The Nifong Times

Other than the Durham Herald-Sun, no newspaper in the country disgraced itself in the Duke Lacrosse Case more than did the New York Times. This is a paper that claimed an obvious deus ex machina report written by a police sergeant who took no notes in the case was a vital piece of evidence. (One would guess the report was "evidence" in a crime if one understands that the Durham Police Department helped fabricate the charges and had its officers lie to grand jurors, and prepare false documents, which actually is criminal behavior.)

This is a paper that claimed that police had discovered what would amount to a "magic towel" that would wipe away the DNA of one person and keep another. This is a paper whose reporters, columnists, and editors seemed to believe that Political Correctness means that one can suspend the laws of time and space when left-wing "values" are at stake.

After the Duke case imploded and left egg all over the faces of NYT staffers, there was a promise by media people in general and the folks at the NYT in particular to "do better" the next time. That was a lie, a huge lie, as the very institutional nature of modern American journalism simply does not permit reflection, only reaction, and the reaction is done by people whose tunnel vision worldviews only make things worse.

Along came the rape and sexual assault allegations against former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn and -- Guess what? -- the NYT and other newspapers and media outlets run over the same cliff that they did in the Duke case, from the early rush to judgment and the usual platitudes about power and poverty to the media frenzy at the "perp walk." As in the Duke case, when the facts came out, the NYT once again looked to be a ridiculous rag.

So, what does the paper do? It puts out pro-prosecution propaganda. Yes, it was the PROSECUTION that found the discrepancies in the accuser's statements. And, on the editorial page of July 5, columnist Joe Nocera put out every ridiculous platitude that one could imagine in praising D.A. Cyrus Vance, Jr.

Before looking at the guy's ridiculous column, I remind readers of the recent column by Eric Margolis, a writer and thinker I respect much more than Nocera. Margolis reminds his readers that the revelations by the prosecution were not done in the name of "doing the right thing," but rather because the defense was about to lay out the facts, and the prosecutors didn't want to be shown up:

It is unprecedented for prosecutors to discredit their own star witness. The city’s red-faced DA, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., probably did so because of rumors that the defense, which had assigned a number of crack investigators to check into the maid’s background, was about to go public with the embarrassing information.

(Interestingly, I had said the same thing in my previous column on this sorry case.)

Enter Nocera. After giving the typical NYT view of the case, he declares:

For the life of me, though, I can’t see what Vance did wrong. Quite the contrary. The woman alleged rape, for crying out loud, which was backed up by physical (and other) evidence. She had no criminal record. Her employer vouched for her. The quick decision to indict made a lot of sense, both for legal and practical reasons. Then, as the victim’s credibility crumbled, Vance didn’t try to pretend that he still had a slam dunk, something far too many prosecutors do. He acknowledged the problems.

Lévy, himself a member of the French elite, seems particularly incensed that Vance wouldn’t automatically give Strauss-Kahn a pass, given his extraordinary social status. Especially since his accuser had no status at all.

But that is exactly why Vance should be applauded: a woman with no power made a credible accusation against a man with enormous power. He acted without fear or favor. To have done otherwise would have been to violate everything we believe in this country about no one being above the law.

For starters, the prosecutors lied about the strength of their case. What they had was a woman who was a good actor, and who had engaged in sex with DSK. Hey, if a politician were to be charged with rape for every sexual escapade, then Ted Kennedy would have died in prison.

But Nocera doesn't stop there. No, channeling what the NYT crowd was saying about the Duke case, he declares:

As for Strauss-Kahn’s humiliation, clearly something very bad happened in that hotel room. Quite possibly a crime was committed. Strauss-Kahn’s sordid sexual history makes it likely that he was the instigator. If the worst he suffers is a perp walk, a few days in Rikers Island and some nasty headlines, one’s heart ought not bleed. Ah, yes, and he had to resign as the chief of an institution where sexual harassment was allegedly rampant, thanks, in part, to a culture he helped perpetuate. Gee, isn’t that awful?

What is Nocera saying? He is declaring that because DSK was wealthy, there was nothing wrong in bringing false charges against him. Where have we heard that before? Try reading the NYT columnists on the Duke case, and you will see the similarities in thinking.

The real problem is that facts no longer matter at the NYT, only ideology. It was ideology that gave the NYT license to help Rudy Giuliani commit felony after felony in his pursuit of Wall Street figures and the pursuit of ideology that permitted the NYT to give a free pass to the brutal predations of Elliot Spitzer, a.k.a., Client #9.

Like the Bourbons of France, the journalists at the NYT learn nothing -- and they forget nothing.

