Courts don't “exonerate” criminal defendants or declare them "innocent" — they adjudicate whether the legal standards of guilt can be established in accordance with the due process protections set forth by the Constitution. You don’t need to have gone to law school to understand this basic concept. And yet, there’s an endless stream of people with
Here’s a very good break down of the court ruling by Canadian lawyer Viva Frei as it seems like vast majority of those crying about this have not real what actually was ruled:
The modern day “liberal” doesn’t actually have principles about whichever social “justice” they are yelling about one day and contradicting and abandoning the next day. One day they can be talking about women rights and feminism while next day they would be praising biological men competing and crushing women sports records (olympics), breaking women’s skulls in mma fighting (Fallon Fox), winning female beauty pageants (Nevada), exposing his dick in women exclusive spas, biological man suing immigrant women salons for not waxing his balls (Jessica Yenev) and countless other examples. They riot and give millions of dollars and a statue to career criminals like Floyd who broke into a pregnant woman’s house with his friends and beat her up with his gun and pushed his gun at her belly all in front of her child. Or Rayshard Brooks or Jacob Blake both with similar history of violence against children and women. Women on the Supreme Court Justice? Only if it’s a “democrat aligned” one. Otherwise she’s worse than orange Hitler. Adopting black kids? Not if it’s ACB- then it’s some white supremacy nonsense.
I also find it ironic that vast majority of the “democrat feminists” are totally okay with this.
The modern liberal claims to care about the blacks but only those who vote a certain way. They praise and cherish when successful black men like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas get his documentary taken down by Amazon during “black history month”. They call names to people like Larry elder, Thomas Sowell, Candace Owens and so on because they don’t vote a certain way. They claim to support lgbt but not if it’s a trump supporter like Richard Grenell or Dave Rubin.
All these are simple pawns to be used and exploited for politics and dumped in the closest dumpster when they have served their purpose.
Also can’t forget them loving throwing people in solitary confinement or armed swat raids at 4am for anyone associated with orange Hitler. Or xenophobia is bad when politically convenient but only if it’s against China or sometimes against Mexico. 5 years + of hysterical xenophobia against Russia is totally cool.
If we want to have some fun, we should create a meme with Hitler smiling and winking and the caption "do you know who else hated the Slavs?" Just post it after the latest "ze Russians!" thing on some social justice crusader forum. Maybe add a couple Joseph McCarthy jokes too. There is some great Red Scare material from the 50's. Funny thing that was when Russia actually was a threat. Bring popcorn as you watch them struggle with the cognitive dissonance.
"One day they can be talking about women rights and feminism while next day they would be praising biological men competing and crushing women sports records..."
I asked my wife what she thought about this. She is a left leaning moderate Democrat. She didn't really seem to care about it. If that represents the views of most women, I'm inclined to say that it isn't worth it to oppose this. Seriously, do you follow women's sports? I don't. If they are okay with coed sports, why should I stop them? Women are perfectly capable of defending themselves if or when it becomes an issue.
Sounds similar to "I don't care about privacy because I have nothing to hide". Does she or her daughters compete in any domain which would be effected by this? I have several female powerlifting friends and they all think this is extremely unfair and many of them have lost sports scholarships since 2018.
On Tuesday, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act despite overwhelming majorities and bipartisan support in both chambers to pass the bill:
"Does she or her daughters compete in any domain which would be effected by this?"
No, she does not. Those who would advocate for continued segregation between biological men and women need to speak up. I realize that some have but it doesn't seem to be enough to reach critical mass.
I suspect that’s because this topic is taboo and anything remotely sideways to trans activism ideology is swiftly met with a most vicious rain of hell-fire and heretic cancellation.
You are not wrong. This is anecdotal but the majority of pundits who speak about this issue seem to be men. Women petitioned for the right to vote WITHOUT having a right to vote. But when it comes to standing up to a mob of trans activists, they are no longer capable of standing up for women's rights? At some point, you have to wonder why men are advocating for something that most women don't care about.
You seem to be either living under a rock or are being willfully blind. I have you several examples of women speaking up including the very rival competitor in the Olympics weight lifting but you are still claiming “most women don’t care about”.
Men are not the only one. Women are too. Just like all topics, 3-5% of the population actually has a spine to speak up. This nonsense is still 2-4 years old. As more and more women are now losing their sports scholarships, seeing dicks in their spas etc, more are starting to speak up.
