The left relies on the public’s ignorance and lack of curiosity

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an interesting Twitter thread (hat tip: commenter “Barry Meislin”):

On the one hand, it’s good that Sarah Beth Burwick has finally seen at least some of the truth about this case, and is beginning to doubt that her previous sources are reliable.

But did she have no previous curiosity? It certainly wouldn’t have taken but a moment to find out that the men Rittenhouse shot were white, a fact that would have given the lie to all the mendacious “white supremacist” talk about Rittenhouse. It was almost impossible not to know something about these three if a person read even a small amount about the case. I saw their photos early on, and also knew the basic facts of the case, and they weren’t the least bit hard to find. For example, I wrote this post the day after the news broke, in which I mention that all three men who were shot were white.

On that same day, August 27, 2020, I wrote a post entitled “The game plan of the MSM in not showing the evidence that would tend to support a self-defense argument for Rittenhouse.” Here’s an excerpt:

Here’s the game plan: keep from the public those parts of the videos that might tend to exonerate Rittenhouse, controlling the narrative and setting a widespread public perception that he’s a murderer. That might cause even more riots, which the left seems to want, as well as discouraging bona fide self-defense on the part of the rioters’ targets.

Then, once the whole “narrative” is set in stone in the minds of most of the public, the following reactions often occur: DAs (even ones that are not Soros-funded) feel they must throw the book at the culprit in order to calm things down, jury pools have become biased and/or may be frightened about the possible repercussions of any “not guilty” verdict, and if said not guilty verdict is nevertheless rendered the resulting riots are even more extreme because much of the public feels that justice has not been done. That also adds to the general disgust for the court system, and the left believes that can only aid them as well.

There you have it. Sarah Beth Burwick and the people on her thread who have had similar experiences, in which watching some of the trial made clear certain very basic facts of which they’d been previously unaware, are the dupes of this cycle. They may be awakening to it now, but will it remain an isolated incident for them or will they take more general lessons from it? And how many of them are there, compared to the vast numbers who continue to be duped – and who seemingly willingly play along and don’t do their very basic homework?

A little further down on that thread, Burwick adds:

Let me add a few points-
1. All my friends/family are progressively and I recently woke up to their hyocrisy and msm BS
2. I admit I haven’t paid much attention to the case
3. If you hear someone called a white supremacist enough times, you believe it unless…..

…you realize you need to question everything you’ve been told, which is what is keeping me very, very busy of late.

Well, good for her. But I repeat: how many people are doing this? It’s a rhetorical question for which I don’t have an answer. I hope very very many, but I’ve hoped that before and the hopes were not fulfilled.

[NOTE: And by the way, legally it wouldn’t have mattered if the men Rittenhouse shot were white or black. But in the public eye it matters to a great many people, and the assumption that they were black would have further hurt Rittenhouse. Well, at the very least, the jury now knows that they were white.

I also think (although I’m not sure) that their races might have mattered had they been black and Rittenhouse was acquitted, and the federal government was contemplating filing federal charges against him, as some sort of racially-motivated perp, for violating their civil rights.]

The ceremony of innocence: the Rittenhouse trial

The New Neo Posted on by

The Rittenhouse trial has been particularly awful – and for me it’s also been quite emotional to watch, especially yesterday when Kyle Rittenhouse took the stand. The decision to have him testify surprised me greatly, and last night I watched most of his testimony and was even more horrified by the situation in which this young man has been placed.

That situation began in August of 2020 when several seemingly-unhinged and aggressively hostile men attacked the then-17-year-old in a nightmare scenario that led to Kyle shooting and killing two of them and shooting and wounding a third. Each time he only fired when his life seemed gravely in danger. There is no question in my mind that it was self-defense, and that it was also an intensely traumatic evening. His testimony yestreday made that trauma even more clear when he broke down in huge shuddering sobs when forced to describe being surrounded by that hostile group.

But his attackers were an uncontrolled mob, and one of them (Rosenbaum) was apparently genuinely mentally ill. What’s prosecutor Binger’s excuse?

What do I mean by that last question? By any ordinary legal definition of justifiable self-defense, Rittenhouse is not guilty of murder and Binger must know that because he knows the law. He chose to prosecute Rittenhouse anyway. Perhaps it was out of a desire for fame, perhaps Rittenhouse just rubs him the wrong way, perhaps Binger wanted to appease and placate the mob, perhaps he’s a leftist and it was political, or perhaps he’s just a sadistic person with no moral sense whatsoever. Or perhaps some combination of those things. Whatever Binger’s reasons, his performance yesterday and even before that has been repugnant and vile, and yesterday those qualities increased exponentially.