The false accusation case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn collapses

To the surprise of no one who has done even a smidgen of due diligence in the sexual assault case against former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the New York Times and other news outlets are reporting that the whole thing is falling apart because the accuser has been spinning more stories than did Crystal Mangum of Duke Lacrosse case fame. His release on his own recognizance (after originally being held on $5 million bond) is the last step before this case officially is trashed, I believe.

Shortly after Strauss-Kahn's arrest, Kerwyn and I were discussing the case and as she laid out the facts, it was pretty obvious that from the start, the police and, more important, the Manhattan district attorney's office, were telling Mike Nifongesque lies. Remember that he supposedly left the hotel immediately after the attempted rape, being in such a rush that he left his cellphone behind in an attempt to quickly get out of the country?

It turns out that he checked out of the hotel in an orderly fashion, went to the airport, and then called the hotel to see if they could deliver his cellphone to him. None of his actions seemed to be those of a man desperately trying to leave the USA, although given the state of "law enforcement" in this country, I can't blame him for wanting to get the heck out of this place.

Even those lies from the police and prosecutors aside, it gets even better, much better. However, we first must travel down a short memory lane, courtesy of our friends at the Grey Lady, who always are outraged, OUTRAGED at the mere accusation of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Let us look at the various statements coming from the DA's office right after the arrest (this is significant because of what the NYT NOW is claiming about Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, Jr., and his underlings):

Artie McConnell, assistant district attorney, at Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arraignment in Criminal Court on May 16:

“The victim provided very powerful details consistent with violent sexual assault committed by the defendant, which establishes all the necessary elements of the crime he is charged with.”

“She made outcries to multiple witnesses immediately after the incident, both to hotel staff and law enforcement. She was then taken to the hospital and was given a full sexual assault forensic examination. The observations and findings during that exam corroborate her accounts.”

Mr. McConnell at a bail hearing on May 19:

“The complainant in this case has offered a compelling and unwavering story about what occurred in the defendant’s room. She made immediate outcries to multiple witnesses, both to hotel staff and to police.”

“The victim was given a complete and expert forensic examination and the findings from that examination are consistent with her account. The Crime Scene Unit processed the hotel room and the scene, and while those scientific tests have not been completed, the preliminary indications are that forensic evidence that supports the victim’s version of events may be found.”

Of course, what sexual assault claim would be complete without the editorial page angst that came from the opinion folks at the NYT? Here is Maureen Dowd, who never seems to be without a stupid and poorly-informed opinion:

In the wake of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn scandal, as more Frenchwomen venture sexual harassment charges against elite men, the capital of seduction is reeling at the abrupt shift from can-can to can’t-can’t. Le Canard Enchaîné, a satirical weekly, still argues that “News always stops at the bedroom door,” but many French seem ready to bid adieu to the maxim.

As Libération editor Nicolas Demorand wrote in an editorial: “Now that voices have been freed, and the ceiling of glass and shame has been bashed in, other scandals may now arise.”

After long scorning American Puritanism and political correctness on gender issues, the French are shocked to find themselves in a very American debate about the male exploitation/seduction of women, and the nature of consent.

Just as the NYT immediately jumped to the conclusion that Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans had raped Crystal Mangum, writers at the paper quickly assumed that the Strauss-Kahn accuser was telling the unvarnished truth. The letters that the paper saw fit to publish were full of the rush to judgment. This piece by Linda Martin Alcoff, a philosophy professor in New York, was pretty typical of the mindset of the NYT crowd.

In other words, it was assume guilt first and always believe the prosecutors, especially when they are prominent Democrats like Vance who have political ambitions. But, as in the Duke case, truth has carved a bit of a wedge in the NYT's narrative:

The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on the verge of collapse as investigators have uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May, according to two well-placed law enforcement officials.

Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself.

Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said.

Senior prosecutors met with lawyers for Mr. Strauss-Kahn on Thursday and provided details about their findings, and the parties are discussing whether to dismiss the felony charges. Among the discoveries, one of the officials said, are issues involving the asylum application of the 32-year-old housekeeper, who is Guinean, and possible links to people involved in criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering.

I have no doubt that the story that police and prosecutors fed the media -- that this large, naked man jumped from the bathroom and forced this poor, African immigrant to give him oral sex -- is utterly false. First, keep in mind that she is from Guinea, and is a French speaker. Second, I suspect that the encounter not only was mutual, but she planned it in advance, and most likely with some of the people with whom she is associated.

The article continues:

According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.

That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.

The investigators also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies. The woman had insisted she had only one phone and said she knew nothing about the deposits except that they were made by a man she described as her fiancé and his friends.

