Alan Dershowitz doesn’t know the first thing about the nature of Islam or the magnitude of the jihad threat. A few years ago, I was on a radio show following Dershowitz, and the producer called me a bit early, while Dershowitz and the host were still conversing. I could hear them while I was on hold waiting to go on, and heard the host announce that I would be coming on right after a break. Hearing my name, Dershowitz began nervously to repeat Leftist dogmas about Islam being a religion of peace and how important it was to avoid “Islamophobia.” Unfortunately, by the time I got on the show, he was gone; I would have loved an opportunity to debate him.
In any case, here he poses the hypothetical case of a Muslim judge nominated for the Supreme Court by President Hillary Clinton. “Then several witnesses place him at a mosque at which terrorism was advocated. He claims he went there to hear all sides of the issue. One witness places him in a terrorism training camp but that account is not corroborated. One final witness identifies him as the man who planted the bomb that blew off his leg at a demonstration. He categorically denies any association with terrorism.” This is supposed to be analogous to Brett Kavanaugh’s situation, but the analogy is not exact, because no witnesses ever placed Kavanaugh at any place where crimes were being committed or advocated.
Dershowitz claims that in his hypothetical scenario, “the identity politics accusations would not be directed against old white men, but rather against those who would stereotype Muslims as terrorists. The Jewish Forward would not be featuring an article entitled ‘Is Amir Hassan every Muslim man?’ as it is now featuring an article entitled ‘Is Brett Kavanaugh every American man?'” That’s patently absurd, as the Jewish Forward is a far-Left, pro-jihad publication that would never publish anything remotely critical of jihad terror or Sharia oppression.
And Dershowitz digs even deeper: “Many right-wing Republicans would now be making arguments similar to those being made by their left-wing Democratic colleagues in the Kavanaugh case. This is just a job interview, not a trial. Believe terrorism survivors. There is no burden of proof; mere suspicion is enough to deny a possible terrorist a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Look how angry he is, demonstrating a lack of judicial temperament.”
That’s ridiculous on its face. Whatever the context, accusations without evidence are worthless. If Dershowitz’s “Amir Hassan” had been acquitted of the charges against him, then that would be that. If no charges had been brought and these allegations were new, they would have to be investigated, and are quite different from 30-plus-year-old allegations with no witnesses: the fellow who claimed that Amir Hassan blew his leg off could be refuted by surveillance video, which is virtually everywhere nowadays. Dershowitz also doesn’t even consider important questions that would revolve around Amir Hassan’s adherence to Sharia, which denies the freedom of speech, the equality of rights before the law, and other core American principles.
Dershowitz is absolutely right that if President Hillary Clinton had appointed a Muslim judge, the Democrat Party would be fiercely defending him no matter what was ultimately revealed about his ties to jihad terrorism. But his claim that Republicans are quick to condemn innocent Muslims as terrorists reflects that Dershowitz is still very much a man of the Left, a faithful adherent of the Left’s dogma that all Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people who have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, and that “Islamophobia” is much more of a problem in American society than jihad terror. This assumption is supported by absolutely no evidence, although there are attempts to buttress it with the veneer of misleading and inaccurate “evidence.” Dershowitz, so clear-sighted on Israel, remains on the issue of the global jihad a doctrinaire, unthinking Leftist.
“What if Kavanaugh were a liberal Muslim?,” by Alan Dershowitz, Jerusalem Post, October 4, 2018:
As a law professor for half a century, I tested the consistency and strength of my students’ arguments by constructing thought experiments in the form of challenging hypothetical cases – we called them hypos. So let’s construct one to test the arguments being offered in the Kavanaugh case.
A thought experiment: President Hillary Clinton nominates the first Muslim American to the Supreme Court. Let’s call him Amir Hassan. Republicans oppose him and accuse him of being a judicial activist. Then several witnesses place him at a mosque at which terrorism was advocated. He claims he went there to hear all sides of the issue. One witness places him in a terrorism training camp but that account is not corroborated. One final witness identifies him as the man who planted the bomb that blew off his leg at a demonstration. He categorically denies any association with terrorism.
How would the Senate, the media, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the public deal with these accusations?
The answer seems clear: the sides and arguments would be largely reversed. The shoe would be on the other foot and the hypocrisy of double standards would be exposed for all to see.
Surely the ACLU would not be arguing, as they have in the Kavanaugh case, that doubts should be resolved in favor of guilt. Radicals would not be insisting that terrorism survivors must always be believed as to identification. My left-wing colleagues would not point to the anger displayed by the possibly falsely accused nominee as proof of his disqualifying injudicious temperament.
To the contrary, the ACLU would be demanding due process, a presumption of innocence and a high burden of proof before so serious a charge could destroy a life, family and career. My colleagues would be defending the righteous anger of a falsely accused victim of ethnic prejudice.
The identity politics accusations would not be directed against old white men, but rather against those who would stereotype Muslims as terrorists. The Jewish Forward would not be featuring an article entitled “Is Amir Hassan every Muslim man?” as it is now featuring an article entitled “Is Brett Kavanaugh every American man?”
Many right-wing Republicans would now be making arguments similar to those being made by their left-wing Democratic colleagues in the Kavanaugh case. This is just a job interview, not a trial. Believe terrorism survivors. There is no burden of proof; mere suspicion is enough to deny a possible terrorist a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Look how angry he is, demonstrating a lack of judicial temperament….
Andy says
Kavanaugh Confirmed: The Era of Liberal Judicial Dictatorship is Over!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEpQaFtvx_E&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=66482454&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9l-6IbiDgW-0TuL0GQOEV-XsyOl77VREOtWF6G4kWEz-Ow1NwjjTEyrsphzqNwQXxwo0R1Xvob9gE3LspgqMBLwPSxgkzmvxDnnHuf-dH7zSiExwQ&_hsmi=66482454
Andy says
Trump speaks at police chiefs’ convention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJm8QqTqM_M
Andy says
STOP MASS HYSTERIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_QPuFbohdU
Rob says
Dershowitz is looking increasingly uncomfortable defending Democrats. But that’s a helluva lot better than having a chanting mob outside his home!
J D S says
“INNOCENT OR GUILTY”???
That is a question that has haunted many a person caught up in a situation that asks the question guilty or innocent…As always the proof is in the pudding…..When it comes to Islam there is built before innocent….WHY WOULD I SAY THAT?
If there is no guilt then why aren’t Muslims, who claim Islam to be peaceful, in the streets, on radio and TV show, newspapers,social media and all other outlets, screaming to the top of their lungs that Islam is NOT what is portrayed by jihadist, many clerics and others Further we are going to change every bad thing that Islam portrays and further ADMIT that there are Bad Things in Islam.
Carol the 1st says
Egghead Dershowitz loves to crawl out from under his rock to defend the indefensible. An Islamic judicial candidate in a democracy is a non-starter and he doesn’t even know this but would surely charge ahead happily anyway.
