Massive protests against the communist government of Cuba erupted this past weekend. My condolences to Canada’s liberal arts professors at what must be a trying time for them.
A few Tankies notwithstanding, the response on Twitter was overwhelmingly supportive of the demonstrators. The backlash against this New York Times passage, however, was swift and brutal:
I’m not normally one to defend the New York Times’ editors (some of whom, I suspect, really do want nothing more than for the Cuban regime to send in the tanks) but I must admit I’m kind of baffled as to why people are so up in arms about this headline. If anything, it strikes me as the ultimate condemnation of the communist government.
Jay Nordlinger agrees:
The fall of Cuba’s communist government is one of these things I’ll believe when I see it happen, like England winning a major international soccer tournament. It’s been right around the corner for the past few decades. (That eternal scapegoat, the American trade embargo against Cuba, has probably done more than anything else to keep the Castros and their successors in power, but that’s another post.)
Still, here in Canada we’re anxious for a change of government every ten or twelve years or so. (Some partisan dynasties hang on for much longer, but at least they don’t throw the opposition supporters in jail.) Imagine how Cubans feel with the same people in charge for past sixty.
Remember the “Kraken” legal case against the election results, led by Sydney Powell? No? It was only a few months ago.
Anyhoo, it’s going about as well as we all expected:
U.S. District Judge Linda Parker is having a rough day, and so is her court reporter. During a six-hour slugfest sanctions hearing in the Michigan “Kraken” case, the team worked to corral a dozen screaming, interrupting, crying, filibustering lawyers. It was worse than herding cats — at least cats are cute.
The City of Detroit and state of Michigan requested sanctions, including fines and referral for disbarment for lawyers Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler, Lin Wood, Stefanie Lambert Juntilla, Julia Haller, and a handful of their squidlet associates. The gravamen of the claim was that the plaintiffs’ attorneys failed to conduct the most basic due diligence to vet the “evidence” in support of their fantastical claims of a stolen election.
“How could any of you as officers of the court present this type of an affidavit?” Judge Parker asked, referring to one particularly ridiculous document alleging that the witness saw someone deliver a batch of ballots in a clear plastic bag and thus suspected foul play.
“Doesn’t counsel also have an obligation to evaluate this and say ‘What exactly is this going to prove?'” the court asked.
Kraken lawyer Julia Haller, who appeared at multiple points to be crying, stammered that it would be unethical for them to alter an affidavit. Which is true, but does nothing to counter the argument that the attorneys who presented it as factually accurate failed in their obligation to figure out if the conduct alleged was illegal. Much less to determine if it actually happened.
Haller spent most of the day keening for an evidentiary hearing to test the validity of affidavits that were false on their face and were rejected by other courts, seemingly unaware that the issue at hand is not the truth or falsity of the affiants’ claims, but the attorneys’ failure to ensure that they weren’t shoveling a pile of incendiary bullshit onto the federal docket.
For his part, Lin Wood insisted that the court has no jurisdiction over him because, although he agreed to allow his name to appear on the original complaint, he was just the “litigation counsel,” and the case was dismissed before a trial. Which is of a piece with the posture of a legal team who argued that electronic signatures don’t count as appearing in the case.
Wood denied that he’d been served, despite the protests from David Fink, counsel for the City of Detroit, that he had both proof of service and multiple social media posts by Wood referring to the case and his participation in it. Wood, who repeatedly wandered off and turned his back on the court, finished strong by literally shouting at the judge that he had a due process right to defend himself against Fink’s accusation that the allegations in the case contributed to the January 6 armed insurrection.
Former President Donald Trump was not impressed with the team of lawyers representing him in his second impeachment trial, according to a new book.
He was "spitting furious" after a legal brief they filed was riddled with typos and he fumed to anyone who would listen that he had the "stupidest" lawyers, journalist Michael Wolff wrote in his new book, "Landslide: The Final Days of the Trump Presidency."
"Are these lawyers the stupidest? Are they the stupidest?" Trump vented.
The president also complained to his former lawyers about the incompetence of his new lawyers, Bruce Castor, David Schoen, and Michael van der Veen.
"Who are they? Where did they come from? Who hired them? How come I always get the worst lawyers?" Trump seethed, according to Wolff's book.
Herbie The Love Bug is back, and he’s apparently been working with Barry Bonds’ people.