Quick Hits

Defeat mechanism of the conservative movement:

Now, I should say, McCarthy is, I think, rebutting his Frenz on the Left who are claiming that these convictions are practically convictions of Trump.

But he's wrong.

He should try reading someone on the right once in a while.

It gets tedious to point this out (see, e.g., here and here), but as prosecutors take their victory lap for yet more seditious-conspiracy convictions today -- this time, four members of the Proud Boys (a fifth was acquitted) -- let's remember that the Justice Department's theory of the Capitol riot is the antithesis of the theory posited by the House January 6 committee and echoed by the media-Democrat complex.

The committee insisted that then-president Donald Trump directed his followers to storm the Capitol on January 6 in order to interrupt the peaceful transition of power. To the contrary, the Justice Department contended that the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other riotous rabble-rousers engaged in a violent uprising of their own volition. Preventing Joe Biden from supposedly stealing the election was among their pretexts, but according to prosecutors, these are domestic terrorists who perceive themselves as in hostilities against the government and the anti-traditional drift of society. (As DOJ's indictment put it, "the Proud Boys describes itself as a 'pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists.'"

It is not enough to say that the government did not allege that Trump directed the Proud Boys, and that the government never alleged that Donald Trump was an unindicted coconspirator in the Proud Boys prosecution. In fact, prosecutors fought off the defendants' self-serving attempts to argue that they were being used as scapegoats for Trump and others wielding power.

Just as in prior seditious-conspiracy prosecutions, the government portrayed Trump as if he were a nigh-irrelevant side issue. As I've pointed out before, there are legal reasons for this. At the time, Trump was president -- the most powerful official in the government. If the prosecution's theory were that quasi-militias conducted an attack because they were ordered to do so by the president, then it would be impossible to argue that they were levying war against the United States and opposing government authority by force -- the crime prescribed by the seditious-conspiracy statute. Their defense would be that they were defending the United States pursuant to the direction of the government's commander in chief.

To my mind, while there is not sufficient evidence to charge Trump criminally for the violence (not least because he explicitly stated in the Ellipse speech that he expected a "peaceful" march on the Capitol), it is unrealistic to look at the riot as if Trump were an innocent bystander. On that, the January 6 committee had a point -- Trump is certainly culpable morally and politically for what happened that day. But for political reasons, the Biden administration and Democrats wanted seditious-conspiracy prosecutions because it lines up with their political narrative that our democracy is under siege by Trump-loving, white-supremacist domestic terrorists.

They are thus playing a double game. To get the seditious-conspiracy convictions, they structure prosecutions as if Trump were irrelevant to the riot. Then, once they've got the convictions, they chirp that, right after Trump gave an inciting speech, Trump supporters violently attacked the Capitol to try to keep him in power.

Ugh, I feel dirty quoting that.

But Julie Kelly is, I think, the much more informed legal analyst here. Far from being a "nigh-irrelevant side-issue," Julie Kelly pointed out in her own original reporting of the Proud Boys trial-- I don't think she noticed any National Review personnel dirtying themselves by attending -- and notes that the prosecution repeatedly played Trump's statement at the debate, "Stand back and stand by," as establishing the conspiracy to commit sedition.

If this was irrelevant to their case, it would have been excluded, no? You can't introduce irrelevant evidence at trial. You also can't introduce unduly prejudicial material at trial without good justification. And repeatedly mentioning Trump to a jury which, based on local voter data, voted 93% against Trump is in fact "unduly prejudicial." ("Unduly prejudicial" evidence is evidence which is relevant but whose relevance is small compared the the unfair prejudice it might bring, as when you repeatedly link people to a Republican in a Democrat town. It is excluded if the judge agrees that it is unduly prejudicial.)

So why did the government keep involving this "nigh-irrelevant side-issue"?

Hey National Review, if you're not going to bother covering any of this, then, rather than occasionally parachuting in to make arrogant and false claims, just do what you usually do, which is nothing. Okay?

Write another article about Democrat hypocrisy. Really advance Conservmotive Prinzibuhls by telling everyone that liberals are hypocrites. That always works.