Rev G says
In this hypothetical, he taints the comparison by having witnesses who place the muslim at various places, something not extant in the Kavanaugh situation. The accuser cannot even place Kavanaugh anywhere with certainty.
dan christensen says
At a convention of biological scientists, one researcher remarks to another, “Did you know that in our lab we have switched from mice to lawyers for our experiments?” “Really?” the other replied, “Why did you switch?” “Well, for three reasons. First we found that lawyers are far more plentiful, second, the lab assistants don’t get so attached to them, and thirdly there are some things even a rat won’t do.”
Frank Anderson says
D.C., add a fourth reason: NOBODY gets upset if you hurt or kill some of them!
Kepha says
Well, peeved as I am at the modern American legal profession (or at least part of it), lawyers paid me well when I translated for them. I also have relatives and friends who are lawyers.
gravenimage says
Kepha, Frank himself is a lawyer. He is joking here.
Emilie Green says
Deeshowitz is a through-and-through leftist. So much so that he shed tears, and expected us to shed tears for him, when the number of invites to leftist summertime parties at East Coast leftist enclaves fell off sharply because he had made a few common sense remarks about Trump.
Jak says
You want an experiment? Watch the Ford interview with the sound off. See how uncomfortable you are with her story.
WPM says
Tell Dershowitz we already had a president raised in a Moslem country , a president who we the public could not find out his college record the MSM refused to look for it. . A president who appeased Moslems and Moslem causes over America interest. A president who freely admitted to hard core drug use in his youth .A president who the hard core left in the media that he belongs to ran cover ever chance they could calling anyone a racist who question his hate America stance when it came to foreign policy. Now we have a supreme court nominate who the MSM had a cow over, the democrats had a witch hunt over whose only “crime” he committed and admitted was a love for beer in college and drinking beer drinking at the age of 18 when the legal drinking age was 18.Accused that he had a drunken grope on a woman who cannot place the time , date, address of the offense who waited 36 years to come forward. She does not remember anything how she got to the “party”, how she got home , what date it was ,the address of the party, but she is dead sure it was Kavanaugh who grope her. No witnesses, no evidence ,her name leaked to the press by who ,her letter to the democrats on the committee held for 4 weeks put forth right before the vote for Kavanaugh was to be held. We have terror action done everyday some where in the world, terror groups openly saying they want to kill us, terrorist caught all saying they are doing it for Islam all quoting and using the Koran to justify their actions .We the public are not believe are our ears ,eyes , and senses that these people want us dead, they proclaim right from their Mosques, they proclaim from their seats of government. They proclaim in news print, on the web in the streets in the mosque .What world does Dershowitz inhabit someone accused of Islamic terrorism with witnesses placing him at the scene, a date, a place ,time ,freely admitting associating with preaches who hate preach ,or a 36 year old accusation with ,no witnesses , no date , no time , no place ,over an 18 year old kid drunken grope?
emma says
very well said!
Rob says
Obama was a messianic gratitude junkie. Go anywhere. Meet anyone. Say anything as long as he gets a standing ovation.
Thomas Sowell rates BHO the worst president – ever!
StellaSaidSo says
+1
Thomas Sowell is right about almost everything. Especially leftists!
Edward says
And Dhimmi Carter is the Second Worst US President EVER.
WPM says
Ask Dershowitz if someone is an out of the closet Nazi should he serve on the court ,that is what you get with a by the book following Moslem. Ask him if someone from the KKK should serve these libtards are so mix up to appease a “religious group” that Hitler look up to for the way they conduct themselves in relationship to the rest of the world.
Wellington says
I will not go into names but someone I communicated with for some time who also communicated with Dershowitz cut me off after I indicated in several posts the many reasons why I think Islam is so terrible and why the left side of the political spectrum is no longer trustworthy on preserving American freedom, Desrhowitz pointing out in one of these exchanges the difference between leftism and liberalism, which I then, and still do maintain, is mostly, albeit not completely, a phantom distinction because the liberalism of FDR, Truman, et al. onwards, which requires more and more government, is the backdoor to the radical leftist rot we are faced with today. (Sorry for this interminably long Dickension-like sentence but my blood is up on this matter and personal like and I am of the conviction, as Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan were, that government is best which governs least and that more and more government has enormous consequences, almost all of which are negative.)
Yes, there is, I would contend, no way that the old-fashion liberalism of the Truman and Attlee mode can be divorced entirely from modern leftism. Far from it in fact.
This is why I prefer to make a distinction between old-fashion liberalism and modern liberalism in order to show there is a connection, rather than what Dershowitz and other old-fashion liberals do by drawing a distinction between “liberalism” and “leftism.” People like Dershowitz disavow this connection and herein, plentiful as such disavowals are, I would vigorously contend, lies the root of a major error, replete with a dearth of reasoning and historical knowledge, that avers wrongly that the liberalism of old has nothing to do with the leftism of our time. Oh yes it does—and it includes a continued willful ignorance of what Islam intends for us all. Dershowitz, good and knowledgeable man that he is overall, arguably functions as Exhibit #1 here of this highly injurious and profoundly unfortunate error.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, in spite of your anger and long sentences there is much merit to your contentions.
Please allow me to offer my summary of “liberalism” in brief. All “liberalism” aspires to “totalitarianism” on the premise that we, the ordinary people, Patrick McGoohan’s Number 6, are idiots who need the brilliant minds of the various Number 2’s to decide everything in life for us. The only difference I see between the various labels is how fast they wish to achieve the final goal of total control and what means they wish to use both to control and kill us.
The Michael York movie Logan’s Run illustrates what I think is the goal of all “liberalism” regardless of label. Our lives to liberals are nothing of importance. Look at George Bernard Shows filmed statement proposing that every several years each person should stand before a committee and explain why he should be allowed to continue living. Upon failure of satisfactory explanation, a painless gas should be developed to kill those who don’t belong. Look at the general disdain for individual life and liberty share by all totalitarian societies.
Frank Anderson says
My keyboard with a mind of its own is at work again. Please forgive and ignore the errors.
Wellington says
Thanks for your reply, Frank.
First of all, I am not nearly as angry as I am sad.
Second, please forgive my long sentences. I do believe I have read too much 19th-century literature for a 21st-century man. But then, from the cradle onwards, I have been an anachronism, last of the Romans and all that. Stranger in a strange land.
Third, and as I’m sure you know, liberalism from some two hundred years ago or more (the Thomas Jefferson variety) was noble and wanted limited government. It was the conservatives of the time (e.g. Alexander Hamilton) who wanted more government (though I have no doubt that Hamilton didn’t want nearly as much government as we have today). We’re talking pretty much a 180 here over the past two centuries plus. My theory is that beginning in the middle of the 19th century silly socialistic ideas began to creep into traditional liberalism, Blanc, Marx, et al,, which started the destruction of liberty within the liberal tradition, oxymoronic as this might at first reading seem.
Fourth, hope you and yours are well. Time for a glass of port. Take care, my learned associate.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, it takes some measure of anger to force change. I hope you have read Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book Liberal Fascism. A problem that is recognized (the first logical step of problem solving) but which does not provoke anger/dissatisfaction also fails to produce action to solve the problem.