Congrats to the “liberals” for taking women rights backwards half a century.
Pundits are one thing. Actual people without a platform speaking out are largely women. But it didn’t take long for trans activists to invent a whole new scary 4 letter word to brand any woman, yes specifically women, who would dare ask for a space free of biological men. TERF, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, is the Literally Hitler label bestowed on any woman who speaks up, triggering an endless smear laden pile on. They even cancelled Martina Navratilova and JK Rowling. Women do care about this, but the media’s glorification of trans activism and the TERF-snuff-out-squad makes it impossible to gauge how many women care about this. Self declared feminists are largely on the left, which means they, as opposed to women on the right, have the highest price to pay for going against a central agenda of the left.
Canadian Lindsey Shepherd and Canadian feminist writer Meghan Murphy another example of a woman being banned from Twitter for speaking out against "trans". Lindsey Shepherd was having some health issues related to her reproductive health to which Yaniv (who's actually a pedo but now identifies as trans) tweeted:
> “at least my pussy is tight and not loose after pushing out a 10 pound baby.”
Shepherd tweeted in response: “This is how men who don’t have functional romantic relationships speak. But… I guess that’s kinda what you are!”
Yaniv then responded with a comment that could have been in reference to Shepherd’s septate uterus, a reproductive condition that can cause higher rates of pregnancy loss.
“I heard @realDonaldTrump is building a wall inside of your uterus aka your ‘reproductive abnormality’ hopefully the walk works as intended,” Yaniv tweeted.
“At least I have a uterus, you fat ugly man,” Shepherd then said. “Of course, he thinks reproductive issues are something to be mocked.”
I do wish Michael went into a bit more detail about why the court rules this way related to the illegal maneuver done by the DA. But I guess this is more of a commentary and criticism of the cultural phenomenon and not the law itself article.
Sorry, maybe "illegally" was the wrong term as I am not a lawyer. Based on the ruling, the one who prosecuted the case despite knowing the previous DA giving him the "deal" and using tricks definitely acted unethically when it comes to the law. If that wasn't illegal, then it probably should be.
The original DA seemed to have made that deal based on whatever info he had at the time. Was that somehow because of Cosby's influence at that time? Maybe. I don't know.
I dislike corrupt/unethical DAs/Prosecutors/Judges/Cops more than I dislike criminals.
I put more of the blame on the original DA. He didnt really make any deal, just took actions that Cosby relied on to his detriment, which was the basis for the courts determination. It was sloppy, IMO. It left the situation unclear. The later DA may have been overzealous, I just don't know. But if the original DA HAD done an agreement or made it unambiguously clear what the intent was, all of this could have been avoided.
I would encourage you all to watch Razorfist's latest video on Bill Cosby. He points out several instances of shenanigans during the Cosby trial which should never have been allowed in any "sane" trial. I wasn't even aware of majority of these:
This is a very thoughtful and well-reasoned article. The sort of thought you might have read in the ABA or an ACLU newsletter thirty years ago before they become overtly partisan and movement-oriented.
The evidence of our committment to Free Speech, isn't how we deal with speech that's merely annoying ; it's how we deal with speech that's offensive.
Similarly, the measure of our commitment to both Empathy and Due Process, isn't how we deal with popular issues like Women's Right to Choose, or Discimination in the WorkPlace. It's how we react to verdicts & decisions we don't like, against individuals we detest.
Many of us have failed at this. They've shown their true colors.
When the population believes that they literally had a Russian Hitler ruling over them for 4 years, they are willing to do whatever's necessary to clamp down the "wrong thinkers" - including election shenanigans.
Great article. I think this line really boils it down to the basic truth:
"<Popular left-liberal consensus is> an eternally self-justifying, shape-shifting construction — organized around the accrual of power."
I've been trying to figure out why such seemingly unpopular policies remain in place; and the answer I've come to is that the minority of people who favor them are power-hungry and, over the last decade or more, have inserted themselves into powerful positions.
In time I suppose they'll be replaced by power-hungry people of a different ideology. Rinse, repeat for the rest of history.
Well done. It is not unusual for constitutional rights to be affirmed in the criminal law sphere with a disfavored defendant. After all most criminal defendants have committed crimes! But these cases are not really about the defendant getting off, though that may be one result. They are about upholding constitutional rights for ALL of us.