In addition, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application.

I smell a setup from the beginning, one that even a semi-competent investigator would have found. However, given that the original investigation was done by the New York police and the DA's office, competency really is not in the job description; however, being able to act in an ideological manner that fits with the mentality at the NYT IS part of the job.

Nonetheless, the NYT continues to protect Vance and his crew, declaring:

In recent weeks, Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers, Benjamin Brafman and William W. Taylor III, have made it clear that they would make the credibility of the woman a focus of their case. In a May 25 letter, they said they had uncovered information that would “gravely undermine the credibility” of the accuser.

Still, it was the prosecutor’s investigators who found the information about the woman. (Emphasis mine)

Right. It seems that no one at the NYT has managed to deal with what is obvious: If government investigators had found this damning evidence on their own, then why were Vance and company continuing to claim that the accuser was truthful and that they had a strong case? In other words, if their investigators found out these things, either one of two things happened, neither of which would reflect well on NY authorities.

The first would be that investigators told them what they had found, but Vance's charges continued to spout the same narrative, hoping that their rhetoric would overcome any problems. In other words, they knew the truth but lied.

The second would be that the investigators withheld information and gave it to their superiors only long after they had found out the truth, leaving Vance and the other prosecutors in the dark. This one makes no sense, which means that if what the NYT is saying is true, then Vance and those prosecutors involved with the case should be disbarred at the very least for knowingly making false statements in a very high-profile case.

There is a third possibility, and that is that the private investigators for the Strauss-Kahn defense did their own work and presented the facts to the Manhattan DA and warned them that if they did not act, the defense would make sure that the material would be leaked in a very unceremonious way. Any way one slices this material, however, it is clear that Vance and his employees have a lot of explaining to do.

Don't expect the mainstream media to ask those questions. Vance and the editorial staff at the NYT are joined at the ideological and political hip and the paper will do everything it can do to protect him. Likewise, the fact that Strauss-Kahn over the years has had the reputation of acting as, well, one might expect from someone who is known to be sexually-boorish, I doubt that too many mainstream reporters are going to invite the rage of the Maureen Dowds.

Nonetheless, we see yet another example of the Government-Media Alliance making false accusations, bringing false charges, and then ending up with egg on some collective faces. This is not the last time we will see this sorry scenario, and I only can feel for the next person who is caught in the crosshairs.

The New York City "Rape Cop" verdict

This past week, two former New York City police officers, Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata, were acquitted of raping a woman while on duty. As I have not followed this case, I really cannot comment on the specifics of the charges except to say that the events the woman described and the reality of the investigation were two different things.

In other words, the "victim" lied. Of that, I have no doubt. Like the Duke Lacrosse Case in which Crystal Mangum described a 30-minute assault complete with ejaculation and being beaten with fists, the forensic evidence simply did not match the story. Despite the best efforts of the prosecutors to, frankly, suborn perjury, the jury was not buying the fantasy that the government was trying to conjure up.

Now, the cops were convicted of three counts of official misconduct for entering the woman’s apartment, and that was inevitable, given that the officers had gone to the apartment when they should have been doing their normal duties. That conviction cost them their jobs and may well result in jail time, but there was no evidence that they had raped the woman and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, keeping with the theme that made the NY Times a laughing stock during the Duke case, we see the newspaper continues with the same narrative: a woman accused them; therefore, they are guilty. The article declares:

For Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, the verdict was an unsatisfying conclusion. The decision, after a trial that lasted almost two months, also comes at a critical juncture for an office that is navigating the biggest case of Mr. Vance’s brief tenure: the sexual-assault charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund.

The jury’s decision also underscores the difficulty of obtaining favorable results for women who say they were sexually assaulted, and who often are subjected to scrutiny and skepticism that keep many of them from speaking out. In this case, defense lawyers pounced on the credibility of the woman because she was very drunk on the night in question and did not remember many details.

So, we see that this is about the politics of rape and sex, not about justice. It is about the promotion of the political career of the son of Jimmy Carter's secretary of state, and about prosecutors that decide that evidence does not matter, only politics.

What these cops did was bad and certainly a dereliction of their duties. However, what the prosecutors did was worse, for while Moreno and Mata violated their legal duties, the prosecutors suborned perjury, which is a felony and goes to the very heart of the system.

Unfortunately, the NYT and the political elites favor the felons.