We share an interest in the welfare of our entire family and the future.
gravenimage says
Yes–I very much believe in the Enlightenment brand of liberalism–of which the Leftism of today has very little in common.
Elisha says
“Hearing my name, Dershowitz began nervously to repeat Leftist dogmas about Islam being a religion of peace and how important it was to avoid “Islamophobia.” Unfortunately, by the time I got on the show, he was gone; I would have loved an opportunity to debate him.”
Debate? More like educate, crash and burn, etc.
Elisha says
Dershowitz is a an utter fool. islam is demonstrably incompatible with Western values and the US Constitution, which is precisely why the Democrats would want to put them in charge.
Wellington says
Elisha: Dershowitz is actually a remnant of the best of the Democratic Party tradition. Don’t forget that his latest book is one which argues AGAINST impeaching Trump and he has sided with Kavanaugh and not with Ford.
Let me put it another way: Dershowtiz, whatever faults he may have (including it seems quite plainly an ignorance of Islam), were he a typical Democrat in our time, I would breathe easier for the future of the American Republic.
Reconsider.
Kepha says
OK. At least Dr. Dershowitz respects traditions about evidence and witness.
Guy Forester says
That is true, I have followed what Dershowitz had to say about Trump and Kavanaugh. Unfortunately, if Mr. D was to find himself in a new USA run by the sharia crowd, he would still find himself at chop chop square unless he could convince someone that he really did become a committed convert to the religion we dare not name. Also, Mr. D needs to realize that if he woke up in a new USA run by the likes of HRC, he would find himself denounced for supporting DJT, and would end up in a re-education camp a la Stalin or Mao, if he was lucky.
gravenimage says
True, Wellington.
Lydia Church says
Celebrating the Kavanaugh win!!!
Yeah!!!
Woooooo-hoooooooo!!!
: D
Yay!
No reason for anyone to disagree.
Why?
No evidence was found that he did what lying Ford said he did.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Due process.
Democratic process was served.
Q.E.D.
The left just does not want a conservative to swing the fulcrum in the other direction.
That is all this scam amounts too.
Plain and simple.
Nothing else to say about it.
SavetheWest says
Plenty to say. Kavanaugh is a liar and now he sits on the SC. Like Clarence Thomas, another liar.
Wellington says
How is Kavanaugh a liar? Of Thomas? If you are going to make accusations, you must follow up with evidence. This is exactly what Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick failed to do. Ditto for Anita Hill. BTW, I am a lawyer.
Your turn.
SavetheWest says
I’m not interested in sparring with you. I don’t care if you’re a lawyer.
Wellington says
SavetheWest: You’re pathetic.
If the rule of law, and even general decency, depends on the likes of someone like you, it will not save the West but destroy it, the very civilization that established the rule of law more extensively and fairly, and which explored more avenues of freedom, than any other civilization in history.
May I suggest you change your moniker to “DestroytheWest.” It would be so much more fitting and accurate.
SavetheWest says
Wellington: You’re an a-hole, pathetic and indecent. Take your insults and shove it. You should change your moniker to “Wellington the Buffoon.” That’s so much more fitting and accurate for the likes of you.
Wellington says
SavetheWest: You gotta’ be a leftist or a Muzzie. The possibility of a third alternative is extremely remote.
Oh, btw, just for the record and all that, you still have provided no evidence for your initial accusations that Kavanaugh and Thomas are liars. Evidence, you know, is important, though you remain clueless and irresponsible here. Anyone of sense can see this (sorry, but this excludes you).
And I can only imagine the dearth of knowledge that resides in you about American jurisprudence and American constitutional history. You react only emotionally and insultingly (and mind you, I’m not against insult if accompanied by sound argument which you, sorry to say, have not provided at all). You’re full of sound and fury (something else too), signifying nothing.
SavetheWest says
Ha-Ha! Don’t get your panties in a twist ya stuffed shirt! Wellington the lefty Muzz!
You’re an out-of-control idiot signifying nothing.
Oh, btw, go f yourself clueless moron. And get psychological help.
gravenimage says
How can this poster claim to want to Save the West if he cares nothing for due process and the rule of law?
Wellington says
SavetheWest: You are the one who needs help. Lots of it.
All you have provided are accusations and insults. No arguments. No evidence. Done with you.
SavetheWest says
graven image: It’s my opinion, thank you. Mind your own beeswax.
Welly the Muzz: Make sure to check yourself into a psych ward today and bring your venom and vitriol with you. If you start insulting people expect to get insulted back. Who do you think you are? Some kind of pompous azz. Get lots of help, Welly Muzz.
All you have provided are accusations and insults. Plus your venom and vitriol.
SavetheWest says
Moog: Wellington began the “emotional outbursts and insults.” I told him I wasn’t interested in discussing with him so he insulted me like the bully he is.
In addition, I never “told everyone on this site to listen.” Where the heck you get that from?
Oh yes I can have my opinion just as you can have yours. Why don’t you mind your own business?
gravenimage says
Well, *of course* “SavetheWest” wants me to shut up about due process and the rule of law. He does not appear fond of these things in the least.
And how does anything Wellington has said indicate that he is a “Muzz”? (presumably he means Muslim). Of course, it does not. Wellington, in fact, has a posting history as a staunch Anti-Jihadist here dating back well over a decade.
And no–replying to any poster does not make him a bully. Posters regularly reply to each other’s comments here, including critically at times.
And any post on a public forum can indeed be taken as aimed at every reader on this site. That is, indeed, how public forums work. Why would “SavetheWest” post here at all, unless he–like everyone else here–is essentially “[telling] everyone on this site to listen”? Otherwise there would be no point.
And any public posting here is, by its very nature, the business of every reader here.
SavetheWest says
graven image — you are an idiot. Bug off you moron. Mind your own business! Oh she just has to pile on! Yes, Welly Muzz is a bully – read his comments to me. You really need a new brain. I get whose side you’re on now bugger off.
Wellington says
Gravenimage: This SavetheWest turkey is a true low-life. Not possessed of much in the gray matter department either. Probably a troll, but, whatever, certainly no one who should be taken seriously. Reminded here of what Abraham Lincoln said, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, to wit, better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and leave no doubt. SavetheWest leaves no doubt.
On a much more important topic, I was appalled at the treatment of Brett Kavanaugh by the Democrats and the mob (increasingly one and the same, I’m sorry to say, as even Dershowitz is). If the day comes when only accusations, and especially those decades old, without corroborative evidence becomes enough to convict or ruin a person’s life, then, as Senator Graham said, God help us. I have zero doubt that there are many women who are victims of sexual assault who cannot prove they have been. For these women I feel truly sorry. But the standard must prevail, and not just in a legal setting but any setting, that accusations without evidence simply are not enough.
