Charles Manson’s Death Reminds Us Why We Need the Death Penalty

Andrea Ruth had a post earlier today about the death of Charles Manson. Andrea’s post extensively covered Manson’s crimes and said good riddance to this evil man. In this post, in addition to agreeing with Andrea’s sentiments about Manson, I want to take a moment to remind us all that we need the death penalty.

Prosecutors who have a former defendant on death row know that there is always a chance that the murderer will outlive us, no matter how young we were when the penalty was imposed. Vincent Bugliosi was not quite 35 years old when he convicted Manson of the Tate-LaBianca killings. Bugliosi lived to the age of 80 — yet Manson still outlived him.

This is particularly outrageous in the case of Manson. Here is the roll call of the dead — the people Charles Manson was convicted of murdering: Abigail Ann Folger, Wojciech Frykowski, Steven Earl Parent, Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Leno La Bianca, Rosemary La Bianca, Gary Hinman, and Donald Jerome “Shorty” Shea. Manson was indeed sentenced to death, but the sentence was overturned (along with that of Sirhan Sirhan and 103 others) in 1972, when the California Supreme Court declared the state’s death penalty unconstitutional. Since the imposition of the death penalty, only 13 executions have been carried out in California. The last was in 2006, and as of August, 747 inmates remained on Death Row.

Most people don’t realize how difficult it is to get to the point where someone is subject to execution. The death penalty in California requires that a jury convict the defendant of at least one murder in the first degree, and at least one special circumstance. Examples of special circumstances include murder for financial gain, murder in the course of rapes, robberies, and other specified felonies, poisoning, and infliction of torture, to name a few. Most cases in which special circumstances are charged are even not tried as death penalty cases. The penalty is typically reserved for “the worst of the worst” — people who have zero chance of rehabilitation. The jury has the opportunity to consider a wide range of possible mitigation as well as aggravation, and twelve people must unanimously agree that death is appropriate after taking all of those factors into consideration.

Appeals of death penalty cases are notoriously long. As absurd as it seems (and is), some inmates have even claimed in recent years that the length of the appeals process is itself cruel and unusual punishment — even though appealing the case is their own choice, and many appeals are frivolous and designed for the express purpose of delay. Frustration with this regime has led California voters to recently pass an initiative to speed up the process.

Manson had his day in court, was convicted of nine murders, was sentenced to death, and given a reprieve by the courts. He spent the rest of his life making a mockery of the system that spared him, carving a swastika into his forehead, and generally showing that he did not deserve to live.

His life was spared, and some of his confederates could even be paroled.

Manson prosecutors used to attend parole hearings to oppose parole for Manson family members convicted of murder. But they can’t do that when they themselves are already dead.

Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, surely we can all agree that the remaining Manson family members should not be paroled. At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey (a death penalty opponent for religious reasons) says:

Manson died where he belonged. Let the parole board and Governor Brown take that as a victory, and apply that lesson to the other Manson “family” convicts.

I would argue that Manson belonged in a gas chamber when he died, but the courts took that option away. Given that reality, prison is where they should all die. It will still be a far more merciful death than those suffered by the Manson family’s victims.


The post Charles Manson’s Death Reminds Us Why We Need the Death Penalty appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Sunday Music: Bach Cantata BWV 45

The title of the cantata is “Es ist dir gesagt, Mensch, was gut ist” (It has been told to you, man, what is good).

Today’s Gospel reading is Matthew 25:14-30, the parable of the bags of gold:

“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’

“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

“The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’

“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

“Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

“‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

It sounds pretty harsh at first blush. But the message, I think, is that God has entrusted you with certain wealth — talents, skills, and resources — and you should use them fruitfully, rather than be resentful of the one who entrusted you with these gifts, and do nothing with them. While Bach did not write a cantata that relates directly to this Gospel passage, the text of today’s cantata (available here) has passages that sound the same theme, such as this, the text that accompanies the final chorale melody:

Grant that I do diligently
what you have set for me to do,

which Your command directs
for me in my condition!
Grant that I do it quickly,
at the time that I should;
and when I do it, then grant
that it succeed!

The chorale used in the cantata is based on a melody by Ahasverus Fritsch: O Gott, du Frommer Gott, played on the piano here:

Happy listening!

The post Sunday Music: Bach Cantata BWV 45 appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

And Yet ANOTHER Moore Accuser (Yes, An Additional One!)

Yes, Susan Wright just got through posting about a new Roy Moore accuser: Tina Johnson. But there are even more. The #FAKENEWSBEZOSPOST has a story titled Two more women describe unwanted overtures by Roy Moore at Alabama mall.

