Biden and Russia

The New Neo Posted on by

One of the many transparently stupid aspects of the Russiagate narrative was that it persisted in the face of clear evidence that Trump’s behavior as president was not pro-Russia. In fact, au contraire, as Victor Davis Hanson points out here in a different context:

Putin…had concluded that Trump was dangerously unpredictable, and perhaps best not provoked. After all, the Trump administration took out Russian mercenaries in Syria. It beefed up defense spending and upped sanctions.

The Trump administration flooded the world with cheap oil to Russia’s chagrin. It pulled out from asymmetrical missile treaties with Russia. It sold sophisticated arms to the Ukrainians. The Russians concluded that Trump might do anything, and so waited for another president before again testing America.

But as Hanson also points out, Biden and those around him “seem determined to upset the peace they inherited.” That’s true of so many things; they seem determined to do the opposite of Trump even in the many areas where his policies were working. I wrote about that phenomenon recently in this post.

This is what Hanson sees the Biden administration doing to court disaster with Russia and China (additions in brackets mine):

If Biden is seeking to provoke a nation with more than 6,000 deliverable nuclear weapons, he is certainly not backing up his rhetoric [such as calling Putin a “killer”] with force.

Biden may well decrease the Pentagon budget. He also seems to have forgotten that Trump was impeached for supposedly imperiling Ukraine, when in fact he sold Ukraine weapons.

While Biden was talking loudly to Putin, his administration was being serially humiliated by China. Chinese diplomats dressed down their American counterparts in a recent meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. They gleefully recycled domestic left-wing boilerplate that a racist America has no moral authority to criticize China.

If Trump was unpredictably blunt, Biden is too often predictably confused. And he appears frail, sending the message to autocracies that America’s commander in chief is not fully in control.

Biden has not, as he promised, demanded from China transparency about the origins of the COVID-19 virus in Wuhan. By summer, that plague may have killed 600,000 Americans.

More disturbing, as Russia puts troops on the Ukrainian border, China is flying into Taiwanese air space, testing its defenses and the degree to which the United States cares.

For a half-century, American foreign policy sought to ensure that Russia was no closer to China than either was to the United States. Now, the two dictatorships seem almost joined at the hip, as each probes U.S. responses or lack thereof. Not surprisingly, North Korea in late March resumed its firing of missiles over the Sea of Japan.

Much more at the link.

These things are not accidental; they are very much a continuation of the Obama years, and there are even members of the same Obama team onboard. Biden – in my opinion – is not in charge, but neither is he utterly senile and for the most part he is in favor of what’s happening, too, just as he was during the Obama years.

I doubt there’s anyone in the administration who has America’s well-being at heart. Their priorities are somewhat opaque to me, but I believe that some actually are far leftists, some are merely incompetent, and some are playing to international interests in which they might have a monetary stake.

“Why is everyone swallowing Biden’s lies?”

The New Neo Posted on by

That’s the question the editors of Issues and Insights are asking here:

…[W]e know why the mainstream press parrots everything Biden says. They are nothing more than Democratic operatives with bylines, as Glenn Reynolds puts it on his Instapundit blog.

But why are corporate executives falling for it? Why are officials with sports leagues? Why are politicians in both parties bending to Biden’s reality distortion field?

How can someone who is barely lucid, who has trouble even reading his teleprompter, who — at best — eked out a presidential victory and — at worst — stole it, who has never had anything remotely like an enthusiastic following, suddenly hold such sway over so many people? How is he setting the national agenda?

Has the country truly gone this mad?

The answer to that last question is “yes,” but it rests on a lot more than whether or not people believe Biden’s lies.

Actually, I’m not sure whether a majority of the general public does believe his lies, because I no longer trust polls. But leaving that aside, it’s clear that a lot of people do fall right in line in believing what Biden is saying. However, I think that’s because of the following reasons:

(1) They aren’t paying much attention and accept it out of habit and because the people around them accept it, the MSM says it’s true for the most part, companies are acting as though it’s true, and all “nice” people say it’s true. Also, it’s certainly not just Biden saying it. In other words, there are a lot of forces telling them it’s true and they have no inclination to do their own research or spend a moment more than necessary to check it out.