I can’t ever remember detesting an attorney to such a degree before, but there it is. Binger spoke with much venom and contempt to Rittenhouse, but he spoke with snide contempt even to the judge who was reprimanding him. Binger must know the judge is probably highly reluctant, in such a high-profile trial, to declare the “mistrial with prejudice” that Binger so richly deserves, and so I believe that Binger feels free to play a game of chicken with the judge. I’m not even sure how much of a chance Binger thinks he still has to convict Rittenhouse, but he continues to march on in a remarkably offensive, smarmy, duplicitous manner. As they say, the process is the punishment, for Rittenhouse (you can watch here).

But Binger also knows that juries are unpredictable and sometimes illogical, and that this one just might convict Rittenhouse even though there is no evidential support for a guilty verdict. Juries have done stranger things at times, and every single member of this jury has probably been exposed to enormous anti-Rittenhouse propaganda, including the fact that Joe Biden (as candidate Biden) said he was a white supremacist.

If Rittenhouse is found guilty of murder and the conviction stands, that will tell us the rule of law is finished in this country. Maybe it already is; it’s not the first time I’ve felt a similar sentiment recently. For example, there was the Chauvin verdict (which seemed highly unjustified to me at the time but which at least seems more arguably evidence-based than a guilty verdict for Rittenhouse would ever be), the Flynn case, and also the treatment of the January 6th defendants.

I’ve already written about how the Rittenhouse prosecution reminds me of one work of literature, “Billy Budd.” Two more things came to mind for me last night when I was mulling all of this over. The first was a poem I’ve quoted many times before, each time for a different purpose. There’s always something new to be found in it: Yeats’ “The Second Coming.” Today I want to call attention to these lines:

…Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned…

It’s unclear exactly what Yeats meant by the phrase “the ceremony of innocence.” But to me, the lines fit the Rittenhouse case very well. The mobs in Kenosha, and the abdication of the authorities who seemed to have given up on controlling them, was and is anarchy (some of the rioters were actually anarchists). Kyle Rittenhouse was a 17-year-old teenager who was there to do good, with the idealism that youth often possesses. What happened to him was horrific, and I don’t just mean at the hands of the mob, or the scars he will bear forever from ending two human lives. I also mean what is happening to him at the hands of the state. If he is acquitted it will be far far better than if he is found guilty, but he still will have been abused by the legal system. Innocence is drowned, indeed.

The second thing that came to my mind last night is that what happened to Kyle in Kenosha that awful night in August of 2020 somewhat resembled a movie. So many of them feature an innocent person being chased, but the film that came to mind for me was from a movie obscure enough that I can’t automatically assume that very many of you have ever seen it. It’s the Scorcese film “After Hours,” usually described as a “black comedy” (can we still use that phrase?). I saw the movie when it came out in the mid-80s and liked it. It’s funny, frightening, and surreal all at once; an extremely quirky movie.

Here’s the trailer, which has a bit of the scene I’m talking about, in which an angry mob chases the main character for essentially no reason at all. The film is a comedy, as I said, but it has some scenes that are menacing and truly frightening (at least for me), and that was one. The chase part begins at 1:08 in this trailer:

For today’s proceedings in the trial, I recommend Legal Insurrection’s live feed and comments, and then later tonight Andrew Branca is slated to have his usual lengthy summary. Yesterday’s summary – “Kyle Survives Abusive Cross-Examination”- can be found here.

Veterans Day; Armistice Day

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a repeat of a previous post.]

Yes, indeed, I am that old—old enough to just barely remember when Veterans Day was called Armistice Day. The change in names occurred in 1954, when I was very small, in order to accommodate World War II and its veterans.

Since then, the original name has largely fallen out of use—although it remains, like a vestigial organ, in the timing of the holiday, November 11th, which commemorates the day the WWI armistice was signed (eleventh hour, eleventh day, eleventh month).

I’m also old enough–and had a teacher ancient enough—to have been forced to memorize that old chestnut “In Flanders Fields” in fifth grade—although without being given any historical context for it, I think at the time I assumed it was about World War II, since as far as I knew that was the only real war.

You can find the story of the poem here . It was written by a Canadian doctor who served in the European theater (there is no separate URL for the discussion of the poem, but you should click on the link about it if you scroll down on the left sidebar). It’s not necessarily great poetry, but it was great propaganda to encourage America’s entry into what was known at the time as the Great War.

