the Swedish Approach rather than more shutdowns and strict distancing.

Another finding was that one person died. The article doesn’t explain who that person might have been. But out of 128 people infected – in what was probably an older-than-average population with a lot of pre-existing conditions – a case fatality rate of under 1% sounds relatively encouraging compared to earlier reports.

Nineteen percent of the infected people (24) were symptomatic, which is also in line with data from, for example, the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Might they not have been the spreaders, or the majority of the spreaders? We simply don’t know – and I don’t see anything in the study that even attempts to tell us – whether the asymptomatic people figured as strongly as the symptomatic in spreading the disease. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. But asymptomatic spread is what Time wishes to talk about.

On day 3 the cruise line tried to end the cruise, but the ship ended up in limbo for a while because it was difficult to find a port that would accept it. That’s when most of the disease spread seems to have occurred, and the entire time the passengers were confined to the ship was 28 days. As for social distancing, the ship had embarked after the COVID pandemic was already happening although not yet fully in swing. At the outset, passengers were tested and their temperatures taken regularly, and multiple hand washing stations were placed on the ship. Nevertheless:

The first recorded fever on board the ship was a febrile passenger on day 8. Isolation protocols were immediately commenced, with all passengers confined to cabins and surgical masks issued to all. Full personal protective equipment was used for any contact with any febrile patients, and N95 masks were worn for any contact with passengers in their cabins.

So it sounds as though social distancing of a fairly strict sort was indeed practiced, and it didn’t matter.

The last paragraph of the Time article goes like this:

That’s a particularly important lesson to consider as states reopen and nice weather eats away at many people’s resolve to stay home. The virus can and does spread undetected—and an asymptomatic case can still cause serious illness if it spreads to someone else. Until a vaccine is available, the safest way to keep coronavirus from spreading is to keep your distance from others, whether you’re sick or not.

But that’s not what the study indicates; it really doesn’t address the subject, although it’s what Time seems to want its readers to think it indicates.