One of the stories is about a 22-year-old woman who merely says Moore was much older and very persistent and creepy in his unwanted overtures. The other woman is a bit more interesting. Gena Richardson says she was a high school senior when Moore, then 30 years old, engaged in behavior that sounds a lot like the conduct described by Beverly Young Nelson:

Instead, she says she met Moore at the movie theater. She says she can’t remember what they saw, but she remembers clearly what happened after. She says it was cold and Moore offered to drive her to her car, which was more than a football field’s distance away in a parking area behind Sears. She says he parked by her car and began chatting with her, and she says she told him again about her dad.

“I just explained to him that my dad’s a minister, and you know, I just can’t sneak around because that’s wrong,” she recalls. “So I thanked him and started to get out and he grabbed me and pulled me in and that’s when he kissed me.

“It was a man kiss — like really deep tongue. Like very forceful tongue. It was a surprise. I’d never been kissed like that,” she says. “And the minute that happened, I got scared then. I really did. Something came over me that scared me. And so I said, ‘I’ve got to go, because my curfew is now.’ ”

Her first contact with Moore was “just before or after her 18th birthday,” so she was either an adult or close to it. But the interesting bit here is the similarity to Nelson’s story, including the offer to drive the young girl to her car, grabbing her as she started to get out, and frightening her with the forcefulness of his conduct. The Post says her account “was corroborated by classmate and Sears co-worker Kayla McLaughlin.” Another woman who has been secretly planning to derail Roy Moore’s possible future Senate bid for forty years!

I can tell that plenty of people will say “men kiss women at the end of dates so this is a nothingburger.” But those who said the forcefulness of Nelson’s alleged encounter sounded out of character for Moore now have another data point to consider.

Any way you slice it, Moore was clearly a skeevy presence there at the mall. Other women in the story describe Moore as someone everyone looked out for, so they could avoid him. One says “I can remember him walking in and the whole mood would change with us girls,” describing herself as feeling “creeped out.”

Yeah, Moore defenders, it’s all made-up character assassination. You just keep telling yourself that. You have to believe that, so you do.

The post And Yet ANOTHER Moore Accuser (Yes, An Additional One!) appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Repealing the Individual Mandate Without Repealing ObamaCare Is Dumb

You have already heard me rant and rave about how the GOP tax bill is a tax hike on the middle class (primarily the professional middle class in large urban areas) to pay for tax breaks for the super-rich. The Senate version of the bill is no different in that respect — in fact, it’s worse, eliminating deductions for all property taxes without even the $10,000 cap included in the House bill. But the Senate version released yesterday comes with yet another stupid idea: repealing the ObamaCare individual mandate . . . without repealing ObamaCare.

You’ll find no more fierce opponent of ObamaCare than myself. It’s exactly the sort of Frankenstein monster you’d expect when central planners assume control over a huge of the economy. But you can’t fix the monster by giving him a new right arm, three new toes on his left foot, and tightening the bolts on his neck. The monster has to be destroyed.

The problem is not, as some might try to tell you, that ObamaCare “won’t work” if the individual mandate is repealed. ObamaCare won’t work and can’t work, period, no matter what — because central planning can’t work. What ObamaCare does is monkey with supply and demand for a product: health insurance. The law mandates it be supplied at prices that would be unavailable in a truly free market (guaranteed issue). This is effectively a form of price control, which generally creates a shortage. The law then tries to compensate for the effects of the price control by mandating purchase of the product by legal fiat.

The unpopular mandated purchase provisions do compensate somewhat for the popular price controls, but in the absence of a free market any such central attempt to balance prices is always doomed to fail. It’s hubris on the part of the central planners to think they can succeed. The key lessons of the failed experiments in socialism in the 20th century have not been learned — and probably never will be.

The market is a wondrous mechanism that ensures, almost as if by magic, that demand for goods is balanced by a supply of the desired goods. But thanks to various forms of government intervention, including federal tax policy and federal and state regulations, we had not had an actual free market in health care or health insurance for a long time, even before ObamaCare.

ObamaCare’s dog’s breakfast of mandates will never be a sustainable, functioning mechanism, and removing one mandate does not solve the problem of skyrocketing health care costs and rising premiums. It will almost certainly make it worse. This is why previous efforts to repeal only the individual mandate while leaving the rest of ObamaCare in place have gone down to ignominious defeat. It’s horrendous policy, and no honest person can really dispute this.

