OH, FER CHRISSAKES: You’d think a Harvard Law Professor would know how to style a complaint and name the appropriate parties from whom he seeks libel damages…but this is the Ivy League, where skill and understanding take a back seat to political litmus tests and identity politics.

Which reminds me: Which Yale Law School graduate and failed Presidential candidate and her surrogates convenienttly forgot how the Constitution works? Here’s a clue: “She got more votes!”

SEEN ON FACEBOOK: (Yeah, I put it there. Come at me…)

CATS KEEP CHASING THE LASER POINTER: I was asked to join the Legal Talk Network’s “Lawyer2Lawyer” podcast and talk about Trump’s spokesperson claiming to be building a dossier on Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold. My view?
Meh. Trump is very good at poking the media in the eye and they can’t help themselves  from freaking out. Moreover, they conveniently forget that previous administrations spied on James Rosen, The Associated Press and Sharyl Attkisson. In fact, bullying, badgering and bribing is nothing new with politicians and the press. So the breathless reporting and use of words like “astonishing revelation” are just silly.

FUN FACT: According to the Truman Library, in 1950 Truman — on White House letterhead — threatened to beat a music critic who gave his daughter a bad review:

“Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!”

Now that’s intimidation!

IS TEAM TRUMP LISTENING? I’ve posted this elsewhere, but cannot stress enough how powerful and resonant this ad was in 1968.
Ben Rhodes was right: The young reporters in the MSM don’t know anything, and I’d add neither do their readers. This ad could run today and still be effective. If you support Trump, you should be demanding that they start producing ads like this.

“What’s ‘gaslighting’, Mommy?“:
“It’s when a politician relies on your blind loyalty to forget history and facts, dear.”

IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION: In an exclusive story, JustTheNews is reporting that the very same RUSSIAN (!) who was identified as an “intelligence risk” in contacting the Trump team was himself a verified asset during the Obama Administration documents show:

“[T]he State Department and its Kiev embassy were routinely trading information with a man the Senate report now portrays as an asset of a hostile foreign power during a time when Biden, now the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, oversaw Ukrainian policy for the Obama administration.”

I wish I could say that I’m surprised…but I’m not.

SO WHICH IS IT? I’ve asked this question of media law friends, and nobody wants to give a straight answer: “Is being called ‘racist’ defamatory“?

CNN tried (and failed) to convince the court that calling the Covington kid racist was “mere opinion.” (They ended up settling). At the same time, “RACIST!” is yelled often enough and with such vitriol, it must be defamatory. (It’s like cancer: There’s no “good” form of it).

Now a Cincinnati police officer is suing in libel for people who claimed his making an “OK” gesture was proof he is a racist because “That hand symbol has been associated with white power movements because it resembles the letters “W” and “P.”

FUN FACT: Once upon a time being called a “communist sympathizer” was defamatory under the law. Now it’ll get you elected to a mayor’s position. Or higher.

THIS JUST IN: Crazy huge explosion in Beirut, the size of a MOAB, but doesn’t look like an airburst. Here’s the video…watch the secondary explosion. Military folks might have some ideas. Internet to Lebanon down or cut off. Developing.

THEY’RE DOING IT WRONG: Mainstream media, and their vigilant stenographers keep using that phrase “secret police.” Nonetheless, I would like to send out congrats to New York Magazine for exposing the use of “unidentified” secret police. Except for the fact that they are not “unidentified”:

Either that or the Border Patrol are doing it wrong.
Another option is that New York Magazine has started hiring visually impaired people to be photo editors, in which case, extra wokeness points!

WHO YOU GONNA BELIEVE? ME, OR YOUR LYING EYES? As most anticipated, the RUSSIA! hoax continues to come apart. Sharyl Attkisson at JustTheNews.com moved a detailed read of The New York Times pushing the RUSSIA! hoax, and Peter Strzok’s now-public notes giving the lie to NYT reporting nine times:

“The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian-based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third hand information and rumor at best… Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “primary sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier.”

Two questions for The New York Times:
1) Will the NYT correct/retract or even perform an autopsy on what appear to be outright falsehoods; and
2) Only NINE times?

THIS JUST IN: British court rules against Christopher Steele, orders damages paid to businessmen named in dossier. JustTheNews.com reporting that:

A British judge ruled Wednesday that Christopher Steele violated a data privacy law by failing to check the accuracy of information in his infamous dossier, ordering the former spy’s firm to pay damages to two businessmen he wrongly accused of making illicit payments in Russia.

The interesting part?

