No sentencing for Trump till after the election

The New Neo Posted on by

How very magnanimous of Judge Merchan to wait till November 26 to sentence Donald Trump in the ludicrous records falsification “hush money” trial. Here’s the reason he gave:

“The public’s confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction or distortion,” Merchan said in a letter Friday.

“Unfortunately, we are now at a place in time that is fraught with complexities rendering the requirements of a sentencing hearing, should one be necessary, difficult to execute. Thus, in accordance with certain of the grounds submitted by Defendant and the reasons for adjournment provided by the People coupled with the unique time frame this matter currently finds itself in, the decision on the [motion] and the imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance – however unwarranted – that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate,” Merchan said.

Earth to Judge Merchan: at least half the public has zero confidence in the integrity of our judicial system, and you have had a significant role in that loss of confidence. And there’s a sort of bleak humor in the idea that this postponement could do away with the suspicion – however unwarranted, ha ha – of an attempt to influence the election. As though the constant cries of “convicted felon!” haven’t already affected the election – although not entirely as the left had hoped.

The entire enterprise has been nothing else but an attempt to influence the election and to punish Trump for the unforgivable crime of having won the presidency in 2016.

Braver Angels: helping loved ones divided by politics

The New Neo Posted on by

Braver Angels is a group dedicated to helping people from opposite sides of the political spectrum be able to talk rationally and calmly about politics. Good luck. I think it’s a laudable but very difficult goal.

I noticed that they have videos at YouTube that feature marriage and family therapist Bill Doherty doing sessions with some volunteers – not actors, but real people with political disagreements with loved ones that have been heated enough that they feel they need help. You might be interested in taking a look; here’s the playlist.

The Georgia school shooter’s father has been arrested and charged with homicide

The New Neo Posted on by

The case seems similar to the Crumbley case in Michigan. I’ve written six previous posts about the Crumbley case, because it alarmed me and I thought the parents either should not have been charged or were way overcharged. From this previous post on the Crumbleys:

No, of course it won’t be “run of the mill parents” who are charged. But in these school shooter situations, there are often warning signs that go unheeded, or that are not dealt with properly. Hindsight is 20/20, and as I said before, these particular parents don’t seem to have exercised good judgment. But they are not guilty of any crime. And finding them guilty of a crime opens the door to the state using the precedent and the tool as it sees fit, in particular to punish parents who might espouse positions it doesn’t like.

From the Georgia case:

Authorities charged Colin Gray, the father of the Georgia school shooter Colt Gray, with four counts of manslaughter, two counts of second-degree murder and eight counts of cruelty to children.

Colt is accused of killing two teachers and two students. He faces four counts of felony murder.

Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) Director Chris Hosey didn’t confirm Gray gifted the gun to his 14-year-old son.

Hosey said Gray “knowingly allowed” his son “to possess it.”

According to reports, Gray gave Colt the gun for Christmas only a few months after the FBI interviewed the family about online shooting threats.

The FBI didn’t seem unduly alarmed, nor did the school system. Of course, more might emerge in time about the parents’ negligence – it’s very very early yet and I’m sure I don’t have all the facts. But whatever emerges I doubt it rises to the level of homicide charges to the parents. The murders are absolutely horrible, of course. But wouldn’t the FBI and the school system be at least as culpable as the parents? And if the 14-year-old son is being tried as an adult (which he is), why are the parents considered responsible for murder instead of some sort of negligence? Unless the father put the gun in the boy’s hands and told him it would be a great idea to go to school and kill someone, I just don’t see that murder is an appropriate charge.

If you were looking forward to seeing the evidence in the Hunter Biden tax fraud case, you may end up disappointed [scroll down for UPDATE]

The New Neo Posted on by

And that’s because Hunter is apparently attempting to plead guilty, which if accepted would keep the court from airing all his dirty laundry. We’ve seen quite a bit of that laundry already on his own laptop, but this was going to be evidence in a court of law. Even with a guilty plea, however, there would be a sentencing hearing.

But it’s a special sort of guilty plea he’s offering, called an Alford plea, which is technically a guilty plea but without an admission of actual guilt. That has various benefits, if the prosecution accepts it, because it would preserve Hunter’s ability to sue people for defamation who call him guilty. If that seems absurd – well, it kind of is.

More:

The case is in a state of flux at the moment, although the prosecution has opposed the plea. And the DOJ apparently never accepts Alford pleas except in extremely extraordinary circumstances, so if they had accepted Hunter’s it would have been – and this is a word with which we’ve become quite familiar in recent years – unprecedented.

UPDATE:

Now Hunter is pleading guilty in the usual manner, and it’s been accepted. Sentencing is scheduled for December 16. That seems to me to be well-timed. It takes the case out of the campaign season, and yet it places sentencing early enough that his father can pardon him if needed.