Richard Blumenthal, the New York Times, and Malicious Prosecution

If there is one thing I can count upon, it is that the New York Times is a cheerleader for prosecutorial lies and abuse. No newspaper did more to promote Mike Nifong's ridiculous and dishonest prosecution than that NYT, which literally claimed championed what defense attorneys ridiculed as a "magic towel" as a piece of important evidence. (This was a towel that magically made Crystal Mangum's DNA disappear.)

However, while the NYT decided that the laws of science were not fit to be applied to the Duke case, the paper gets the greatest joy in watching abusive prosecutions of business figures like Martha Stewart. (Yes, I know that was a popular verdict, but don't forget that the reason Stewart met with the FBI was that prosecutor James Comey's staff was illegally leaking grand jury information to the media in order to try to force Stewart to meet with investigators. The legal penalty for such a crime is five years in prison, but prosecutors, as we know, don't indict themselves for felonies. Just ask Chris Arnt and Len Gregor.)

Today, I briefly look at the case of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the NYT's choice to be the next U.S. Senator from that state. Please keep in mind that this was the same Richard Blumenthal who claimed time and again that he served in Vietnam in the U.S. Armed Forces when, in fact, he was never close to that country.

Like so many other AG's in this country, Blumenthal is a pathological liar, and the malicious case in which he destroyed the life and successful business of Gina Kolb is a case in point.

(To give an example of another "hero" state AG, a guy who threw people in jail after Hurricane Katrina because he disapproved of the prices they charged for some consumer goods, read about Jim Hood of Mississippi, who is about to have a man executed based on testimony that everyone -- including Hood -- knows was utterly fraudulent. THAT is what we have in this country when it comes to prosecutors.)

Here is more about the heroic Blumenthal:

In 2007, the Competitive Enterprise Institute rated Mr. Blumenthal the worst state AG, beating Mr. Spitzer, which takes some doing.

He was the only AG to get failing grades in each of the four categories: using his office to "promote personal gain or enrich cronies or relatives"; "fabricating the law" by asking courts to "rewrite statutes or stretch constitutional norms"; bringing lawsuits "that usurp regulatory powers granted to the federal government or other state entities"; and "seeking to regulate conduct occurring wholly in other states."

Which does not mean Mr. Blumenthal can't show prosecutorial discretion when he wants to. Last year, he went on television to announce that he wouldn't investigate Countrywide Financial's sweetheart loans to Senator Dodd, nonetheless declaring without any probe that "there's no evidence of wrongdoing on [Mr. Dodd's] part."

So, once again, we see that the most "Progressive" people among us -- and few states are more Politically Correct than Connecticut -- are also the people who support malicious prosecution for political reasons. I hate to sound pessimistic, but that is our system of "justice" in the U.S.S.A. There really is none other.

(Hat tip to Ben Shaw)

Herbert's Folly

I usually don't read Bob Herbert's columns in the New York Times, as they tend to be angry and ignorant, not to mention economically illiterate. However, once in a while, even Herbert sets new standards for outrage, and he has done so with this column.

Yes, Bob has discovered the obvious: we are in a serious depression. Gee, glad you have noticed, Bob. Of course, like all good NYT columnists, he neatly confuses cause with effect. Thus, we get ignorant missives like this:

Budget cuts...tend to weaken rather than strengthen a state’s economy, especially when they entail furloughs or layoffs. Government spending stimulates an economy in recession. And wise spending is an investment in everyone’s quality of life.

Uh, Bob, budget cuts do not weaken the economy; they come about because the economy is weak. How do states receive their revenues? They tax others, and if economic activity does not generate wealth, there are no revenues to collect via taxation.

And what constitutes "wise spending"? Herbert really does not define it except to imply that "wise" is whatever he deems it to be.

As one who has followed Herbert over the years, I find few other writers, except for those at the Nation, who pretty much are Marxists, who despise private enterprise as much as does Herbert. It is rare that he is not attacking business owners or those who are productive and blaming them for all of the miseries of life.

Well, guess what? When government goes on a jihad against business, as we now see with the Obama administration, less wealth is created. When private enterprise creates less wealth, governments can spend less. That is a fact of life that all of the raving and raging by Herbert and the others at the NYT cannot eliminate with all of their rhetoric.

Entitlements and Employment: Why Bob Herbert is Clueless

Bob Herbert is an angry man. Day after day, watching the world from his office window at the New York Times, he sees the ravages of capitalism and writes about the poor and exploited people toiling for their daily bread. Capitalism, he has written many times, conducts a “war against workers,” and examples abound that prove his point.

In a recent column, Herbert rails against Toyota. No, this is not Toyota making cars with defects, although I am sure that Bob would want to include that item in one of his missives against capitalist oppression. (You see, capitalists not only exploit workers, but they sell them crummy goods on top of that.) This time, the column claims the following with the headline:

“Workers Crushed by Toyota.”