(2) Biden is the un-Trump, and just as everything Trump said was a lie, so Biden tells the truth.

(3) And even when Biden does do or say something a bit sketchy, it’s just “good old Joe” stuttering or making a small and meaningless faux pas.

(4) Corporations and even some sports leagues have different agendas than the general public. For starters, many are run by the “woke” and many employ the woke, and many sports leagues have a lot of minority players who ascribe to wokeness. What’s more, the power of the far left to boycott and accuse and carry on if a corporation doesn’t toe the line is formidable, and more feared (so far) than the power of the right to do the same. Lastly, many of these companies are now multinational even if based here, and don’t want to annoy their other markets and/or investors (China-based, for example), markets and sources that can sometimes constitute a larger share of their support than those in the US.

(5) I’m not sure to whom the authors are referring when they write, “Why are politicians in both parties bending to Biden’s reality distortion field?” I haven’t seen many in the GOP agreeing with Biden on, for example, the “Jim Crow” nature of the new Georgia voting laws – or much of anything else. Yes, some have certainly referred to January 6th as an “insurrection,” especially at the outset. But in general and on most issues, I don’t see much or really any agreement with Biden’s reality distortion field coming from politicians on the right. Intensely NeverTrumper pundits, yes; politicians, no.

One more thing – the degree to which many people simply swallow whatever the MSM tells them was driven home to me most dramatically back in 2012. Romney was the candidate, and I figured he was probably moderate enough that some Democrats would vote for him or at least not hate him. But when I went to my book group in the fall of that election season, a while after Democrats and the MSM were harping on Romney’s “binders of women” statement in order to cast him as some sort of woman-hater, I discovered that virtually all the women in my book group had bought into it. They hated Romney, the woman-hater – it was a done deal.

That was quite something to behold, and the inanity of the charge against Romney did nothing to stop them from swallowing it whole. These are not unintelligent women. But they are Democrats, and they were willing and eager to buy whatever the MSM was selling if it reflected badly on a Republican.

Who wrote Patsy Cline’s “Crazy”?

The New Neo Posted on by

I was surprised to discover recently that it was Willie Nelson, and that he sang it on his first album in 1962, the same year Cline had a big hit with it.

Here’s Nelson back then (the video says 1961, but the link says it came out in 1962). I didn’t think Nelson was ever as young and clean-cut as in the photo:

I think this later rendition is better, performed when he was thirty years older (1992) and his voice more laden with experience:

I think Nelson is good. But I still think Cline edges him out on this one:

According to Willie Nelson in an interview with Sirius XM satellite radio, he was at Tootsie’s Orchid Lounge and had put his own song “Crazy” in the jukebox. Patsy Cline’s husband heard it and wanted to get it to Patsy. They were both drunk, and Willie was reluctant to go, and he even stayed in the car while her husband played it for her. In the end, she recorded it a few weeks later. In another interview, Willie says that the song originally was called “Stupid”.

According to Ellis Nassour’s biography Patsy Cline, Nelson, then a struggling songwriter known as Hugh Nelson,…met Cline’s husband Charlie Dick at the bar one evening and pitched the song to him. Dick took the track home and played it for Cline, who absolutely hated it at first because Nelson’s demo “spoke” the lyrics ahead of and behind the beat; an annoyed Cline remarked that she “couldn’t sing like that”.

However, Cline’s producer, Owen Bradley, loved the song and arranged it in the ballad form in which it later was recorded. On Loretta Lynn’s album I Remember Patsy, Bradley reported that as Cline still was recovering from a recent automobile accident that nearly took her life, she’d had difficulty reaching the high notes of the song on the original production night due to her broken ribs. So after about four hours of trying – in the days of four songs being recorded in three hours – they called it a night. A week later, she recorded the lead vocal in one take.

And I think “Crazy” is a much better lyric than “Stupid.”

Court-packing (Part I): speculating on the Democrats’ current strategy

The New Neo Posted on by

There is virtually no question in my mind that the Democrats want to control SCOTUS. The only unknown is if and how they will accomplish it.

Today, as promised, Democrats introduced legislation to pack the Court and increase the number of justices to 13, sponsored by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y..