I remember you previously mentioning you were a victim of sexual assault. I’m inclined to think a simple majority of women have been, and perhaps much more than a simple majority. For this I am exceedingly sorry, my friend, for you personally and for all such women. As I already mentioned, my wife was also such a victim. Men must behave like gentlemen and not barbarians. Also, every man, especially young men whose hormones tend to be raging, MUST comprehend that their freedom is far more important than any temporary sexual pleasure taken against the will of someone else.
As always, I write to you with the utmost respect for your perspicacious and expansive mind and your laudable moral center. Take good care, pal.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the reply, Wellington. I agree re the absurdly self-styled “SavetheWest”.
On the other matter, I don’t actually think that a majority of women have been victims of sexual assault–not in the West, at least. All too many have been, though, and importing rapist Muslims makes this *far, far* worse.
Even worse, of course, rape is a core part of Islam–in the Qur’an, Hadiths, and practiced by the “Prophet” himself.
Thank you for your kind words, and I hope and your wife are well.
SavetheWest says
Check out the nasty bully Wellington Muzz low-life!
All of your insults to me apply tenfold to you. Abraham Lincoln’s quote was written with you in mind. You’re sorely lacking in gray matter. In fact, it’s all green slime. Due to you I will not be recommending JW to anyone. You bring down the site. You’re a liability, you long-winded moron. You’re a turkey. You’re a troll. Spencer has lost some readers because of you.
You need help. You should be committed. You pompous azz stuffed shirt. Can’t leave me alone can you? You’re sick. In fact, you’re evil. A sociopath.
SavetheWest says
And the absurdly self-styled “gravenimage.” You’re a sociopath like your pal Welly Muzz. You two bullies! You should be ashamed of yourselves.
What happened to “Done with you,” Welly? Can’t stop insulting and harassing me, eh? You’re pathetic. A real loser. Take your loser self and shove it.
gravenimage says
Notice that “SavetheWest” is unable to note anything that Wellington said that was either bullying or that makes him a “muzz”–let alone sociopathic or evil. Of course, he cannot.
In reality, Wellington is one of the most respected posters here.
And if “SavetheWest” *really* cared about opposing Jihad, he would recommend this site despite a poster here calling him out.
After all, I would not fail to recommend Jihad Watch just because you occasionally find posters like “SavetheWest” showing up here.
SavetheWest says
You again? You can’t stop, graven image! You bully!
Go back to the beginning of this exchange. I told W I didn’t want to discuss with him. Then, he attacked me. You got it? But you deliberately ignore because you’re on his side. Two bullies in a pod. Everything W said to me is bullying and harassing. I also will not be recommending JW to others due to you, graven image. Unless I refer to the 2 bullies on the site, W and gi. I’ll be sure to do that. You nasty creeps.
gravenimage says
How dare anyone be on the side of due process?
SavetheWest says
You’re nuts, gi. Leave. me. alone. Can you do that, you bully?
I will be referencing Wellington and graven image, the 2 nasty rotten Jihad Watch bullies, on my social media. You’ll be famous!
gravenimage says
Good grief…
SavetheWest says
Yes, good grief. I agree. You have no right and neither does the vile W. See you on FB and Twitter…
gravenimage says
Is “SavetheWest” now saying that Wellington and I have no right to freedom of speech? This does not surprise.
SavetheWest says
graven image, I couldn’t care less about you and the vile sociopath Wellington. You can both bite the farm for all I care. You’re two bullies. You can’t leave me alone. You persist in harassing me with your asinine remarks, graven image. I’ve had to disparage JW on my FB due to you. You’re harming JW, do you get it? Leave. me. alone. You are a nutcase.
gravenimage says
Wait–SavetheWest has *had* to disparage the Counter Jihad?
SavetheWest says
graven image — you are sorely lacking in reading comprehension skills. No, I would never disparage the counter jihad. What I disparaged was you and Wellington — the 2 bullies of JW. And you deserved it. Now lay off. As W enjoys saying to others: You’re pathetic.
But, you can’t stop, right?
gravenimage says
“SavetheWest” did indeed say that he had been forced to disparage Jihad Watch.
And it seems that “SavetheWest” is again demanding that others not be allowed to reply to him.
SavetheWest says
Have any idea what a sicko you are? Do not reply to me you sick f*** graven image.
GO AWAY! CAN YOU DO THAT? YOU BULLY!
A normal person would do that. But, you’re not normal. You can’t stop yourself. It’s all about you. The narcissist graven image. Which I’m adding to my FB about you.
You’re not normal. You’re a sociopath like your rotten pal Wellington.
marc says
SavetheWest, JawsV or whatever your name is, I see you have wound GI and Wellington up before, then gone rallying others to fight your corner, you’re a disruptive troll, and are now banned. If anyone suspects he’s back let me know and I’ll check.
Ray Sears says
You need to TROLL your lies somewhere else, Mr. Troll, because your kind of B.S. doesn’ fly here !!
Carol the 1st says
A little novel comic relief – along the lines of a bat getting loose from the belfry!
StellaSaidSo says
@ SaveTheWest
I disagree with you regarding Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas, but you are not wrong about JW’s tag-team of bullies, who have a habit of pursuing and harassing, over multiple threads, posters whose views they dislike.
Having been a target myself (apparently none of my views on any topic have any validity, because I once questioned the official accounts of the JFK assassination and 9/11 – and, unlike them, I am well-informed about Agenda 21 and NWO globalism), I can understand your frustration.
Other JW posters have remarked from time to time on the behaviour of these two self-appointed arbiters of truth, but it seems that the majority are all too willing to go along with what amounts to a concerted attempt to discredit and ultimately silence an opposing point of view. Then they have the nerve to feign outrage that THEIR freedom of speech is being threatened! Goodness knows how many sincere counter-jihadists have been discouraged from participating here because of the arrogance and insolence of these two clowns.
SavetheWest says
Thank you, Stella. You are right-on. Due to the uncalled-for verbal abuse W and gi have inflicted upon me for the past 2 days they should be booted from JW. They harm JW. So right when you said: “Goodness knows how many sincere counter-jihadists have been discouraged from participating here because of the arrogance and insolence of these two clowns.”
W and gi are a “tag-team of bullies.” Thanks for your assessment. All of the victims of Wellington’s and gi’s verbal abuse appreciate it. You’re right that they shut down others’ freedom of speech. Oh, the irony, eh? They are pathetic. Sick.
I disagree with your views regarding JFK and 9/11. However, I would never subject you to repeated verbal abuse day after day as Wellington and graven image have inflicted upon me and others. They should be stopped. They should be banned from JW. Wellington is the Head Bully. Graven image his devoted acolyte, a follower, a lackey. They’re both destroyers of others’ right to be here without abuse. I’ve documented it all on my FB.
Thanks again!