In my view if there is a villian in this case, it is the original DA who decided to forever foreclose the possibility of prosecuting Cosby. That's still "if" because I don't know how close the statute of limitations was to running out (although after it ran there would be no need to pass on prosecution in order to eliminate Cosby's 5th amendment right). The gamble the DA took was that more evidence might develop. Giving a suspect a hard pass is questionable, even if motivated by a desire to aid the victims civil action. And apparently the DA did so without consulting the alleged victim. Something is fishy about the DA decision.
I found the most egregious and disgusting instance of this topic to be the First Step Act and its passing by DJT. Tanesha Bannister was freed after 16 years in jail. Countless others are getting a second chance. The "left" mocked this woman, Trump, and Kim Kardashian with some of the most vile words available. It was a disgusting and repellent display. They did it because Trump!
It was nauseating, based only on Power and Feelz, and one of the most incredible things I've seen. This Cosby episode is more of the same. "Incoherence" ... Mr. Tracey you're being too kind.
"It’s necessary to appreciate that what seems like a constant flitting back and forth between mutually exclusive impulses — which, again, to the untrained eye resembles run-of-the-mill hypocrisy — is actually an integral part of mainstream left-liberalism’s ongoing ascendance. Managing such contradictions doesn’t hinder the left-liberal acquisition of power, or overtaking of institutions. It enables this acquisition. Scoffing at garden-variety “hypocrisy” on Substack, or in a snarky podcast, is not going to make any difference."
Perhaps, but it doesn't make it any less intellectually corrupt.
Right . . . "so many who attempt to adhere to a consistent set of principles will eventually run afoul of popular left-liberal consensus . . .". But can we coalesce around "a consistent set of principles" broad enough to stop the ascendance of left-liberal [call it what you want] before we're all sent to the gulag?
I honestly can't define any political category anymore.
If I were to steelman the handwringing over Cosby, I'd say that it would be considerably less likely he would have been able to prevail had he been poor. Appellate representation is pricey and hard to come by.
To the extent that him having effective defense counsel is somehow a problem, shouldn't the more fruitful "handwringing" be over the fact that *everyone* doesn't receive such effective counsel, regardless of socioeconomic status?
Yes, of course. We made our legal system into a procedural Rolls-Royce and then are shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover not everyone can afford the payments.
If Cosby was poor there would never have been a civil suit filed against him so he never would have testified at all. The criminal case only proceeded based on his testimony at deposition in the civil case.
His civil testimony was improperly/illegally used in the criminal case. He was offered immunity to testify in the civil case and then they used that testimony to convict him in the criminal case.
Is this true? Is this what happened?
I think the general notion is that it is better that 99 guilty people go free rather than one innocent person be convicted.
I would encourage you all to watch Razorfist's latest video on Bill Cosby. He points out several instances of shenanigans during the Cosby trial which should never have been allowed in any "sane" trial. I wasn't even aware of majority of these:
I don’t see how the specific situation matters. Many indigent defendants are promised they won’t be prosecuted if they testify against a bigger fish, for example. Imagine the bigger case fizzles and a faithless prosecutor returns for a booby prize conviction of the person he promised to spare. Unless defendants get very lucky with their public defenders, they won’t get far in an appeal regardless of merit.
I have started putting "liberal" in quotes now a days when I am talking about the current authoritarian types. I often either use "DNC liberal" or "leftist" to refer to the authoritarian types.
For example I consider Michael Tracey, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate etc to be liberals in the classical liberal type. Mostly because the dictionary definition of "Liberal" is "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."
Tracey and others seem to fit most of those qualities. The authoritarian types don't fit any of those, especially not the "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas" part.
Wesley Yang calls this transmogrification of classic liberalism into intolerant authoritarianism - “the successor ideology”.
Ross Douthat wrote a great piece defending his editorJames Bennett when he was fired from NYT. Ross says “the successor ideology” group are impatient, action oriented and certain they are on the right side of history so they don’t mind trampling older liberal beliefs like free speech and due process.
I think they are anatomically different than the rest of us, they can suck and blow at the same time.
It really makes me wonder if they were all this way before too and we are just seeing them expose themselves because of the Orange Hitler or they really all changed over night to become this authoritarians.
My take: the medium is the message, social media has atomized knowledge/information/ opinions and the elite/MSM see Trump as proof that they lost control of the narrative and are doing whatever they can to regain control. So yes they’ve gotten worse, they have become strident dishonest hysterics. Free-speech led to the bloviating Trump monster and his 75 million voters must be suppressed in the name of all that is good. You see, they are on the right side of history.
