Patterico's Pontifications

9/1/2014

Dave Weigel Covers the Brett Kimberlin Trial

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:27 am

Dave Weigel has this lengthy recap of the state trial between Brett Kimberlin and four conservative bloggers. Notable:

“These guys are going to come out today and say I’m a pedophile,” said Kimberlin. “And tomorrow, I can file another lawsuit against them. And now I know what I need to do. It’s going to be endless lawsuits for the rest of their lives. And that’s what it ends up being. I sue them. They sue me. They come into court. I sue them. They come into court. That’s the way it is.”

Weigel’s piece has some telling details, but it is far from perfect. I recognize that no story can adequately capture every detail that an involved party might consider relevant. That said, I am puzzled by some of the omissions. (You will never learn that Aaron Walker was swatted, for example. Also, we are told about six hypnotized witnesses at Kimberlin’s bombing trial, but nothing about the ones who weren’t hypnotized — much less the abundant physical evidence.) Ultimately, though, I don’t want to spend a lot of time or energy carping about the shortcomings of the piece. I’m glad that someone was willing to cover the story.

I will reiterate this: I have consistently reminded people on this blog that this situation is not about politics, left and right, Democrat and Republican. I have been especially pleased when critics of Kimberlin have received support from people on the left. I think this is true of many other Kimberlin critics. For us, this hasn’t been about tarring the left with another Bill Ayers. It’s been about the right to speak the truth without facing harassment, such as “endless lawsuits for the rest of [our] lives.”

With the above in mind, go read the piece. You can find it here.

94 Responses to “Dave Weigel Covers the Brett Kimberlin Trial”

  1. Apparently I am a Kimberlin “attacker.” And here I thought I was a Kimberlin “critic.”

    I guess my view must have been distorted from being so deep inside the conservative bubble Weigel talks so much about.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. That surely sounds like “vexatious litigation” to me.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  3. if you were a martian, landing here, Wiegel’s account would leave you confuzzled,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  4. I wrote “attacker” instead of “critic” in an attempt to reflect Kimberlin’s own hyperbole. It is not meant to be pejorative. Nor is the mention of the “bubble” — it’s just true that this was a total mystery to people who did not read conservative media and blogs. Even after Republican members of Congress got involved.

    David Weigel (4d6399)

  5. Gee, Kimberlin’s a homicidal convicted felon who abuses the court system and uses lawfare to damage his opponents even though he loses in court.

    No wonder Dave Weigel is sympathetic.

    AmishDude (d72e23)

  6. Funny thing that Kimberlin’s story about selling pot to Dan Quayle managed to make it to the mainstream press and yet this saga gets no mention.

    Funny.

    AmishDude (d72e23)

  7. Outside the bubble, it’s a confounding and minor story—perhaps a case study in how the right’s new media, which does not trust the traditional press, can get endlessly lost down rabbit holes.

    No, David Weigel. It’s a case study of the abuse of the court system by a malicious loon.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  8. I’d throw in my two cents’ worth but it looks like you guys have it nicely covered.

    Poor Dave Weigel. No matter how hard he tried, it was impossible to wring a drop of sympathy for Kimberlin out of that piece.

    creeper (0089bf)

  9. I was going to correct Art Deco’s post to “It’s a case study of the abuse of the court system by a typical Leftist Intellectual”, then realized that was just another way of saying the same thing.

    C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801)

  10. I wrote “attacker” instead of “critic” in an attempt to reflect Kimberlin’s own hyperbole. It is not meant to be pejorative. Nor is the mention of the “bubble” — it’s just true that this was a total mystery to people who did not read conservative media and blogs. Even after Republican members of Congress got involved.

    Dave,

    I appreciate the time, effort, and indeed courage that it took for you to cover this trial. Your piece has been well received by people who understand the saga. I know that absolutely any piece that tries to explain everything that has happened can’t possibly cover everything. I know my position as someone deeply involved makes me hypersensitive to the way things are worded, and to the facts that are included and omitted.

    I hope raising the points I am about to raise does not make me sound like I am carping. However, that’s probably unavoidable. Please understand that the following points do not reflect a lack of appreciation for the effort you undertook.

    That said:

    There are quite a few times (such as describing me as an “attacker”) when the piece reflects the way Kimberlin would describe things, and I don’t think readers take it as a reflection of Kimberlin’s hyperbole. For example, I don’t understand why the detail about hypnotized witnesses at his bombing trial is included, but there is nothing about the witnesses who were not hypnotized, such as the unhypnotized witness who saw Kimberlin put a paper sack in a trash can at one of the bombing sites; or the physical evidence, such as four Mark Time timers similar to those used in the bombings in his trunk, altered to start a device rather than stop one; or the two additional Mark Time timers, the three DuPont blasting caps (same brand as used in the bombings), and 14 sticks of Tovex (the explosive used in the bombings) found in the yard of Kimberlin’s girlfriend’s friend’s house in Austin, where Kimberlin had recently been. Or his possession of two 50-pound boxes of Tovex in Indiana in 1975.

    Sure, including all that is too wordy — but even a brief reference to the existence of abundant physical evidence would provide a little context. Simply portraying the evidence as coming from six hypnotized witnesses does not begin to convey the extent of the evidence against him — but it is the way Kimberlin himself likes to describe the evidence. I think your readers would have been better served by at least a passing reference to physical evidence. It would require 5-10 words at most — but it’s critical, in my view, to show that yes, he really did commit these horrible acts.

    Finally, I’ll admit to being disappointed that I was portrayed as trying to find a new Bill Ayers for the left. I have consistently, throughout this entire complex affair, insisted that this is not about left and right. It’s not about Democrat and Republican. It’s not about politics. Indeed, in my lengthy May 25, 2012 post, I said:

    I want to stress that this should not be a partisan issue. I believe Brett Kimberlin uses lefty politics as a tool — but he doesn’t believe any of it in his heart. He is looking for a buck. I have been heartened to see left-leaning people of all stripes stand up to this guy in the past. . . . It is my hope that left-leaning blogs will recognize that this is not a partisan issue. It is a free speech issue.

    I made comments like that time and time again, in many posts and comments.

