You are currently browsing the daily archive for October 1, 2019.

On the unfortunate simplicity of the current scandal – funny as Hell.

Jordan probably shouldn’t have showed up for this interview, but if nobody from the Republican Party does it’s going to look really bad.  All he’s doing is parroting the talking points which were inadvertently sent to Democrats which pretty much impeaches every Republican whose found the courage to face the media – so far very few.

The problem is that you argue that there is some evidence of political bias when you don’t even know what you’re talking about, it puts you against McGuire, a Trump appointee, who testified that he didn’t believe it was material.

Then you have that it was all second hand information, might be an argument, except that the different people the whistleblower spoke with all corroborated each other and in fact everything in the complaint has pretty much been confirmed.

So what does Jordan resort to?  Hunter Biden was paid a lot of money, Democrats didn’t prove Russian influence in the election – all he can do is just repeat the disjointed talking points and keep talking through the questions.  He starts talking a million words a minute, because he can’t argue.  Jordan cannot even admit as to the reason Biden pushed for the Ukrainian prosecutor to be fired.  He shifts, and all he does for the last half of the interview repeat the talking points over and over.  It’s actually a little painful to watch.

I really think the centrist voters won’t buy this.  And I don’t know what the Republicans are going to do.

This is a very telling interview.

I can’t find an article which specifies whether the conviction is for first or second degree murder. I’m assuming second degree, since there was no evidence presented of motive which points to premeditation.  Ex-cop Amber Guyger was found guilty of murdering her black neighbor. 

I do think the defense may have made a mistake in pushing the “castle law” defense which basically states that when you’re in your own home and reasonably in fear of an intruder you pretty much have an absolute right to kill them. And apparently the judge ruled that the defense was available if the jury found that she “reasonably” believed she was in her own “castle.” I question whether it should apply to a situation outside of your castle whether or not your mistake is “reasonable,” but it didn’t matter with this jury. It may have been a mistake to push the theory and instead should have really been pushing for a manslaughter verdict in lieu of murder. But she probably really wanted to get off completely, and took the chance, and lost. I suspect the defense lost credibility. Good for the jury for not buying the castle defense.

I’m uncomfortable about the posts from fellow progressives crowing about how her “white tears” or “strategic tears” failed to win the defense verdict. First of all, I don’t know that the tears are fake. I know that they are irrelevant. As I’ve said, I have strong objections to the whole concept of “strategic tears” as a sexist trope (yes, I know the term was coined by a feminist – it’s still sexist) which will hurt ALL women, white or otherwise, in the long run. She’s not an evil person because she cried on the stand.

I actually believe she probably did mistakenly enter the wrong apartment since there is no explanation presented by the evidence as to why she would deliberately walk in to the wrong apartment to kill someone, unless they had some sort of personal history. But I don’t see that as a defense. If you have a deadly weapon you are responsible for the consequences of its use, and if you try to kill someone you are accountable for that death even if it was based on a reckless mistake. Manslaughter is reserved for a situation like an accidental discharge, but she admitted that she thought she was in danger and shot intending to harm him. That’s murder. Not premeditated, so not first degree. But murder because the act itself was intentional, not accidental even if the circumstances created were accidental.

This was a smart jury who delivered a good verdict. It appears justice will be done. We don’t need to pillory her for crying on the stand.



October 2019