Why are they doing this? It’s for the People!! Here’s Representative Mondaire Jones on the subject:

Our democracy is under assault, and the Supreme Court has dealt the sharpest blows.

To restore power to the people, we must #ExpandTheCourt.

I’ve been expecting this. But it seems to me likely that the Democrats don’t think they have the votes to pass it in both houses, so why would they even put it to a vote? Why not wait, try to pass HR1, and no matter what (with or without HR1) make sure they win control of the House and Senate in 2022 by a large enough margin to do it? Then they won’t need Joe Manchin’s permission.

The idea that this isn’t going to happen right now is supported by the fact that Pelosi made this announcement earlier today:

Pelosi was asked during a press briefing if she supported a bill brought forward by House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) to expand the Supreme Court by four seats and if she would bring it to the House floor.

“No. I support the president’s commission to study such a proposal, but frankly I’m not — right now, we’re back, our members, our committees are working. We’re putting together the infrastructure bill and the rest,” Pelosi said.

Of course, Pelosi could go back on her word, and there is no reason to trust that she won’t do so. But I think her statement was an indication that (a) she doesn’t have the votes or the Senate doesn’t; and/or (b) she believes it’s politically expedient to wait. Nothing they do is by accident, though – she certainly is allowing Nadler et al to introduce this bill right now, and it’s for a reason.

I saw this comment at another blog:

Step 1 Abolish the filibuster
Step 2 Pack court
Step 3 Pass HR 1
End game Total control of all three branches of government plus federal elections equals permanent hold on power.

I have little doubt that’s what they’d like to do. But my guess is that they will wait, just as Pelosi says, in order to pretend to have the commission “study” it for a while. They don’t want to unduly alarm the voters prior to the 2022 elections, and they are hoping they will win those elections and then they can pack the Court.

Even if they don’t win, though, introducing this bill today fulfills other goals. For one thing, it somewhat placates the huge leftist wing of the Party. But perhaps even more importantly, it’s a signal to the SCOTUS justices that the Democrats will pack the Court the minute they get the chance, if the justices don’t rule in ways that the Democrats want. Roberts is especially susceptible to such threats, I believe. And lastly, it gives Biden’s commission cover, conveying the idea that it will undertake an objective study, and will issue non-partisan recommendations – recommendations that are likely to end up being much like today’s bill.

Is there anyone who thinks that the Democrats would be supporting this move if Republicans were still in charge of the presidency and the Senate, and a GOP president would be appointing the justices and a GOP Senate in charge of approving the nominations? Of course they wouldn’t. And no, Republicans have never backed such a thing when they have been in charge.

At this point, Republicans are speaking out against it. For example:

“Packing the Supreme Court would destroy the Supreme Court,” tweeted Tom Cotton, senator for Arkansas. “The Democrats will do anything for power.”

Well, of course it would. That’s a feature for the Democrats, not a bug. They aim to control all the levers of power.

Note that in 1937, when FDR proposed to pack the Court, many Democrats joined the Republicans in being opposed to the scheme. That’s changed. Note also, though, the outcome of FDR’s tactics. Although the court-packing never happened, he got control of the Court anyway:

In April, however, before the bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices came over to the liberal side and by a narrow majority upheld as constitutional the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act. The majority opinion acknowledged that the national economy had grown to such a degree that federal regulation and control was now warranted. Roosevelt’s reorganization plan was thus unnecessary, and in July the Senate struck it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Soon after, Roosevelt had the opportunity to nominate his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.

Democrats got control in the end, without the need to pack the Court. Note the size of that Senate vote against court-packing, though – and this was at a point when Democrats controlled the Senate with a hefty supermajority. They still retained some integrity back then.

[NOTE: In Part II, I plan to discuss the ways in which this court-packing tactic – including first appointing a commission to study it and make recommendations – parallels Chavez’s moves in Venezuela as he was solidifying his dictatorship.]

Late evidence dump in Chauvin trial, and prosecution allowed to recall its own witness who ends up testifying on new evidence after defense has rested and its witness has gone home [see ADDENDUM below]

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m no trial law expert, but it seems to me that certain proceedings in the Chauvin trial have been highly unusual. They would be strong grounds for appeal – in a sane world, that is. I don’t think that’s the world America is living in right now.