    Kimberlin and his buddies are the ones who have crafted a narrative of this story being about people on the left and right fighting. That is a cover story to drive support for what is really happening: a blatant attempt to harass people who are telling the truth about his past. I think that, by emphasizing the political angle, your piece feeds into this false narrative. It makes me wonder why I spent so much time saying, over and over again, that this is not about politics — when Big Media is just going to ignore all that and paint me as a partisan looking for Bill Ayers Part II.

    Now that I have gotten all that off my chest, though, there really is a lot to recommend your piece, and I again thank you for doing it. A lot of journalists won’t touch this, and I admire you for being willing to do so.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  11. Thanks, also, for coming to the comments. I appreciate your being willing to listen. That means something.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  12. Maybe Dave Weigel should research and write a series of stories about vexatious litigants in general. And the failure of Judges and the courts to deal effectively with them. I understand why courts are reluctant to identify litigants as such and restrict their ability to file but you haven’t lived until one of these hobbyists decides to target you, member of your family, or a friend.

    f1guyus (647d76)

  13. Yes, it does, Patterico.

    Simon Jester (a6404f)

  14. I have consistently, throughout this entire complex affair, insisted that this is not about left and right. It’s not about Democrat and Republican.

    Unfortunately, it is about that — for Leftists and Democrats. They are not concerned about vexatious litigants. The court system itself is a weapon and Leftists are expert wielders of it.

    The most loathsome members of the trial bar are some of the biggest donors to Democrats.

    AmishDude (d72e23)

  15. Kimberlin’s allies have accused conservatives of trying to turn him into the next Bill Ayers, a villain that Democrats have to answer for.

    Is there a list of Democrat officials who have been forced to defend Kimberlin that I am not aware of?

    In a world of honest journalism, Weigel would append to his story a link to Patterico’s post with a line like, “Frey responds and takes issue with my characterization here,” but I don’t count on honest journalism from the Daily Beast.

    JVW (638245)

  16. Unfortunately, it is about that — for Leftists and Democrats. They are not concerned about vexatious litigants. The court system itself is a weapon and Leftists are expert wielders of it.

    If there is a left/right issue, I think that’s it: the trial lawyers’ lobby clearly supports the left, and attempts to rein in ridiculous lawsuits typically come from the right. That said, I am really loath to make any aspect of this about partisan politics.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  17. It is a shame convicted felons are distracting us from really important stuff like the sublime wonder and supremacy of the SEC in college football.

    WarEagle82 (b18ccf)

  18. Mr. Weigel if you’re still checking in here, thank you for suffering through attending the Kimberlin trial and for writing this interesting article when no one else bothered. I have a question: Was it you, or someone else at Daily Beast who chose the wording about conservative obsession of the headline? If it was you, have you ever used the words “left wing obsession” to head any article you’ve written? Also, do you agree that the dearth of any recognition of this story, or the lawfare, or the dangerous swat-tings ever before in any “mainstream” media blog or outlet may have largely contributed to the perception that it was unimportant, and that is why it did stay buried and festering for too long in the “right wing media bubble”?

    elissa (066617)

  19. Was it you, or someone else at Daily Beast who chose the wording about conservative obsession of the headline?

    Elissa, the point of such gems as this from David Weigel:

    “Outside the bubble, it’s a confounding and minor story—perhaps a case study in how the right’s new media, which does not trust the traditional press, can get endlessly lost down rabbit holes.”

    Is to hold the defendants responsible for Brett Kimberlin filing frivolous lawsuits and to stigmatize their dispositions and behavior. The defendants involved will tend to take an interest when someone serves papers on them – in the mind of ordinary people. In the mind of David Weigel, it’s an ‘obsession’ of those living in a ‘bubble’.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  20. i’m scared to comment cause of i might could get sued

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  21. That said, I am really loath to make any aspect of this about partisan politics.

    You might be, but David Weigel and his editors are not, which is why they did their best to make this s**t sandwich look like it was a function of the pathologies of Messrs. Hoge, McCain, Walker, and Akbar.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  22. Thanks, also, for coming to the comments. I appreciate your being willing to listen. That means something.

    It’s all gamesmanship on Weigel’s part. He’s not ‘willing to listen’.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  23. That said, I am really loath to make any aspect of this about partisan politics.

    I sympathize with you and it isn’t my livelihood (or for that matter my safety) that is at stake here. I get to look at it through a lens of politics. Sadly, we are in a situation where the personal is very political and writers like Weigel will not get a story read that is compelling or doesn’t have a political angle. The readers of the Daily Beast want to hear about those dumb “tea-baggers” getting their comeuppance.

    That being said, Weigel’s characterization of SWATting as a bad thing and his implication that Kimberlin (or his allies) were probably involved is refreshing.

    Consider something else, though. What if Weigel’s article reflected a fear of a Kimberlin lawsuit? Given his history, maybe it’s that the mainstream media is just too cowardly to cover this case.

    AmishDude (d72e23)

  24. He didn’t have to do the piece in the first place, AmishDude.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  25. I read the whole article. Gee, it took minutes to detect the left-wing slant of the author. That said, it wasn’t a complete lefty hit-piece on those perfidious “right-wing bloggers” who are probably baby-seal murdering racists.

    This is America and convicted domestic terrorists have a RIGHT to stop people from speaking about convicted domestic terrorists!

    This is just one more of those “inconvenient truths” leftists want to preach about!

    WarEagle82 (b18ccf)

  26. creeper (0089bf) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:19 am

    Poor Dave Weigel. No matter how hard he tried, it was impossible to wring a drop of sympathy for Kimberlin out of that piece.

    It is biased in favor of Brett Kimberlin, in the sense of not indicating how truly bad he is, and it is biased against his adversaries, and it tries to give the impression that the whole subject is too difficult to understand.

    Sammy Finkelman (335ac9)

  27. He didn’t have to do the piece in the first place, AmishDude.

    True. I was really just working out my thoughts. It is very true that the piece never had to be written. I just have to wonder who wanted the piece done and how much Weigel held back to avoid the lawsuit.

    And did the MSM not cover it because they are (1) biased and know that Kimberlin cannot be painted wholly sympathetically (2) in their own bubble where such a thing doesn’t exist or (3) are scared of lawsuits themselves?

