Displaying posts published in

January 2023

Jonathan Turley: Hunter Biden laptop-denier now admits emails are real. Don’t let him get away with it Intel officials who signed Hunter Biden laptop letter are seeking plausible deniability

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hunter-biden-laptop-denier-now-admits-emails-real-dont-let-him-get-away-with-it

Douglas Wise, a former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director and former senior CIA operations officer, is back in the news this week. 

In an interview with The Australian, Wise admits that he and others always knew that the emails on the Hunter Biden laptop were likely genuine. It was a remarkable admission from one of more than 50 former intelligence officials who signed a letter dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 presidential election as likely “Russian disinformation.” 

Yet, Wise still maintains that, while true, he and the other officials were right to call it out as likely “disinformation.” Arguing that something is true, but still constitutes disinformation sounds a lot like . . . well . . . disinformation.

The infamous letter from the former intel officials (including such Democrat figures like John Brennan, James Clapper, Leon Panetta, and Jeremy Bash) was used by the media to assure the public that there was nothing to see in the scandal. It was the perfect deflection in giving a cooperative media cover to bury the story of how the Biden family engaged in influence peddling worth millions with foreign figures, including some with foreign intelligence connections.

It worked beautifully. It was not until two years later that NPR, the New York Times, and other media outlets got around to telling the public the truth.

Now some of the signatories are trying to rehabilitate themselves. It is not hard. Figures like Bash have been rewarded for their loyalty. Others like Brennan and Clapper have become regulars on CNN to continue to give their takes on intelligence.

State Lawmakers Can Reform Higher Ed The vast majority of college students attend state schools. By Ilya Shapiro and Christopher F. Rufo

https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-lawmakers-can-reform-higher-ed-critical-race-theory-diversity-statements-bureaucracies-11673978891?mc_cid=831e02f7cf&mc_eid=9bde3e8efb

Many Americans despair of reforming the culture of higher education. But a substantial majority of college students attend public institutions, and these schools are subject to state law. If legislators are determined to restore free speech and academic freedom, there’s a lot they can do. In cooperation with the Goldwater Institute, we’ve developed model state legislation based on four reform proposals:

• Abolish “diversity, equity and inclusion” bureaucracies. These offices work actively against norms of academic freedom and truth-seeking, advance primarily political aims, and fuel administrative bloat that raises costs and exacerbates student debt. Administrators at public institutions should maintain official neutrality on controversial political questions extraneous to the business of educating students. Leave compliance with federal and state civil-rights laws to the university counsel’s office.

• Forbid mandatory diversity training for students, faculty and staff. Even when DEI officials claim their training is “voluntary,” it’s often required for faculty who wish to perform basic extracurricular roles, such as serving on hiring committees. Typical diversity training includes unscientific claims about “microaggressions” and “implicit bias” and rejects the basic American principle that everyone should be treated equally. It indoctrinates an ideology of identity-based grievance, guilt and division.

• Curtail the use of “diversity statements” as a means of political coercion. These serve as litmus tests in employment processes to exclude applicants who don’t adhere to critical race theory and other radical beliefs. Although the Supreme Court has long held that requiring loyalty oaths in public education is unconstitutional—as are other forms of compelled speech—universities increasingly require that applicants state their belief in the importance of DEI, cite prior personal efforts to promote DEI and pledge to integrate DEI into their teaching. Applicants for many positions have been eliminated on the basis of diversity statements alone and many universities condition their hiring decisions on the applicant’s ideological conformity.

What The Left Tells Us About the Left. Part Four Victor Davis Hanson

https://victorhanson.com/what-the-left-tells-us-about-the-left-part-four/

Police Killing of the Unarmed

Following George Floyd’s death, the Left went ballistic that the Washington Post of all places had found that unarmed black suspects were not necessarily killed in percentages higher than the percentages of blacks among the some 11 million who were arrested each year.

The distinguished Harvard University economist Roland Fryer (an African American) looked at police shootings in Houston and did not find that racial bias was a major factor in the use of deadly force.

The point, then, is that there is little data to suggest that white officers are systematically and inordinately lethally shooting unarmed black suspects. (Note that shortly after his research was published, Fryer was conveniently charged with sexual harassment—resulting mostly from off-color jokes—at Harvard and was put on leave by the university, and had his brilliant career essentially aborted if not destroyed.)

Videos changed the country forever on May 25, 2020. The smart phone clips appeared with a white Minnesota police officer with his knee on the neck of a black arrested suspect who later died. Autopsies (more than one) followed that variously suggested that either drugs or the deliberate use of the officer’s knee to obstruct Floyd’s breathing or both mostly caused Floyd’s death.

The major facts were mostly not in dispute: George Floyd, a career felon, who had been charged, convicted, and incarcerated for prior felonies, including a home-invasion robbery, during which he put a loaded pistol to the stomach of a pregnant woman, was arrested on reports he was attempting to pass counterfeit U.S. currency.

How Many Ways Can New York Lawmakers Help Criminals? ‘Discovery reform’ helps spring defendants by burying prosecutors in paperwork. By Hannah E. Meyers

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-lawmakers-help-criminals-discovery-prosecutors-speedy-trial-dismissal-hochul-budget-crime-11674079612?mod=opinion_lead_pos8

Criminals who should be in jail or prison are walking the streets of New York because prosecutors are being buried in a torrent of meaningless paperwork. In her State of the State address on Jan. 10, Gov. Kathy Hochul acknowledged the shortcomings of the 2019 bail reform passed by Albany lawmakers and signed by her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo. But she failed to mention “discovery” legislation, which passed the same year and is a key contributor to rising crime.

Criminal discovery traditionally encompasses material prosecutors might use at trial to prove guilt, which fairness requires they share beforehand with defendants. In 2019 Albany legislators began forcing prosecutors to turn over redundant or irrelevant material, such as police memo books void of substantive notes or body-camera footage from four officers, all capturing the same angle with nothing noteworthy. Further, prosecutors must collect, redact and turn all of this over within 20 days following arraignment, a task that progressive Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg termed “herculean.”

Newly released 2022 data show Mr. Bragg was right. Overwhelmed prosecutors are successfully meeting these discovery obligations on a scant 3% of felony cases statewide. In New York City, prosecutors are almost never able to meet their obligations. They are simply too onerous.

While prosecutors scramble to assemble irrelevant discovery material, the state’s unique speedy-trial clock continues to run. After 90 chargeable days in custody clocked, felony defendants must be released. After six months total, their cases are eligible to be dismissed automatically. Misdemeanors are subject to similar requirements, with faster dismissal and release times. New York City case dismissals surged from 42% of disposed cases in the first 11 months of 2019 to 69% in the same period of 2021. The misdemeanor dismissal rate rose even more drastically, from 48% to 82%.