The Trump/Harris debate: the battle of the mics

The New Neo Posted on by

For the Trump/Harris debate on September 10 – which may end up being the only presidential debate of the 2024 campaign – it was finally decided that the candidates’ mics will be muted when their opponent is speaking. Kamala Harris would love for the mics to have remained open, the better to lure Trump into looking boorish and overbearing by overtalking her, and the better to be able to interrupt him .

Debates are often important campaign tools, but for Harris this may really feel like a make-or-break evening. Her strategy has been to appear as little as possible in unscripted settings and to remain as much of a blank slate as a person who’s been VP for almost four years can manage to do. I believe that she would dearly love to be able to portray Trump as an overbearing lout – a perception that may not be that difficult to engineer, depending on how he behaves at the debate – and to portray herself as simultaneously a victim of the nasty man but able to strongly stand up to him.

So why am I talking about open mics? Wasn’t it already agreed each candidate’s mic would be muted when the other is speaking? There’s the little matter of “assurances” from ABC:

CNN reported Wednesday that Harris accepted the rules after receiving separate “assurances” that mics could be turned on during the debate and the moderators would explain unheard exchanges.

“ABC News has offered assurances to the Harris campaign that if there is significant cross talk between Harris and Trump, the network may choose to turn on the mics so that the public can understand what is happening, the moderator would discourage either candidate from interrupting constantly and the moderator would also work to explain to viewers what is being said, according to the source familiar,” CNN reported.

Well, now. Kamala Harris may not be able to bring her emotional support VP Walz onstage with her, but there are always the good folk at ABC who might intervene with some newsplainin’ on her behalf.

[NOTE: Speaking of “newsplainin'”; remember Candy Crowley and Romney in the second Romney/Obama debate of 2012? See this as well as this.]

Caroline Glick has a very disturbing video on the Biden administration’s sanctions on Israeli citizens

The New Neo Posted on by

I had read about this sort of thing before – that the Biden administration is sanctioning Israelis for fairly trivial (and in many cases only alleged) abuses, in a manner that’s very different from the way it’s treating people in other countries, and especially in countreis that are supposedly considered our allies. But this Caroline Glick video gives the details, and it’s extremely chilling what’s going on. You don’t even have to watch the whole thing (although I recommend that); ten to twenty minutes or so will be enough to get the drift.

Open thread 9/5/2024

The New Neo Posted on by

This little girl is seven. I wish her teacher would restrain her in terms of the exaggeration of her extensions. She’s so naturally flexible that less is more in that regard. But otherwise she has a lovely quality of movement for one so young, especially in her upper body and epaulement which are usually the last elements of a ballet dancer to mature:

Hamas and the murder of hostages, Part II: blaming Bibi

The New Neo Posted on by

Israel is torn right now, but it was already torn before 10/7. The trauma of that day of massive carnage and the ensuing war resulted in a temporary and illusory unity, somewhat like the US experienced after 9/11. Now, in a delayed reaction, the rift has only widened. It draws in part on the left/right split that had already become severe over the topic of what to do about the Supreme Court, which had taken enormous and unbalancing power for itself and for the left. That crisis has not been resolved.

In addition, Netanyahu is as “controversial” a figure as Trump is in this country, with his haters hating him with a white-hot passion. That has only increased. It is understandable to blame Bibi for not having seen 10/7 coming and for failing to protect the people of Israel, although he had plenty of company in that failure from others on both right and left in the government and military and in fact was not fully informed by them. Nevertheless, because he was the prime minister at the time of the attack it makes some sense to blame him, and that anger is piled onto the already-existing rage.

The fact that the hostages have been in captivity almost a year, and more are now being murdered in cold blood, has brought all of this to a fever pitch. Netanyahu is to blame, say many Israelis, who are engaging in an intensely emotional sort of magical wishful thinking. Logic dictates that the demands of Hamas were so extreme that they amount to insisting that Israel surrender to them, and even then they were only promising to release a small number of hostages they wouldn’t even guarantee were alive. What kind of bargain is that? Would any sane leader make it?

The answer is “a terrible self-destructive bargain” and “no, of course not.” But this is not a rational demand on the part of those Israelis blaming Bibi for not capitulating to their murderers, it is a deeply emotional one. Blame the person closer to you, and pretend he is an all-powerful father who can do the impossible just because you so fervently want the impossible to be possible. The truth is that no deal other than surrender would suffice, surrender would yield far more carnage, and Hamas wouldn’t even give all the hostages back alive in exchange for surrender. That’s a reality so terrible it makes emotional – although not logical – sense to deny it.

