Democrat officeholders react to the Chauvin verdict
Of course, they shouldn’t be reacting except to say something like, “Now that the jury has spoken, I hope the nation can heal.” And then to change the subject.
But that sort of behavior ended long ago, and so we have this from Pelosi:
So again, thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice, for being there to call out to your mom. How heartbreaking was that, call out for your mom, I can’t breathe…
It’s a bizarre comment, among other things I could say about it – as though George Floyd had any intention of sacrificing his life for justice, like an actual martyr who purposefully takes on that role. And although this is a smaller point, I doubt Pelosi watched much of the trial or even any of it except perhaps the verdict. If she had, she might have learned that “Mama” was the nickname of George Floyd’s girlfriend.
Oh, I know; even if she knew that, she’d ignore it. So maybe she did know it.
And then there was Biden:
“We’re all so relieved, not just one verdict but all three. Guilty on all three counts. It’s really important,” Biden told the [Floyd] family. “I’m anxious to see you guys. We’re going to get a lot more done. We’re going to do a lot. We’re going to stay at it until we get it done.”
Biden told the family he had been watching the verdict come in alongside senior adviser Cedric Richmond and Harris. Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who represents the Floyd family and posted the video, expressed optimism that the outcome of the trial could spur action on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Biden said he would fly the family out to Washington, D.C., on Air Force One for the occasion.
I could post more quotes, but you get the idea. Floyd is a martyr to the Cause, and the idea of presidents and House speakers staying neutral about a criminal trial has utterly vanished when there are political points to be made and political goals to achieve (when Nixon commented on the Manson trial, he drew criticism from both sides and it was considered a very unusual move on his part).
The Democrats can hardly believe their good luck in the manner of Floyd’s supposed murder, caught on videocam – no wonder Pelosi thanks him. And Chauvin’s personality appears to be such that it’s hard to make him into a sympathetic character.
The Chauvin verdict is many things, including the triumph of emotion over logic, and the elevation of a segment of bystander video over actual evidence about what else was going on that the video does not reveal. But overarching all of that is that it was a form of judicial reparations, in which the present-day living are made to pay for the crimes of the long-ago dead. Despite his diminutive size, Chauvin fit the public image of a nasty white overseer coldly and callously bringing a black victim to heel. He was unable to overcome that perception, and there are many powerful people who have an interest in seeing that he never does.
Two pretty good comments from Powerline today. One was that the defense attorney, Nelson should have limited his argument to one cause of death, the fentanyl, and provided an expert to testify about it. The other was the failure of Chauvin to testify in his own defense.
Not that it would have mattered, iof course, as the jury was ready to hang him and flee town.
Victimhood is the highest status one can achieve in this deeply derranged era. We live in a time when the truly powerful behave as though they’re victims, when wealthly powerful people regularly lecture to and demonize the poor and the weak, when violent criminal behavior is routinely excused (or worse, even encouraged and lauded), and the law abiding citizens are punished and vilified, there businesses burned and lives threatened.
2021 is bizarro America.
Not my trade, but I’ve been told by lawyers who take criminal cases to trial that it’s almost invariably a bad idea to put your client on the stand, because a clever prosecutor can make the most innocent defendant look dirty. Scott Johnson saying he inferred guilt from silence is an indicator that Johnson in his career has had almost no interaction with trial lawyers (I seem to recall he was in-house counsel for a bank). Donald McClarey, who practices criminal defense law (though his primary line of business is bankruptcy) offers that Nelson erred in not opting for a bench trial; he didn’t have any other critical remarks. (I was disgusted at Johnson’s commentary).
There are a great many avenues for appeal, but McClarey thinks the Minnesota appellate courts will crap out and Chauvin will have to appeal to federal court to get any kind of justice. Judges meddle a great deal. They don’t protect us very much.
Andrea Widburg has an excellent post on martyrdom posted at Bookworm Room; it is obvious to all, except, of course, for leftists and the unhinged zealots of Antifa/BLM and the “wokerati”, that the martyrology of BLM represents a true rogues’ gallery of criminals, drug-addicts, misogynists, and thugs. No movement. whatever its claims, which sacralizes such miscreants deserves to be taken seriously.
Mike K:
Putting the accused on the stand is usually universally criticized. It’s Monday morning quarterbacking to say he should have done so. It probably would have made things worse, and the attorney would have been blamed for it.
I don’t think there was anything that would have changed this verdict.
Neo says: “[Pelosi’s guff] is a bizarre comment, among other things I could say about it”. In the abstract, so could I, but I can’t get past the bizarreness. It borders on insane.
And: “The Democrats can hardly believe their good luck in the manner of Floyd’s supposed murder….” I would like to be able to say that that’s overly cynical, but I don’t think it is. I think it’s a cold fact. It’s the kind of thing that Walker Percy would have said is received as “putatively bad but secretly good news.” But I suspect that at this point there are a lot of Democrats who don’t bother with the attempted self-deception of “secretly,” though they don’t rejoice in public.
