Tomorrow the Mark Steyn Caribbean Cruise sets sail from Florida through the British West Indies to Mexico. To be honest, between the University of Vermont Medical Center and the District of Columbia Superior Court, I haven't felt entirely safe in the United States in recent months, so I shall breathe a sigh of relief once we're in international waters.
Meanwhile, Dr Russ Jackson explains it all:
Ever noticed how right-wingers who claim they are 'the victim of a political witch hunt' are among the most horrible, cruel, selfish, deliberately offensive, pompous, condescending, divisive, bigoted, pig-ignorant attention-seeking ideologically extreme lying sociopaths on earth? pic.twitter.com/zjzYAZN3Rv
— GET A GRIP (@docrussjackson) February 22, 2024
~The degeneration of "a land of laws" into a land beyond law continues. It is good to see Newt Gingrich weigh in on this, because far too many top-rank Republicans appear to have accepted the Governor of New York's assurance that once Trump is beggared and gaoled everything will go back to normal. Newt writes:
The concept of a fraud trial with no victims, no complaints, and no money lost is an example of political prosecution in disguise. The punitive scale is astonishing. According to The New York Times, there is a $450 million fine (which must be paid to enter the appeals process). Further, the President and his two sons are exiled from doing business in New York for three years – and no New York banks can lend money to pay or post a bond during the appeal.
The US "justice" system has long been somewhat anomalous among Common Law countries. But its capacity to rain down total ruination was at least fairly capricious: You were chugging along, everything ticketty-boo, and then the feds show up; could happen to anyone. But these last three years the courts have been purposely weaponised against one-half of the country's political preference. Latest wrinkle from the corrupt Judge Engoron:
Judge rejects Trump's request for delay in enforcement of civil fraud penalties
In other words, pay that $355 million now or we're taking Trump Tower:
Letitia James says she's prepared to seize Trump's buildings if he can't pay his $354M civil fraud fine
I see the US media are, characteristically, in lockstep in characterising this as a "civil fraud" case - as if it's Smith vs Jones. There is no Smith - "no victims", as Newt puts it. It's the Ruling Party vs its Political Opposition - as the press well knows. Saying "civil" every five minutes is intended to obscure that.
~My own legal focus post-cruise will reorient itself towards the King's Bench Division of the English High Court, which in June will hear my suit against the UK state censor Ofcom over their rulings against my coverage of the Covid vaccines.
GB News will not be joining me in court, which is probably just as well given their woeful descent into a Tories'n'trivia channel. I notice that viewers who miss the old GBN keep posting little clips from my show that, to be honest, I had entirely forgotten. But, if I do say so myself (which I do), they stand up quite well:
What a brilliant guy instead of more like him they scrape the bottom of the rotten barrel pic.twitter.com/G6rhkwSpgQ
— Ben Jones (@BenJoRS2017) February 19, 2024
The above illustrates why the Ofcom rules on "due impartiality" are just a racket. I loathe, to one degree or another, all the parties represented in the Palace of Westminster, but, as you can see in that clip, I especially despise the faux-Conservatives who've utterly betrayed the nation. Ofcom strictures on "balance" aren't really relevant to the approach I took - which kind of gives the game away: Media "regulation" is designed to create a pseudo-balance in which nothing that might discombobulate the uniparty pabulum ever gets discussed.
~The Mann vs Steyn trial verdict continues to generate commentary. I liked this piece from my old friends at The New Criterion:
The big day was February 8. And what do you suppose the verdict was? If you have to ask, you weren't paying attention. Didn't you catch the detail that the case was heard in Washington, D.C., that the plaintiff was a certified, Al Gore–approved lunatic about "climate change"? Didn't you note that the prominent defendant was Mark Steyn, one of the most intelligent, outspoken, and funny conservative pundits on the planet (and for more than a decade the theater critic of The New Criterion)? Of course the jury found for Mann, just as any jury convened in Washington, D.C. (or New York for that matter), would find for any plaintiff in any case about any issue where the defendant is a high-profile conservative. That's the way our so-called system of justice works these days.
It is a point that Justice Samuel Alito made in his dissent when ...Simberg petitioned the Supreme Court to take the case back in 2019. Alito made a rousing defense of free speech, especially when the speech in question bears upon contentious policy issues, and went on to observe that "When allegedly defamatory speech concerns a political or social issue that arouses intense feelings, selecting an impartial jury presents special difficulties." You can say that again... Moreover, Alito continued, "when . . . allegedly defamatory speech is disseminated nationally, a plaintiff may be able to bring suit in whichever jurisdiction seems likely to have the highest percentage of jurors who are sympathetic to the plaintiff's point of view." Bingo.
~Thank you for all your kind comments this last fortnight - and thank you especially to all those new members of The Mark Steyn Club, and those old members who've signed up a chum for a SteynOnline Gift Certificate or a Steyn Club Gift Membership. Steyn Clubbers span the globe, from London, Ontario to London, England to London, Kiribati. We hope to welcome many more new members in the decades ahead.