“The ruling involves a long-discredited claim in Steele’s dossier – repeatedly used by U.S. news media – that Russia’s Alfa Bank, connected to Aven and Fridman, was transmitting secret messages between Moscow and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. The FBI concluded the computer pings were not nefarious messages but rather routine behavior most likely connected to email spam. Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Congress last year he did not believe the allegations.”

And there are still people who believe the whole Russia hoax.

AH, GOOD TIMES, GOOD TIMES: Remember when brandishing a weapon on your property was perfectly acceptable?

An afterthought: I’m certainly no expert in Close Quarters Combat, but if you have a double-barreled shotgun and blast two shells into the sky, aren’t you pretty much screwed after that?

“Citizen’s United” suddenly wasn’t such a bad decision after all, eh? “Russia! Russia! Russia!” didn’t work, impeachment didn’t work, so now these clowns who think the Goldwater Rule doesn’t mean anything are at it again with the 25th Amendment schtick. #UNFIT is a film featuring a bunch of therapists who have never interviewed or diagnosed Trump:

“Medical doctors and mental health professionals go on camera, on the record, for the record – it’s an eye-opening discussion, analysis, and science-based examination of the behavior, psyche, condition, and stability of President Donald Trump.”

Of course, the left’s hypocritical fondness for dark money may not hide the corporate sponsorships that can he had for the low low price of $10,000. FWIW, since boycotting is a constitutionally protected right, I would say anyone bothered by this ought to boycott any “corporate sponsors” products.
Make them live by their own rules.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): It seems to me that if these people can assess Trump’s mental health without examining him, it would be just as fair for people who aren’t their patients to file complaints with the medical or psychological ethics boards for this malpractice. After all, what they’re doing is politicizing and diminishing the reputation of their professions, which means they’ll be less trusted, which means some people who need help won’t seek it out and people will die!!! as a result.

ARE DEMS’ DIRTY TRICKS ACTIONABLE? By now everyone knows that the left coordinated a phony registration scam to suppress the turnout at POTUS’ Tulsa rally. It makes me wonder if the campaign has a cognizable cause of action — and maybe even grounds for a TRO — based on the tort of “intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.” The elements vary from state to state, but courts generally hold that the elements of the civil wrong are:

“(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.”

Sounds to me like the campaign has a reasonable case. I find it ironic that the bunch who complain about “suppression” are bragging about doing just that.

Projection. It’s always projection.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): I think such legal actions might also be a response to organized efforts to get people fired; often there are folks with substantial assets involved. Meanwhile, a friend from Facebook writes: “Fraudulent ticket reservations? I think we just learned exactly what will happen with mail in voting. We should thank AOC for demonstrating this.”

THEY WERE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME: Pal Judith Miller knows the workings of The New York Times as well as anyone, and this piece doesn’t use the word “craven”…but it ought to. Money graf:

“While Bennet and A.G. Sulzberger, the paper’s publisher, initially defended the decision in the name of exposing readers to “counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy,” both soon caved to the fury of the paper’s own staff and readers.”

THE OTHER COST OF THE LOCKDOWN: Tragedy only 3 blocks from my house. According to my neighbors, the mother of a “special needs” child could no longer take the lockdown and being denied the respite provided to her by daycare. Day before yesterday, she shot the child and then turned the gun on herself.
The little girl was six years old.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE F’KKING KIDDING ME: Misappropriation of imagery is a long-used tool by Pallywood, but this one takes the motherlovin’ cake. This guy is what we call in Appellate Litigation an “asswipe.”

CAN WE BE SUED? When asked that question by countless reporters and editors, I reply that “any idiot can file a lawsuit. Filing a winning one is another story.”

Here’s a case of a moronic lawsuit brought by some Seattle SJW’s who thought it was a novel idea to claim that Fox News should be treated like a defective product. The Washington state group known as the Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics, or WASHLITE, filed a suit in Superior Court of Washington State in April, calling for an injunction that would keep Fox News from “publishing further and false and deceptive content” about the coronavirus pandemic. The law has rejected this kind of idiocy multiple times, and I have litigated (and won) this issue before. Ideas can be wrong, but not “defective.” Here’s an example of one such case that explains it nicely.

Fortunately, the court gets it right, quoting precedent in its ruling dismissing the case:

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

You don’t like Fox? Great, change the channel.

You scared it will “teach” people the “wrong” ideas? That’s the most condescending, paternalistic elitism of the worst kind.