Palate cleanser: Graduation Day Disrespect. Watch the next clip from the Met Gala, too.

Reusable toilet paper from a very intelligent and sane woman. I don't know if Chesty McKnockerflaps has noticed, but her "reusable toilet paper" are just some cheap rags she wipes her huge butt with, and then "cleans."

Alex Stein asks the important questions.

Megyn Kelly: I'm trashing the Most Hated Woman in Media on a daily basis, and also trashing the news outlet the media hates, Fox News. So why aren't leftwing sites like Mediaite, or the CNN "media reporters," covering me?

Her answer: Irena Briganti "has them by the balls" because they rely on her as a source for dirt at Fox.

My answer: Because they hate Tucker Carlson more than Fox. They know that Fox is just a location on the cable menu.

Whoopi Goldberg is going to "write" a comic book called "The Change," about a grossly obese superhero going through menopause.

Ethan Van Sciver pointed out that it's always about periods when female celebrities "write" a comic book. (In reality, they tell a writer what themes they want in the book and the writer writes it.)

A few years ago, a feminist comic book writer wrote a comic book about women becoming were-cats... when they got their periods. And then they killed men (obviously).

When Emilia Clarke ("Dany Targarean" from Game of Thrones) "wrote" a comic book, it was called "Mother of Madness," about a superheroine who gets her powers from... her period.

Is anyone sensing a pattern here?

Whenever a dopey liberal doesn't know what motive they're supposed to claim for making a racket to narcissisticly draw attention to themselves, they say they're "trying to start a conversation."

Oh that reminds me: I'm writing a comic book too. It's called Smegma Be Not Proud. I want to start a much-overdue conversation about dickbrie.

Think of another idea, ladies. I know you think this is "fresh" and "original" and "transgressive" but it's old and tired and hack as hell.

Like Whoopi Goldberg herself.

By the way, the feminist who wrote the "lycanthropy caused by periods" story was forced to apologize... because the book featured only actual biological females becoming were-cats through menstruation, and failed to include male transgenders, who do not menstruate, among the were-cat heroines.

But seriously: Read another Basic Biological Function, female "comic book writers."

Biden's vaccine mandates will end on May 11th.

Well, most of them. He's keeping them on for some federal workers, the people he has the most power over. He'd like to have that same power over every body.

He's keeping the end of the mandate secret, because he wants people to continue believing they must get the vaccine, imposing a vaccine mandate on themselves.

The Biden administration's vaccine mandate began with a roar and ends with a whisper.

President Joe Biden announced a federal vaccine mandate in September 2021 with a speech saying his "patience is wearing thin." More than 18 months later, the mandate will end on May 11, with the White House taking a decidedly low-key approach.

"Do you guys plan to rehire anyone who was fired or voluntarily resigned under that policy?" the Washington Examiner asked press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Tuesday. "Would they get any sort of compensation, back pay, or anything like that?"

Jean-Pierre responded that she'll have more information in the coming days but not "anything new to share on that at this time."

Oh, she was unprepared for the question? How novel.

The press secretary gave a similar response when asked how White House protocols might change, saying new details will come later, even though the mandate will end next Thursday.

That's in sharp contrast to when the mandate was announced. Biden's speech included harsh words for anyone who remained unvaccinated and promises that there would be consequences.

"My message to unvaccinated Americans is this: What more is there to wait for?" Biden said. "We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin."

...

"Tennesseans have not forgotten -- and will not forget -- Biden's unjust COVID vaccine mandate," tweeted Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

The bigger impact may be on international travelers who will no longer have to prove their vaccination status in order to enter the United States. That was a big win for Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a rising Republican star whose district scrapes the Canadian border.

"The lifting of this authoritarian mandate for Northern Border travelers is long overdue," she tweeted. "It is shameful that President Biden has waited this long to lift the draconian COVID-19 travel restrictions."

Biden repeatedly lied to the country and spread Covid Misinformation, telling people that if you got vaccinated, you could not get infected with covid, period. He continued telling this lie no matter how many times he was corrected. Even after he himself contracted covid after vaccination, he continued claiming that the vaccination stops infection.

Because he's an inveterate liar. Always has been.

