George Zimmermann sues

The New Neo Posted on by

If this turns out to be true, wow:

The Trayvon Martin case was built on a fraud, with a key witness being swapped out with an imposter when the real witness wouldn’t testify, George Zimmerman said in a lawsuit Wednesday.

The lawsuit says Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend, a vivacious 16-year-old named Brittany Diamond Eugene, when Zimmerman killed him on Feb. 26, 2012. At trial, prosecutors produced the plump, slow-spoken 18-year-old Rachel Jeantel as the girl who had crucial insight into his final moments by being on the phone with him.

The lawsuit says Eugene refused to provide the version of events used to build a narrative of racism at trial, so Jeantel, who reads at a fourth-grade level, was pressured into pretending to be “Diamond.”

The lawsuit seeks $100 million and names both young women as defendants, plus Martin’s parents, who it says were well aware of the swap.

Zimmerman’s lawyer filed the lawsuit in state court in Florida and it also targets the state of Florida and its prosecutors, who allegedly initially falsely told the defense that Martin’s cellphone was too damaged to extract its data, when it actually contained evidence damaging to their case. That includes not only evidence of the witness swap, but also texts showing Martin previously discussing gun sales and bragging of beating up a “snitch” and saying, “He aint bleed nuff 4 me, only his nosez.” Prosecutors also ran out the clock by repeatedly ignoring the defense’s entitlement to exculpatory evidence, the suit says.

Even if it is true (and at this point I have zero idea whether it is or isn’t), the left will say it doesn’t matter. The Trayvon narrative is deeply entrenched at this point.

Here’s more, if you’re interested:

Dark days

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m not speaking metaphorically when I say “dark days.” Right now is one of those days of the early early sunsets. To me, sunset is the most important marker rather than the shortest amount of daylight, which can actually involve a slightly later sunset in combination with a later sunrise.

But one of the consolations of the deepest part of winter, the part that comes after the solstice, is that the sunsets start getting later and later.

I just did a YouTube search for winter scenes to post here, and discovered that there’s a load of them that are many hours long and made as relaxation videos to facilitate meditation or sleep. Hmmm. Hibernation, anyone?

Impeachment is on the menu…

The New Neo Posted on by

…but will the Democrats order it, only to be told by the Senate chefs that they won’t prepare the dessert of conviction?

[Yeah, I know, it’s not a great metaphor. But I’m jet-lagged.]

Today Pelosi gave articles of impeachment the green light, saying (among other things) that “The president leaves us no choice.”

That’s a nice touch, don’t you think? She keeps trying to keep a tone of reluctant sorrow at being forced to do this.

And in a way, maybe she actually is being “forced” to do this – by Trump, because he won and is being quite successful as president; by her left wing, because they demand it; and by the fact that so far, one by one, other alternatives for taking Trump down seem to have disappeared.

So the question is: will impeachment happen? I submit that Pelosi herself isn’t yet 100% sure. The Democrats will have to decide which course is best for them. Here are the two possibilities as I see them:

(1) Impeach. Make the vote margin quite close but more than one or two. Allow Democrats who are supposedly “moderate” and are in the most Trump-friendly districts to vote against, and allow them to say that although Trump is absolutely terrible they are acting for the good of the Republic (and of course to show how independent and moderate they are), because these offenses doesn’t quite rise to an impeachable level.

(2) Don’t impeach. Maybe don’t even hold the vote. But maybe hold it and allow the “moderates” to all vote against it and praise themselves for their brave moral stand. Then go on to the next attempt to get Trump, and the next.

I try and try to guess which of the two will occur. I can’t decide. And perhaps there are even third and fourth alternatives that haven’t yet occurred to me. Have they occurred to Pelosi and company?

Today’s impeachment theater

The New Neo Posted on by

Apparently Ann Althouse has a stronger stomach than I do, because she was able to watch today’s impeachment hearing:

I thought…the idea would be for the 3 law professors called by the Democrats to provide cover for the Democrats by performing the theater of making everything sound like law and not politics and by speaking in a tone that would feel academic and sadly, grimly inevitable.

But they came on so strong, righteously angry and in an exaggerated tone, making assertions that the things Trump did are impeachable. They did not work to establish our confidence that they were operating in a scholarly zone that was truly their expertise. They did not give us reason to believe we should listen to them as expert witnesses.

What an awful display! And I’m not even counting the motions for who knows what and the roll call votes (which seemed to be the GOP strategy for making the show as annoying as possible). The first 2 witnesses — Noah Feldman and Pam Karlan — scolded and yelled. Michael Gerhardt was a bit milder, but he mumbled and stumbled, and I couldn’t believe he brought up the musical “Hamilton.”