    AmishDude (d72e23)

  28. Patterico – I’m confused. I thought you were the consigliere, not an attacker or critic.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  29. There’s not one word in this Daily Beast story about Anthony Weiner, and the SWAttings may have had a lot to do with it. (specifically the search for the true identity of Nikki Reid

    Also, you would think from this article that Kimberlin’s story became well known during the 11988 election. But it only became well known during the 1992 election. Look at this:

    It took a while for reporters to realize that, yes, this was the same Brett Kimberlin who’d been mentioned in Doonesbury when he spun the Dan Quayle yarn.

    That was in 1992, and it was in 1992 when Mark singer wrote his New Yorker article.

    There’s not one word here about the 1992 election.

    Everything is written to imply this all happened in 1988:

    In 1988 Kimberlin claimed that he’d sold marijuana to a young Dan Quayle, and that Republicans were using the prison system to silence him. It was a fantastic story that bubbled into the mainstream media and was reported out at length by the New Yorker’s Mark Singer.

    Completely misleading.

    The Mark Singer New Yorker article was published in 1992. You’d never know that from reading this.

    And he only mentions Doonesbury in the wrong place – implying that reporters had come to disbelieve him. Maybe had never taken it seriously at all.

    It just bubbled up. Right.

    Sammy Finkelman (335ac9)

  30. AmishDude (d72e23) — 9/1/2014 @

    I just have to wonder who wanted the piece done

    This is Newsweek. Or cut from the same cloth.

    Somebody who knew that some people would want to research this, and would want to have an article available that:

    1) imlied that it was extremely difficult to understand

    2) left out some key facts – like the actual connection of Brett Kimberlin to peole active i teh Democratic Party.

    Not one word <b here about the 1992 election.

    So I suppose whoever commissioned this had some guilt, or connections to someone with some guilt, for spreading the Dan Quayle story in 1992.

    Sammy Finkelman (335ac9)

  31. The Mark Singer New Yorker article was published in 1992. You’d never know that from reading this.

    Yeah, but the point of the timing is that the media was trying to peddle TANG-type stories even then, against Quayle. Kind of tangential.

    AmishDude (d72e23)

  32. As I say in the post, we have this passage:

    This was Walker’s “Spartacus” moment, as the conservative blogosphere rose in solidarity—someone even created an “I am Aaron Walker” badge for websites and Twitter. Frey, one of Kimberlin’s original attackers, revealed that he had been SWATted, the victim of a dangerous prank in which someone’s phone number is spoofed for a 911 call that sends a militarized police force through his door. RedState’s Erick Erickson had also been SWATted, and Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss asked the Department of Justice to look into his case. Eighty-five House Republicans echoed him. Both Erickson and Frey wondered why this happened after they’d written about Kimberlin.

    That would seem to be the natural place to say: “A month later, Aaron Walker was SWATted.”

    Aaron is a central figure in the story. The piece opens talking about him. The omission of the fact that he was SWATted, or any explicit mention that he was arrested for blogging about Kimberlin, was one of the most puzzling aspects of the piece for me.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  33. Patterico – I’m confused. I thought you were the consigliere, not an attacker or critic.

    daley,

    My orders are followed, my directives are heeded, my legal analysis is unquestioned, and my statements are believed.

    I actually went on Fiverr and paid five bucks to have a guy with a super deep voice record a podcast intro that contained that reference and a few others — in case I ever do a podcast, I want to have the intro ready. It’s actually pretty hilarious. Now I just have to find good music to go with the words.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  34. Is it really posisble, that in the course of his research, Dave Weigel never discovered taht all the publicity about Dan Quayle’s supposed marijuana use happenede in 1992, not 1988?

    And that Brett Kimberlin initially had few takers for his story in 1988?

    And there’s probably some other stuff being obscured.

    Sammy Finkelman (335ac9)

  35. You don’t look like Robert Duvall, maybe Ron Livingston,

    so it’s been established he planted bombs, that maimed several, then he lied about a presidential candidate, but he somehow found a way into a non profit, funded by deep pocketed democrats,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  36. Is it really posisble, that in the course of his research, Dave Weigel never discovered taht all the publicity about Dan Quayle’s supposed marijuana use happenede in 1992, not 1988?

    Yes, I think it is. That’s 22 years ago and tangential to the story. In fact, bringing up the whole Quayle thing at all makes Kimberlin look sketchy.

    AmishDude (d72e23)

  37. Two interesting comments at Weigel’s piece:

    Former Patriot Ombudsman [that's Bill Schmalfeldt]:

    I used to admire you, but when I saw you sucking down whiskey and cigars with Akbar at Blog Bash, that sense you might be objective flew out the window.

    LeftAllTheWay:

    There are pictures floating around Google of the two of them [Weigel and Akbar] sucking down whisky and cigars and being bestest buds.

    Same guy? Two guys reading from the same talking points?

    (Weigel denies it, by the way. Imagine, Schmalfeldt and an anonymous commenter repeating the same false allegation in the same wording!)

    Patterico (9c670f)

  38. AmishDude (d72e23) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:21 pm

    That being said, Weigel’s characterization of SWATting as a bad thing and his implication that Kimberlin (or his allies) were probably involved is refreshing.

    But he doesn’t mention anybody else’s name as possibly being involved in the SWATtings. Evenon general terms.

    Sammy Finkelman (335ac9)

  39. I think you guys might be a little to harsh on Weigle. I thought it was a pretty fair article, considering this was the guy who got fired from WaPo for his Journo-List emails. He could have written a hit piece if he wanted to, but didn’t. Look at how he portrayed Walker and Kimberlin’s first face to face encounter and how he portrays RS McCain. I don’t think you could ask for a fairer or more neutral treatment.

    Also, remember back to your composition and writing classes from school. You have to change your writing style to suit your audience. The Daily Beast readership is definitely left of center, and I think that motivated much of Weigle’s stylistic choices. If you want the lefty readers to read and engage with a story about right wing bloggers being victimized, you necessarily have to write differently then you would for a right wing blog.

    That said, I wish he had done a bit more to frame it as a free speech issue, rather then a left v right, but I get why it would like a r v l issue.

