Patterico's Pontifications

12/19/2010

Lee Stranahan Working with Andrew Breitbart on Pigford Story; UPDATE: Pigford Lawyer Says Clients Got Away With Murder

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:19 pm

I am pleased to note that lefty Lee Stranahan is working with Andrew Breitbart on a documentary about Pigford (Facebook link). I am even more pleased to note that I introduced the two of them.

The announcement is at Big Government — where, I am told, there is a very interesting YouTube video on Pigford that you should see. (I have seen it, but I will wait for Big Government to link it before I do.)

UPDATE: Here you go:

The relevant post is at Big Government.

P.S. The media can ignore this all they like. I predict that it’s not going away.

Assange’s Lawyer Complains About Leaked Documents from His Rape Case

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:06 pm

Get out your hankies. This is a sad one:

In a move that surprised many of Mr Assange’s closest supporters on Saturday, The Guardian newspaper published previously unseen police documents that accused Mr Assange in graphic detail of sexually assaulting two Swedish women. One witness is said to have stated: “Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent.”

Bjorn Hurtig, Mr Assange’s Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain.

Awwwww.

“It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defence in a bad position,” he told a colleague.

“I do not like the idea that Julian may be forced into a trial in the media. And I feel especially concerned that he will be presented with the evidence in his own language for the first time when reading the newspaper. I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing – trying to make Julian look bad.”

Awwwww.

Thanks to Hot Air Headlines.

Mickey Kaus: Christine O’Donnell Stopped the Dream Act (And Joe Miller Updates)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 9:32 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

For Sunday comment bait, Mickey Kaus adds a new wrinkle to the old question of whether to nominate the purest conservative or nominate someone who can win.  By his logic, nominating losing Tea Partiers like Christine O’Donnell and Joe Miller helped keep the surviving Republicans in line. Mickey first quotes Numbers USA CEO Roy Beck:

I suspect one of the reason we did so much better with the smaller group of Republicans facing re-election was that they are more likely to believe that they might face Primary oppostion from within their own Party if they support amnesty.

And then Mickey responds:

Translation:The Tea Parties did it. Not only had they threatened establishment Republicans with primary opposition, but they had actually beaten one … two … three of them. Nothing like fresh heads on pikes to, er, reinforce a persuasive (to my mind) policy argument. Score one for losing Delaware Tea Partier Christine O’Donnell, who knocked off establishment pick Rep. Mike Castle (who voted for DREAM) in the GOP primary. Even score one for Alaskan Joe Miller. He probably alienated Republican Lisa Murkowski by beating her in the primary, and ultimately she won reelection anyway as a write-in. But that’s just one lost Senate vote. By my count, Miller’s primary coup may have helped gain around tenvotes by terrifying GOP incumbents who might otherwise have been tempted by the prospect of a feel-good, bipartisan, MSM-approved pro-DREAM stand.

Tangentially, Joe Miller’s lawsuit is still going on.  I had previously written that his suit was declared moot.  Well, this filing disputes that with a single line (look at page six, at the sixth numbered paragraph).  The last word on the appeal was that the Alaska Supreme Court heard the issue Friday, and recessed without issuing a ruling.

Meanwhile, the Anchorage Daily News gives a completely incorrect impression about the federal suit.  Writing under the headline Federal judge says that Alaska can certify Senate Election, Becky Bohrer gives readers the distinct impression that Judge Beistline ruled that certification can go forward.  But this is what he actually said:

Once the Alaska Supreme Court has entered a final order, whether oral or written, and if Plaintiff Miller happens to be the losing party, he may have until 10:00 AM on December 20, 2010, or 48 hours from the entry of the decision, whichever is later, to present his position to this Court. Defendants may have 24 hours (not business hours) to respond. The Court will, as soon as possible thereafter, address the issue of certification and resolve, to the extent possible, the remaining legal issues.

So in other words, he will decide it pretty quickly either way, and elsewhere in the order he has indicted in the order that he feels that an incorrect certification will not constitute irreparable harm to either party, which is an important element in determining whether to grant injunctive relief.  He has certainly telegraphed a view that whatever the Alaska Supreme Court decides, he will certify it.  But he has not actually ruled that way, and readers would have a hard time figuring that out just by reading the article.  That should be corrected.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

UPDATED BY PATTERICO to note that the first paragraph of the block quote from Kaus was actually from Roy Beck. The horrific spelling and grammar was a tipoff.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6339 secs.