For details on the issue of late-in-the-game evidence-dumping, here’s Andrew Branca yesterday:

Ideally, by the time a trial actually starts both sides will have long since received the other’s disclosure items, early enough to have time to consider and research them before the trial begins.

That has not been the process in this trial, particularly with respect of state disclosures to the defense.

When this trial began, the state had already delivered to the defense 41 disclosures consisting of 45,118 Bates stamped items.

If that sound like a lot, that’s because it is.

But the disclosures of the state did not stop there, as one would normally expect. Indeed, not even close.

Since the start of the trial—in other words, while the sole defense attorney Nelson has been occupied the entirety of every day in trial on this case—the state has continued to deliver disclosures to the defense, each containing a great many Bates stamped items.

Indeed, since the start of the trial the state has made 12 additional disclosures to the defense, consisting of 5,154 additional Bates stamped items.

Yes, that’s 5,154.

Yesterday was the 12th day of this trial. That works out to the defense having to review newly delivered Bates stamped items at an average of 430 per day.

That’s 430 newly delivered Bates items per day.

That, folks, is not normal.

The defense raised this issue yesterday afternoon in the context of anticipated cross-examination of defense experts by the state today.

Much of the most recently delivered discovery consists of materials that could be, certainly will be, used in an attempt to impeach those defense experts.

Given the delivery of this discovery so late in the course of the trial, and the volume of the material, the defense is asking the court to order the prosecution to disclose in some detail exactly which of those newly disclosed exhibits it actually intends to use to impeach.

The judge asked the prosecution to do so, to the extent they reasonably could, which strikes me as completely ineffectual solution to this real problem for the defense.

I expect the real reason the defense raised this issue on the record was, well, to establish it as an issue on the record for purposes of appeal.

Some people have theorized that the judge wants a conviction in order to prevent or at least minimize rioting, and then wants a reversal ruling later on appeal. I don’t think so. First of all, most judges don’t want to make errors of that magnitude, if only for the sake of their own egos. Secondly, I would think that, if a reversible error were to be declared for Chauvin after a conviction, there certainly would be riots anyway. Actually, I think there will be riots whatever happens, short of a murder conviction, and perhaps even then.

Then today the judge allowed another highly unusual move. Branca hasn’t written his wrap-up, in which he almost certainly will analyze it. But we have “shipwreckedcrew” at RedState, whose post today is entitled, “BREAKING: Prosecutorial Error With State’s Last Witness Creates Grounds for Possible Mistrial in Chauvin Trial.” Here’s an excerpt [my emphasis]:

[After the defense rested its case] The prosecution advised the Court that it would have one rebuttal witness. A rebuttal witness can be called to present testimony in response to evidence heard for the first time during the defense case. As is very common, the rebuttal testimony would come from one expert witness who previously testified, Dr. Martin Tobin, and the testimony would be in response to testimony given by a defense expert.

But the surprising part of the prosecution’s announcement was that it intended to have Dr. Tobin testify about newly discovered evidence — a Hennepin County Medical Examiner report on the level of carbon monoxide (CO) in the blood gas testing of arterial blood drawn from Floyd at the hospital.

The standard panel of blood gas readings sent at the request of the ER physicians would not normally have included this test result. The machine that tests the blood does measure the CO content, and it is reflected in the master report that is produced by the machine, but that reading is not normally sent to the ER where the patient is being treated. The Medical Examiner didn’t ask for that particular test reading because he didn’t deem it relevant upon examination. So the test reading was reflected in the hospital records all along, but it had never been noted by anyone until the Medical Examiner, Dr. Baker, went back to the records after hearing some of the earlier expert testimony in the case.

Even though the report has been in existence since the night of Floyd’s death, the prosecution claimed it first received it yesterday by Dr. Baker. The report’s findings would have supported earlier testimony by Dr. Tobin and undermined the testimony of the defense expert, Dr. Fowler.

The bigger problem for the defense what that Dr. Fowler has already left Minneapolis and was on a plane returning to his home — meaning the defense would be unable to call Dr. Fowler back to the witness stand after Dr. Tobin in order to have Dr. Fowler review the same testing reports and incorporate them into this previously testified opinion…

…Had the reports been timely produced to the defense as required, Dr. Fowler would have had the test reports to review at the time he formed his opinions and prepared his testimony.