It hurt him prior to and during trial, but his wealth did help on appeal. A poorer appellant probably wouldn’t have made it this far.
To be fair, I don’t think this is really the primary argument made by the people who are currently looking downward in distress while trying to make their lip look like it’s trembling on Insta.
I would encourage you all to watch Razorfist's latest video on Bill Cosby. He points out several instances of shenanigans during the Cosby trial which should never have been allowed in any "sane" trial. I wasn't even aware of majority of these:
People always overlook the real advantage of wealth in these types of cases. It isn't the quality of the legal defense or the leverage over prosecutors - it's the ability to buy-off the victims with civil settlements. It's just that the more public profile it get, the less likely the victims are to stay bought off. That's certainly the explanation for the initial Palm Beach prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and seems to be why the path to prosecution of Cosby was so convoluted.
Thank you for sorting that out, liberals make more sense now: no principles at all. When your only goal is power by any means then principles just get in the way. Machiavelli knew it and all psychopaths know it. Things like democracy and free speech are "processes", and when you are seeking a specific end, the means (or the processes) don't matter, in fact they get in the way. Its how dictators work.
The shenanigans going on in NYC mayor elections right now where Democrat candidates are now calling for recounts and audits exposes more hypocrisy of the left:
It’s okay. The students got so triggered hearing about upsetting things happening in books they had to close a lot of the classes. Pity people who have setting things happen to them outside of books, but what can you do.
"So I take interest in this, and I concur, we should actually be inspired by the outcome, as it means we still have what it takes to hold our republic together under the rule of law. This system isn't a fairness producer - it's a peace keeper. They are different. The best verdicts are the ones both sides equally hate."
I couldn't agree more. Though I wonder whether the deposition should have been allowed to be entered into evidence. Based on the ruling of the PA Supreme Court, the answer to that is no. Did the defense object to the deposition? I can only assume so. On what grounds was it allowed to be entered into evidence? Was the judge aware that the previous DA had made a deal in exchange for the deposition? Did the prosecution fail to disclose this information? I have so many questions.
> "Social winds always change. Loose laws are great when the wind's at your back. But it's terrible when it changes. And it _always_ changes. Soviet show trials weren't soviet. They were human trials that allowed excessive indulgence in our nature."
That's the perfect way of describing how everything the current "dnc left" is pushing for is going to backfire spectacularly when the pendulum swings in the other direction (and it will). It's already kind of started with things like censorship/smearing of Tulsi Gabbard, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald anti-war activists. Yesterday's Alex Jones is today's Tulsi Gabbard.
Palestinians are being censored under the guise of "Criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitism. Really.":
Women are being blocked from speaking out against biological male competing in their sports and taking over their private spaces.
"Loose laws" allow censorship of Palestinians under the guise of "anti-semitism" and Christians/Israel under the guise of "islamaphobia" depending upon where the pendulum is.
"The true test of any bill of this nature is to hand it over to your enemies to run. If you wouldn't be comfortable with the Trump administration defining "hate speech", you shouldn't be comfortable with Trudeau/Biden defining it either."
Here’s a very good break down of the court ruling by Canadian lawyer Viva Frei as it seems like vast majority of those crying about this have not real what actually was ruled:
https://youtu.be/CjrWI_zxG6A
Bill Cosby finally got his white privilege card!
The modern day “liberal” doesn’t actually have principles about whichever social “justice” they are yelling about one day and contradicting and abandoning the next day. One day they can be talking about women rights and feminism while next day they would be praising biological men competing and crushing women sports records (olympics), breaking women’s skulls in mma fighting (Fallon Fox), winning female beauty pageants (Nevada), exposing his dick in women exclusive spas, biological man suing immigrant women salons for not waxing his balls (Jessica Yenev) and countless other examples. They riot and give millions of dollars and a statue to career criminals like Floyd who broke into a pregnant woman’s house with his friends and beat her up with his gun and pushed his gun at her belly all in front of her child. Or Rayshard Brooks or Jacob Blake both with similar history of violence against children and women. Women on the Supreme Court Justice? Only if it’s a “democrat aligned” one. Otherwise she’s worse than orange Hitler. Adopting black kids? Not if it’s ACB- then it’s some white supremacy nonsense.
I also find it ironic that vast majority of the “democrat feminists” are totally okay with this.