StellaSaidSo says
@ SaveTheWest
Exactly, SaveTheWest.There would not be much point in participating in a discussion if everyone was expected to be of the same mind. I have no problem with anyone challenging my views, but there is never any justification for the personal abuse routinely dished out by this poisonous duo. I have spent considerable time trying to explain to gravenimage that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, but she refuses to see that she is doing anything wrong, either in terms of the rules of debate, or even in terms of basic courtesy. And I am not the only JW poster who has noticed that gravenimage has reading comprehension issues. She often misunderstands what other posters actually say, and reacts instead to what she thinks they said, or what she thinks they said on a previous occasion. Gravenimage has more straw men than Old MacDonald. I once told her that I would never have chosen her for my university debating team, due to her chronic failures of logic. This apparently amounted to a denial of her right to freedom of speech! Talk about prove my point. I don’t know why Wellington trots around after her. He is far more intelligent and well-read, and does himself no favours by being nasty.
SavetheWest says
Stella, you don’t know how much I appreciate your adding your voice to this severe problem. These 2, Wellington and graven image, have ruined JW for me. They should be stopped. Yes, the “poisonous duo.” Also yes I have noticed graven image’s reading comprehension issues. I’ve attributed it to her deliberately ignoring the facts of what’s going on and to her loyalty to W. But now I think she might have a cognitive problem.
I thought it was gi doing the trotting after W. He begins the verbal abuse and then she appears as the second fiddle. W has the capability to be so nasty that I consider him to be a sociopath. Apparently he has no conscience concerning how he affects innocent people. His abusive mouth should be shut with gorilla glue. Do the world a favor.
Thank you again!
StellaSaidSo says
@ SaveTheWest
This issue has been a concern to me – and others here – for some time now. I participate on several discussion sites, and I have never encountered such deliberate and calculated abuse from a single poster, never mind a team of them. It is usually gravenimage who is first to attack me, but, whichever one of them starts it, the other is rarely far behind. Their behaviour has more in common with Antifa thugs than with genuine advocates of free speech and civil discourse. Their intolerance of different opinions, and their willingness to resort immediately to ad hominem attacks is so typical of the Left. Sociopathy may indeed be a factor, especially in the case of gravenimage, who clearly has a desperate, obsessive need to control the narrative.
Don’t give up on JW. Everyone has the same right to be here, and to be treated with courtesy, regardless of their opinions. Nobody ever changed anybody’s mind by abusing them. These two have already damaged JW thru their use of the site as a vehicle for indulging their petty personal enmities. Don’t bail out – encourage others to join in the discussion!
SavetheWest says
Hi Stella. Wellington esp specializes in the ad hominem attacks. All I said was, “I don’t want to discuss the issue with you [Kavanaugh] and the next thing I know I’m being called “pathetic.” For what??? Because I don’t want to discuss the subject with W? Apparently so. From then on there was no let-up and his trusty acolyte graven image appeared to exacerbate the uncalled-for verbal abuse. That W feels he can talk to someone that way with impunity indicates to me he’s a sociopath. He’s got no conscience. Like a serial killer.
Thanks for the encouragement. However, I don’t want to experience this abuse again. They should be reported to JW and booted from the site.
Thank you so much again! So glad you came along!
Wellington says
Steela: Quit it with the self-pity. Yes, I have tried to discredit some of what you have written here at JW but I have never tried to silence you, nor has gravenimage. Grow up. The unwritten rule of thumb here at JW is no quarter asked for, no quarter given. A la Truman, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
As for SavetheWest, when he called Kavanaugh a liar (Thomas too), I challenged him to prove his contention and that’s when he indicated he had zero interest in proving what he asserted and then when I indicated how pathetic this was he began, bizarrely, calling me a sociopath, a Muzzie, et al.. You want to support a person like him, be my guest. Besides, he may be a fellow NWO conspiracy person like yourself so you will have more company in the conspiracy world you inhabit.
StellaSaidSo says
@ Wellington
You don’t get it, do you, Wellington. Freedom of speech means the right to express unpopular – indeed repugnant – views. Nobody is obliged to engage with anyone else here, just because someone demands that they do. And no-one has the right to harass and abuse. I will support anyone who is being unfairly targeted, regardless of their opinions, because that is what GENUINE belief in free speech means.
SavetheWest says
Shut-up, Wellington, you sociopath. I don’t have to talk to you about anything and it’s not “pathetic” to not want to do so. In fact, considering what a verbal abuser you are it’s the right thing to do. Oh, and YOU started with the “Muzzie” name-calling, YOU. But, you’ve conveniently forgotten, of course. Look, I hate your guts. Stay away from me you abuser.
StellaSaidSo says
@ SaveTheWest
Yes, he started with the name-calling – he invariably does – and he’ll keep it up as long as he gets a response, because he gets his jollies from being an utter prick. Best to ignore him, now and in the future.
SavetheWest says
Stella says: “Nobody is obliged to engage with anyone else here just because someone demands that they do. And no one has the right to harass and abuse.”
Exactly. You got that, Wellington? Heh, Stella, right again with “utter prick.” Getting his abusive jollies at the expense of others. That’s what abusers do.
More for my FB about this appalling episode.
gravenimage says
Wow–is “SavetheWest” a sock puppet? Certainly, this is his first time posting here that I have seen, yet he is supposedly intimately familiar with Wellington’s and my entire posting history as seen by StellaSaidSo.
This is not impossible, of course–but it seems quite unlikely.
And no–of course no one is forced to engage with any other poster, nor has anyone made any such demands–that does not mean that people do not have the right to reply to other’s comments.
I think “SavetheWest” sums up his views on freedom of speech when he tells Wellington to shut up.
SavetheWest says
You’re not really back are you, graven image? You’re a sock-puppet. You should shut-up too. But, you just can’t stop, can you? Also, you need instruction in reading comprehension. Apparently you’re at the 2nd grade level. Now BUG OFF you BULLY!
gravenimage says
I rest my case re “SavetheWest” and freedom of speech–he believes that those he has taken a dislike to should shut up. Really, these are not Western values at all.
Neither Wellington nor myself would tell someone they do not have the right to speak (excepting only inciting violence, which has not been an issue in this instance).
SavetheWest says
I have repeatedly asked you to leave me alone, graven image. You won’t do it. You’re not normal. A normal person would respect the other’s wishes but you can’t do that. Instead, it’s all about you. You’re a narcissist and a sociopath. You couldn’t care less about another person’s requests. Instead, you barge on through and do what you want regardless.
Go talk your fool head off to the numerous other posters on this site. But, nope you can’t leave me! You must return to harass me! Have any idea how sick you are? You need help. You should seek psychiatric help.
What is it about “Do not reply to me” you don’t understand? Go harass someone else!
gravenimage says
No person can demand that others not reply to them.
But, really, I think I’ve said everything that needs to be said here, so unless this poster says something particularly outrageous, I will probably leave things here.
SavetheWest seems particularly obsessed with getting in the last word here, after all.
Wellington says
Stella: As usual you misrepresent what I have stated. I did not demand that SavetheWest respond to me. I have never demanded anyone respond to me here at JW and I have been posting here for over a decade.