The judge ruled that Tobin could not “testify about the CO test results, or…criticize Dr. Fowler’s testimony based on information in those reports.” But the judge allowed the prosecution to question Dr. Tobin “in response to other topics addressed by Dr. Fowler in his testimony on behalf of Chauvin.”

This is what the prosecution had in mind, had the judge allowed them to question Tobin they way they wanted to:

Dr. Fowler’s report back in February noted a lack of testing on the part of the hospital regarding blood CO, giving the prosecution at least 60 days notice that he would testify on that issue. Had the test results been provided prior to the trial, Dr. Fowler’s testimony would have been different. Dr. Tobin’s intended testimony was that such testing had been done, and CO was ruled out as a contributing cause by the blood gas results — undermining Dr. Fowler in an unfair and prejudicial manner since the prosecution had the evidence all along but did not provide it.

Here’s the most important part – not that the rest wasn’t important:

Judge Cahill warned the prosecution that even if Dr. Tobin’s testimony “hints at” the existence of the testing results the prosecution would be at serious risk of having a mistrial declared.

And then, just as you might imagine, the prosecution asked Tobin questions that meant that in his answer he discussed details of the testing results, in order to discredit the defense witness’s testimony. This resulted in a defense objection, various sidebar conferences with the judge, and the judge allowing the testimony – testimony which seems to be unequivocally in violation of his own warning about a mistrial.

And then the court adjourned for the day. The judge did not declare a mistrial.

I have to say that assumptions I might have made a few years ago about how this might go are not the assumptions I make now. Just to take one example, recall Judge Sullivan in the Flynn trial. For most readers of this blog, or others who followed that trial elsewhere, I don’t have to explain what a travesty that was, and how it violated previous legal standards in terms of the judge’s rulings that were prejudicial to the defendant. In the end, it was only a presidential pardon that helped Flynn, not the legal system that had failed him.

Chauvin has been demonized even more than Flynn, and I doubt the legal system in Minnesota will be eager to declare the need for a new trial if he is convicted. As for SCOTUS – well, SCOTUS will either have been packed with liberals by that time, or perhaps will have been sufficiently intimidated by threats of packing, to have become basically worthless.

ADDENDUM:

I see that Andrew Branca has now weighed in at Legal Insurrection. Here are some of the details, which deals further with the question of whether the evidence about blood levels was actually “new”:

Normally, of course, the state would have been expected to make such arguments in Dr. Tobin’s original testimony, and their failure to do so would not be a good reason to suddenly allow Tobin to re-testify now.

An exception to that normal prohibition on re-testimony, however, can be made if the defense itself had “ambushed” the prosecution with scientific arguments for which they had not provided the state with notice.

Prosecutor Blackwell argued that Fowler’s reference to CO concentrations as high as 18% had never previously been disclosed to the state, and so qualified as just such an “ambush” that justified Tobin’s re-call to the witness stand.

The defense countered that Fowler had explicitly referenced CO as a possible contributor to Floyd’s death in his expert report shared with the state weeks before trial began and had even recommend that the state test the blood for CO concentration.

It was only the state, not the defense, that had possession of the blood. As a result, the state was on notice with respect to the CO issue, and if they failed to address that issue in a timely manner, that was on them.

Judge Cahill agreed with the defense with respect to this “newly discovered” blood gas level data, and informed the state that if Tobin so much as hinted at this new data, the Judge would order a mistrial had occurred.

That said, Cahill said he would allow Tobin to speak to the CO concentration issue if he only referenced data that had long been available to both parties. That opened the door to the prosecution having Tobin reference Floyd’s oxygen (rather than carbon monoxide) levels, and use the O level to infer possible CO level.

This is possible because O and CO both compete for the same binding location on hemoglobin, and only one of them can bind any particular hemoglobin protein. So, a protein bound by O cannot also be available to be bound by CO, and the reverse.

Because the parties were aware that blood gas measurements had indicated that Floyd’s blood had O levels of 98%, it could be inferred that his CO levels could be no greater than the remaining 2%, which was well within normal.

There’s quite a bit more at the link, and it’s rather complicated and hard to summarize, so I suggest you go there.