Wow. Is Toyota seizing people and conscripting them to work for pennies a day and live in squalid conditions? Is it confiscating their earnings? (Whoops! Government does that, but Herbert likes government that engages in heavy taxation, which is not oppressive in Bobspeak.)

No, Toyota is committing the Greatest Sin of All: it is announcing a plant closure. In Herbert’s own words, we have:

California has been very, very good to Toyota. It is one of the largest markets in the world for the popular Prius hybrid. Nearly 18 percent of all Toyotas sold in the U.S. are sold in California. The state has showered the company with benefits, including large-scale infrastructure improvements for its operations and millions of dollars for worker training. California is one of the key reasons that Toyota is the wealthiest carmaker on the planet.

Toyota is paying the state back with the foulest form of ingratitude.

The company is planning to shut down the assembly plant in Fremont, Calif., that makes Corollas and the Tacoma compact pickup. The plant closure will throw 4,700 experienced, highly skilled and dedicated employees onto the street during the worst job market since the Depression, and it will jeopardize nearly 20,000 other jobs around the state.

Indeed, Herbert regards Toyota as a terrible ingrate. Why, California permitted this company to build an assembly plant there, and now it is planning to close the plant. How dare the Toyota management think of doing such a thing! Lest one think I am exaggerating, read on:

It is a cold and irresponsible act on Toyota’s part, a decision that was not necessary from a business standpoint and that completely disregards the wave of human misery it is setting in motion.

And:

What we’re dealing with here is the kind of corporate treachery toward workers and their local communities that has ruined countless lives over the past several decades and completely undermined the long-term prospects of the economy.

By the way, what is the crime here? Well, it seems that Toyota is moving its operations to places that don’t meet Herbert’s approval:

The (Toyota) plant is a heck of a lot more viable than the nonstop dissembling of top Toyota executives. The company could keep the plant open and profitable if it wanted to. But, instead, it has decided to shift the production of these vehicles to Japan, Canada, Mexico and Texas.

Why does this “fabulously wealthy” company do such things, adding to the unemployment misery of California? Herbert does not give a direct answer except to imply that Toyota is filled with ungrateful, wretched capitalists who enjoy inflicting misery upon others. The decision makers there are ingrates who don’t understand or care about what is happening in the former Golden State.

I might have a suggestion or two. First, and most important, there is no reason that California, with its wealth of entrepreneurial talent, should have such a high rate of unemployment. While it is true that the housing boom and bust was particularly pronounced in that state, nonetheless California enjoys advantages that should be to its advantage during trying times.

Second, let’s be honest about California; it has become a banana republic for one thing and one thing only: its government is out of control. Steven Greenhut, a longtime observer of government in California, has noted in his new book, Plunder, that public employee unions in California have become kleptocrats and have been bleeding the taxpayers of that state for many years.

Furthermore, as the state coffers – built in large part upon the stock market and housing bubbles of the last decade – have been shrinking, the unions have become more militant, more violent, and greedier. If there is a “war against workers” (Herbert’s words) in California, it has been a war conducted by unionized government employees against everyone else who works for a living.

Don’t think for a second that the Toyota management has not taken notice. They are watching the government unions become angrier, nastier, and increasingly out-of-control; they are watching California’s politicians, who have promoted this war of government against everyone else, become increasingly vengeful, as businesses and individuals pack up and leave some of the highest levels of taxation and regulation in the country.

I hate to tell this to Herbert – actually, I don’t hate to tell him – but the decision by Toyota’s management is not due to some sort of anti-worker arbitrariness on behalf of decision makers. Toyota does not hate California workers and love employees who are Canadians, Mexicans, and Texans. Furthermore, there is a large opportunity cost in moving operations, and the Toyota management no doubt has taken all of these things into consideration.

While I am not privy to what Toyota managers might be thinking, I suspect that they understand that California’s politicians are not going to back down. Indeed, my sense is that they are going to make the government even more oppressive, raise taxes, and crack down on dissidents. Like Michigan, where labor unions have plundered the state’s taxpayers and now reap the nation’s worst economy, California is on a course of self-destruction.

Unfortunately, people like Bob Herbert believe that the course I have laid out is exactly what should be done in trying economic times. He really believes that government should be telling people what to eat, to buy, and what to believe, and he really believes that imposing high taxes and creating a stifling bureaucracy create prosperity.

However, the people who make the goods and pay the bills are not that stupid. Toyota is leaving California, and if Herbert and others cannot figure out the reason, then they truly are clueless.