Which leaves enormous power in the hands of Hamas. They can do what they will with the hostages: parade them, make them denounce Netanyahu, kill them, and show videos of the entire process. And Hamas is well aware that the Israeli demonstrators, pained beyond measure, will continue to blame Bibi.

As will the world, and Joe Biden. Joe Biden, who apparently was able to take a moment out of his busy vacation schedule and pretend to be president again, managed to say one of the most vile and insulting – and destructive – things possible on the killing of the six hostages. This was typical Biden. His remark was that Netanyahu hadn’t done enough in the negotiations to bring the hostages home. And yet Netanyahu had done everything but surrender.

Netanyahu had this response to Biden’s accusation:

“On April 27th, secretary of state Blinken said that Israel made an extraordinarily generous offer for a hostage deal. On May 31st, Israel agreed to a US backed proposal. Hamas refused. On August 16th, Israel agreed to what the United States defined as a final bridging proposal. Hamas refused again. On August 19th, secretary Blinken said, Israel accepted the US proposal. Now Hamas must do the same. On, August 28th, that’s 5 days ago 5 days ago, deputy CIA director said that Israel shows seriousness in the negotiations.Now Hamas must show the same seriousness. I wanna ask you something. What has changed in the last 5 days?”

He went on to remind the world that the Hamas murderers executed the hostages in the midst of negotiation talks, and pressure needs to be put on them, not Israel:

“These murderers executed 6 of our hostages. They shot them in the back of the head. That’s what’s changed. And now after this, we’re asked to show seriousness. We’re asked to make concessions.What message does this send Hamas? It says, kill more hostages, murder more hostages. You’ll get more concessions. The pressure internationally must be directed at these killers, at Hamas, not at Israel. We say yes. They say no all the time, but they also murdered these people. And now we need maximum pressure on Hamas.”

No one has leverage with Hamas except Iran and Qatar, and no one appears to be putting pressure on them to stop Hamas.

Here’s my previous prediction on what Hamas would do with the hostages. It’s from last January [emphasis added]:

The demonstrators in Israel for the hostages plead, “Bring them home!” But why address Israel? After all, Israel isn’t holding the hostages. And it’s been made clear for a long time that Hamas is finished negotiating, except perhaps to ask for a total Israeli surrender in exchange for the hostage release. So how can Israel “bring them home”? Aren’t the costs of such concessions unconscionable?

Israel is being addressed in these pleas, rather than Hamas, because Israel is humane and Hamas is not. Remember William Lloyd Garrison’s famous statement, “With reasonable men I will reason, with humane men I will plead … “. What many – most?- people forget is the rest of the quote, “but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.” Negotiations with Hamas are “wasted words.”

As far as a military way to bring them home goes – Israel probably doesn’t know where they all are, and even if and when Israel does know where they are (almost certainly not in one place but in many), a military approach would be likely to kill them or precipitate Hamas murdering them.

… If the world was united in stating the obvious fact that the kidnappings are evil and Hamas must release the hostages or face attack or severe sanctions, globally – perhaps that would be enough pressure. But in reality that is very far from happening and Hamas knows it, and knows that the world is actually far more united against Israel. …

I think that Israel must not do any more large prisoner exchanges for hostages. Israel must hang tough against such negotiation and certainly against any long-term ceasefire. But I also think I know what the terrorists would do if Israel made that position clear – plus of course there would be the terrible and yet understandable spectacle of the grief-stricken and angry families of the hostages. The terrorists would then use Israel’s stance as a propaganda point to say that Israel is heartless. The terrorist propaganda would turn the terrorists’ own heartlessness and evil inside out and blame it on the Israelis, and much of the world would stupidly buy that, as they’ve bought so much else the terrorists are selling. In addition, I think the terrorists would start beaming videos of hostage after hostage pleading and pleading, and perhaps being mistreated or even tortured, as well as possibly killed either onscreen – or probably off, the better to claim that Israel’s airstrikes did the deed.

Ah, but it’s Bibi’s fault.

ADDENDUM: I focused on the opposition to Netanyahu, because they contitute a large and exceptionally vocal and active group who get all the publicity, it seems. They give Hamas hope. And Biden, who has undue influence, supports that group.

But they do not constitute a majority in Israel – at least, in terms of support of his position vis a vis a hostage deal – although it’s easy to lose sight of that:

JNS asked respondents: “Do you believe Israel should support or oppose a deal that conditions the receipt of between 18-30 hostages on an IDF withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor for six weeks, during which Hamas will be able to rearm and smuggle hostages out of Gaza?”

Thirty-five percent of respondents overall said that Israel should agree to such a deal, while 62% opposed it. Three percent had no opinion.

Of course, the way the question is worded makes it easy to say “no.” However, the wording is a realistic statement of the risks of such a deal, in my opinion.