And he takes bribes, too. The Romans had a policy against that.

A former Maine candidate for governor has been granted a plea deal in his ch1ld p0rnography case. When I tell you he was allowed to plead down to just nine months for possessing sexually explicit material about pre-teens, can you in return tell me if he is a Democrat or a Republican?

Eliot Cutler pleaded guilty to all four felony counts against him for possession of sexually explicit materials showing children under 12-years-old in an hour-long hearing on Thursday in Hancock County Superior Court.

...

"That my behavior was the consequence of an addiction is no excuse," Cutler continued.

While making an excuse. I'm not saying my addiction is an excuse but, you know, I think I should be excuse due to my Irresistible Addiction.

Let's be honest, with as strong as my Addiction to child materials is, I think I should be congratulated just for resisting as much as I did.

I don't want to call myself a hero. I'll leave that to the Mainstream Media.

Judge Robert Murray accepted the plea and the sentencing deal that called for Cutler to serve nine months in jail, a little more than the average six-month sentence in similar cases.

Does the average offender also have a run for high public office on his resume?

Whenever the book gets thrown at Republicans, I'm told the judge had to "set an example."

Apparently judges don't like setting examples with Democrats.

During an investigation leading to Cutler's arrest last March, Maine State Police said they found 83,780 files, downloaded between 2014 and 2021 on Cutler computers and thumb drives -- egregious, pornographic images and videos described in court documents -- in some cases showing adult men having sex with -- r@ping -- girls as young as four.

How many "similar cases" have that much dark, vile material featuring... well you can read the words. I don't want to repeat them.

But you know, this is all normal. Perfectly average. No favors for our Frenz on the Left.

That article didn't reveal his political affiliation. So I have to quote Fox:

Attorney and former Maine gubernatorial candidate Eliot Cutler, a left-leaning independent who almost won the state's highest office in 2010, has pleaded guilty to possessing over 80,000 pornographic images of children under 12.

Cutler, who once served as a Carter administration advisor and aide to former Sen. Edmund Muskie -- Democratic 1968 nominee for vice president -- will spend nine months in prison and be made to register as a sex offender for life.
...

He used his personal wealth to bankroll two campaigns for governor as an independent. He narrowly lost -- by less than 2 percentage points -- to Republican Paul LePage in 2010 and lost again by a much larger margin in 2014.

Politifact: Randi Weingerten is telling the truth. She totally called for schools to reopen!!! (David Strom at Hot Air.)

I mean...

Seems to me that her real agenda was keeping schools closed, attacking every play to open them, and just saying "Boy I'd sure like to open these schools someday" to placate the parents who were furious with her.

But what did she actually do? When she had the chance to act, she would call up head of the CDC Rachel Wallensky and pressure Wallensky to change the criteria for determining the level of infection of a community, which in turn changed how schools behaved, because they would close or open depending on the CDC's ratings for a community's level of infection.

And of course she pressured Wallensky to make it harder to say a community was less infected, and Wallensky obeyed, which kept schools closed.

But Politi"Fact" wants you to know that from time to time she'd say something like "In a perfect world, sure, the schools would be open," and that completely nullifies all her other words and actions.

And speaking of Rachel Wallensky: Unlike Randi Weingarten, she's had the good sense, and possibly enough queasy feeling of shame, to resign.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, submitted her resignation Friday, saying the waning of the COVID-19 pandemic was a good time to make a transition.

Walensky's last day will be June 30, CDC officials said, and an interim director wasn't immediately named. She sent a resignation letter to President Joe Biden and announced the decision at a CDC staff meeting.

Walensky, 54, has been the agency's director for a little over two years, and the announcement took many health experts by surprise. In her letter to Biden, she expressed "mixed feelings" about the decision and didn't explain exactly why she was stepping down, but said the nation is at a moment of transition as emergency declarations come to an end.

"I have never been prouder of anything I have done in my professional career," she wrote.

Forget what I said about her possibly feeling a queasy sense of shame.

Drag queen against grooming and putting kids in drag:

Italy bans Fake Meat:

I'll know they're serious when they ban Bug-Meat.

posted by Ace at 06:23 PM

| Access Comments