The modern liberal claims to care about the blacks but only those who vote a certain way. They praise and cherish when successful black men like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas get his documentary taken down by Amazon during “black history month”. They call names to people like Larry elder, Thomas Sowell, Candace Owens and so on because they don’t vote a certain way. They claim to support lgbt but not if it’s a trump supporter like Richard Grenell or Dave Rubin.
All these are simple pawns to be used and exploited for politics and dumped in the closest dumpster when they have served their purpose.
Also can’t forget them loving throwing people in solitary confinement or armed swat raids at 4am for anyone associated with orange Hitler. Or xenophobia is bad when politically convenient but only if it’s against China or sometimes against Mexico. 5 years + of hysterical xenophobia against Russia is totally cool.
If we want to have some fun, we should create a meme with Hitler smiling and winking and the caption "do you know who else hated the Slavs?" Just post it after the latest "ze Russians!" thing on some social justice crusader forum. Maybe add a couple Joseph McCarthy jokes too. There is some great Red Scare material from the 50's. Funny thing that was when Russia actually was a threat. Bring popcorn as you watch them struggle with the cognitive dissonance.
"One day they can be talking about women rights and feminism while next day they would be praising biological men competing and crushing women sports records..."
I asked my wife what she thought about this. She is a left leaning moderate Democrat. She didn't really seem to care about it. If that represents the views of most women, I'm inclined to say that it isn't worth it to oppose this. Seriously, do you follow women's sports? I don't. If they are okay with coed sports, why should I stop them? Women are perfectly capable of defending themselves if or when it becomes an issue.
Sounds similar to "I don't care about privacy because I have nothing to hide". Does she or her daughters compete in any domain which would be effected by this? I have several female powerlifting friends and they all think this is extremely unfair and many of them have lost sports scholarships since 2018.
Hubbard's rival weightlifter in Olympics opinion:
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1108399/anna-vanbellinghen-hubbard
Read what the female athletes are going through: (btw USAToday went and edited her letter without even informing her about it):
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/22/transgender-athletes-girls-women-sports-track-connecticut-column/5149532001/
On Tuesday, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act despite overwhelming majorities and bipartisan support in both chambers to pass the bill:
https://adflegal.org/blog/louisiana-governor-blocks-bipartisan-effort-enact-protections-female-athletes
She and her lawyer did an interview:
https://youtu.be/5HYL9pJGs8w
"Does she or her daughters compete in any domain which would be effected by this?"
No, she does not. Those who would advocate for continued segregation between biological men and women need to speak up. I realize that some have but it doesn't seem to be enough to reach critical mass.
I suspect that’s because this topic is taboo and anything remotely sideways to trans activism ideology is swiftly met with a most vicious rain of hell-fire and heretic cancellation.
You are not wrong. This is anecdotal but the majority of pundits who speak about this issue seem to be men. Women petitioned for the right to vote WITHOUT having a right to vote. But when it comes to standing up to a mob of trans activists, they are no longer capable of standing up for women's rights? At some point, you have to wonder why men are advocating for something that most women don't care about.
You seem to be either living under a rock or are being willfully blind. I have you several examples of women speaking up including the very rival competitor in the Olympics weight lifting but you are still claiming “most women don’t care about”.
Men are not the only one. Women are too. Just like all topics, 3-5% of the population actually has a spine to speak up. This nonsense is still 2-4 years old. As more and more women are now losing their sports scholarships, seeing dicks in their spas etc, more are starting to speak up.
Congrats to the “liberals” for taking women rights backwards half a century.
Pundits are one thing. Actual people without a platform speaking out are largely women. But it didn’t take long for trans activists to invent a whole new scary 4 letter word to brand any woman, yes specifically women, who would dare ask for a space free of biological men. TERF, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, is the Literally Hitler label bestowed on any woman who speaks up, triggering an endless smear laden pile on. They even cancelled Martina Navratilova and JK Rowling. Women do care about this, but the media’s glorification of trans activism and the TERF-snuff-out-squad makes it impossible to gauge how many women care about this. Self declared feminists are largely on the left, which means they, as opposed to women on the right, have the highest price to pay for going against a central agenda of the left.
There’s a vast gif between the conventional wisdom of the punditry and what the vast majority of people actually say they believe in polls.
The religious left are intolerant assholes.