Art Deco,
Yes, Scott Johnson’s commentary almost had the feel of a hostage video. I really wonder if he lived anywhere other than Minnesota he would have felt the same way.
I second Art Deco and neo,
I can’t imagine a scenario where putting Chauvin on the stand would have helped Chauvin. The prosecution would have certainly found something to make him look bad in cross examination. Remember in the O.J. trial when Mark Fuhrman was asked if he had ever, “used the ‘N’ word” which allowed a recording of him saying it to be introduced into evidence?
j e:
But the woke response is that they are only “criminals, drug-addicts, misogynists, and thugs” because of “systemic white oppression.”
Art Deco:
I saw that comment of Scott Johnson’s that he infers guilt from failure to take the stand in a criminal trial, and it startled me tremendously.
I am not and never have been a trial lawyer. In fact, I’ve never practiced law. My law degree is almost 50 years old. But even I know that one must never infer guilt from a failure to take the stand. Never, never ever. It’s one of the first things you learn.
To infer guilt from that situation is a human tendency that must be strongly resisted. Failure to do so is to fail our legal system and its focus on protecting the accused, one of its very foundations. To infer guilt from failure to take the stand – and for a lawyer to say he infers it – is profoundly shocking to me, especially for a lawyer on the right.
I cannot explain his position. It is inconceivable to me.
I, but I can’t get past the bizarreness. It borders on insane.
She’s 81. Just shy of 9% of those in her age range have an Alzheimer’s diagnosis. Characteristic of Alzheimer’s (which sets it apart from other dementias) is that the dement is unaware of his impairment. You can often observe peculiar behavior for years before a clinician slaps a label on it. The case I know best made a satisfactory living for 30-odd years in a profession requiring a state license. For a period of 9 years, his practice revenue was imploding, but he still functioned passably at home (though given to quirks). Eventually, an employee he’d dismissed grassed him up to the state licensing board, who conducted an occult inquiry. The inquiry completed, they sent him a notice that he had two weeks to shut down his practice.
Of all the people who have (since the end of the 19th c) occupied a position in the caucus leadership in one party or the other and in one chamber or the other, only three have done so for a longer period than has she. All of them left office (one by death, one by a vote of the caucus, and one by voluntary retirement) at an age younger than her’s today. She’s really one stubborn wench. Her deputy is seven months older than she is and has held public office w/o interruption since 1962. The 3d man in the line-up is six months her junior and has been in public office continuously since 1971.
“She’s 81.”
And that, along with many others in Congress, including the GOP, is indicative to me of extreme mental illness. What sort of person is so filled with the need for power that they continue on well into their dotage?
I just turned 69 a week ago and retired 2 years ago. I’ve never been happier over these past 2 years, though I feel I got cheated out of a year due to the Wuflu. Doing things I want without any pressure. I do miss the teaching and I do keep up with some physics, but I can’t imagine going back. I know many others who feel the same way. So again, what sort of mental illness drives these people? And they are still running the country. God help us.
Art Deco:
You write, “Donald McClarey, who practices criminal defense law (though his primary line of business is bankruptcy) offers that Nelson erred in not opting for a bench trial.”
I initially thought the same thing. I recall looking it up a while ago, and finding to my surprise that Chauvin’s attorney had requested a bench trial and it had been denied. I can’t find anything about that now, when I did a new search, so I’m not sure my memory is correct on that. But I distinctly remember reading it, and being surprised.
What I did find is this article which indicates that the prosecution does often successfully block requests for a bench trial even if the defendant waives his right to a jury. That seems like it should not happen, but apparently it does. The article says it happened in the Dylan Roof case when Roof requested a bench trial and was denied.
I imagine that McClarey would probably be ignorant about the situation if he were not a criminal attorney. But I wonder how often and how recently he’s practiced criminal law.
Or maybe my information about the process is wrong.
“So again, what sort of mental illness drives these people?”
Why was Chris Matthews still hosting a cable TV show at 74 years old? Why was Sylvester Stallone doing a Rambo action movie at 72 years old? Why is Bill Maher still doing an “edgy” political show at 65 years old?
Some of it would seem to be Baby Boomers inability to live in a world without them at the center. Some of it would also seem to be a fear from those around them that there’s no one there to replace them.
In the case of Pelosi and company, is there anyone even remotely capable of taking their spots? When they go, what sort of all-out intersectional warfare will erupt? Who can satisfy red state Dems, the Left, and the Clintonite corporate butt-kissers?
I think its time for some departments to begin pointing out one salient fact
The Supreme Court has ruled that police are under no obligation to intervene and protect you.
https://insidesources.com/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect/
Its not a ruling I ever thought I would agree with. But I think it would be wise to begin pointing this out. Because the next logical conclusion is to simply begin ignoring major crimes. Had the burning and looting already begun in the Ma’Khia Bryant case. Its simply would have been safer for everyone to let her complete her attempted murder. Write a report and apprehend her at a later time.