Rather, after SavetheWest accused both Kavanaugh and Thomas of being liars, I responded by saying that if one if going to make accusations they must follow up with evidence. SavetheWest then said he didn’t want to spar with me and didn’t care that I’m a lawyer. I wrote back to him that this response of his was pathetic (which it is). At no point did I demand he respond. And yes, if one makes accusations without evidence and thereafter produces no evidence, indeed says that they don’t have to respond to someone asking for that evidence, that is abysmal and one knows this or should know it. And if you read through his responses on this thread they are puerile in the extreme. Even you should be able to see this.
One other matter. Gravenimage is admired by numerous commenters here, including myself. She has been complimented sundry times over the years by many here at JW. That you hold her in such low esteem reveals more about you than you realize. Frankly, I find you highly intolerant of virtually anyone who disagrees with you, especially if one challenges your conspiracy theories.
SavetheWest says
Wellington and graven image: You’re both pathetic. You’re both verbal abusers, esp W with his insults and name-calling. Who do you think you are talking to me or to anyone like that? You’re sick and twisted. You need help. Stella is 100% right about you two, the “poisonous duo.” Brava Stella! So glad you appeared!
Yes, I believe both Thomas and Kavanaugh to be liars, as do many people. That’s my opinion. And you don’t have the right to verbally abuse me because of it. Who the hell are you? Just some full-of-himself abusive idiot posting on the internet. You’re a nobody. A nothing. A narcissist. A sociopath. Take your verbal abuse and shove it you jackazz.
Stella has not misrepresented anything. It’s YOU and your lackey graven image who have. I’ve repeated “stay away from me you bullies” numerous times but you just can’t do it. Must have the last word, eh? Along with more verbal abuse. Someday you two will be roasting. Enjoy the flames! Oh, and puerile? Look in the mirror! Everything you said to Stella applies to you. But, you’re such a narcissist you can’t see it.
You’re both famous on my FB page. Ha-Ha! Who cares if you’re a fricking lawyer! A dime a dozen. No wonder you’re a sociopath.
F*CK OFF. DO YOU GET IT???
Wellington says
SavetheWest: You’re a wuss, a snowflake. I also think you are mentally unbalanced.
SavetheWest says
Wellington Muzz — you’re a wuss and a snowflake. I also think you’re mentally unbalanced.
Now I’m contacting Spencer about you, cyber-bully. You can’t stop verbally abusing me, you monster. Contacting Spencer now.
Wellington says
SavetheWest: Oh, by all means do it, snowflake. Anyone of sense reading through our comments on this thread will see that you are the problem, not me.
SavetheWest says
OK, monstrous Wellington, I have contacted Spencer. No, you are the problem. You’re a verbally abusive monster. You started it. You’re sick, a real kook. The definition of cyber-bully. You’re a pathetic monster. You need help. You can’t stop! Nutcase.
Wellington says
SavetheWest:
Good for you for contacting Spencer and thus demonstrating that you are such a wuss you have to bother this very important man because your feelings have been so terribly hurt by me (and by gravenimage).
And no, I never stop against iniquity, stupidity, double standards, weakness and general ignorance. Gee, you come to mind here.
Kiss off, turkey. And great good luck with contacting Robert Spencer. As if he had nothing better to do than to appease a wuss like you. The very fact that you felt you had to contact him only demonstrates to me what a snowflake you really are.
I never give up. Never. Deal with it.
SavetheWest says
You are one sick puppy, Wellington. How can you stand yourself? Really sucks to be you. In addition, you’re a wuss, snowflake, turkey, troll. Spawn of Satan comes to mind. As well you’re stupid, iniquitous, ignorant, degenerate. Furthermore, you’re evil.
Oh, you never give up? OK well we’ll continue, wussy-face. Kiss off, turkey.
I have contacted Spencer and sent him your latest verbal abuse. You should be ashamed of yourself. But, sociopaths never are. I pity anyone around you. Their misery and suffering must be incalculable. What a terrible lawyer you must be. You’re nothing but a vicious thug. No wonder you have no clients. All you do is sit around and verbally abuse innocent people on JW. You’re a pathetic loser, a reprehensible prick (as Stella said!) Ha-Ha! Deal with it.
gravenimage says
Wow, Wellington–this is just ridiculous.
It seems that “SavetheWest” thinks that we will be condemned to Hell for all eternity for replying to him, but he has nothing negative to say anywhere about the horrors of Jihad. Really, that speaks for itself.
gravenimage says
StellaSaidSo wrote, among streams of other verbiage:
…Having been a target myself (apparently none of my views on any topic have any validity, because I once questioned the official accounts of the JFK assassination and 9/11 – and, unlike them, I am well-informed about Agenda 21 and NWO globalism), I can understand your frustration.
……………………….
Actually, I have never said that none of StellaSaidSo’s views have any validity–this is quite false. In fact, she is quite often a real Anti-Jihadist when not ranting about the Kennedy assassination, about 9/11 somehow having been coordinated on the ground, or making bizarre claims about UN Agenda 21.
And no–replying to someone is *not* silencing them, as StellaSaidSo has now claimed umpteen times. And replying to speech–even critically at times–is *not* crushing freedom of speech. It is, in fact, a key part of freedom of speech itself.
sidney penny says
“Dershowitz, so clear-sighted on Israel, remains on the issue of the global jihad a doctrinaire, unthinking Leftist.”
Well said.
sidney penny says
a ridiculous hypothetical case
As a law professor for half a century, Dershowitz would know that every case depends on facts and evidence.
He ought to learn more about Islam before making these ridiculous hypothetical cases
eduardo odraude says
It looks like Spencer may have misread Dershowitz here. Dershowitz writes:
“The Jewish Forward would not be featuring an article entitled ‘Is Amir Hassan every Muslim man?’ as it is now featuring an article entitled ‘Is Brett Kavanaugh every American man?’”
Spencer comments, “That’s patently absurd, as the Jewish Forward is a far-Left, pro-jihad publication that would never publish anything remotely critical of jihad terror or Sharia oppression.”
It seems to me that Dershowitz is saying the very thing that Spencer is criticizing Dershowitz for supposedly not saying. In other words, part of Dershowitz’s point is that, yes, it is indeed absurd to imagine the Jewish Forward writing an article asking “Is Amir Hassan every Muslim man?” Yet Spencer responds as though Dershowitz had stated that the Jewish Forward might actually publish an article asking “Is Amir Hassan every Muslim man?” The only way I see that Spencer could think that Dershowitz was saying the Jewish Forward might publish such an article, is if Spencer misread in Dershowitz’s statement the word “not” as the word “now”. Specifically, Spencer seems to have read “The Jewish Forward would now be featuring an article…” Whereas Dershowitz in fact wrote “The Jewish Forward would not be featuring an article…”
carpediadem says
I think the Kavanaugh case was complex enough without Dershowitz mixing in a hypothetical.
Ann Marie says
Does Alan Dershowitz realize that the same group he so avidly defends would gladly kill him to go to Heaven and collect their 72 virgins? They would kill him for no other reason that he’s a Jew; it’s mandated by the Koran.
Mull that over a few minutes, Mr. Dershowitz.
