Tucker Carlson’s Sloppy Seconds

Oh, fuck you tblogg! I was planning on eating again this month.

Sometimes you need to bribe the rats not to leave the sinking ship.

They had expensive tastes, reflected in the $277,500 two-bedroom condo they bought in 1993

Wow, 277 grand. What spendthrifts. With that kind of money they could have bought half of a dancing horse!

To approximately the same degree that predicting the sun will rise in the East tomorrow makes you psychic.

Oh, Anderson, you can shove your agenda down my throat any day.

[Goes back to writing "Mrs. Anderson Cooper" over and over again in his trapper keeper.]

By the by, trisomy 21 AKA Down Syndrome is a birth defect, not a heritable trait, so I’m not sure it’s a subject eugenics would address anyway. Judges?

Could it be that Mittens has himself partaken of the Demon Substance?

What a scurrilous lie! Mitt never partakes of anything of substance.

What happens to a capital-gains tax cut deferred? Does it get baked, like a stoner in the sun?

That’s the blondest Uruk-hai I’ve ever seen.

Hey Teddy, how about just insisting the church follow the laws and turn over criminals for prosecution and stop covering up and protecting them?

And how many more decades do we have to wait for them to do that before we can conclude it ain’t gonna happen?

…Great American Conservative Women calendar…

Is it just me, or was the Ann Coulter photo for that shot through like a quarter-inch of Vaseline?

Just another foot soldier in the war on women.

Fuck em. Fuck em sideways with a rusty Garden Weasel®.

Finding[..]Allen West way too fucking brown,

And also batshit fucking insane. Don’t forget that.

The accuracy or detail of the description Boatner provided is irrelevant to the court’s decision.

Say what? Thomas’ whole argument is based on the claim that, in the context of all other evidence, the evidence withheld would not have a reasonable chance of altering the outcome of the trial. How can you possibly make that argument without judging the strength and persuasiveness of that evidence?

Yeah, I’ve been reading Thomas’ dissent, and all it is so far is a bunch of dissembling about how the reports where the witness seems unable to identify his assailant are counterbalanced by the times the witness said he could, and therefore you can’t prove with 100% certainty that jury would have ruled differently, so neener neener. Still haven’t seen anything that convinces me that police reports undermining the only real piece of evidence used to convict Smith would have been immaterial to the outcome of the trial.

He described his assailant at the scene and at the police station immediately following the murders.

Yeah, and it was a pretty nondescript description: “short-type haircut,” “a lot of golds in his teeth,” and “brown-ski[n].”2 Id., at 115 (Dec. 5, 1995).

Also: a note by Ronquillo, documenting a conversation he had with Boatner at the scene, states that Boatner “could not . . . supply a description of the perpetrators other th[a]n they were black males.”

So there is evidence that, at the scene of the crime, Boatner could not provide any specific description of his assailant, and that evidence was concealed.

How could that not provide as least a reasonable chance that the jury would have returned another verdict?

If the whopping 17 pages of Thomas’ dissent is too much for you, then see if you can plod through the four pages of the majority opinion. Then you’ll at least know what question the court decided.

Yes, let’s do that, shall we? Oh, gee, look at this:

Boatner told the jury that he had “[n]o doubt” that Smith was the gunman he stood “face to face” with on the night of the crime, but Ronquillo’s notes show Boatner saying that he “could not ID anyone because [he] couldn’t see faces” and “would not know them if [he] saw them.” App. 196, 200, 308.

So, basically, Thomas is arguing that the only witness telling officers he didn’t actually see the faces of his attackers and could not identify them would not undermine his testimony and create “a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different conclusion”. Really? I don’t care if Thomas’ dissent was a hundred and seventeen pages long, I don’t see how he can possibly justify that position.

Narcisse’s testimony also mitigated the impeachment value of Ronquillo’s on-scene note
by indicating that, although Boatner may have provided
no detailed description to Ronquillo at the scene, Boatner
had described the first man to another officer.

So, what, it’s up to the prosecutor to decide what the impeachment value of any evidence is? Because they are totally impartial to the outcome of the trial, right?

You do realize we have an adversarial system for a reason, right?

Well, the movie did do a great job communicating the tediousness, implausibility and amoral shallowness of Atlas Shrugged, so I guess it’s sort of appropriate?

Mocha Chino Palin

Bah, that’s way to librul. You might as well name him NPR Tote-bag Palin.