The poem’s first line “In Flanders fields the poppies blow” introduces that famous flower that later became the symbol of Armistice—and later, Veterans—Day. Why the poppy?

Wild poppies flower when other plants in their direct neighbourhood are dead. Their seeds can lie on the ground for years and years, but only when there are no more competing flowers or shrubs in the vicinity (for instance when someone firmly roots up the ground), these seeds will sprout.

There was enough rooted up soil on the battlefield of the Western Front; in fact the whole front consisted of churned up soil. So in May 1915, when McCrae wrote his poem, around him bloodred poppies blossomed like no one had ever seen before.

But in this poem the poppy plays one more role. The poppy is known as a symbol of sleep. The last line We shall not sleep, though poppies grow / In Flanders fields might point to this fact. Some kinds of poppies are used to derive opium from, from which morphine is made. Morphine is one of the strongest painkillers and was often used to put a wounded soldier to sleep. Sometimes medical doctors used it in a higher dose to put the incurable wounded out of their misery.

Now a day to honor those who have served in our wars, Veterans Day has an interesting history in its original Armistice Day incarnation. It was actually established as a day dedicated to world peace, back in the early post-WWI year of 1926, when it was still possible to believe that WWI had been the war fought to end all wars.

The original proclamation establishing Armistice Day as a holiday read as follows:

Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and

Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.

After the carnage of World War II, of course, the earlier hope that peaceful relations among nations would not be severed had long been extinguished. By the time I was a young child, a weary nation sought to honor those who had fought in all of its wars in order to secure the peace that followed—even if each peace was only a temporary one.

And isn’t an armistice a strange (although understandable) sort of hybrid, after all; a decision to lay down arms without anything really having been resolved? Think about the recent wars that have ended through armistice: WWI, which segued almost inexorably into WWII; the 1948 war following the partition of Palestine; the Korean War; and the Gulf War. All of these conflicts exploded again into violence—or have continually threatened to—ever since.

So this Veterans/Armistice Day, let’s join in saluting and honoring those who have fought for our country. The hope that some day war will not be necessary is a laudable one—and those who fight wars hold it, too. But that day has clearly not yet arrived—and, realistically but sadly, most likely it never will.

[NOTE: I’ve scheduled this post to be published at 11:11 AM on 11/11.]

Now the Rittenhouse defense says it will move for a mistrial with prejudice

The New Neo Posted on by

Real live court cases don’t usually resemble anything you’d see on Perry Mason or other shows or movies. They’re usually a lot less obviously dramatic, although there are exceptions.

The Rittenhouse case has been an exception.

It also has shown what it’s like when a weak or even nonexistent case is prosecuted for political reasons. When the prosecutor has little to nothing to show for evidence, he or she has to make stuff up and/or engage in offensive antics in order to persuade the jurors of something that isn’t true. And sometimes it works.

The prosecution in the Rittenhouse case has been trying that, particularly Binger, who earlier today earned a tongue-lashing from the judge for some especially egregious violations of the usual well-known standards for the sort of questions and insinuations allowed in court.

Now we have the possibility of another dramatic action, this time by the defense:

If granted, that would mean that Rittenhouse could not be tried again. But I doubt it would be granted, although justified. That would be extraordinary. Of course, this entire prosecution is extraordinary, but so are many things in the US these days.

The theory is, of course, that the prosecution’s awful behavior is a purposeful attempt to get the judge to declare an ordinary mistrial and thus earn them a do-over and another bite at the Rittenhouse apple.

The long shadow of false accusations: “White Hispanic” George Zimmerman is still being demonized as though he’s guilty

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday in the comments to the Rittenhouse/Sandmann thread, I brought up George Zimmerman in this way: “…George Zimmerman the half-Hispanic had to be made into a ‘white Hispanic,’ the better to be demonized.”

In subsequently doing a search for Zimmerman’s name, I came across this news story from five days ago:

A weekend event featuring a speech by George Zimmerman was nixed by an Idaho hotel group after the company learned the man who killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was slated to be a headlining attraction at their venue.

The gathering, billed as the Lethal Force Gun Laws 2021 Tactics & Strategies Conference, was to have begun Friday and ended Monday at The Riverside Hotel in Boise.

Boise is not exactly a deep blue city. And yet it happened:

That report said the hotel owners cited for its reason the “immense pain” Zimmerman caused its “guests, team-members and community” when he gunned down the unarmed Black teen in February of 2012.