But when it comes to doling out tax breaks to the rich, horrendous policy is just the ticket. Anything to provide a paper credit to balance the goodies handed out to big donors.

And the public will like it. Nobody will analyze this from first principles, the way I just did. They’ll just say: “hur hur, they’re gutting ObamaCare, hur hur, ah like it!”

Hooray for the GOP!

P.S. Increasingly, I don’t feel that bad about the prospect of the Democrats picking up another Senate seat in Alabama for three years. After all: genuine ObamaCare repeal has not happened and never will no matter who is in charge. Yes, Dems love to hike taxes, but Trump would probably veto their tax hikes while he would sign the GOP tax hike — so one more vote against the GOP version of a tax hike is fine by me. And the GOP will still have its majority to confirm good judges. Win-win! I’m not getting tired of all the winning yet! How about you?

The post Repealing the Individual Mandate Without Repealing ObamaCare Is Dumb appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Yeah, About That Twitter Account That Alleged Bribery in the Roy Moore Scandal…

Last night, I criticized a story in the New Yorker attacking Roy Moore based on nothing but rumor and innuendo. But some Moore defenders also need to be reminded that rumor is not news. There is a sick irony here: some of the same people who whine about Big Media and “hearsay” love to breathlessly repeat literally any damned stupid thing they see on the Internet. And one of the damned stupid charges thrown around by the more partisan and careless Internet Moore Defenders was the charge that Washington Post reporters bribed witnesses.

These rumors had a traceable source: an anonymous Twitter account called @umpire43 aka “Doug Lewis #MAGA,” which tweeted last week: “A family friend in Alabama just told my wife that a WAPO reporter named Beth offered her 1000$ to accuse Roy Moore???” Because it was a stupid and unverified rumor, it was only natural that it would be touted by the fact-challenged Gateway Pundit with the classic statement: “Of course this is HUGE news if true.”

When you read a story that confirms your pre-existing biases but is based on unverified rumor and innuendo, the low-IQ thing to do is to spread that puppy as far and wide as your little typing fingers can work, and that’s what some shameless Moore defenders did. In comments at my own site, the Doug Lewis #MAGA narrative was spread by avowed Trumpers who didn’t bother to link their sources. (You know who you are and you should be ashamed.)

Thing is, the Twitter guy who first leveled the “bribery!” accusation had a . . . questionable personal back story, to put it mildly. When you added up the various assertions in his narrative, he would have had to join the Navy at age 5 for it all to be true:

And he couldn’t remember whether he had two Purple Hearts, or three, or four:

The editor of a news site for vets started asking Doug Lewis #MAGA some pointed questions, and next thing you know . . . Doug Lewis #MAGA’s tweets were gone. Gizmodo:

[A]fter Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel and Task and Purpose editor Adam Weinstein challenged inconsistencies in the account’s military backstory—like whether he had earned 2, 3, or 4 Purple Hearts—@umpire43 registered for a tweet deletion service and cleared out their account on Monday.

We’re talking tweets going back years:

What is Doug Lewis #MAGA trying to hide? Obviously, more clues that he is a fake.

Especially if you’re going to set yourself up as some kind of arbiter over what is good journalism or not, if you’re denouncing first-person corroborated accounts as “hearsay” while repeating crap like this, you are the problem. If you get your “news” from sites like Gateway Pundit or Conservative Treehouse or other fever swamps, you are the problem. If you’re screaming #FAKENEWS while retweeting Doug Lewis #MAGA, you are the problem.

This concludes today’s public service announcement.


The post Yeah, About That Twitter Account That Alleged Bribery in the Roy Moore Scandal… appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Another Company Boycotts Hannity — What Will Trumpers Smash This Time?

Another company has pulled its advertising from Sean Hannity’s show, in reaction to his coverage of the Roy Moore underage girl scandal. First it was Keurig — now it’s Volvo. The Hill:

Volvo has pulled its advertisements from Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News after his coverage of sexual misconduct allegations made against Roy Moore.

Volvo is the latest advertiser to pull its ads from “Hannity” in the wake of the prime-time host’s coverage of Moore, the Alabama Senate special election candidate accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women. Keurig and both said they were pulling their ads in recent days.

None of the advertisers said they were pulling their ads because of Hannity’s coverage of the allegations, including from a woman who says she was 14 at the time. However, the decisions come amid an online campaign targeting advertisers for Hannity’s show.

Over weekend, the Internet was treated to the spectacle of conservatives gleefully smashing their Keurig coffee makers in response to Keurig’s decision.