Luis says
The probmem is also complicated by the fact that the New (Postmodernist) Left does not equate a muslim man with a white man for the reason that the muslim man is an oppressed group and the white man is not… The is no equality in the traditional sense but rather a complicated web of oppressed and oppresor that is sorted out by the emotional mob response. Reason is rejected as part of the phallogocentric oppressive system of western white culture. The professor is out of his mind if he thinks rational debate will be welcomed by the New Left.
Carolyne says
It is not only law, but tradition, that quilt must have proof to back it up. I could say that Howdy Doody raped me in an unknown place, at an unknown time, with four or maybe it was only two misnamed witnesses and some fool liberal would believe me and demand justice for me, but poor Howdy would not be deserving of justice because he has red hair, or yarn as it were. This makes as much sense as the recent Washington debacle starring an idiotic woman who uses a child’s voice to indicate vulnerability or maybe just silliness. One can hardly tell with that bunch of nuts and bolts.
eduardo odraude says
One point not often noted in the media: The fact that Ford could not “remember” date or location of the event conveniently made it impossible for Kavanaugh to produce an alibi. If Ford had given a date and location, it’s possible Kavanaugh could have found ironclad proof that he was not at the alleged party on that date. He and investigators might have been able to dig up where he was on that date and nearby dates, might have found witnesses, and could have proved Ford was wrong or lying. But Ford never gave a day or date, and indeed once or twice changed her story even about the rough range of years when the incident was supposed to have taken place. Apparently, when she found out that her initial claim (that it happened in the mid-80s) would exonerate Kavanaugh because he was by that time away at Yale, she changed her story and said it was the early 80s, which again made her accusation a possibility.
The Istanbulian says
Look no further than keith ellison
stephen says
The Dershowitz hypo, is going to happen one day, but there is a problem, howler you going to swear him in (doubtful it would be a woman)
Could you swear him in on the bible …. ? NO !
Could you swear him in on the Koran … ? I don’t think so,
the Koran instructs muslims to lie to infidels
the Koran instructs the muslim to “strike the necks” of disbelievers
the Koran defines sharia as the only law, the true law of god …
Liberal bunnies would send all the terriosm cases to the muslim judge just to be PC …
Felix Quigley says
This thing by Dershowitz is a complete evasion. As stated Islam is Islam and must be suppressed by all means. This is not a game humans are playing. This Islam in our day (ISIS) is the same as the Nazis killing 6 millions of Jews, and we also know Hajj Amin el Husseini leading Muslim of his time, was involved in that killing. The method of Dershowitz seems to be to separate the religion of Islam from the Jihad and that is a false position.
I am not versed in legal matters. I only know the history of Habeas Corpus. Anybody who makes such a terrible charge as did Ford against Kavanaugh without any evidence is guilty of a great crime herself, as are her whole lawyer team.
Will she be prosecuted?
I found that Trump made excuses for Ford at a critical point. And Kavanaugh was also bending to Ford.
I personally think she is a great criminal. A very long jail sentence is in order and perhaps her execution. Of course proof would be needed of her guilt but that is or could be there.
There is nothing more important than the defence of Habeas Corpus but I am in a minority I am finding on that
Frank Anderson says
F.Q. if you take a look at 18 U.S.C. Sections 1503 and 1505, you will see that it is a criminal act to “harass, oppress or intimidate” a victim, witness or party before a judicial or administrative proceeding of the federal government. There may have been a gap in the coverage of the law leaving out Congressional proceedings before the Victims and Witnesses Protection Act of 1982 which consolidated the 2 statutes and clearly included all federal proceedings. I am aware of 2 cases, 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit, which hold that previously illegal conduct under 1503 and 1505 remains illegal under the new codification as Section 1512.
The language I think you will find interesting and applicable is “any corrupt endeavor”. If creating false accusations of abusive conduct is not a corrupt endeavor, what is? Now find an Attorney General who will approve, and a US Attorney who will prosecute a charge. Good luck?
Also consider 18 United States Code Section 1001 which makes it criminal to endeavor to supply false or misleading information to an agency of the federal government. Still looking for approval and willingness to prosecute.
gravenimage says
I have my concerns about Ford, but calling for *her execution* is nuts.
eduardo odraude says
“I’d say “nuts” is an understatement. But I suppose anonymity on the internet at times makes most of us less responsible about our comments than we should be…
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Eduardo.
Wellington says
Yes, I agree, gravenimage. To call for a long prison sentence for Ford, let alone for her execution, is beyond the Pale. In fact, effing egregious. Also, bringing up habeas corpus, as Trotskyite Felix did, is legally completely irrelevant here. And one can make an honest accusation but have no evidence and this is not a crime.
I don’t know for certain that Ford was honest. I believe she was but she is also one mixed-up person too (and not to be flippant or cruel but I am one of many who concluded she looked like Garth from Wayne’s World).
Yes, if one knowingly brings a false accusation, then this is actionable, but while I think Ford highly irresponsible to bring to the notice of WashPo a 36-year old allegation with no corroboration, this doesn’t add up to actual mendacity. The woman is pathetic and looking for pity but it would be best to just let her fade away into oblivion.
The real fault lies with the Democratic Party which was so desperate to stop Kavanaugh they stooped to the level they did with Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick. Sickening. And all who support these women against Kavanugh actually do a great disservice to all the women who have been sexually abused and with evidence to support such abuse. “Crying Wolf” is an element here and one knows this or should know it.
As for SavetheWest, this person’s comments are so over-the-top, so ludicrous, and even sick in nature, that I can only hope this individual bothers us no more. Instructive too that Stella supported this person against us. Oh yeah, quite instructive. BTW, SavetheWest kinda’ reminded me of “darcy” of old, who was banned from JW years ago. Wonder if it’s the same person. Most likely not, but still there seemed to me to be some similarities.
Back in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where my wife and I will spend the winter (New Hampshire winters are extra brutal though also majestic). Can’t wait to vote in November. Whatever faults lie with the Republican Party and Trump, they pale in comparison to the Democratic Party which is yearly becoming more radical and more destructive, actually mob like. I fear for America most of all because one of the two major political parties has devolved into a menacing disgrace.
Hope you are doing well, my friend. So sorry that you have been treated terribly by SavetheWest and Stella. You didn’t deserve the opprobrium from these two which you received. Well, know that I remain a great admirer of your capacity to reason with precision, a moral center and much knowledge. Time for a beer, this time a Yuengling, which I can’t get in NH, one of the very few deficiencies of that wonderful and highly beautiful state (and the only one of the original 13 that during the Revolutionary War never had any British troops in it—just knew you would want to know this if you already didn’t). Take care.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, like many legal issues, some conduct may or may not be a crime. The particular language I suggest that you consider is the phrase, “Any corrupt endeavor to harass, oppress or intimidate a victim, witness or party. . .” in 18 United States Code Sections 1503 (Judicial), 1505 (Administrative, possibly including Congressional confirmation proceedings) and 1512 which expands and recodifies 1503 and 1505. If these charges against Kavanaugh which have been dormant for more than 35 years, without a shred of evidence or a supporting witness do not constitute a “corrupt endeavor to harass, oppress or intimidate” the nominee to a post, what do you think would be?
