Do Masks Work? by: John Hinderaker
Do Masks Work? by: John Hinderaker |  |
- Do Masks Work?
- Vanita Gupta’s obfuscation
- Is the Left in Trouble?
- Today’s Breaking News (Updated)
- Chauvin trial day 9
Posted: 19 Mar 2021 04:23 PM PDT (John Hinderaker) We are surrounded by At American Thinker, Spike Hampson applies a simple test. He compares the combined covid death rates of the ten states that have never had mask mandates with the combined death rates of the 40 states that do have mask mandates. The result:
But maybe the problem is that some states waited too long to impose a mask mandate. So Hampson tried another test: the ten states that have never had mask mandates vs. the ten states that imposed such mandates the earliest. The result:
Do masks kill people? Probably not, but they certainly don’t appear to do any good. Of course, mask advocates could argue that the states that imposed mandates did so because they had more covid than the states that didn’t, and their numbers would be even worse but for the wearing of masks. That hypothesis could be tested, but given the pretty much universal spread of the Wuhan virus, it lacks any plausibility. The best we can say for masks is that they probably don’t do much harm. Shutdowns are worse–equally ineffective, but with catastrophic consequences, especially for our young people. Other than Operation Warp Speed, our entire response to the covid epidemic has been a fiasco.     |
Posted: 19 Mar 2021 03:37 PM PDT (Paul Mirengoff) Carrie Campbell Severino accurately described Vanita Gupta’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee as rife with “obfuscation and double standards.” The same can be said of the DOJ nominee’s answers to written questions by Senators. In this post, I will highlight some of the obfuscation. I will discuss double standards in a follow-up post. The following examples are from the answers, if you can call them that, to Sen. Ted Cruz’s questions. They are typical:
Gupta’s mashup of cliches is 100 percent non-responsive to Cruz’s question. Biological men as a group obviously have a physiological advantage over biological women as a group. Gupta’s unwillingness to admit this shows that she supports the war on women’s sports inherent in permitting biological men to compete against biological women.
Another entirely non-responsive answer. We can infer from her unwillingness to answer that Gupta is fine with requiring that women’s only facilities be open to transgender women, at the expense of the privacy interests of biological women. Gupta just isn’t honest enough to acknowledge that this is her position.
In this response, Gupta does not dispute that the Leadership Conference, which she led, is an advocacy organization that pushes the bounds of existing law. There’s no way could. Moreover, Gupta does not name a single legal position taken by the Leadership Conference that she thinks would be inappropriate for the Justice Department to adopt or defend. Yes, Gupta’s mandate is to enforce the law. But Cruz didn’t ask her whether she will violate the law. His question goes to how hard she will push the law’s bounds. It seems evident from her answer that she will push them at least as far as the Leadership Conference has tried to do. Gupta should be presumed to support every radical position adopted by the Leadership Conference under her watch, and to intend to impose all of them if confirmed. Sen. Cruz gave her the opportunity to say otherwise, but she declined.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a vicious radical leftist outfit bent on smearing and silencing conservative voices. It’s even worse than the Leadership Council that Gupta ran. Gupta obviously believes the SPLC is a credible civil rights organization. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be part of the operation she led. Yet, Gupta was unwilling to say one way or the other whether she considers the SPLC credible. Nor, in her response to Cruz’s pointed follow-up question, would she commit to ensuring that DOJ attorneys not rely on SPLC’s odious “hate group list.” The hate list is the vehicle through which the SPLC wages war on conservatives. It includes such groups as Alliance Defending Freedom, the Ruth Institute, and the Family Research Council. By refusing to commit that the list doesn’t inform DOJ policy, including criminal prosecutions, Gupta effectively refused to disavow that the DOJ will wage war on conservatives generally, and groups like those I just mentioned, in particular. In separate questions, Cruz asked Gupta whether she considers any of these three organization “hate groups.” She wouldn’t say.
