Patterico's Pontifications


IRS Asked Pro-Life Group About the Content of Its Members’ Prayers

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:32 pm

And the IRS official immediately denounced that question and said it was outrageous.

Oh, wait — no, he didn’t.

Lanny Davis: White House Counsel Knew?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:52 am

Lanny Davis:

I’ve been told today by several reporters that President Obama’s White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, knew for several days — perhaps weeks —that some Internal Revenue Service officials were engaging in political targeting of conservative groups, and that she did not tell the president as soon as she knew even partial reports about the story.

With all due respect to someone who has impeccable legal credentials, if she did have such foreknowledge and didn’t inform the president immediately, I respectfully suggest Ms. Ruemmler is in the wrong job and that she should resign.

Doesn’t this steady stream of revelations suggest a scheme to inoculate Obama?

Friday afternoon is just around the corner . . .

In the meantime, we have hearings. Those will be terribly revealing I’m sure.

Ted Rall Appears in Comments to Explain His Pointless Anti-SWATting Bill Cartoon

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:27 am

Ted Rall is in the comments of this post, where he tries to explain his recent cartoon opposing an anti-SWATting bill.

Commenter #21 is correct. This cartoon is conservative libertarian in orientation. Why do we need a new law here? Anyone who pulls such a boneheaded stunt is guilty of several crimes, including filing a false report and harassment. If anyone gets hurt, it’s reckless endangerment. If there are property damages, you can sue.

I thought conservatives opposed showboating, redundant, unnecessary laws?

I sort of figured the cartoon was rooted in cluelessness. Now it’s confirmed.

I have asked Rall to plumb the vast depths of his knowledge of California criminal law and provide me the Penal Code sections for the applicable statutes, the penalties that apply, and why those penalties are sufficient in his view. He can start by providing the California Penal Code section for the crime which he calls “reckless endangerment.”

This ought to be good.

P.S. Rall adds:

Also: the above characterization of my lawsuit is so willfully wrong as to be actionable.

I sued a guy for impersonating me online – and then, when I demanded that he quit, continuing to do so. It’s called identity theft, and every judge who has seen the case has said that my case is airtight. Sadly, the miscreant defendant has abused a screwed-up legal system by delaying the case for 14 years, denying me justice.

Patterico would sue anyone who did the same thing to him; so would anyone.

Well, I’m not much for suing folks, but I will make this observation. The post Rall calls “actionable” links this post, which reads as follows:

In a comment to this Winds of Change post, I learned something new about Ted Rall’s lawsuit against Danny Hellman. (Rall sued Hellman after Hellman sent a joke e-mail to some people, pretending to be Rall.)

Apparently, Rall claimed damages in part because Hellman’s e-mail “made [Rall] appear as a rude, petty, self-absorbed writer/cartoonist . . .”

I thought truth was a defense.

I mean, this is like Kirstie Alley suing her pants for making her butt look big.

Seems to me that Rall was indeed claiming damages from Hellman, in part, because Hellman “made [Rall] appear as a rude, petty, self-absorbed writer/cartoonist . . .”

. . . and?

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0618 secs.