IN THE MAIL: Timely book by author and classical pianist Hyperion Knight called “The Manuscript.” Set in medieval Italy under the siege of a pandemic.  Hyperion is an interesting guy, and one of my first pals to call the 2016 election accurately.

QUID PRO JOE? Breaking news  in Eastern Europe that Ukrainian parliament member Andrii Derkach released audio recordings purportedly revealing secret conversations between former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko and Joe Biden. The audio purported has Biden saying, among other things, that:

“And now that the new Prosecutor General is in place, we’re ready to move forward to signing that one billion dollar loan guarantee.”

So far, nothing from the western press, and some Russian outfits are already using the “doctored tape” argument. Let’s see if the tape is legit.

Impeachment Boomerang: The wheels are coming off the Russia Collusion Hoax train. JustTheNews.com is reporting that hundreds of documents now show that Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch who testified to Congress that “she knew little beyond an initial briefing and press reports” about Burisma Holdings, had in fact been extensively briefed on the Ukranian energy company that paid Hunter Biden as much as $50,000 a month.

State Department memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show Yovanovitch’s embassy in Kiev, including the ambassador herself, was engaged in several discussions and meetings about Burisma as the gas firm scrambled during the 2016 election and transition to settle a long-running corruption investigation and polish its image before President Trump took office:

“The discussions about Burisma inside Yovanovitch’s embassy were so extensive, in fact, that they filled more than 160 pages of emails, memos and correspondence in fall 2016 alone, according to the State Department records obtained under FOIA by the conservative group Citizens United.”

Yovanovitch, you’ll remember, was the ambassador fired by President Trump over the hysterical keening of outfits who lauded her as a heroine. NBC — who seems to get fooled a lot these days — said “Yovanovitch’s testimony hewed very closely to what she’d told investigators in her closed-door testimony last month.” CNN said America “would see former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch as the national hero she is” and that her “testimony was powerful, credible and moving.”

It’s all coming apart, and this explains the former Obama Administration officials — including The Lightworker Himself — bellowing about the “rule of law.” It’s more projection. Heroes don’t lie under oath to Congress. Read the whole thing.

NOW IS YOUR CHANCE:  If you ever said — even in good faith — that Trump “colluded” with Russia, or that Trump was Putin’s “puppet” or that Russia “gave” the election to Trump, now is your chance to say you were fooled. The wheels are coming off the train of lies. Mollie Hemingway is following the roadmap of deception, and it’s not looking good:

“Not only was information on Russia not fully shared with the incoming Trump team, as Obama directs, the leaks and ambushes made the transition chaotic, scared quality individuals away from working in the administration, made effective governance almost impossible, and materially damaged national security. When Comey was finally fired on May 9, in part for his duplicitousness regarding his handling of the Russia collusion theory, he orchestrated the launch of a Special Counsel probe that continued his efforts for another two years. That probe ended with Mueller finding no evidence of any American colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election, much less Trump or anyone connected to him.”

Insiders say Obama, Rice and Schiff are terrified of facts coming down the road. You can hate Trump all you want, that’s your right. But Due Process means nothing if it’s denied to those you hate. Ask the Scottsboro Boys or Reuben “Hurricane” Carter.

THIS GUY AGAIN: Earlier this month we’ve seen revelation after revelation about what a crock the FBI investigation into collusion was. JustTheNews.com is now reporting that Steele testified in a British court that he believed both then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and then-Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice were aware of his dossier research as it was going on in summer 2016:

“Steele told a British court he believed he had been hired by the Fusion GPS firm owned by Glenn Simpson through the Democratic National Committee-linked law firm Perkins Coie to assist the Clinton campaign during the election, according to a transcript of the testimony […] “I presumed it was the Clinton campaign, and Glenn Simpson had indicated that. But I was not aware of the technicality of it being the DNC that was actually the client of Perkins Coie,” Steele testified.”

Now here’s the conundrum: The DNC, Schiff, and the deep staters in the FBI hired a discredited spy to create a spurious dossier. They leaked that dossier to media, and once it was published, the would-be coup plotters obtained a FISA warrant under less-than-honest circumstances. They swore up and down that Steele was credible. So do they now claim he is not to be believed? And it’s difficult for those of us who knew he was dodgy in the first place ought to be careful about putting too much stock in his words.

As the famous line in cross-examination goes: “were you lying then, or are you lying now?”

Dispatches From The Epicenter: Blue Angels and Thunderbirds fly by NYC and NJ.

Thanks. We needed that.

“YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE. GOOD AND HARD.” — H. L. Mencken