    ElSuerte (67a884)

  40. Yes, you would think that would make him a little more cautious, most of the impetus in this case, came from Seth challenging the narrative, within his circles,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  41. I think Weigle only sarcastically denied smoking a cigar with Akbar. Not that it really matters. I know that Weigle covered the Blog Bash party as part of his CPAC coverage. He even reported on that child pornographer, Craig Gillete, that Kimberlin sent to take pics at the Blog Bash party (but apparently didn’t realize the significance at the time he wrote the article)
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/16/cpac_diary_the_party_report_from_hunger_games_to_bespoke_suits_to_zombies.html

    ElSuerte (67a884)

  42. I guess Wiegel’s editors, figure his audience ‘can’t handle the truth’

    narciso (ee1f88)

  43. AmishDude (d72e23) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:57 pm

    That’s 22 years ago and tangential to the story. In fact, bringing up the whole Quayle thing at all makes Kimberlin look sketchy.

    Dave Weigel might perhaps, avoid mentioning the Dan Quayle story altogether, but to mention it and know about it, and know Dooonesbury and Mark Siegel publicized it, and not know this happened in 1992 – that’s hard.

    Of course it might be Kimberlin was trying to mislead people into thinking this happened in 1992.

    The article also omits the fact that Kimberlin got sent back to jail after eibng paroled.

    Now maybe you can attribute all that to supeficiality.

    But it is pretty hard to have to so many names right about the Quayle story, but never get the year it happened right. (that’s going to slow down someboy else doing research on this)

    And the interest on the part of right-wing bloggers happened because of the issue of the censorship and deleting of what Prepostericity/Socrates (Seth Allen) was posting about the history of Brett Kimberlin – not because anybody wanted to show there was a second Bill Ayers associated with the the Democratic Party.

    http://theothermccain.com/2012/06/14/real-reporter-nyt_jenpreston-vs-blogger-prepostericity-seth-allen/

    Seth got banned from site after site because he kept pointing out not just Kimberlin’s criminal record, but also the fact that Velvet Revolution (and Kimberlin’s VR partner, Brad Friedman) kept raising money with bogus allegations of GOP wrongdoing. All those claims of Republican vote fraud in Ohio, the conspiracy-theory stuff that Karl Rove had threatened a Republican operative (who subsequently died in a plane crash), the stuff about the Chamber of Commerce, etc. — nothing ever came of any of that. Liberals kept throwing money at Velvet Revolution, and Velvet Revolution kept failing to prove its accusations.

    Seth Allen called B.S. on all that, and even after he was sued for blogging about Kimberlin, he has kept reminding readers at his blog, DFQ2 (named for one of Allen’s progressive blogger heroes, “Dave From Queens”) about what kind of rotten dishonest hustles Kimberlin and Friedman have promoted over the years. In February, citing a post in which Friedman urged his readers to support “the independent, progressive, aggressive, and investigative media,” Seth called attention to Friedman’s relentless hype of the Clint Curtis conspiracy theory.

    Brett Kimberlin was

    Sammy Finkelman (335ac9)

  44. He didn’t have to do the piece in the first place, AmishDude.

    I take it you know the terms of his employment. Is he on salary? If he is, he writes about what his editor tells him to.

    He could have written a hit piece if he wanted to, but didn’t. Look at how he portrayed Walker and Kimberlin’s first face to face encounter and how he portrays RS McCain.

    He made a point of calling attention to Mr. McCain’s ‘tobacco-stained teeth’. He didn’t do that to improve your impression of Stacy McCain.

    considering this was the guy who got fired from WaPo for his Journo-List emails.

    The controversy in question was as follows: the Washington Post hired a man to cover starboard organizations who despised the people on his beat and subscribed to crude cliches about them and spent time on reporters’ listsevs cutting them up. The best you could say about his situation was to quote Joan Didion: “writers are always selling somebody out”. They could not keep him on because no one would care to speak to him anymore and anyone who’d had cordial dealings with him knew him now as a poseur.

    Little doubt whatever they thought of the situation, Weigel and his editors fancied they had to frame the story in a particular way so as not to arouse the ire of their constituency (which is a passable measure of the constituency). This fellow is a convicted felon cum creep with a history of conning reporters and a history of being exceedingly litigious. Anyone perfectly normal would appreciate some of the gross humor in the whole business while appreciating the injustice of law-abiding working bourgeois being subject to legal harassment in this way. Instead, Weigel blames the defendants.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  45. He didn’t have to do the piece in the first place, AmishDude.

    I take it you know the terms of his employment. Is he on salary? If he is, he writes about what his editor tells him to.

    Weigel works for Slate. This was published at the Daily Beast. Clearly what happened is that he wrote it for Slate, they didn’t publish it, and he took it elsewhere.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  46. that was the part I was trying to recall.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  47. Everybody seems to have forgotten that the first person SWATted in these related SWATtngs was Mike Stack = @goatsred – and that could not have had anything to do with writing about Brett Kimberlin, but must have had something to do with Weinergate, and the identity and the motivation of the sockpuppets, starting with Patriot76 aka as “Dan Wolfe”

    Sammy Finkelman (335ac9)

  48. Is Weigel a freelancer? (who usually writes for Slate)

    Sammy Finkelman (335ac9)

  49. One key point Weigel has wrong is implying,but not outright saying, that the Dan Quayle accusations became well known in 1988, instead of 1992.

    It really looks carefully written to misdirect people away from 1992, and blame nobody for circulating that story.

    It just “bubbled” into the media.

    By itself, I suppose.

    Weigel knows it is in 1992 that this happened – he links to a 1992 New Yorker article. Well, you’d know it was 1992 if you could get behind the paywall or looked at the URL.

    He labels it fantastic. But it wasn’t treated by everybody that way.

    Sammy Finkelman (335ac9)

  50. “If there is a left/right issue, I think that’s it: the trial lawyers’ lobby clearly supports the left, and attempts to rein in ridiculous lawsuits typically come from the right. That said, I am really loath to make any aspect of this about partisan politics.

    Patterico (9c670f) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:01 pm

    The (so-called) Liberal Left is all about having rules for everything, and allowing those in power the authority to enforce those rules selectively. This is a vision of Paradise to a certain kind of lawyer.

    Smart Conservatives and Libertarians are in favor of the Rule of Law; laws intended to be enforced evenhandedly on everybody, which necessarily means few enough laws that they CAN be enforced with at least the appearance of evenhandedness. And far too many lawyers would hate that because they would have to deal with an opponent asking them “Is this black or is this white or are you a damn fool?”