So Zimmerman “gunned down” Martin, with the implication that he shot in cold blood some guy who was just standing there. And although Martin indeed was an “unarmed” teenager, he was actually far bigger and stronger than Zimmerman and when shot Martin was engaged in beating Zimmerman bloody, complete with head-bashing into the pavement while sitting on him and trying to reach for his weapon.

It seems the leftist narrative is fully intact at the NY Daily News, nine years after the event and almost as many years after Zimmerman’s acquittal, as you will discover if you read the whole article.

More from the Boise hotel:

We are unequivocally opposed to providing George Zimmerman a platform and he is not welcome at The Riverside Hotel.

You may also recall that Zimmerman has had a lot of trouble repairing his life since those events in 2012, and although I assume his acquittal helped it certainly didn’t mean that he can live a normal life. One of many things that happened to him, post-trial, was that some person (actually, a man named “Apperson”) shot at him while he was driving. You can read about it here:

On May 11, 2015, Apperson shot at Zimmerman while the two were driving in separate cars on a street in Lake Mary. Zimmerman was grazed by glass and metal shards when the bullet broke through his passenger-side window and was stopped by the metal window frame, causing minor facial injuries from flying glass and debris. Zimmerman flagged down a police officer and was taken to the hospital. Apperson maintained that Zimmerman was the aggressor and that Apperson acted in self-defense. Zimmerman also had a gun with him at the time of the incident, but Zimmerman’s attorney said that “George absolutely denies having shown it, waved, displayed, pointed it.” A Lake Mary police spokesperson stated that “the investigation has proven that George Zimmerman was not the shooter.”

On May 15, 2015, Apperson was jailed in Sanford, Florida with a bond of $35,000. While free on bond, Apperson was accused, convicted and jailed for disorderly conduct, which revoked his bond. Lake Mary PD “learned that Apperson has exhibited unusual behaviors in which he had recently been admitted to a mental institution. It appears that Apperson has a fixation on Zimmerman and has displayed some signs of paranoia, anxiety, and bipolar disorder.”

On September 22, 2015, a judge ruled Apperson would stand trial for second-degree attempted murder along with one count of aggravated assault and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle. Apperson was convicted of attempted murder and aggravated assault with a firearm on September 16, 2016.

There’s a permanent target on Zimmerman’s back. I assume the same will be true for Kyle Rittenhouse even if acquitted. Rittenhouse has the advantage, however – at least, I think it’s an advantage – of being so young that, as he matures, his look will change and he might not be all that recognizable in a few years.

NOTE: By the way, in February of 2020 Zimmerman sued Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, as well as Martin’s mother, for defamation. I can’t find anything recent about the lawsuit, so I assume it still might be ongoing.

And speaking of the press and retractions…

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an interesting video that was brought to my attention by commenter “DNW”:

I wasn’t previously familiar with Ana Kasparian, the woman speaking in the video, but apparently she’s a fairly prominent leftist “journalist”:

Anahit Misak “Ana” Kasparian; born July 7, 1986, is an American progressive political commentator, media host, university instructor, and journalist. She is the main host and a producer of the online news show The Young Turks, having begun working as a fill-in producer for the show in 2007. She also appeared on the television version of the show that aired on Current TV. She formerly hosted The Point on the TYT Network and currently co-hosts a Jacobin YouTube show, Weekends with Ana Kasparian and Nando Vila.

The clip is noteworthy for a couple of reasons. The first is that she is admitting that until now – which is well over a year after the events in question, events that have been discussed and analyzed incessantly and for which much accessible video has existed almost from the start – she didn’t know one of the most basic facts of the case, which is that Rosenbaum (who was killed by Rittenhouse) was chasing Rittenhouse and not the other way around.

So we see that this journalist and journalism teacher either did not bother to learn a thing about the high-profile case, or perhaps she is lying and knew it all the time. Take your pick.

Do I give her points for admitting it now? I suppose I could, because in the current climate that’s actually unusual for a leftist journalist even when the truth is staring that person right in the eye. I don’t know whether she went on to indicate she’s re-thinking the entire case, but it’s only if her recantation was sincere that I will give her any credit at all, and then only a smidge. That is because of a phenomenon nicely wrapped up by a commenter to that YouTube video:

They knew all along they are just scared of a civil lawsuit.

A la Nick Sandmann, who successfully sued the media for defamation and got a hefty settlement.

