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

Update: Michelle Malkin links, writing:

Update (II): And how did I forget that I saw that Laura Ingraham accepted his apology? That’s the fine and classy thing to do, but are we going to see a deeper change in personality and persona for Fast Eddie, or just a decision not to to that one thing again? I have seen no evidence of the former.

———————————

Of course that is my interpretive gloss on a video I will show you in a moment.

I think that its important to start by pointing out that Ed Schultz has been a dishonest, hateful P.O.S. for years.  He’s literally the Alan Grayson of talk radio.  Like here he is taking criticism with grace and humility:

Anyway, yesterday on his radio show, he allegedly overstepped a line by calling Laura Ingraham a slut.  Via Radio Equalizer:

(more…)

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

As you saw earlier today, the Proponents of Proposition 8 filed their reply brief on the subject of whether Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 should be vacated because Judge Walker had a duty to recuse himself.  And in response to that reply brief, Bob Egelko published what can best be described as a press release for the Anti-Proposition 8 forces.  The bias really is that thick.

Now first readers will recall Mr. Egelko as the reporter (training in the law) whose bias I previously exposed in this post.  That post concerned an article that Egelko wrote about Judge Walker finally admitting publicly he was gay, and my email exchange with him.  To sum up that long post, I pressed him on the nature of the judge’s relationship, including whether he planned to marry his partner.  He wrote at the time:

He spoke some about his partner, but I think it’s a private matter that’s pretty much his business, not ours.

Thus he knew more than he was saying and was refusing to tell because he personally believed it was irrelevant (he states that belief in another part of my post).  Now presumably one of the facts he chose to suppress was that Judge Walker had been with his partner for over ten years—more than 8 years when the suit began—which was revealed by Rueters and literally became the basis of the motion to vacate we are discussing now.  So he was left in the ethically uncomfortable position of reporting that based on information he thought was too irrelevant to report, the Proponents of Proposition 8 were moving to vacate the ruling.  And in that report he compounds his error by allowing others to make specious arguments without contradiction.  For instance at one point in the article he includes this passage:

(more…)

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

I just got this via Cnn’s breaking news email:

Jared Lee Loughner, accused in the mass shooting that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, is not mentally competent to stand trial, a federal judge in Arizona ruled.

You have to be pretty far gone, to be found incompetent to stand trial.  You have to be either unaware of the charges or unable to assist in your own defense.  It’s a very minimal standard, and he failed it.

And it’s important to note that this doesn’t mean he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and indeed it has nothing to do with his state of mind at the time he committed the crime.  He could have been fully sane on the day he carried out those shootings and through some means acquired his insanity afterward, and the ruling would be the same.  Still, it seems very reasonable to believe the man was very far gone when he shot Giffords.

So will the left finally admit that he was “just a nut?”  Will they finally admit that there was in fact no greater significance to his crime?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

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

Update: Ed Morrissey writes:

Bet on the plea bargain. Edwards has been in court enough to know what a mountain of evidence means to an unsympathetic defendant, and Edwards is about as unsympathetic as it gets. A rich lawyer cheats on his dying wife, gets his girlfriend pregnant, and then moves cash all over the board to keep it quiet — what is there for a jury to like?

I will have to disagree with that. Morrissey’s argument is almost objectively correct. Ordinarily a lawyer as sharp as Edwards would understand all of that and seek a plea. But this requires Edwards to be honest with himself and not let his ego get in the way. He has to believe he can’t talk his way out of it. Are you seeing the flaw in Morrissey’s analysis?

The original post, as is, follows.

Update (II): Malkin links.

—————————

From ABC News:

The United States Department of Justice has green-lighted the prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards for alleged violations of campaign laws while he tried to cover up an extra-marital affair, ABC News has learned.

A source close to the case said Edwards is aware that the government intends to seek an indictment and that the former senator from North Carolina is now considering his limited options. He could accept a plea bargain with prosecutors or face a potentially costly trial.