    C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801)

  51. By the way, New York City campaign update:

    John Liu, whose supporters or campaign, I think, may have had something to do with exposing of and getting rid of Anthony Weiner, and who last year had all of his matching funds denied by the campaign finance board in his race for mayor in 2013 because his campaign had a lot of campaign finance violations, is now running for the State Senate against Tony Avella in the Democratic Primary September 9, supported by the Democratic organization in Queens.

    (The impetus or “justification” for his camopaign being the fact that Tony Avella was one of the Democrats who joined with the Republicans to keep control of the State Senate in New York.

    Avella and Jeff Klein say that’s now all over – come January, they will be back in the Democratic fold.

    http://bronx.ny1.com/content/news/211891/idc-members-klein–avella-get-mayor-s-backing-in-primary/

    And another thing: Cuomo’s Lt Gov may lose the primary. She’s another Kirsten Gillebrand – upstate conservative NRA Democrat turned statewiude liberal. The minor parties have put his nominee on their ticket. If there’s different nominees the votes won’t be totalled and Cuomo might want people not to vote on those lines, but if they get kess than 50,000 those parties die, so now they’re working on contingency plans to get Kathy Hochul off the ballot and replace her with Wu f that happens.

    Of course, Timothy Wu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu would have to agree.

    Sammy Finkelman (335ac9)

  52. Oh, and not to mention a Kimberlin’s alibi for imploded with completely unhypnotized documentary evidence, and the testimony of Sandra Barton’s daughter.

    SarahW (267b14)

  53. This doesnt have anything to do with tort reform. No trial lawyer who makes his living at it or takes his profession seriously would have anything to do with his sort of filings.

    SarahW (267b14)

  54. 52: for was supposed to have been deleted.

    SarahW (267b14)

  55. I have defended against two frivolous lawsuits, SarahW. A lawyer filed the first.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  56. She’s another Kirsten Gillebrand – upstate conservative NRA Democrat turned statewiude liberal.

    There are no ‘Upstate Conservative Democrats’. There were machine Democrats from Buffalo at one time with little time for a mess of liberal causes and there were in the western suburbs of Rochester a mess of ethnic Catholic politicians (the major one an a official of the Communications Workers) who felt likewise and defended the interests of suburban constituents. Such people largely disappeared from visible positions in the Democratic Party about 20 years ago in Rochester. I do not think you find many bar in local politics in Buffalo. Kathy Hochul actually got her start in politics as a political staff aide in Washington and then Albany. She collared the Conservative Party nod in some of her local contests, but the Conservative Party are famously whorish here, there, and the next place.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  57. so now they’re working on contingency plans to get Kathy Hochul off the ballot and replace her with Wu f that happens

    The only way to do that in accordance with New York law is to shovel Kathy Hochul into a judgeship. Were it a state judgeship, I believe that the Gov. would need the co-operation of the majority leader of the state senate (Dean Skelos, a Republican) and the Commission on Judicial Nomination (i.e. the establishment bar).

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  58. Correction, the Governor has to go to the Commission only for Court of Appeals positions. The thing is, Kathy Hochul has not practiced law since about 1987 and she may have let her license lapse. She’s been employed for the last several years as a lobbyist for M & T Bank.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  59. If you are including the Naffe abomination in that collection of two, I have some words about that particular firm and its motivations. My understanding – which might not be complete – is that Jay Leidermann has since, however,expressed some regret at ever taking it on.

    SarahW (267b14)

  60. Also, isn’t his real bread an butter his “hactivist” lawyer bit?

    SarahW (267b14)

  61. well the New York State assembly is pretty close to the Star Wars cantina in weirdness, really was Wiener than Mayor Bane (DiBlasio)

    narciso (ee1f88)

  62. Dave Weigel is a sissy two-faced coward who’d rather deceive his readers and shill for a convicted murdering terrorist than reveal Kimberlin’s record of despicable crimes and allow his low-information readers an opportunity to judge the odious Kimberlin in the full light of day.

    ropelight (b27b81)

  63. In Illinois’s insanity defense law, there’s this provision: “(b) The terms “mental disease or mental defect” do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.” It’s almost like the Illinois legislature had convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin in mind.

    nk (dbc370)

  64. Prof. Althouse linked Wegel’s article a few days ago, and I left the following comment at her site:

    What interests me about this particular episode in the Kimberlin Saga is that it’s the result of a trial on the merits — not of some pretrial motion to dismiss or motion for sanctions.

    Over the 34 years I’ve been a practicing trial lawyer, I’ve seen an ever-shrinking percentage of lawyers who have the guts to go to trial. And that’s unfortunate, because sometimes — and often especially, when one’e dealing with a crazy pro se litigant — the civil defendant’s shortest, most definitive, and therefore most cost-effective line to a conclusive resolution is to say, “Sure, put up or shut up: You have no case. We’re ready to go to trial. Bring it.”

    In general, it is much harder to get a civil trial court’s final judgment reversed after there’s been a decision based on a trial on the merits than after any kind of pretrial disposition (like via motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment). And if the trial judge has also been sitting as factfinder it’s practically impossible

    Beldar (fa637a)

  65. Costs way too much money to have guts these days.

    f1guyus (647d76)

  66. f1guyus (#66 — 9/1/2014 @ 5:46 pm): Sometimes, and especially when dealing with a pro se opponent, it costs less in legal fees and expenses to go through a short, conclusive trial — with minimal pretrial proceedings, although that means more uncertainty and risk at trial — than to wrestle one’s way through motions and discovery to a settlement on the brink of trial. During the motions and discovery, the pro se litigant may actually be, in many respects, at an advantage compared to the litigant with a lawyer. Sometimes the best way to shorten the time the lawyer’s meter is running is to get on with the business of trying the case.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  67. I was going to correct Art Deco’s post to “It’s a case study of the abuse of the court system by a typical Leftist Intellectual”, then realized that was just another way of saying the same thing.

    C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:31 am

    That title would give Kimberlin too much credit.

    Tanny O'Haley (f5a155)

  68. Did anyone ever find out how Kimberling got out of prison the second time? The public record says he was released the first time on condition that he make a start on paying what he owed to his victim’s widow, and his parole was revoked when it turned out that he was brazenly blowing the debt off. Then he mysteriously reappears, and last I checked nobody seemed to know how. (He made some bizarre claims of having received a double-secret pardon because he was really an undercover CIA agent or something, I could never quite figure it out. But I remember him pointing to the incontrovertible fact of his freedom as proof of his claim.)