Althouse’s suggestion that the Democrats would want to establish a neutral, regretful, academic tone as cover for their partisan impeachment drive made a certain amount of sense. But Democrats seem to have lost their senses. For the most part they are incapable of a sober academic tone about a topic like Trump and much else that is political, even as a pretend, strategic, tactical tone.

Rage has unhinged them. And their base expects it.

Althouse doesn’t even get into some of their worst excesses today. But here’s a post at Legal Insurrection describing Pam Karlan’s entry into the low blow sweepstakes, which involved mocking Barron Trump’s name.

Law professors are often incredibly partisan and both vicious and sophistic in their arguments. This has only become more apparent in recent years. And most of them are liberal, in fact overwhelmingly so. No doubt someone such as Karlan is used to getting kudos for her anti-Trump bon mots, but they don’t play quite as well on a national stage.

[NOTE: And then there’s Jonathan Turley, called by the GOP to speak today. It’s interesting that he’s not a partisan Republican or any sort of Republican at all. Nor is he a Trump supporter. But he’s one of those Alan Dershowitz types who tends to be fair and objective. Please read the whole link.]

Abolishing the Electoral College – be careful what you wish for

The New Neo Posted on by

Democrats would love, love, love to get rid of the EC. Their rhetoric is to establish a “make every vote count” democracy (republic? who needs it?). But the actual motivation is that they believe a national vote would favor them tremendously and would eliminate what they consider the disproportionate influence of less populous red states such as Oregon, and of so-called “swing” states such as Ohio.

Note, though, that many of the most important swing states – Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina – are quite populous. Take a look at how high up they are in the rankings of states by population, So they would remain very important, even with a national popular vote.

In fact, they are important swing states not just because they sometimes vote red and sometimes blue, but because they are populous states that do so. Swing states that are small, such as tiny New Hampshire, with its piddly two votes (CORRECTION: four votes; I apparently was thinking of its 2 Congressional districts rather than the EC), can have disproportionate influence in the primaries because they hold theirs early. But by the time of the general election, no one cares much about how New Hampshire goes. That’s true with the current EC system and it would also be true in a national popular vote election.

If Democrats are prone to cheat in big blue cities by manufacturing extra Democratic votes, a national popular vote would seem to make such cheating even more tantalizing and important to accomplish. And in a close election, the recounts would be a complete nightmare.

I wonder, though. Would the Democrats really get what they want? For example, the amount of cheating required might be a bit harder to gauge in a national popular vote. It seems to me it could be easier to do this successfully on a state-by-state basis than on a national one.

Also, in a state such as California in which an overwhelmingly blue vote is a foregone conclusion, perhaps a lot of Republicans stay home on Election Day. After all, why bother to vote when your vote really doesn’t count? But with a national popular vote, they might be motivated into coming to the polls (or sending in those absentee ballots) instead.

The Democrats will continue to push for the end of the EC, of course, because they believe it would help them immeasurably. And perhaps it would.

And yet I seem to recall that one big argument in 2016 prior to the election was that Trump had no EC path to victory, or at least an exceedingly narrow one (see this, for example, a WaPo article that says his path isn’t just narrow, it’s “nonexistent”).

And consider that in a state like NY or California, even if 20% of black votes defect to Trump those states will still reliably go blue and their huge number of electoral votes will go to Democrats. But in a national popular vote, such a shift could substantially cut into the Democrats’ total popular vote enough to deny them the margin of victory. That would be ironic, wouldn’t it?

Do I really think abolishing the EC would favor Republicans? No, I do not. But I think it could do so, and that’s why I subtitled this post – addressing those Democrats who would like to get rid of it – “be careful what you wish for.”

[NOTE: Here’s an article from 2013 on why abolishing the EC might benefit the GOP. It’s outdated and assumes some things that changed for the 2016 election, but it’s still an interesting example of thinking outside the box on the topic.]

Delay in posting today

The New Neo Posted on by

I was on the west coast for Thanksgiving, got delayed by the snowstorm coming home, and therefore had a big travel day today (actually, last night; I came on the redeye).

So I’m getting a late start today. But I thought I’d take a moment to reflect on the following…

Boy, it gets dark early in New England this time of year. And brrrrrr, it’s cold. And yet the recent snowfall is so beautiful.

The blue wave

The New Neo Posted on by

This:

In states like Virginia — where Democrats now control all of state government — the foreign-born population has grown more than 250 percent since 1990. In 1990, Virginia was home to less than 312,000 foreign-born residents. Today, there are close to 1.1 million, almost four times what the population was three decades before.