Canadian Lindsey Shepherd and Canadian feminist writer Meghan Murphy another example of a woman being banned from Twitter for speaking out against "trans". Lindsey Shepherd was having some health issues related to her reproductive health to which Yaniv (who's actually a pedo but now identifies as trans) tweeted:
> “at least my pussy is tight and not loose after pushing out a 10 pound baby.”
Shepherd tweeted in response: “This is how men who don’t have functional romantic relationships speak. But… I guess that’s kinda what you are!”
Yaniv then responded with a comment that could have been in reference to Shepherd’s septate uterus, a reproductive condition that can cause higher rates of pregnancy loss.
“I heard @realDonaldTrump is building a wall inside of your uterus aka your ‘reproductive abnormality’ hopefully the walk works as intended,” Yaniv tweeted.
“At least I have a uterus, you fat ugly man,” Shepherd then said. “Of course, he thinks reproductive issues are something to be mocked.”
This got Lindsey banned.
Meghan Murphy was banned for “men aren’t women.”
https://nationalpost.com/news/free-speech-activist-lindsay-shepherd-on-her-twitter-ban-your-instincts-should-not-be-to-celebrate
Great comment. Needs moar likes.
Powerful writing and gives us the facts the MSM won’t.
I do wish Michael went into a bit more detail about why the court rules this way related to the illegal maneuver done by the DA. But I guess this is more of a commentary and criticism of the cultural phenomenon and not the law itself article.
Are you saying the original DA acted illegally, or the one who prosecuted the case?
Sorry, maybe "illegally" was the wrong term as I am not a lawyer. Based on the ruling, the one who prosecuted the case despite knowing the previous DA giving him the "deal" and using tricks definitely acted unethically when it comes to the law. If that wasn't illegal, then it probably should be.
The original DA seemed to have made that deal based on whatever info he had at the time. Was that somehow because of Cosby's influence at that time? Maybe. I don't know.
I dislike corrupt/unethical DAs/Prosecutors/Judges/Cops more than I dislike criminals.
I put more of the blame on the original DA. He didnt really make any deal, just took actions that Cosby relied on to his detriment, which was the basis for the courts determination. It was sloppy, IMO. It left the situation unclear. The later DA may have been overzealous, I just don't know. But if the original DA HAD done an agreement or made it unambiguously clear what the intent was, all of this could have been avoided.
I would encourage you all to watch Razorfist's latest video on Bill Cosby. He points out several instances of shenanigans during the Cosby trial which should never have been allowed in any "sane" trial. I wasn't even aware of majority of these:
https://youtu.be/lJvijmbWOvk
Razorfist said on Jun 17, 2019 that it would be overturned on appeal. He was right.
Fair point. I guess it depends upon when the original DA left office and how that’s handled.
This is a very thoughtful and well-reasoned article. The sort of thought you might have read in the ABA or an ACLU newsletter thirty years ago before they become overtly partisan and movement-oriented.
The evidence of our committment to Free Speech, isn't how we deal with speech that's merely annoying ; it's how we deal with speech that's offensive.
Similarly, the measure of our commitment to both Empathy and Due Process, isn't how we deal with popular issues like Women's Right to Choose, or Discimination in the WorkPlace. It's how we react to verdicts & decisions we don't like, against individuals we detest.
Many of us have failed at this. They've shown their true colors.
That reminds me of 400 some odd protestors and rioters from 1/6 who are being prosecuted as political prisoners.
When the population believes that they literally had a Russian Hitler ruling over them for 4 years, they are willing to do whatever's necessary to clamp down the "wrong thinkers" - including election shenanigans.
Great article. I think this line really boils it down to the basic truth:
"<Popular left-liberal consensus is> an eternally self-justifying, shape-shifting construction — organized around the accrual of power."
I've been trying to figure out why such seemingly unpopular policies remain in place; and the answer I've come to is that the minority of people who favor them are power-hungry and, over the last decade or more, have inserted themselves into powerful positions.
In time I suppose they'll be replaced by power-hungry people of a different ideology. Rinse, repeat for the rest of history.
Eww... Michael Tracy and his consistent principles.
Well done. It is not unusual for constitutional rights to be affirmed in the criminal law sphere with a disfavored defendant. After all most criminal defendants have committed crimes! But these cases are not really about the defendant getting off, though that may be one result. They are about upholding constitutional rights for ALL of us.