There are 2 cases, Smith v. US, 234 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1956) and US v. Brand, 775 F.2d 1460 (11th Cir. 1985) that I think would be helpful. A third case, I believe US v. Hatch, a 5th Circuit case, also stands for the same proposition as Brand, that is that the changes made by the Victims and Witnesses Protection Act of 1982 did not make legal conduct that was previously illegal.
As long as mobs are free to make false charges they will do it and punish anyone who accepts a nomination and submits to a “search and destroy” confirmation abuse. Please consider.
I deeply regret the hassle and misery GI and you suffered the last few days. I wish better for all of us.
Wellington says
Thanks, Frank, for your response.
Well, the statutory language you cited COULD possibly be applied to members of the Democratic Party, particularly some on the Judiciary Committee, but I had in mind specifically Christine Ford, who, in my opinion, is a something of a head case and any prosecution of her would only add to her martyr image, revive her (God forbid) and be a total loser for Republicans.
As you know, any good DA knows when to drop a case. Desisting from any kind of prosecution of Ford, I would contend, is a sterling example of this truism.
And thanks for your “condolences” to me and gravenimage. Yes, two posters on this thread, whom I do not need to name, showed just how deficient, insulting, wrong and even deranged they are.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, it seems to me that prosecutors have a hard time getting anything right. They let real crimes slide by while they take the easy cases, so their conviction rates soar to the high 90 percent level.
As two people who know about statistics at least to some extent, we ought to agree that cases which should be prosecuted are not. Your thoughts regarding the particular case are certainly practical.
My thought is that being a daily victim of attempted murder by tailgating drivers because police and prosecutors refuse to enforce the law motivates me to do more research on the subject. I have a surgically repaired neck. If I get hit at any speed above a crawl, I am dead or quadriplegic. But no local police department enforces speed laws that I, as a lawyer, must obey, nor to they enforce the tailgating laws that nobody obeys. Approximately 70 percent of all wrecks in my area start because of a deliberate decision to follow too close. That is not an accident, but is a deliberate, intentional decision to break the law and threaten death or great injury with a weapon that kills 6 times as many people proportionally as firearms. So much for lazy prosecutors. They hardly inspire confidence.
Ford, a Ph.D. psychologist is trained and tested to beat a lie detector, even if it is not conducted pitifully and contrary to the usual practice. The pitiful “little girl” voice she used during her testimony to evoke sympathy would be a real problem in a classroom or office. I believe that if you go back far enough, Sen Feinstein was at one time a prosecutor in San Francisco before climbing to her present position. She KNEW about suppression of evidence and obstruction. As always, if I am in error I ask for correction. But fury at this scene is a reasonable response to discourage future attempts. What will be done to the next nominee? What lies will be told and stories MADE up? As long as there is only a great amount of free publicity as a reward and no punishment as a cost, it will get worse.
I always wish you well and peace.
gravenimage says
Hi, Wellington. Yes, calling for Ford’s imprisonment and *even judicial murder* is indeed beyond the pale, whatever her degree of honesty here.
Not only is this appalling in and of itself, can you imagine what it would do to women legitimately reporting rape? It would be like the Muslim world, where rape victims mostly keep quiet out of terror of the state.
But yes–no one has been able to corroborate Ford’s accusations.
As for “SavetheWest”, with respect I very much doubt he is Darcy. She could be quite prickly, but did not whine–as I recall; it has been many years since I read her posts here.
Most of all, though, whatever else you want to say about her, Darcy was an absolutely stanch Anti-Jihadist–a quality that seems to be entirely missing in “SavetheWest”.
In fact, other posters (I can’t recall who now off the top of my head, but trusted and long-time posters here) have said that she now runs the site “Citizen Warrior”, which is actually really good. Here’s the link:
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/
I’m just now slogging through the November ballot. Be glad that New Hampshire and Pennsylvania do not have California’s initiative system, where you vote on just about everything, no matter how trivial.
I have to keep reminding myself what an important election this is.
And I had not realized that New Hampshire did not have any British troops in it during the Revolutionary War. You are a fount of knowledge.
And thank you for your kind words.
An aside: I have actually had lunch with Garth from Wayne’s World–well, actually, with Dana Carvey. I worked with his brother at a graphics firm in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, and when he came to town he went out to eat with the entire art department. This was at the height of his fame doing George H. W. Bush and the Church Lady. He was not really a joke teller, but was just naturally very funny. His humor was mostly gentle and generous; something sadly missing in most of the scene today.
gravenimage says
Thanks for your legal opinions, Wellington and Frank. Interesting as always.
As for the rest, I believe it is always important to rationally defend our values. Generally–save for a few especially nasty Muslim trolls–anything we face here at Jihad Watch is the least of it.
A good evening to you both.
Wellington says
Gravenimage and Frank:
Thanks for your replies. Much appreciated. I really do fear for the continued health of the American Republic, not just because of the denial of what Islam is really all about, but also, and even more so, because the Democratic Party is morphing quite rapidly into Leftist Loon World—and these kinds of people, who are overwhelmingly registered as Democrats or at least vote Democratic when they do vote, can be found in very large numbers in the media, academia and of course the political world itself.
Wrapping matters up here I would only mention that Feinstein is not a lawyer, only has a BA from Stanford. As for SavetheWest being the previous “darcy,” one thing they share in common, aside from being able to dish it out without taking it, is that both threatened to contact Spencer about their being bullied. In short, both exhibited snowflake tendencies and this is why I thought there was an outside chance they were one and the same. Of course, snowflakes are all over the place nowadays and increasing in number yearly. Not good.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, Thank You for the correction. I worked in my first employment after law school for a non-lawyer who thought he was a lawyer. He had no concept of the ethical duties required to keep a law license, nor anything resembling an appreciation for the obligation of not “bearing false witness” in spite of his being the President of his Baptist Church, the state Boy Scouts, Engineering Society, Chamber of Commerce and many other “civic and professional” activities. He felt free to lie, misrepresent and conceal vital information from the directors in charge of the company, and expected me to help him.
It takes 88 or more semester hours at the doctoral level to obtain a law degree, preferably from an ABA accredited school. Then it takes an application to a bar where an examination (in some states lasting more than 2 years) into character and fitness is made prior to allowing a test of competence through a bar examination lasting more or less 3 days. Then a license is issued usually by the supreme court of the state vouching for the character, fitness and competence of the applicant as a lawyer and officer of the court. Non-lawyers who have nothing comparable at stake do not understand what lawyers have on the line, and could not care in the least. Many lawyers are ready, whether forced or not, to do whatever they are ordered to keep their paychecks coming. I was not.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the reply, Wellington. I had forgotten that about Darcy.
Aaron says
Dershowitz probably had to redeem himself among the left for the WSJ piece below. If you can’t read it all, he defended the presumption of innocence and said not confirming Kavanaugh would erode it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-is-no-mere-job-interview-1538313919