John, some free advice.  If they offer a plea that allows you to avoid actual prison time, take it.  Seriously you don’t want to risk going to prison.

You won’t do well in prison.

And this all comes on the heels of this news:

Furious John Edwards has allegedly vented his anger at mistress Rielle Hunter over the steamy sex video they made during his White House run.

In an amazing outburst, the shamed politician reportedly exploded after a judge ruled portions of his testimony under oath would be made public.

An insider said: ‘John took his anger and frustrations out on Rielle.

‘He screamed at Rielle, calling her an idiot for not destroying the tape, and yelling that she made a fool of him for talking him into making it,’ a source told the National Enquirer.

‘Rielle was in tears, and tried to apologize, but John didn’t care.

And isn’t that so typical?  He knowingly and voluntarily consented to make the tape, and didn’t personally see to it that it was erased, but its all her fault, not only for not destroying it, but for even convincing him to agree to it.  Hey, John-boy, here’s a hint.  If you don’t want the world to learn about an affair with someone…  don’t make a sex tape.

And for that matter, use protection, you idjit.

Hat tip: Hot Air.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

FLASHBACK COURTESY OF PATTERICO: January 2008:

Robert Novak reports President Barack Obama would offer the Attorney General’s post to John Edwards:

“Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration. Installation at the Justice Department of multimillionaire trial lawyer Edwards would please not only the union leaders supporting him for president but organized labor in general. The unions relish the prospect of an unequivocal labor partisan as the nation’s top legal officer.

Too bad he didn’t get to become AG, huh?

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

Previously when discussing the Pro-Proposition 8 forces motion to vacate Judge Walker’s ruling on the grounds he should have disqualified himself, I riffed off “the old saying, attributed to Emerson, that “if you strike at the King, you have to kill him” and that continues with this post.  The opponents of Proposition 8 struck back, a few weeks ago.  I meant to take it apart at the time, but didn’t find the time to squeeze it in.  And now the proponents have put in their reply brief and the metaphor that comes easily to mind is that of skilled fighter watching his opponent swing unwisely, using that energy against their opponent.

But it helps to talk for just a moment about Anti-Proposition 8 forces’ Opposition to the motion.  It was one of the most over-the-top filings I had seen in a while.  As I said a bit back:

There is an old saying among lawyers, and while there are a lot of variations in how it goes, most versions say something close to this: “If the facts are against you, argue the law.  If the law is against you, argue the facts.  If both are against you, pound the table.”

And evidently they didn’t feel too good about the facts or the law in this case as they set the hyperbole to 11 right off the bat:

Proponents’ motion to vacate this Court’s judgment is an utterly baseless attack on the integrity of the judicial system, on then-Chief Judge Walker, and on all gay and lesbian jurists who faithfully perform their duties and decide cases across this country each day.

Now it is probably fair to call this an attack on Walker, but the entire legal system?  And indeed how their motion can be interpreted as an attack on “all gay and lesbian jurist” when their brief specifically said “[i]t is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case” is beyond me.  Except if you read it you will see they repeatedly argue (and without basis) that despite their statements to the contrary, that was really based on Walker’s status as a gay man.  They were literally asking the judge to ignore their words, ignore their arguments, etc. and pretend they had argued something they didn’t.  That can be done, but you have to have better evidence of that intention than just your hallucination of their motives.  And with the Anti-Proposition 8 forces having put all that energy into that thrust, in a very kung-fu sort of way the Proponents of Proposition 8 used that attack against their attackers, repeatedly correcting their attempts to mischaracterize their position against them.

The other thing going on here is that typically lawyers reserve some of their best arguments for the reply brief, because bluntly the other side has little chance to respond.  Indeed, some will save it for oral argument and sandbag the other side with it.  They might yet have reserves with which to sandbag the Anti-Proposition 8 forces, but they gave them a few solid wallops in the reply brief (to mix my metaphors, some).  Case in point, is this opening line from the proponents:

(more…)