This resulted in the head of the company apologizing to Hannity. See? Publicly destroying your own personal property over a political disagreement works!

I have to admit, I can’t wait to see the videos of Trumpers smashing their $40,000 motor vehicles.

Something good finally came out of this Roy Moore catastrophe after all!

The post Another Company Boycotts Hannity — What Will Trumpers Smash This Time? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

New Yorker Publishes Entire Article About Roy Moore Full of Nothing but Hearsay

You want hearsay, you got it. The New Yorker has a new story about Roy Moore that is pretty much all hearsay and rumor. It’s garbage journalism.

The hook: Moore was banned from a local mall and the YMCA for hitting on young girls. Frankly, that would not surprise me in the slightest, based on what I have learned about Moore in the past few days. Indeed, this story from has eyewitness accounts from people who saw Moore flirting with young girls at the mall. So I’m not saying that didn’t happen. It almost certainly did. But as for the story that he was banned for his behavior, this New Yorker story does not even begin to prove the claim:

This past weekend, I spoke or messaged with more than a dozen people—including a major political figure in the state—who told me that they had heard, over the years, that Moore had been banned from the mall because he repeatedly badgered teen-age girls. Some say that they heard this at the time, others in the years since. These people include five members of the local legal community, two cops who worked in the town, several people who hung out at the mall in the early eighties, and a number of former mall employees. (A request for comment from the Moore campaign was not answered.) Several of them asked that I leave their names out of this piece. The stories that they say they’ve heard for years have been swirling online in the days since the Post published its report. “Sources tell me Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall and the YMCA for his inappropriate behavior of soliciting sex from young girls,” the independent Alabama journalist Glynn Wilson wrote on his Web site on Sunday. (Wilson declined to divulge his sources.) Teresa Jones, a deputy district attorney for Etowah County in the early eighties, told CNN last week that “it was common knowledge that Roy dated high-school girls.” Jones told me that she couldn’t confirm the alleged mall banning, but said, “It’s a rumor I’ve heard for years.”

We’ve now reached the point in the Roy Moore story where Big Media will print just about anything. Even better, the only people who would actually know about the banning — people who managed the mall — have no memory of Moore being banned:

A former manager of the mall, who began working there in the late eighties, confirmed the existence of a ban list, but did not recall Moore being on the list during the manager’s tenure there. Barnes Boyle, who is eighty-six, also managed the mall, from 1981 to 1998. His wife, Brenda, told me that Moore was a longtime acquaintance of his—they went to the Y.M.C.A. together often—and that he planned to vote for him. The recent allegations against Moore, the Boyles thought, are likely liberal propaganda and, as Brenda put it, “a sign of the times.”

You’d think that people managing the mall, or who attended the YMCA with Moore, might remember if the local DA had been banned from the mall and the YMCA for hassling girls.

If this were the only story about Moore out there, I’d be manning the ramparts screaming about liberal bias and incompetence driving this whole controversy.

However, this is not the only story about Moore out there.

If anything, this story illustrates, by way of contrast, the relative strength of the stories published by the Washington Post and revealed at the big Gloria Allred press conference today. With the Washington Post story and today’s press conference, we know who is making the accusations. The women have put themselves out there, to have their stories honestly scrutinized by some, and to have their lives picked apart and their reputations smeared by others. The cries of “hearsay” we heard about those stories emanate from people who don’t know what the word means. The accounts are either directly from the victims themselves, or from people they told over the years before the women had a motive to fabricate their stories to keep Moore out of the Senate. And, as noted above, people with names are coming out of the woodwork to say they saw Moore hitting on young girls.

In the New Yorker piece, by contrast, the ultimate source of all the information in the story is a complete mystery. There is no corroboration. Legal ignoramuses can scream “HEARSAY!” and — for once — they get to be right.

Apparently, my goal in life is to infuriate every single person who reads my stuff. If you like what I have to say about the New Yorker here, you hate me for believing the women who have accused Moore. If you like the fact that I believe the stories about Moore, you hate me for pooh-poohing this story.

So I have a unique gift for alienating everyone. But I call ’em like I see em. And this is how I see ’em here:

A guy can be a complete jerk (as Moore appears to be), and even be a likely child molester, (as Moore also appears to be based on available evidence) . . . and can still be the subject of a slipshod and biased article that never should have been published.

That’s what we have. The New Yorker should be ashamed of this article. It does not meet publishing standards. Go back to journalism school.

