Patterico's Pontifications


Press Conference by State’s Attorney Rejecting Lewandowski Case: Weak

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:03 pm

Here it is:

I’m generally reluctant to criticize a decision by a district attorney or state’s attorney, without access to all the information they had. That said, just based on the statement made by the Democrat state’s attorney, I think this is weak. The idea that the Big Defense was going to be something that the suspect (Lewandowski) had already publicly denied — touching Fields because he had to defend Donald J. Trump from Big Bad Michelle Fields — I think is self-evidently absurd.

That said, I can’t get too wound up over this.

I am interested by the fact that they didn’t talk to anyone from the Secret Service; that Lewandowski’s legal team drafted an apology to Fields; and that the state’s attorney says there is no reasonable doubt that Lewandowski grabbed Fields.

In other words, Lewandowski lied.

But we all knew that.

P.S. In the video above, they make reference to a surveillance video that they were all planning to watch, that supposedly has audio. I can’t find it. If anyone can direct me to that, please let me know.

The Annual Nonsense on the Pay Gap and Hypocrisy from the Clinton Foundation

Filed under: General — JVW @ 4:43 pm

[guest post to JVW]

From The Daily Caller (hat tip to Powerline) comes another tale of typical progressive hypocrisy. As part of his valedictory of ill-informed moral preening and ugly pointless grandstanding, President Obama on Tuesday celebrated the whiny and largely-contrived Equal Pay Day by unveiling a “monument” (their words, not mine) to women’s rights in front of the Sewall-Belmont House near the Capitol Building, which was once the home of the National Woman’s Party (how interesting that they used the singular “woman” instead of the plural “women” back then; as if females were once thought of as diverse individuals each with different goals and aspirations instead of just another needy interest group in the left-wing grievance coalition). Anyway, the President delivered his usual bit of demagogic and fatuous red meat for the crybullies:

“I’m not here just to say we should close the wage gap,” the president told the gathering which included Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland, tennis star Billie Jean King and women’s rights activists. “I’m here to say we will close the wage gap. And if you don’t believe that we’re going to close that wage gap, then you need to come visit this house.”

[. . .]

“Equal pay for equal work should be a fundamental principle of our economy,” Obama said . “It’s the idea that whether you’re a high school teacher, a business executive or a professional soccer player or tennis player, your work should be equally valued and rewarded — whether you are a man or a woman. It’s a simple ideal. It’s a simple principle. … But it’s one where we still fall short. … We don’t want some of our best players on the sidelines.”

Naturally, no mention was made of the Obama Administration’s troubled history with its own wage gap, which this blog covered two years ago. After being called out by even relatively friendly sources for latching on to the ridiculous contention that women only make 77 cents to the dollar proportionate to men, the President’s teleprompter has of late been careful to directly avoid repeating that misleading claim. Yet holding this ceremony on a day chosen specifically to advance the bogus 77 cents claim is a clear indicator that the President remains sympathetic with this malarky.

But that typical Obama drivel doesn’t earn our special commendation for this week’s exercise in progressive hypocrisy. Comes now Her Clintonic Majesty, Mrs./Senator/Secretary Hillary! Rodham Clinton, the once and future inevitable President of these United States of America. In honor of this contrived observance of Equal Pay Day, which also commemorates the anniversary of the official launch of her dreary campaign, she (or, more likely, one of her minions) wrote a post on the earnest yet dopey blog site Medium seeking to “dispel the myths” that this is anything short of crisis demanding immediate government involvement. While being very careful to avoid directly comparing wages paid for similar work, similar hours, and similar educational attainment, the post from the Clinton campaign machine still falls back upon the general complaint that women make 79 cents on the dollar in comparison to men (up two cents from 2014!), and further break it down to the specious lamentation that black women make a mere 60 cents and Hispanic women a paltry 54 cents. Naturally, her campaign platform asserts that all this can be solved by involving more trial lawyers and hiring more bureaucrats in both the public and private sector to monitor wages.

The New York Post has a pretty great take-down of Mrs. Clinton’s balderdash written by Carrie Lukas (seriously, check out the link if only for the chuckle-worthy grotesque picture of Hillary!) which points out an interesting discovery made by the Daily Caller while reviewing the 2013 tax return from the Clinton Foundation: male executives at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation made 38% more than female executives, which, when you do the math conversion, means that female executives made about 72 cents on the dollar relative to male executives in 2013, even lower than the bogus pay gap statistic that Herself was propagating back then. Also, the Clinton Foundation apparently had roughly three times as many male as female executives that year.

Be prepared for the shock, but it seems that no mainstream media outlet has picked up on the Clinton Foundation pay gap story and Hillary!’s attendant hypocrisy. And the urban elite media axis wonders why we need an alternate media.


Jazz Shaw Misstates Florida Law, Refuses to Correct Error

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:21 am

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, on the Lewandowski non-filing:

The first factor under consideration was the fact that, in order to prove the charge of battery, there needs to be a convincing case made that there was at least some element of intent to cause harm, no matter how slight. Lewandowski’s attorney had a built-in defense available against that by simply saying that his official duties included keeping people in the scrum from getting too close to, or coming in contact with the candidate. If that required pulling someone away, so be it. It’s not iron clad, but it would introduce doubt into the minds of the jury.

The bolded passage, saying that the Florida battery law requires intent to cause harm, is most assuredly not what the statute says:

The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.


Now, I’m no Florida criminal law expert. Perhaps some court in Florida has rewritten the law so that “or” becomes “and.” But a quick search reveals no such decision, and I doubt such a decision exists.

No big deal. Sloppy research and thinking is the hallmark of the Interwebz. Just tell the guy, and he’ll correct it — right?

Wrong. I told Shaw this on Twitter and he refuses to correct. His “explanation” does not address the nature of his error, and makes no sense:

I left out the word “convincing” in my tweet because Twitter has a 140-character limit, and the only way to extract the relevant point from his giant pile of words was to eliminate the ones that had nothing to do with my point.

Evidently, Shaw prefers to let his false characterization of the law stand. I expect better from Hot Air. Perhaps I shouldn’t when Jazz Shaw is the one writing the post.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0657 secs.