Like Virginia, similar regions that were once solidly Republican have been handed over to Democrats due the annual importation of more than a million legal immigrants. Orange County, California, for instance, is now dominated by Democrats, following what the New York Times has described as a “40-year” flood of immigration to the area.

Republicans’ electoral prospects, though, are only expected to get worse because of historically high legal immigration levels, research by Axios, The Atlantic, and the New York Times has found.

Ronald Brownstein, senior editor for The Atlantic, noted this year that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. This means that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding roughly 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.

If you import enough people from other more leftist cultures who are not dissatisfied with leftism, and if the left controls the education of nearly everyone’s children, this is the predictable result. As the left knows full well.

The Democratic field is demoralizing Democrats

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve had a number of conversations with Democrats in recent weeks that have all gone about the same way.

The person asks me who is my favorite Democratic candidate (for the most part, these people think they’re talking to a fellow Democrat). I say I don’t know and that the field is poor, and then throw the question back at them and they agree with me that it’s poor.

They agree with a furrowed, worried brow. Sometimes they say something like, “Well, I’d like Biden if there wasn’t all this Ukraine stuff and if he wasn’t so old.” Several said maybe Bloomberg, because they’re not afraid of a Bloomberg presidency – which indicates to me that they’re actually afraid of most of the other candidates. But they agree that Bloomberg is unlikely to win the nomination.

They don’t seem to know what hit the Democratic Party. They don’t just express lack of excitement, they express bewilderment and puzzlement. I’ve not encountered anyone so far (granted, the pool I talked to is small) who has expressed a particle of enthusiasm for any Democratic candidate.

It must be very very depressing for them. They hate Trump. He seems to them like a sitting duck, and the presidency seems to be ripe for the taking. And yet as they look around they don’t see a single person in the vast Democratic Party who they believe can do it. And these Democratic voters don’t know why.

Voter enthusiasm is a big deal in elections because it affects turnout, which can be ultra-important. This is one of the reasons that Democrat leaders and the MSM keep pounding on Trump’s awfulness, even making things up. It’s their only hope – to energize Democratic voters against Trump rather than for anyone.

[NOTE: Neither Hillary Clinton nor Michelle Obama’s name has come up as a possible candidate during these discussions, either, by the way.]

What happened to Matt Drudge?

The New Neo Posted on by

This columnist asks the question but doesn’t have an answer.

I don’t have an answer either. I’ve never been a big Drudge reader to begin with. I barely was a small one; only looked in occasionally. But I did notice at one point that the site had become very anti-Trump. Very.

I don’t know when it happened, and I don’t know why. I can’t say I even care, to be honest, although I’m mildly curious. But for those of you who do care, I’ll hazard a guess. Maybe Drudge doesn’t like to march with the crowd; maybe he’s a contrarian. Or maybe there’s money in it, somehow.

That was two guesses, wasn’t it?

Wave Kamala goodbye

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember when Kamala Harris was the It girl who would lead the Democrats to victory in 2020?

Well, not so much:

Kamala Harris dropped her presidential campaign on Tuesday after months of failing to lift her candidacy from the bottom of the field — a premature ending for a California senator once heralded as a top-tier contender for the nomination.

While Harris had qualified for the December debate in her home state, she was running dangerously low on cash — lacking the resources to air TV ads in Iowa — and her staff was gripped by long-running internal turmoil.

I think what went wrong was quite simple. Harris seems to be the sort of person who doesn’t grow on people. The more exposure she got the worse she did. As I wrote back in August in a post entitled “Why is Kamala Harris fading?”:

Have you ever noticed how voters can forgive a candidate almost anything if they like that person? One of Hillary’s big problems, for example – one Obama correctly sensed in the 2008 race, when she was his main rival — is that she’s “unlikable.”

So is Kamala Harris, IMHO.

Likability isn’t what I tend to look for in candidates, although it’s a plus because any president is someone we’re going to hear a lot and see a lot for quite a few years, and it helps if we like that person. And of course different people have different criteria for who’s “likable.” For example, I never really felt Obama’s likability; for me his policies got in the way. But I could see that he had a kind of smooth, polished charm that would appeal to a lot of people.

I don’t know what it is about Harris – I’d describe it as a certain harsh quality – but she just isn’t especially likeable. A lot of things about a candidate can be changed, but not that.

One thing you can say about Bloomberg News…

The New Neo Posted on by

…is that at least it’s being honest about what it’s doing:

Didn’t the MSM pretty much stop investigating Democrats some time ago? They just don’t admit it.