In my view if there is a villian in this case, it is the original DA who decided to forever foreclose the possibility of prosecuting Cosby. That's still "if" because I don't know how close the statute of limitations was to running out (although after it ran there would be no need to pass on prosecution in order to eliminate Cosby's 5th amendment right). The gamble the DA took was that more evidence might develop. Giving a suspect a hard pass is questionable, even if motivated by a desire to aid the victims civil action. And apparently the DA did so without consulting the alleged victim. Something is fishy about the DA decision.
I found the most egregious and disgusting instance of this topic to be the First Step Act and its passing by DJT. Tanesha Bannister was freed after 16 years in jail. Countless others are getting a second chance. The "left" mocked this woman, Trump, and Kim Kardashian with some of the most vile words available. It was a disgusting and repellent display. They did it because Trump!
It was nauseating, based only on Power and Feelz, and one of the most incredible things I've seen. This Cosby episode is more of the same. "Incoherence" ... Mr. Tracey you're being too kind.
Great article Michael. And the beginning paragraph… tremendous… and so true.
"It’s necessary to appreciate that what seems like a constant flitting back and forth between mutually exclusive impulses — which, again, to the untrained eye resembles run-of-the-mill hypocrisy — is actually an integral part of mainstream left-liberalism’s ongoing ascendance. Managing such contradictions doesn’t hinder the left-liberal acquisition of power, or overtaking of institutions. It enables this acquisition. Scoffing at garden-variety “hypocrisy” on Substack, or in a snarky podcast, is not going to make any difference."
Perhaps, but it doesn't make it any less intellectually corrupt.
Right . . . "so many who attempt to adhere to a consistent set of principles will eventually run afoul of popular left-liberal consensus . . .". But can we coalesce around "a consistent set of principles" broad enough to stop the ascendance of left-liberal [call it what you want] before we're all sent to the gulag?
Time will tell.
I thought you were a left-liberal? Sort of?
I honestly can't define any political category anymore.
If I were to steelman the handwringing over Cosby, I'd say that it would be considerably less likely he would have been able to prevail had he been poor. Appellate representation is pricey and hard to come by.
To the extent that him having effective defense counsel is somehow a problem, shouldn't the more fruitful "handwringing" be over the fact that *everyone* doesn't receive such effective counsel, regardless of socioeconomic status?
Yes, of course. We made our legal system into a procedural Rolls-Royce and then are shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover not everyone can afford the payments.
If Cosby was poor there would never have been a civil suit filed against him so he never would have testified at all. The criminal case only proceeded based on his testimony at deposition in the civil case.
His civil testimony was improperly/illegally used in the criminal case. He was offered immunity to testify in the civil case and then they used that testimony to convict him in the criminal case.
Is this true? Is this what happened?
I think the general notion is that it is better that 99 guilty people go free rather than one innocent person be convicted.
I would encourage you all to watch Razorfist's latest video on Bill Cosby. He points out several instances of shenanigans during the Cosby trial which should never have been allowed in any "sane" trial. I wasn't even aware of majority of these:
https://youtu.be/lJvijmbWOvk
Razorfist said on Jun 17, 2019 that it would be overturned on appeal. He was right.
I don’t see how the specific situation matters. Many indigent defendants are promised they won’t be prosecuted if they testify against a bigger fish, for example. Imagine the bigger case fizzles and a faithless prosecutor returns for a booby prize conviction of the person he promised to spare. Unless defendants get very lucky with their public defenders, they won’t get far in an appeal regardless of merit.
"I honestly can't define any political category anymore."
A common problem. Trying to evaluate one of Michael's theses, by inferring from a political category we think he's supposed to belong to.
What? I’m trying to understand what he means by a category name he chose to use.
I have started putting "liberal" in quotes now a days when I am talking about the current authoritarian types. I often either use "DNC liberal" or "leftist" to refer to the authoritarian types.
For example I consider Michael Tracey, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate etc to be liberals in the classical liberal type. Mostly because the dictionary definition of "Liberal" is "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."
Tracey and others seem to fit most of those qualities. The authoritarian types don't fit any of those, especially not the "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas" part.
I think you make a very good point .
Wesley Yang calls this transmogrification of classic liberalism into intolerant authoritarianism - “the successor ideology”.
Ross Douthat wrote a great piece defending his editorJames Bennett when he was fired from NYT. Ross says “the successor ideology” group are impatient, action oriented and certain they are on the right side of history so they don’t mind trampling older liberal beliefs like free speech and due process.