On its face, this statement is almost comically non-responsive. It can be construed, perhaps, to mean that Gupta does not wish to clarify her testimony about Judge Brown. In that case, an honest answer to Cruz’s question would have been “no.” Unfortunately, Gupta doesn’t do honest answers. The issue of Brown v. Board as “the law of the land” leads to the problem of Gupta’s double standards, which I will discuss in a follow-up post.   |
Posted: 19 Mar 2021 11:07 AM PDT (Steven Hayward) There are some interesting signs that the Biden victory and the Democratic Party’s current lunge to the far left may be an outlier among Western democracies, where leftist parties continue to lose ground. Progressive writers Ruy Teixeira and Brian Kaltis (both with the lefty Center for American Progress) note the unhappy (for them) results of elections earlier this week in the Netherlands:
Why has this happened? The explanation sounds like something Steve Bannon might say:
So what is to be done, from this old-line progressive perspective:
What are the odds the left in America will heed the boldfaced advice here? Zero. Poor Ruy (who is a very nice man, by the way. . .) Keep your eyes on the Israeli election next week.   |
Today’s Breaking News (Updated) Posted: 19 Mar 2021 10:07 AM PDT (Steven Hayward) A lot of news stories breaking today, so let’s jump on a couple. “President” Biden fell down three times boarding Air Force One today. How soon before they have to equip the AF1 staircase with one of those elevator chairs? Cue Chevy Chase and an SNL sketch. UPDATE: Here is the best take on it: More important: National Review has today—finally—succeeded in getting Michael Mann’s libel suit dismissed, after eight years of court battles that should have been ended early. Next: let’s see if NR can get some legal fees out of Mann. More women coming forth with allegations against Gov. Cuomo. This is starting to sound a lot like the cascades that happened with Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and other liberal grandees. Finally (for now), when the Washington Post says you have a border problem, it means the matter is becoming a potentially serious political liability for “President” Biden:
  |
Posted: 19 Mar 2021 03:16 AM PDT (Scott Johnson) If the day didn’t exactly begin with a whimper, it ended with a cathartic bang of a sort. Stick with me here. In between the whimper and the bang three more jurors were seated, bringing the total to 12 so far. We should have 14 soon and adjourn until opening statements on March 29. Before jury selection resumed Jerry Blackwell — one of the several outside attorneys contributing his services to the prosecution — argued in favor of the exclusion of evidence of George Floyd’s May 2019 arrest by the Minneapolis police. The issue is one of legal relevance. Late yesterday afternoon the state filed this memorandum of law on the issue. (It also filed this memorandum of law opposing continuance of the case on account of pretrial publicity.) Judge Peter Cahill will announce his rulings orally on these motions and on the change of venue motion at 8:15 this morning. Jury selection should resume at 9:00. I anticipate that he will deny the motions for a continuance and change of venue. He has already ruled against the admission of evidence of the May 2019 arrest. If he changes his mind on that, my reading is that he will admit the evidence only for limited purposes. Blackwell’s argument Thursday morning was focused on the expert medical testimony of one Dr. Vincent. A video clip of Blackwell’s argument is posted here. The prosecution seeks to introduce Vincent’s expert testimony on how “a human being” in Floyd’s circumstances at the time of his arrest in May 2020 would react. They want to show that Floyd was reacting normally. I think this is a weak argument. I have in my notes that “this argument is a crock.” If granted — as Judge Cahill commented — it opens the door to Floyd’s behavior in the May 2019 arrest. We shall see. After a short break jury selection resumed with juror number 86. We don’t get racial or ethnic data on jurors who are not selected, but I detected a pretty thick Chinese (I think) accent. Although she has avoided the news, she had learned of the settlement of the civil litigation. She conceded that, based on what she knew, she leaned toward the prosecution. Judge Cahill excused her for cause before turning her over to the lawyers for voir dire. The prospective jurors, I should add, have been asked by the court to avoid the news since they were summoned to jury duty this past December or so. Everyone understands, however, that news of the case is to some extent unavoidable. It is one of the basic fair trial challenges that permeates the case. Juror number 87 was not equally current on the news. She is a soft-spoken mother of five who had not seen video of the arrest and professed neutrality toward the parties. Although defense counsel Eric Nelson took his time with her, I guessed that her evident fairness toward the parties would elicit a peremptory strike by Steve Schleicher — another of the outside attorneys contributing his services to the prosecution. I have in my notes on Schleicher’s voir dire that she would be an ideal juror — an ideal juror, period. Schleicher asked about her son’s attendance at one of the protests following Floyd’s death. It turns out that her son was at the protest on Highway 35W in Minneapolis that narrowly avoided catastrophe when the truck driver slammed on the brakes. George Floyd’s death has touched a lot of people in the Twin Cities one way or another. She didn’t know about her son’s attendance at the protest until afterwards and only expressed concern for his safety. As anticipated, Schleicher exercised a peremptory challenge to strike her. (The state has four strikes remaining.) Given the prospective concerns about their safety, Judge Cahill indicated that he intended to authorize identification of the jurors only when he deemed it safe to do so. Nelson, who regularly inquires on the issue of juror concerns about personal safety, now incorporates this assurance into his voir dire. It wouldn’t do much for me, but there you have another aspect of the fundamental fair trial challenge in this case. We need not linger long over juror number 88, He heard about the settlement of the civil litigation. His initial reaction was shock. Judge Cahill examined the juror with the audio off and excused him for cause as a result of his acquaintance with a key witness in the case. Juror number 89 had also been exposed to the settlement. In her case, even though she is trying to avoid the news, she heard of it through a passing mention on the radio. She knew the amount was $27 million. She stated that the settlement didn’t affect her view of the criminal case. She is an experienced nurse who lives alone in the first-ring Minneapolis suburb