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  69. I also didn’t see any mention in the story of Kimberlin deliberately getting Aaron Walker and his wife fired, by telling their employer that they were now going to be terrorist targets, since he, Kimberlin, had just told the world how to find them. It seems to me that was a very important part of the story, that Weigel had to know, and that his readers ought to know.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  70. Milhouse,

    When they ask two years from now who was Dave Weigel – he can point to this horrific article that made a pedophilic terrorist bomber, drug dealer and violent felon into a victim of the internetz. the very idea so grossly portrayed in the headline that somehow “Conservative Obsession” equates high crimes against the people – was deliberate, carefully thought out and worthy of a lifetime of banning.

    EPWJ (598909)

  71. Also folks this is his 2nd try to write this – after myself and several others called his shoddy Apologetic journalism on twitter he briefly argued then fled – then a week later filed another apologetic story on the subject failing completely to research even the base fundamentals of the story.

    I shudder to think that id he could classify Kimberlin as a reformed voting rights advocate that he could possibly cover the next parole hearing of Charles Manson (who followers cut S. Tates unborn baby out of her womb) I could see his next article entitled “Conservative Bloggers go nuts over Pro Choice Activist Considered for Parole”

    Dave take a 3rd pass at this article and quit blaming the victims for the multiple rape of their first amendment rights – okay?

    EPWJ (8b746f)

  72. I am a third party observer, but I see Weigel’s contribution as enemy action, to prevent a decision as was obtained some weeks ago, by furthering the ‘narrative’ just my 2 cents.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  73. – was deliberate, carefully thought out and worthy of a lifetime of banning.

    If you’re job is playing to skeezy or pathological characters who comprise either your patrons or your readers, you have a crummy anti-vocation. There are opinion journalists who avoid that through one means or another, but David Weigel is not that guy.

    The only way Weigel can earn an honest living is the John Profumo route: change careers and live a quiet life and not call attention to yourself.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  74. SF:

    She’s [Kathy Hochul is] another Kirsten Gillebrand Kirsten Gillibrand – upstate conservative NRA Democrat turned statewide liberal.

    56. Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 2:08 pm

    There are no ‘Upstate Conservative Democrats’. There were machine Democrats from Buffalo at one time with little time for a mess of liberal causes and there were in the western suburbs of Rochester a mess of ethnic Catholic politicians (the major one an a official of the Communications Workers) who felt likewise and defended the interests of suburban constituents. Such people largely disappeared from visible positions in the Democratic Party about 20 years ago in Rochester. I do not think you find many bar in local politics in Buffalo.

    When I say she was a conservative Democrat, I mean she played one when running for office.

    I didn’t check this, but I suspect she went along with everything the Democratic leadership wanted in Congress, except for a few things she was given a “bye” for – and none of whatever she did, either way, her actual opinion.

    Kathy Hochul actually got her start in politics as a political staff aide in Washington and then Albany.

    Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Hochul (not fuly edited to reflect that she lost her race for re-election in 2012) – says she worked for Representative John LaFalce (in Congress 1975 through 2003 or maybe better 1974-2002.)

    Lafalce’s Wikipdia article says he was generally a liberal Democrat, but opposed abortion, and is now on the National Advisory Board of Democrats for Life of America. The 2000 Almanac of American Politics tells me his Concord Coalition score in 1998 was 84, but some other Dems show up so high, although some show up in the 50s.

    He survived 3 redistrictings – each time upstate loses a seat – but decided not to run the last time even though the district was somewhat drawn for him and was supposed to beat Louise Slaughter in a primary. He had apparently made it clear he wouldn’t run against Republican Jack Quinn, so they changed the redistricting.

    After Lefalce she worked for U.S. Senator Daniel Moynihan (1976-2000) and for the New York State Assembly (for the Democratic caucus as a whole?)

    She collared the Conservative Party nod in some of her local contests, but the Conservative Party are famously whorish here, there, and the next place.

    She had the Democratic, Conservative, Independence and Working Families Party, for Erie County clerk in 2010, after serving almost a full term by appointment of Governor Spitzer.

    In the special election of May 24, 2011 to fill the seat left vacant by the resignation of Republican Chris Lee, she had only the Democratic Party and Working Families Party (generally considered to be the public employee unions party, although that’s probably oversinplifying it)
    nominations. She won in an upset, possibly by demonizing Republican budget proposals.

    She positioned her self as a conservative on a few hot button issues.

    She was also the Democratic and Conservative Party candidate to the Hamburg Town Board in 1994, and had positioned herself as pro-local business and against Walmart. Her big issue, once elected, was eliminating or moving toll booths so commuters would not have to pay them. She was appointed deputy Erie County clerk in May, 2003.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  75. SF:

    so now they’re working on contingency plans to get Kathy Hochul off the ballot and replace her with Wu if that happens

    Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 2:12 pm

    The only way to do that in accordance with New York law is to shovel Kathy Hochul into a judgeship.

    She needs to be a candidate for a judgeship. It doesn’t have to be anything that she has a shot at winning.

    But she can also withdraw maybe I read there was a Sept. 16 deadline, which is one week afetr the primary. Maybe Sept. 16 is when judges get nomninated by these conventions.

    She could also move out of state.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  76. narciso@61. Did you mix up the New York State Assembly with the New York State Senate?

    I think you meant the New York State Senate, and I was talking about that.

    The New York State Asssembly is verwhelmingly dominated by the Democratc Party.

    Through 5 redistrictings (1979, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010) the New Yok State legislature has managed to pull off a reapportionment that makes the New York State Assembly Democratic – registration would do this alone and it’s about 2/3 Democratic) but the New York State Senate Republican, even though districts have to be almost equal in population, although the math is getting now extremely bad for the Republicans.

    After the last two elections they’ve managed to pull in Democrats, at least afetr the session started, and one Democrat (Simcha Felder) who had a district drawn just for him, runs as a Democrat but caucuses as a Republican.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  77. 69. Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:25 am

    Did anyone ever find out how Kimberling got out of prison the second time?

    I believe his sentence ran out. is that wrong?

    Kimberlin probably committed murder, and it looks to me like he devised a strategy to thwart the investigation.

    He would commit a very serious federal crime – bombing – making sure all the bombs were placed in the small town of Speedway and not in Indianapolis which had a bigger police department, with the idea that the federal government would take over all prosecutions.