Kyle Rittenhouse takes the stand in his own defense

The New Neo Posted on by

I was shocked when I read that Rittenhouse was taking the stand in his own defense. That’s highly unusual, as most of you know, because it opens up even otherwise-sympathetic defendants to cross-examination. It’s usually not done, and when it is done it’s usually in the form of a hail-Mary pass. In the Rittenhouse trial, the prosecution has been doing so poorly so far that most people – including me – couldn’t see any reason it should even be considered.

Kyle Rittenhouse apparently differed and wanted to take the stand to clear his name by telling his side of the story. And as things developed, perhaps he was right to do so because it may have been the only way to get facts like this in evidence:

Rittenhouse, detailing the moments before he fired on Rosenbaum recalled Rosenbaum yelling “burn in hell” to him before Rittenhouse yelled “friendly, friendly, friendly!” in an attempt to calm Rosenbaum. But he was chased…

Earlier during his testimony, Rittenhouse revealed that Rosenbaum threatened to kill him two times prior to the fatal incident, on August 25, 2020.

“If I catch any of you f***ers alone I’m going to f***ing kill you,” Rosenbaum said to Rittenhouse and a friend, the teen testified.

On another occasion, he told the two males, “I’m going to cut your f***ing hearts out and kill you N-words,” Rittenhouse said, noting that Rosenbaum did not use the term “N-word” but used the real racial slur.

Just as a reminder, both Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum are white.

Rittenhouse broke down into sobs on the stand while telling – re-living, really – the story of how he was chased and surrounded by a murderous mob. The judge called a 10-minute recess after that., and then:

After the break ended and Rittenhouse returned to the stand, the teen said Ziminski told Rosenbaum, “Get him and kill him,” referring to Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse was chased down and despite pointing his gun at Rosenbaum, the man did not stop, but lunged for his gun. “I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun,” he told the jury.

The forensic evidence presented yesterday was in line with that assertion of how close Rosenbaum’s hand was to the weapon.

The cross-examination of Rittenhouse by the prosecution appears to be ongoing. You can find discussion and a live feed at Legal Insurrection, and articles about the developments today here, here, and here (all from RedState). They include discussions of the prosecutor’s behavior on cross-examination and the reaction of the judge.

I will add one additional reason that I think the defense may have been okay with Kyle taking the stand: although trials often are decided on the fact situation and this fact situation already almost completely favored his exoneration, this trial is a political trial and Rittenhouse has been thoroughly demonized in the press for over a year. The jury had to have been tainted by that, as well as by threats to their own safety and the safety of their town. Perhaps letting him take the stand was necessary to present the real, very human and very young Kyle Rittenhouse, in order to convince the jury of his essential goodness.

The war against Rittenhouse and Sandmann

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: Take a look at yesterday’s Rittenhouse trial summary by Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection. It’s quite something.]

It struck me last night that Kyle Rittenhouse reminds me somewhat of Nick Sandmann.

Not physically, although they were similar in age when they first came to public attention. Not in the fact situation that led to their notoriety, either. Their linkage in my mind lies in the fact that both have engendered incredible rage from the left and liberals, despite their youth and what I think is their obvious innocence (Sandmann of a supposed offense that was relatively minor even if true, which it was not, and Rittenhouse of the charge of murder).

Even the word “innocence” doesn’t quite cover it. Each of them, despite their youth – or maybe in some ways because of it – behaved under great duress with tremendous composure and in the case of Rittenhouse surprising restraint, given the attack he was under and the terror he probably felt. As pointed out in the trial yesterday, he only shot when under extreme provocation and justified fear for his life, when he was being actively threatened by armed people (or in the case of Rosenbaum someone who was trying to take his gun, was cursing at him, and who had previously threatened to kill him).

But both were subjected to a concentrated smear campaign from the MSM that cemented the narrative of their wrongdoing and stirred up a cauldron of hatred against them. With Sandmann, a lot of it centered on his supposedly “smirking” face, and was remarkable in the vitriol mustered against a 16-year-old who wasn’t doing much of anything while being actively harassed by an activist. Rittenhouse is perceived as an evil white supremacist vigilante, which is just how the left wants it. And the reality of what’s being revealed at the trial isn’t being reported on much if at all, which is the way previous political trials have been handled as well.

After all, most people on the left aren’t reading Andrew Branca, and most people aren’t watching much if any of the actual trial. Who has time? Besides, we have the MSM to tell us what’s going on.