But here’s Branca’s conclusion:

Frankly, in my professional opinion, a mistrial in this case would be entirely warranted, if not from this particular incident in isolation, then from the accumulated harms done to the defense by the state’s untimely dropping of thousands of exhibits on the defense even as the trial proper was taking place, averaging nearly 500 new exhibits each day of the trial.

Indeed. However, to declare a mistrial for that, it seems to me that the judge would have to criticize himself, because he was the one who had allowed it to happen in the first place.

Another brave teacher stands up to Critical Race Theory

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the essay:

I am a teacher at Grace Church High School in Manhattan…

As a teacher, my first obligation is to my students. But right now, my school is asking me to embrace “antiracism” training and pedagogy that I believe is deeply harmful to them and to any person who seeks to nurture the virtues of curiosity, empathy and understanding…

I know that by attaching my name to this I’m risking not only my current job but my career as an educator, since most schools, both public and private, are now captive to this backward ideology. But witnessing the harmful impact it has on children, I can’t stay silent.

Much much more at the link.

People such as Paul Rossi, the author of the piece, are in a position somewhat analogous to the situation of dissidents during the later stages of the USSR. Unlike earlier Soviet dissidents, they don’t risk being sent to an actual gulag or killed outright; not at this point, anyway. But they are at risk for loss of livelihood and ostracism if they speak out against the official prevailing wokeness. These are not small things.

I salute all those who demonstrate such courage.

When I do a Google search for “Paul Rossi Grace Church School” right now, all I get (besides the school website) are news sources on the right such as Fox and the NY Post and The Federalist, and once again the British Daily Mail. That’s a very familiar pattern. The story is also on Bari Weiss’ Twitter page. I imagine there’s quite a bit going on behind-the-scenes right now at the school, however.

More on the background of Daunte Wright and that outstanding warrant

The New Neo Posted on by

Now we get some new information on Daunte Wright and his previous encounters with the police:

Daunte Wright had an open warrant related to an armed-robbery case against him when he was shot dead Sunday by a cop who claimed she thought she was firing her Taser, court records show.

Wright, 20, and another man had been charged with first-degree attempted aggravated robbery in December 2019 for allegedly trying to steal $820 from a woman at gunpoint, according to Hennepin County District Court documents.

The pair had crashed at the victim’s home in the city of Osseo after attending a party there –then demanded money the next morning while flashing a gun, authorities said in court papers.

“Give me the f–king money — I’m not playing around,” Wright told the woman, according to prosecutors.

They ended up leaving without the money and without harming anyone, however. Later, there was a violation of bail conditions by Wright, including a weapons possession incident of some sort. The officers who stopped him for a license plate problem became aware of these violations when they did a check as a routine part of that traffic stop.

None of this exonerates Officer Potter in the fatal shooting of Wright, which was apparently unintentional as far as we know up to this point. The knowledge of Wright’s record and possible dangerousness might have heightened Potter’s fear and resultant stress, and affected her ability to judge taser from gun, but I believe that may be legally irrelevant except perhaps in the sentencing stage if she is convicted of anything.

More information here about Wright’s prior behavior:

Wright and another man, identified as Emajay Maurice Driver, a high school acquaintance, had both been charged with first-degree aggravated robbery in a December 2019 incident in Osseso, Minn., Hennepin County District Court documents show.

First-degree aggravated robbery is no misdemeanor, although an earlier article in the WaPo had indicated that Wright’s previous brush with the law was for a misdemeanor (I discussed that WaPo article in this previous post).

More from the Fox News article:

Wright then allegedly choked the woman while trying to pull the cash out from under her bra, where she had tucked it away.

The court documents say she was able to pry herself loose and “started to kneel down and scream.” She told authorities that she allegedly heard Driver tell her to give the money to Wright, who was yelling at her to stop screaming.

She reportedly screamed at them to get out of her apartment, telling them that the cops were close. Wright allegedly told her he would shoot her and said, “Give me the money and we will leave, give me the money and we will go.”

More at the link.

Note that the first story is from the NY Post and the second from Fox. So far I don’t see anything in our illustrious Times or WaPo or even ABC or CNN, although they usually come up very high in the Google algorithm. As so often happens, the Brits of the Daily Mail are covering it, though.