Sure its morally repugnant. But so was the entire left who immediately tried to blow the town up with their starting premise. Which was reported as an unarmed 15 year old female honor role student shot down in cold blood. I have no idea who she attempted to murder on the camera. But we sure havent heard from her. Or anyone in the family seemed to give one whit that she was saved.
In the case of Pelosi and company, is there anyone even remotely capable of taking their spots?
Of course there is. One hack’s as good as another.
As for entertainment professionals, as they age they land fewer parts and less desirable parts. Their career tapers naturally if they don’t just stop working. NB, acting is something people will do as an avocation.
Matthews has retired, albeit later than most people do. Maher has been eligible for Medicare for 3 months. He’ll be eligible for full Social Security in May 2022.
There is one person who may just be irreplaceable: Rush Limbaugh.
Some of it would seem to be Baby Boomers inability to live in a world without them at the center.
I don’t think there’s been any increase in the median retirement age in the last 20 years.
I imagine that McClarey would probably be ignorant about the situation if he were not a criminal attorney. But I wonder how often and how recently he’s practiced criminal law.
He is 63 years old and very much in active practice. He has two principal lines: bankruptcy and criminal defense. He practices exclusively in Illinois. There may be jigaroos in Minnesota criminal procedure with which he is not familiar.
And that, along with many others in Congress, including the GOP, is indicative to me of extreme mental illness. What sort of person is so filled with the need for power that they continue on well into their dotage?
McConnell does seem pathological, as does his caucus for not bouncing him. In re Thune, McCarthy, and Scalise, it’s not their age which is the issue (they’re all between 54 and 61), but their choice of politics as a lifelong career. Scalise capsule biographies are silent about what he did with his life between the ages of 23 and 31; he’s been in electoral politics ever since. McCarthy has been on the payroll of legislative bodies since he was 22 years old, first as staff, then as a member. Thune has been in political office or on the staff of political NGOs since he was in his middle 20s, IIRC.
benjamin crump, who put forth the fraudulent witch trial in sanford, and associate of sharpton, of course malory archer or the bluth woman (both curmudgeon roles played by the late jessica walters, which fit pelosi to a tee, I also call her norma desmond,) each more wretched then the last
Floyd is today’s martyr.
Remains to be seen whether Chauvin and Babbitt will be tomorrow’s.
We are in an odd situation. The power of the state at all levels discourages dissent or push back; yet their front line troops–at least the local police–are most directly under attack from the state. Others, such as the FBI and, ultimately, the military are ciphers at this point.
Will the City Council woman in Brooklyn Center, Mn, who, out of fear of the mob, joined the crowd to throw the City Manager, whom she admired, under the bus for speaking inconveniently be the model? At crunch time, will folks in uniform go along with repressive edicts protect careers and pensions? How have Despotic regimes historically found sufficient numbers to man their security forces and willingly subjugate their neighbors? Asking for a friend.
neo states, “Chauvin fit the public image of a nasty white overseer coldly and callously bringing a black victim to heel. He was unable to overcome that perception, and there are many powerful people who have an interest in seeing that he never does.”
That’s true. It’s also true that Chauvin is a symbol of CRT’s main assertion; ALL white people are racist and irredeemably so. Racial guilt is the meme and the Left is determined to ensure that whites never can overcome that assertion. At least not until white western civilization has committed cultural suicide and accepted second class citizenship in a new world order run by Marxists.
“So again, what sort of mental illness drives these people? And they are still running the country.” physicsguy
“Never was a government that was not composed of liars, malefactors and thieves.” Roman Senator Marcus Tullius Cicero
History’s greatest individual exceptions to Cicero’s assertion would be Rome’s Cinncinatus, George Washington, Rutherford B Hayes and Donald Joseph Trump.
Hayes strongly resisted accepting the nomination and heavily pressured to accept it, did so under the condition that he would only serve one term, which he did despite heavy political pressure to serve another term.
Trump did his level best to deliver on his promises, despite an unprecedented level of vile opposition. That alone qualifies him for inclusion in that rare company.
@GB:
Cincinnatus story probably partially apocryphal. A ‘historical’ Epitome is a useful admonitory / debating tag.
Washington and Hayes no issue.
Trump congenital liar and narcissist. Arguably thieved from anyone stupid enough to invest in his schemes back in the day. Also arguably was competing in the most dirty and thieving market known to Mankind against Apex Predators. New York Real Estate, Baby. But not a malefactor. For a time, your Best Hope. Now an irrelevance and best to look forward to new horizons.
*stands up in beer garden and starts to sing*
Haha… nope.. just kidding. But kidding for a reason. We of the West have to let go of certain things we cling desperately to like drowning men. Liberalism just does not work. Cannot work.
https://www.amren.com/podcasts/2021/04/james-burnham-power-and-prophecy/
^^ That’s why it cannot work. Also see their discussion of Sam Francis.
Except he was married to a hmong woman and worked with black and asians and even floyd at one point, itz not about chauvin as it wasnt about darren wilson or zimmerman