The post New Yorker Publishes Entire Article About Roy Moore Full of Nothing but Hearsay appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

New Groping Allegation Against George H.W. Bush Is Different from the Others in a Disturbing Way

Yet another woman has come forward to accuse George H.W. Bush of groping her buttocks in a photo op. But this one is different: the girl was sixteen years old at the time. Fake News Time Magazine reports:

Roslyn Corrigan was sixteen years old when she got a chance to meet George H.W. Bush, excited to be introduced to a former president having grown up dreaming of going into politics.

But Corrigan was crushed by her encounter: Bush, then 79 years old, groped her buttocks at a November 2003 event in The Woodlands, Texas, office of the Central Intelligence Agency where Corrigan’s father gathered with fellow intelligence officers and family members to meet Bush, Corrigan said. Corrigan is the sixth woman since Oct. 24 to accuse Bush publicly of grabbing her buttocks without consent.

“My initial reaction was absolute horror. I was really, really confused,” Corrigan told TIME, speaking publicly for the first time about the encounter. “The first thing I did was look at my mom and, while he was still standing there, I didn’t say anything. What does a teenager say to the ex-president of the United States? Like, ‘Hey dude, you shouldn’t have touched me like that?’”

This is the sixth such allegation against Bush. But the girl’s young age makes this one more shocking than the others. Sixteen years old is one year younger than my daughter. What’s more, the previous “wheelchair excuse” Bush has used to defend against most of the other groping allegations doesn’t fly this time:

Previously, McGrath said Bush “has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner,” additionally attributing the act to his diminished height after being confined to a wheelchair since 2012. Bush was standing upright in 2003 when he met Corrigan.

One other alleged victim says she was groped by a standing H.W., in 2006.

Let’s be clear: this is not on the level of getting a hummer in the Oval Office, or using an intern as a humidor. If Democrats are going to fly into a rage about this, let them finally disavow Bill Clinton once and for all. His misdeeds were far worse, and were carried out while he was President, and he lied under oath and tried to intimidate witnesses over it. Yet he has been a welcome and favored speaker at Democrat events for ages, and was wildly cheered at the 2012 Democrat convention.

That said, just don’t touch women on the buttocks without their consent. This is not hard. What’s more, this was more than a grandfatherly pat on the rear. Corrigan describes it as a “nice, ripe squeeze.” That is disgusting.

While less serious than the Roy Moore allegations, the story bears some similarities to the Moore story. It’s an old allegation (here 14 years old instead of 38, but still old). There is no video proof and no admission. It’s one person’s word against that of another (or would be if Bush were denying it, which he doesn’t really seem to be doing). The word of the accuser is supported by several witnesses who say she told the story in the past, and by several other accusers whose stories describe similar (if arguably slightly less indefensible) behavior, establishing a pattern into which this story fits.

There are dissimilarities as well, of course — the most glaring of which is that George H.W. Bush is not currently running for any office. So his accuser here will face far less scrutiny (and scrutiny is appropriate) and smearing (inappropriate) than Moore’s accusers have faced. But many of the same arguments apply: why in the world would someone wait to come forward? and also let’s pick apart her life and repeat badly sourced rumors about her!

I’ve always liked H.W., but this is gross. The story is totally believable. In the post-Weinstein era, old accusations are more likely than ever to pop up. Some might be phony. Most probably aren’t. You have to look at each one on its merits, evaluate the accuser for bias, look for corroboration in the form of contemporaneous statements, other behavior, and the reaction of the accused, among other things. Looking at those factors, I believe the stories about H.W., and I tend to believe the ones about Moore as well.

Ultimately, for 98% of people, their reaction to this story (and the Roy Moore stories) revolves entirely around the letter that appears (or used to appear) after the person’s name: R or D? Nothing else really matters.


The post New Groping Allegation Against George H.W. Bush Is Different from the Others in a Disturbing Way appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Breitbart Confirms Key Detail of WaPo Story on Roy Moore, Refutes Another set out to re-report the Washington Post‘s Roy Moore story. In one aspect, they have uncovered an apparent contradiction between the versions of Leigh Corfman and that of her mother. In another aspect, they made the Washington Post‘s story seem stronger. Overall, their reporting seems to have done the Washington Post a favor — though that was clearly not their intent.

Let’s start with the contradiction they claim to have exposed. Their article reports:

Speaking by phone to Breitbart News on Saturday, Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71, says that her daughter did not have a phone in her bedroom during the period that Moore is reported to have allegedly called Corfman – purportedly on Corfman’s bedroom phone – to arrange at least one encounter.