This is from the Daily Mail article:

Wright was due to face trial on a charge of attempted aggravated robbery – with a possible maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Another fact I hadn’t previously heard is that Daunte’s girlfriend was also in the car, and sustained non-life-threatening injuries when Daunte’s car crashed as a result of him losing the ability to control it.

Officer Potter charged in Daunte Wright shooting; no charges for unidentified Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: Also please see the ADDENDUM below for an update on the Jacob Blake shooting in Kenosha.]

That was quick. The charge against Potter is second-degree manslaughter, and at the link you can see the ways in which the statute defines that crime. The only definition that seems at all applicable is the first one:

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

(1) by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another…

Did Potter consciously take such a chance, in the legal sense? I have no idea how this is defined in Minnesota. Perhaps it just means that she consciously went for the taser and was negligent in locating it. If that’s the definition, Potter might want to plea and get it over with, in hopes of a reduced sentence (something that might not be offered to her, considering the politics involved).

I also have no idea whether Minnesota has a lesser charge that would have been a better fit – some other definition that involves negligence without consciously taking a chance of causing death or great bodily harm.

Was Potter overcharged due to fear of the mob? Or is this the correct charge? The situation seems (so far) to be a fairly clear-cut case of fatal error.

Contrast that to how little we still know, over three months later, about the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt at the hands of a still officially unidentified Capitol Police officer. We do know one thing, though – the officer will not be charged with anything. That was announced today:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) will not pursue charges against the U.S. Capitol Police officer who allegedly shot and killed Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 riot in Washington, D.C., officials announced Wednesday.

An investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia determined “that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution,” the department said in a statement…

Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber,” prosecutors said.

Their evidence might be “insufficient,” but ours is almost nonexistent. And it will almost certainly remain that way. We have some videos, but no explanation of what rules the officer was following, exactly why this woman was shot and no one else, and whether the officer’s behavior conformed to those rules. We don’t know what happened curing the investigation, and we don’t know what sort of evidence would have been considered “sufficient” and what was lacking.

Nor, of course, do we know the name of the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt – unlike in all the recent cases such as Daunte Wright’s, in which officers’ identities have been released very quickly, even before the officers are charged with anything.

Maybe the dropping of charges was the right decision; maybe not. But the public hasn’t been given enough information to judge and I doubt we’ll ever get that information. The feds say they are so scared of the dangerous and violent “insurrectionists” on the right, but they certainly don’t seem particularly afraid of riots as a result of stonewalling and not pressing charges in cases such as these.

Will Ashli Babbitt’s family sue? Don’t sit on a hot stove till Ben Crump comes to their rescue.

[ADDENDUM: On the other hand, it was announced today that the officer in the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha was not charged and has been reinstated. I’ve written at length about the Blake shooting – in particular, here. Note in that post the quotes from certain state officials who rushed to judgment. I would bet that the BLM crowd will not accept today’s announcement as valid.

More:

“Officer Sheskey was not charged with any wrongdoing. He acted within the law and was consistent with training. This incident was also reviewed internally. Officer Sheskey was found to have been acting within policy and will not be subjected to discipline,” the press release stated.

Sheskey returned from administrative leave on March 31. Miskinis said some “will not be pleased with the outcome,” but that, given the facts, the “only lawful and appropriate decision was made.”

Blake – who is paralyzed but alive – has filed a civil lawsuit. Will there be a settlement, as in so many of these cases?]

Poll: 62% of respondents don’t think voter ID laws discriminate

The New Neo Posted on by

The Rasmussen poll is here:

Most voters say it’s more important to prevent cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote and, by more than a two-to-one margin, they reject claims that voter ID laws are discriminatory.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 29% of Likely U.S. Voters say laws requiring photo identification at the polls discriminate against some voters. Sixty-two percent (62%) say voter ID laws don’t discriminate.

Problem is, the Democratic Party does not care. They have their narrative and they’re sticking to it. If they can pass HR1 (which remains to be seen) they will pass it, reducing election security and opening up greater opportunity for fraud.

If they accomplish that, and take far more control of the voting process for the entire United States, what the mere voters think will become even less important.