    Now it would be a serious crime, at least at the onvestigation stage. He did not intend to harm anyone – that didn’t go as planned – so he figured hed get a relatively low sentence – or even probabation, and meanwhile the murder investigation would be forgotten.

    He did succeed in getting the murder investigation dropped, but the crime was more serious than he originally had intended and he wound up with a 17-year sentence for his new substitute crime.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  78. 63. ropelight (b27b81) — 9/1/2014 @ 2:44 pm

    Dave Weigel is a sissy two-faced coward who’d rather deceive his readers and shill for a convicted murdering terrorist than reveal Kimberlin’s record of despicable crimes and allow his low-information readers an opportunity to judge the odious Kimberlin in the full light of day. </i,

    But, why?

    He's got to be protecting somebody other than Kimberlin

    He has just enough bad information about Kimberlin to avoid being accused of suppressing it.

    But what he’s really suppressing is Kimberlin’s contacts, much of which we probably don’t know, and he’s not interested in people finding out.

    And he tried to make things sound too complicated to figure out.

    There’s nothing there about the 1992 election, and hetried to make it sound like it all took place in 1988.

    And there’s nothing about extreme left websites suppressing information about the background of Brett Kimberlin.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  79. She needs to be a candidate for a judgeship. It doesn’t have to be anything that she has a shot at winning.

    Unless they’ve changed the law, no, she has to be ensconced in a judicial position.

    That aside, the petitioning for municipal courts, county-level judgeships and for judicial district conventions is held co-incident with petitioning for other offices and the petition periods are over; if they circulated a non-partisan petition in some race and she loses a party primary in that race, she has for another 10 days the option to remove herself as a non-partisan candidate as well. Several seats are available on the state Supreme Court (which is not a supreme court, but the trial court with the broadest ambo) and one seat on the Family Court. Their one out would be for the 8th Judicial District Convention to slate her as a candidate on 22 September. The ‘conventions’ in question typically have fewer than 20 delegates and alternates and are staffed with party officials and such, so it’s actually a pro-forma insider caucus. Unless the Democratic Party has a reserved spot for a sacrificial lamb, you put her on the ballot and it can cost you a seat on the court. Also, Hochul would have to have an active law license. I do not believe she ever practiced law in New York. She practiced in Washington.

    The thing is, the Republican Party is in such parlous shape in New York, that Cuomo likely does not need the extra ballot lines, so it does not much matter if she loses the Lt. Gov. primary.

    The office is a stupid one and should be abolished. Two Lt. Governors have succeeded to the office of Governor in the last forty-odd years (and both these men were among our better governors), but the Secretary of State or some other official could do that as well. Two of the last eight have ended up in disagreeable public spats with the Governor and challenged him in primaries or general elections. One of the Governors so challenged was one of our better ones (Hugh Carey) and one was our most repulsive one bar A. Cuomo (George Pataki). Two others have quit in boredom or frustration, including the outgoing Lt. Governor, R.J. Duffy. One (Stanley Lundine) discovered that it was a dead-end job and Mario Cuomo would not support his bid for the Governor’s office (because Downstate bosses said an Upstate candidate was unacceptable, so Cuomo ran again against his better judgment). One (Mario Cuomo) was elected Governor, but was not on speaking terms with the Governor by the end of his term in office. Mary Donohue (1999-2006) is the one of the few whose tenure did not end badly.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  80. When I say she was a conservative Democrat, I mean she played one when running for office.

    She did not, really. She was running for local offices with a weak or non-existent ideological aspect when she collected Conservative Party nominations. New York’s minor parties make these deals as a matter of course. There are principled people active in these parties, but the people who run them tend to be wheeler-dealers, to the point that there were voices in the Monroe County Republican Party advocating that that their committees simply eschew any dealings with the local Conservative Party.

    John LaFalce was a mainline Democrat, for the most part. He was also a Catholic who took exception to the abortion license. He was a type that was once common in the Democratic Party but who disappeared when Bill Clinton helped turn it into the Party of Sociopaths (and he left office more than 20 years ago).

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  81. I see John Lafalce left office 11 years ago.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  82. 82. Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:03 am

    I see John Lafalce left office 11 years ago

    Yes, after the reapportionment following the 2000 Census. He did not run for re-election in 2002.

    Jack Quinn, whom Lafalce did not want to be and was not in fact put into the same district with, won re-election in 2002, but then declined to run for re-election in 2004.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  83. SF: She needs to be a candidate for a judgeship. It doesn’t have to be anything that she has a shot at winning.

    80. Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:53 am

    Unless they’ve changed the law, no, she has to be ensconced in a judicial position.

    No, that’s never been the case.

    What I think a person can’t be, is a candidate for two different positions in New York State at the same time (which is not the case in some states, like Connecticut or Delaware)

    It’s just that judicial candidates are picked later than other candidates. So thats why it’s only judgeships.

    Most judgeships are uncontested – 4 part cross-endorsements – or you know that whoever runs on a certain line will always win.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  84. Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:53 am

    That aside, the petitioning for municipal courts, county-level judgeships and for judicial district conventions is held co-incident with petitioning for other offices and the petition periods are over;

    There are rarely any primaries for judicial conventions – but I did a contest in a few assembky districts in an advertsement in one of today’s papers.

    The candidates for the lower court judges are actually picked by the conventions, and that’s after the primary.

    if they circulated a non-partisan petition in some race and she loses a party primary in that race, she has for another 10 days the option to remove herself as a non-partisan candidate as well.

    Is that what the Sept 16 date is? She would have till Sept 16 to rrmove herself as a candidate on Working Families, Independece and whatever else there may be this year I think Cuomo came up with a Women’s Party, which is not intended to get 50,000 votes and become a permaent party.

    The Republican candidate for Governor, Rob Astorino, besides having the endorsement of the Republican and Conservative parties is going for an Anti Common Core party.

    Every election now seems to have a conservative school party.

    Several seats are available on the state Supreme Court (which is not a supreme court, but the trial court with the broadest ambo) and one seat on the Family Court. Their one out would be for the 8th Judicial District Convention to slate her as a candidate on 22 September. The ‘conventions’ in question typically have fewer than 20 delegates and alternates and are staffed with party officials and such, so it’s actually a pro-forma insider caucus. Unless the Democratic Party has a reserved spot for a sacrificial lamb, you put her on the ballot and it can cost you a seat on the court.