If accurate, this does appear to contradict an aspect of Corfman’s claim. But . . .

I know that people who are dying to put this matter to rest for partisan reasons are about to get upset at me, but I have to tell you: if you think this one contradiction destroys Leigh Corfman’s account, you have revealed that you have little experience dealing with eyewitnesses. I have some experience in that area myself, and I agree with Paul Mirengoff regarding his dismissal of the significance of this contradiction:

Does Corfman’s faulty recollection about the phone undercut the thrust of that story? I spent decades working with and examining witnesses. In my view, Corfman’s mistake about the bedroom phone is the kind of error people often make when trying to remember details from the distant past. I don’t think her mistake regarding this detail bears much, if at all, on her overall credibility.

Corfman’s claim of sexual misconduct by Moore is not a detail. If she is erring about this matter, she’s not failing to remember something incidental. Her “error,” if she’s making one, is of a different nature — a lie, a delusion, or a substantial embellishment.

I think there are substantial reasons to disbelieve Corfman’s claim of improper sexual touching. I discussed them here. I don’t think her mistake about the location of the phone provides additional reason to dispute her claim.

I endorse wholeheartedly Mirengoff’s emphasis of the distinction between recollection of minor details and recollection of important events. This is Witness 101, and while partisans will no doubt cite the Breitbart story as The Death Blow to Corfman’s account, it is nothing of the sort.

That said, it is a contradiction, and my hat is off to Aaron Klein at Breitbart for going to the effort and probing the details.

Indeed, Klein has done the Washington Post a big favor — though he seems not to realize it — by confirming that Corfman did not seek out the Post; rather, they sought her out:

The mother of Leigh Corfman, who says that Alabama Senatorial Candidate Roy Moore tried to engage in a sexual encounter with her when she was 14, told Breitbart News that the Washington Post worked to convince her daughter to give an interview about the allegations against Moore.

Speaking by phone to Breitbart News on Saturday, Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71, further stated that her daughter would not have come forward if it weren’t for The Post reporter’s alleged actions.

. . . .

Corfman’s mother, Wells, told Breitbart News that reporters for the Washington Post convinced her daughter to give them an interview.

“She did not go to them,” said Wells. “They called her.”

“They tried to convince her to do it?” this reporter asked.

“Yes,” replied Wells, matter-of-factly.

Wells was asked about Corfman’s motivations for going public. “It wasn’t done for politics, you know,” Wells replied. “It was done for personal reasons. And it wouldn’t have been done if the reporters hadn’t contacted my daughter.”

Klein thinks that The Big Story here is that “Wells[’s] comments seem to indicate activist behavior on the part of the Washington Post reporters.” With all due respect, that’s horse droppings. (I did say “due.”) Her comments indicate reporting on the part of Washington Post reporters. Persuading reluctant witnesses to tell their story is a key skill of any great reporter.

But more importantly, the mom’s comments indicate that the key accuser, her daughter Leigh Corfman, is someone without a political vendetta. Think about it. In the war of words over the validity of the Washington Post‘s story about Roy Moore, the two sides have bitterly debated the motives of Moore’s accusers. Why did Leigh Corfman, the key accuser, come forward now, after 38 years? Surely it must be politically motivated on her part!

Nope. Just as the Post explained, this decision was made reluctantly — a fact that any lawyer will tell you increases her credibility, because it indicates lack of bias. Until now, you might have thought she was eager, and that the Washington Post was just spinning the facts to make her sound reluctant. Thanks to Aaron Klein, we now have confirmation of that key fact by a publication that has every ideological reason to help Moore and hurt Corfman.

So I’ll say something I don’t say often anymore: cheers to Their spin is silly, but hey — so is the spin of Big Media. At least they went and gathered some facts. Even if those facts, by and large, hurt Roy Moore rather than helping him.

The post Breitbart Confirms Key Detail of WaPo Story on Roy Moore, Refutes Another appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Sunday Music: Bach Cantata 115

Composed for the 22st Sunday after Trinity, the title of the cantata is “Mache dich, mein Geist, bereit” which translates as “Make yourself ready, my spirit.”

The text is here. The chorale used in the cantata is based on a melody called “Straf mich nicht in deinem Zorn.” The composer is anonymous.

In Bach’s time, the Gospel reading for the 22nd Sunday after Trinity was Matthew 18: 23-35, a parable told by Jesus after Peter asked him how many times one should forgive his neighbor:

“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

“At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ he servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.[b] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’

“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.

“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

Happy listening!

The post Sunday Music: Bach Cantata 115 appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State