The other thing that Rittenhouse and Sandmann brought to mind for me was a piece of fiction I read in high school: Melville’s “Billy Budd.” It’s been a long time – I haven’t read it since then, and my memory of it is pretty shaky – but the thing that struck me is that Billy was a case of an innocent young man meeting a legal judgment that ruled that he must die for his actions.

You may think it’s a poor comparison. I agree that the parallels are not especially strong, but there is something there that chimes a bit with what I see happening to Rittenhouse. Now, it’s certainly possible that Rittenhouse will be acquitted, and he certainly should be acquitted. But it really depends on whether the jurors’ opinions have already been so tainted even prior to the trial that they cannot fairly evaluate the evidence. And even if acquitted, it’s hard to see Rittenhouse not being affected for the rest of his life, although I hope he can draw strength from it.

But if he’s found guilty of murder, the state will have destroyed the life of an innocent young man who was actually trying to do good that night. I mean “innocent” in several senses of the word: not guilty of the charges against him, but also idealistic in the ways of many young people everywhere.

Will the MSM ever retract their old Russiagate stories, in light of the Durham revelations?

The New Neo Posted on by

The answer to that question asked here is: “no.” I suppose it’s within the realm of possibility that one or two might, although I doubt, it, but there’s virtually no chance of any substantial number of news outlets ever doing such a thing.

Long ago I assumed that sort of meaningful retraction would of course happen when media outlets had been wrong – but, I’m talking long long ago. It was also long ago that I reluctantly realized this wouldn’t be the case, and furthermore that most of the original reporting errors weren’t errors at all, but were actually part of a campaign by “journalists” to further a certain “narrative” that hurt the right and helped the left, offered with either regardless disregard for the issue of truth or actual knowledge of their falsehood (in other words, by fools or knaves).

For me the biggest turning point was Rathergate and the doubling down in the media and among Democrats after the hoax was revealed. The egregious nature of the error/falsehood involved in the entire story was easily proven, and yet they couldn’t or wouldn’t back off. Instead they doubled down and even made a mendacious movie about it in which they were the heroes.

That’s when I knew that this was more than an ordinary error by biased people. This was either an error by people so biased that they could not admit the truth if it hit them in the face, or a purposeful lie for propaganda purposes. Sometimes it was hard to tell the difference, and in practical terms it hardly mattered although it did in moral terms.

Over time I have come to think that the latter group – the conscious liars – is bigger than the former group, the mistaken partisans. There are a lot of ways they justify themselves, but justify themselves they do.

So, to get back to the Durham investigation, here’s an article whose author Charles Lipson writes this:

Last week, John Durham’s grand jury issued its third criminal indictment in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. The person who was arrested may be obscure; the news may have been buried after Virginia’s bombshell election results; but Durham’s move is a big deal. It shows that the special counsel’s probe is methodically unraveling a huge conspiracy, seemingly engineered by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and implicating James Comey’s FBI, either as a willing participant or as utterly incompetent boobs.

Note the ubiquity of the “knave or fool” question.

The latest indictment also damages the mainstream media, which is why so many news outlets have ignored or underplayed it. After all, they broadcast a false story for years and are none too eager to revisit it. Other losers are the prosecutors assembled by Robert Mueller, most of them Democrats, who had reams of this damaging information and ignored it.

What Durham and a few intrepid reporters are uncovering may well be the most ambitious dirty trick pulled in an American election and its aftermath. The question now is whether Durham can expose the full extent of this malfeasance and charge those who planned and executed it.

Yes, they indeed are burying it because if they didn’t it would indeed damage them. But I don’t think that’s the main reason they are burying it. The main reason is the furtherance of the ideology they embrace and their mission as they see it, which is to advance that ideology. The issue of truth does not concern them, in their post-modernist thinking.

[HOTE: The Lipson article is worth reading. It even may be worth sending to people you know who are unaware of the facts in it. Will it change any minds? Almost certainly not, especially in isolation. However, it depends where on the spectrum the reader might fall. Not everyone who votes Democratic is a true believer or a leftist. Some are merely misinformed and retain an open mind. The trick is figuring out who those people are, but you can usually tell from the way your previous conversations with them have gone.]

[NOTE II: If you want to see a good example of the continuing Rathergate spin, take a look at this Salon piece from 2015 entitled, “Rathergate and the dark magic of 2004: When the GOP learned how to subvert truth and alter political reality” and subtitled, “Long before Benghazi and Planned Parenthood, Karl Rove toppled Dan Rather, gutted CBS and proclaimed lies as truth.”]