Edina. She expressed ambivalence about being summoned to jury service in this “big case.” It portends “a lot of repercussions.” She is concerned about her safety following the trial, but reassured by the security in the courthouse and the anonymity afforded the jurors. It “kind of” makes her feel better. She is no dummy; she is unsure how comfortable she is with the prospect of her name being out there somewhere down the road. Her juror questionnaire provides a narrative of the facts of the May 25 arrest up to Floyd’s death that is probably based on television news. She holds neutral opinions of both Floyd and Chauvin. She seemed to think that Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck too long “knowing he died.” She is unsure of the cause of death. She does not distrust the police. Passed for cause by the parties, she is the tenth juror seated in the case. We were then advised by the court that she is a white woman in her 50’s. Juror number 90 is a classic Hennepin County juror. He is an IT administrator of firm leftist views with an extremely negative opinion of Chauvin. He is sane enough to fear for his personal safety if he were to sit as a juror and render a verdict of not guilty, but he doesn’t need to worry. His views of the police are so hostile that he was excused for cause. This guy could be the grating voice of the Minnesota DFL. His assessment of the safety issues inherent in the case is skewed by lunacy. He is a lunatic living in a left-wing fantasy world. The controlling Minnesota case — the Logan case — provides that jurors with a clear showing of partiality for police testimony are to be excused for cause. Judge Cahill concisely excused juror number 90 for cause as “a reverse Logan.” Juror number 91 is also aware of the $27 million wrongful death settlement. An older lady who worked in marketing for a financial company, 25-30 years ago she lived in the neighborhood where the incident occurred. She doesn’t return to the neighborhood or even come much to Minneapolis. She said she hasn’t been downtown in years. I chalk up her good attitude to avoidance of the city. She enjoys “taking care of her family.” She has “a couple grandchildren.” Her son-in-law is a physician. She is excited to have the opportunity to serve as a juror in the case. She was proud to fill out the questionnaire. She seldom watches the news and has only seen the video once, for four or five minutes, before she shut it off. She expressed neutral views of George Floyd and Derek Chauvin. She knows there are two sides to every story. “I only know the surface,” she said, and thought more information would be helpful before she makes up her mind. She grew up in south Minneapolis, where the incident occurred. She lamented the many stores that were looted and destroyed. She has a relative who is a police officer. She isn’t close with him, but she is proud of him for standing up as a police officer. Asked on the questionnaire about her view of Black Lives Matter, her response was: “I am black and my life matters.” She expressed no view of the organization. I view juror number 91 as a good citizen. Her degree is in child psychology. She occasionally volunteers with a youth organization to help kids with their homework. I have her down as about as good as it gets for the defense. She is the eleventh juror seated. According to the court, she is a black woman in her 60’s. At this point the court took an afternoon break. When court convened again following the break, Eric Nelson noted that city officials were publicly holding forth about the settlement of the civil litigation again (video below). He cited Mayor Frey’s comments yesterday in further support of his change of venue motion. I didn’t know at the time — and I doubt Nelson did either — that the comments of both both Frey and City Attorney Jim Rowader at the press conference, about the settlement’s lack of impact on the Chauvin case — were bald falsehoods, as one reporter had the temerity to point out.
Although she stated it had no effect on her view of the case, juror number 92 was also aware of the $27 million settlement. She is family-oriented and loves her work in the business of commercial insurance. She has some concern about “what would happen to [her] afterwards” if she were to serve as juror. She would be okay with the release of her name at a later date. She has seen a clip of the video. She holds “somewhat negative” views of both Floyd and Chauvin. The media have painted Chauvin as “an aggressive cop with tax problems.” She is aware that “George Floyd’s record wasn’t clean” and that “he abused drugs at some point.” Her opinion is that the police used excessive force but that Floyd was not completely innocent. By contrast with juror number 91, juror number 92 is not a classic Hennepin County juror. She “strongly disagrees” with defunding the police. She sees both positive and negative effects to have followed on Floyd’s death. “We need law enforcement,” she said. Why? “Look at the riots.” She was the twelfth juror seated. Juror 95 gets his news from NPR. That was enough for me, but Nelson continued with him. He knows of the settlement. He was shocked by it — he didn’t expect the civil case to be settled until the criminal cases are concluded. Although he thinks he can still be impartial, the settlement altered his view of the case. It is hard to get out of his mind. At about this point I figured out that he spoke with an Indian accent. Probing his concerns over his own and his family’s safety whatever the verdict, Nelson ascertained that he could not focus on the evidence in the case. Those safety concerns would weigh on his mind. Judge Cahill excused him for cause. Schleicher then rose to offer a transcript of Frey’s press conference and to chide Nelson for citing the press conference without a formal affidavit for the record. This set Judge Cahill off. Setting Schleicher back on his heels, Judge Cahill noted the disparity between the prosecution team and the defense. How many attorneys have been admitted for the prosecution pro hac vice so far, he asked. Ten or 12? Schleicher professed not to know, but added the irrelevant point that Nelson’s fees were paid by the police union. That is a surprising lack of professionalism on Schleicher’s part.
I invoked Paul Newman’s adversaries in The Verdict to make a point about the disparity between the prosecution and defense teams in part 4 of this series. It was good to see Judge Cahill unload it on Schleicher. The next two jurors selected will serve as alternates. Here is the court’s summary of the 12 jurors seated so far: · No. 2: white male; 20s I should have reported yesterday that the parties agreed to strike prospective jurors 108, 112, 122, 124, and 125 for cause. Thanks to my friends at Alpha News (I sit on the board) for clipping the video in the tweets above.   |
Comments
Post a Comment