More from the poll:

Sixty-one percent of Israelis agreed with the sentence, “Only military pressure on Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and planned military actions including hostage rescue operations can lead to the release of the hostages.” Thirty-three percent agreed that “Continuing IDF operations in the Gaza tunnels endangers the hostages’ lives.”

To me it seems that, unfortunately, the hostages’ lives are endangered no matter what Israeli does and that has been true from the start.

As for the question of whether Netanyahu is to blame for the murder of the hostages, it’s split along coalition lines:

Israelis are sharply split over whether Netanyahu bears responsibility for the execution of the hostages. Opposition voters support the claim 69% to 28%, while coalition voters oppose it 94%-6%.

And even with a deal, “69% of Israelis believe that between 83 and 71 hostages would be left behind in Gaza indefinitely.” I agree.

The pretense of the Democrats’ 2020 and 2024 campaigns

The New Neo Posted on by

In 2020, the Democrats’ pretense was that Joe Biden was healthy and sharp, and that he was a nice-guy moderate.

In 2024, the Democrats’ pretense is that Kamala Harris hasn’t been part of the Biden administration, and that she’s a nice-gal moderate.

And the MSM plays right along. The MSM is probably the most important part of the charade.

There a certain element of symmetry between Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024. Each one was not doing well with the populace but then somehow was selected to be the nominee anyway. In 2020, Joe was doing poorly and then in early March he was endorsed by Clyburn, and most of the others mysteriously and precipitously dropped out. This happened because the party powers-that-be (Obama and company?) were worried that Sanders would be the Democrats’ nominee and was unelectable in the general. With the narrowing of the field, all the non-Sanders votes were consolidated behind Biden and Sanders only lasted another month before he dropped out as well.

In 2024, it was Joe Biden who stood in a similar spot to Bernie Sanders, although Biden was the incumbent. Biden had become the person headed for the nomination but whom the Democrat powers-that-be feared was inelectable in the general. The reason was different with Biden than it had been with Sanders. It wasn’t because Biden was perceived as an old-fashioned leftist, although he certainly was old. It was because he was clearly losing many of his marbles, and the public had noticed. So he was pressured by a host of Democrat bigwigs to drop out of the race. We’re not sure of all the details of how it was accomplished, but the best guess is that it was through threatening to remove him with the 25th Amendment if he didn’t back out “voluntarily.” And then Kamala was chosen to replace him. They could have had an open convention, but that would have been too risky. Kamala was no more popular than Joe had been in 2020, and in some ways she was a harder sell as a “moderate,” but they’re trying. My theory is that she was chosen because she couldn’t be jettisoned without offending too many of the Democrat base, in particular black voters and female voters. So here we are.

Earlier, the same group of Democrats had made sure that RFK Jr. could not be the nominee, fearful that he was gaining on Biden. RFK Jr. was likewise perceived as being unelectable in the general, with the added drawback of not being easily controlled by the party. Both Biden and Harris, on the other hand, were seen by the party as very tractable and likely to toe the party line.

In the meantime, Democrats keep telling us that they’re defending our sacred “democracy.” However, they might just as well have gone back to the smoke-filled rooms of the past, because that’s what all of this has been. In 2020 they managed, by hook or crook, to drag Joe across the finish line. Will they manage to do the same for Kamala in 2024? I fervently hope not.

On the Jewish vote in 2024

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m too busy today to put up Part II of my series on the Israeli hostages; I’ll probably do it tomorrow. There’s a lot to say.

But in the meantime, I happened to see this Caroline Glick piece about the Jewish vote in the US in 2024. That topic seems to occupy a lot of people’s minds, and I’ve written about it before. Over and over I see comments here and elsewhere to the effect of, “And despite everything, the Jews will be voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats, as usual.” It’s sometimes written with sorrow and sometimes with venom, but it’s a standard observation from many people on the right.

I’ve written on the topic before, for example here as well as here, here, and here. Now I want to quote what Caroline Glick said yesterday:

The growth of antisemitic violence in the United States will lead a “significant number” of Jews to vote for Republicans in the upcoming election, Caroline Glick, a former policy adviser for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and currently a senior editor for the Jewish News Syndicate, said Tuesday on Newsmax.

“I think that you’re seeing that already in polls that have come out two or three times over the past several months of Jews in New York, which is the largest Jewish population,” Glick said on “Newsline.”

“You find for the first time that President Trump is getting over 50% of the Jewish vote, which is an earthquake. Those numbers are largely reflected in larger samples that are not specifically about the politics of American Jews.”

Who knows? I guess we’ll see in November – although the only mechanism for that is exit polls, and they are somewhat iffy, especially for small groups like the Jews. I don’t think, for example, that Orthodox Jews – who vote overwhelmingly Republican – are likely to be responding to many exit polls.