    There are places where the Republican Party alwasys wins – they could avoid a cross-endorsement somewhere and give her a nomination there.

    Where’s the 8th Judicial District? It might have to be that she’d have to live where she’s nominated. Of course that can be changed, too.

    Also, Hochul would have to have an active law license. I do not believe she ever practiced law in New York. She practiced in Washington.

    Maybe that’s not a problem – or maybe it is, and that’s why they have to work this out in advance.

    The thing is, the Republican Party is in such parlous shape in New York, that Cuomo likely does not need the extra ballot lines, so it does not much matter if she loses the Lt. Gov. primary.

    That’s true – he doesn’t really need the extra ballot lines.

    They say Cuomo is trying to rack up a big total – also it would be bad for him if Zephyr Teachout (a real leftist and anti-Israel too although she’s trying to be quiet about that) got 30% of the vote.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  85. Art Deco: The office [of Lt. Governor] is a stupid one and should be abolished. Two Lt. Governors have succeeded to the office of Governor in the last forty-odd years (and both these men were among our better governors),

    I agree actually. David Paterson was a good Governor – and a more honest one.

    but the Secretary of State or some other official could do that as well.

    New Jersey used to be the only state without a Lt. Gov. Then two presiemnts pro tem temporarily suceeded to the governorship. Or was that only one?

    You wouldn’t make it the Secretary of State, which is an appointive position in New York.

    David Paterson found a loophole in the New York State constitituoon that enabled him to name a Lt. Gov all on his own.

    Two of the last eight have ended up in disagreeable public spats with the Governor and challenged him in primaries or general elections. One of the Governors so challenged was one of our better ones (Hugh Carey) and one was our most repulsive one bar A. Cuomo (George Pataki). Two others have quit in boredom or frustration, including the outgoing Lt. Governor, R.J. Duffy.

    Duffy hasn’t quit. He’s just not running for reelection. Or did he disappear wothout a trace?

    One (Stanley Lundine) discovered that it was a dead-end job and Mario Cuomo would not support his bid for the Governor’s office (because Downstate bosses said an Upstate candidate was unacceptable, so Cuomo ran again against his better judgment). One (Mario Cuomo) was elected Governor, but was not on speaking terms with the Governor by the end of his term in office.

    You could almost forget he was Lt Gov. I think maybe I have a dim awareness of that.

    Mary Donohue (1999-2006) is the one of the few whose tenure did not end badly.

    2006 not 2007 because the terms begin and end at midnight December 31?

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  86. Weigel has never outgrown his JournoLista origins. Outside of being commended for actually covering this, it seemed at best to be a half arsed snarky crib notes version, ignoring vast swaths of relevant info. It is like he wanted to write a piece so they could claim they covered it, and turn it into a he said she said docudrama, focusing on tangents as opposed to the underlying issues.

    JD (2d6674)

  87. No, that’s never been the case.

    No, that was the case. I used to be a petition carrier and this sort of dilemma was common at the time re the small ballot-broker parties.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  88. JD,

    Read the first article on I think it was Salon,

    The I did some tweets on which he replied to me that essentially – we conservatives wouldn’t like any coverage or something to that affect

    Then gave him some particulars

    Then he writes even worse article

    2 years he’s toast – Like Tommy Christopher and a growing parade of others

    EPWJ (8b746f)

  89. Duffy hasn’t quit. He’s just not running for reelection. Or did he disappear wothout a trace?

    He’s departing, and he offered an incredible explanation of why (his legs hurt, and he needs to ‘spend more time with his family’, i.e. his childless young adult daughters). The Lt. Governor’s position is useless, so it’s the one the Downstate pols allocate to Upstate pols. The Republicans will nominate an Upstate resident for the state Comptroller’s position; Carl Paladino is the only Upstate resident they’ve nominated for Governor in the last 70-odd years, and he was an insurgent candidate.

    Mario Cuomo’s first Lt. Governor resigned less than two years into his term and left the state. His second Lt. Governor was treated with little consideration by Cuomo. The scion of a political family under Gov. Carey’s patronage had this to say about the Cuomos: “thugs at heart”. I doubt they were any more courteous to Duffy than they were to Messrs. Lundine and del Bello. Duffy only got into electoral politics about 10 years ago, but he’s too old to go back to police work. No guess as to what he’ll do.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  90. Maybe that’s not a problem – or maybe it is, and that’s why they have to work this out in advance.

    The 8th Judicial District convention is in three weeks. They cannot work it out. Also, she’d be like the Hon. Jerome Meldnick in Bonfire of the Vanities, who had clerked for his uncle one summer and been a teacher’s union official thereafter: hopeless in court and signing anything her clerk put in front of her.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  91. There are places where the Republican Party alwasys wins – they could avoid a cross-endorsement somewhere and give her a nomination there.

    A state Supreme Court Justice can be assigned anywhere in the state. However, you have to be elected from one of the territorial judicial districts, and I believe you are required to be a resident there. I do not think they can just dump her on the North Country, even if a candidacy would be all that they needed.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  92. ” Did anyone ever find out how Kimberling got out of prison the second time? ”

    The sentencing and parole rules at the time of his second incarceration meant that if you serve about one-third of your sentence without stabbing someone, you’re free to go. Those rules have since been changed, but he got to serve his sentence out under the old rules.

    He was also a jailhouse lawyer suing for everything and wasting everyone’s time and energy, so I’m betting that they just kicked him out so they didn’t have to put up with him any more.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  93. 90. Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:33 am

    The Republicans will nominate an Upstate resident for the state Comptroller’s position;

    They did in 2006. They didn’t tell the voters of legal problems that the incumbent Alan Hevesi had. He was re-elected and then immedoately afterward they pushed him out. That way the state legislture (meeting as one combined body) could replace him. With an Assemblyman. Thomas DiNapoli.

    He’s still in there. No primary this year and I think none in 2010..

    Mario Cuomo’s first Lt. Governor resigned less than two years into his term and left the state.

    Like the proverbial Vice President of the United States. What was his name?

    It is said that andrew Cuomo wants to rack up the score, and look I guess, invinncible in New York.

    Do you think he’s trying to stop Hillary Clinton in 2016., or merely trying to make Bill and Hillary Clinton grovel – revenge for 2002?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3075 secs.