I think they are anatomically different than the rest of us, they can suck and blow at the same time.
It really makes me wonder if they were all this way before too and we are just seeing them expose themselves because of the Orange Hitler or they really all changed over night to become this authoritarians.
hypocrisy + double standards + cognitive dissonance + lots of emotions = "dnc leftists"
My take: the medium is the message, social media has atomized knowledge/information/ opinions and the elite/MSM see Trump as proof that they lost control of the narrative and are doing whatever they can to regain control. So yes they’ve gotten worse, they have become strident dishonest hysterics. Free-speech led to the bloviating Trump monster and his 75 million voters must be suppressed in the name of all that is good. You see, they are on the right side of history.
Yes, the liberals who time-traveled from the reality-based community of the Bush years. A dwindling breed.
Ah ok, thanks. Misunderstood.
So you disagree with Michael, then. The court decided wrongly, in your opinion?
It hurt him prior to and during trial, but his wealth did help on appeal. A poorer appellant probably wouldn’t have made it this far.
To be fair, I don’t think this is really the primary argument made by the people who are currently looking downward in distress while trying to make their lip look like it’s trembling on Insta.
I would encourage you all to watch Razorfist's latest video on Bill Cosby. He points out several instances of shenanigans during the Cosby trial which should never have been allowed in any "sane" trial. I wasn't even aware of majority of these:
https://youtu.be/lJvijmbWOvk
Razorfist said on Jun 17, 2019 that it would be overturned on appeal. He was right.
People always overlook the real advantage of wealth in these types of cases. It isn't the quality of the legal defense or the leverage over prosecutors - it's the ability to buy-off the victims with civil settlements. It's just that the more public profile it get, the less likely the victims are to stay bought off. That's certainly the explanation for the initial Palm Beach prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and seems to be why the path to prosecution of Cosby was so convoluted.
Liberals want to do what feels good to us now, conservatives want to do what we said we would do. I don’t see this dynamic changing any time soon.
Thank you for sorting that out, liberals make more sense now: no principles at all. When your only goal is power by any means then principles just get in the way. Machiavelli knew it and all psychopaths know it. Things like democracy and free speech are "processes", and when you are seeking a specific end, the means (or the processes) don't matter, in fact they get in the way. Its how dictators work.
The shenanigans going on in NYC mayor elections right now where Democrat candidates are now calling for recounts and audits exposes more hypocrisy of the left:
https://youtu.be/wFF0ciXfyR8
I gotta say, as a lawyer I literally cringe at the thought of "feminist jurisprudence".
It’s okay. The students got so triggered hearing about upsetting things happening in books they had to close a lot of the classes. Pity people who have setting things happen to them outside of books, but what can you do.
"So I take interest in this, and I concur, we should actually be inspired by the outcome, as it means we still have what it takes to hold our republic together under the rule of law. This system isn't a fairness producer - it's a peace keeper. They are different. The best verdicts are the ones both sides equally hate."
I couldn't agree more. Though I wonder whether the deposition should have been allowed to be entered into evidence. Based on the ruling of the PA Supreme Court, the answer to that is no. Did the defense object to the deposition? I can only assume so. On what grounds was it allowed to be entered into evidence? Was the judge aware that the previous DA had made a deal in exchange for the deposition? Did the prosecution fail to disclose this information? I have so many questions.
> "Social winds always change. Loose laws are great when the wind's at your back. But it's terrible when it changes. And it _always_ changes. Soviet show trials weren't soviet. They were human trials that allowed excessive indulgence in our nature."
That's the perfect way of describing how everything the current "dnc left" is pushing for is going to backfire spectacularly when the pendulum swings in the other direction (and it will). It's already kind of started with things like censorship/smearing of Tulsi Gabbard, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald anti-war activists. Yesterday's Alex Jones is today's Tulsi Gabbard.
Palestinians are being censored under the guise of "Criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitism. Really.":
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27645282
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/criticism-of-israel-is-anti-semitism-really/
Women are being blocked from speaking out against biological male competing in their sports and taking over their private spaces.
"Loose laws" allow censorship of Palestinians under the guise of "anti-semitism" and Christians/Israel under the guise of "islamaphobia" depending upon where the pendulum is.
"The true test of any bill of this nature is to hand it over to your enemies to run. If you wouldn't be comfortable with the Trump administration defining "hate speech", you shouldn't be comfortable with Trudeau/Biden defining it either."