Loose Ends (73)

Feel good story of the day: Remember when Harry Reid lost an epic battle with an exercise band in his bathroom a few years back, leaving the former boxer from Searchlight, Nevada looking like he’d gone 20 seconds in the ring with Mike Tyson in his prime? Well guess what, mom: Reid has lost to the exercise band a second time, when a jury ruled against him in his civil suit against the manufacturer:

Las Vegas Jury Rules Against Harry Reid in Civil Case

A Las Vegas jury ruled against former U.S. Sen Harry Reid after about an hour of deliberations Friday in his civil case against the makers of a resistance exercise band.

Reid was injured while using an exercise band and blamed the injuries for ending his political career. He and his wife of nearly 60 years, Landra Gould, attended closing arguments Friday but did not return to the courtroom for the verdict.

One of the couple’s lawyers, Jim Wilkes, who called himself a “good friend” of Reid’s, said he expected that the former senator would respect the jury’s decision.

Here’s the intriguing part of the story:

But Laurin Quiat, a lawyer for the TheraBand makers, argued that Reid caused his own injuries because he used the band “contrary to every instruction he had been given.” The lawyer also said Reid had not been truthful about what happened and whether it led to his departure from politics. . .

About two months after his injury, Reid, who was Senate minority leader at the time, announced that he would not seek re-election. . . “The one thing we do know is he struggles with telling the truth,” the lawyer said.

And this is from Reid’s home town paper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Heh.

Guess who is starting to worry that Democrats might be going a little bit crazy? Yup:

Former President Barack Obama on Saturday chided fellow Democrats for creating a “circular firing squad” that targets party members who don’t support far-left views.

“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives,” he continued, “we start sometimes creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad’ where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues.”

Oh c’mon. Don’t bill a killjoy Barack. I’ll provide free ammunition for the circular firing squad. Also popcorn for onlookers.

The college admission scandal just got more interesting, with the news that Harvard might have a similar scandal on its hand involving a “side-door” with the fencing team. Although not part of the “Varsity Blues” investigation (yet), it certainly sounds fishy. The College Fix has a better summary than the languid Globe piece:

Harvard University on Thursday informed the campus community that it is launching an investigation into its head fencing coach after officials discovered that a wealthy businessman whose sons were admitted to the Ivy League institution had purchased the coach’s home for far above its appraised value. . .

Jie Zhao purchased the home for nearly $1 million, which was almost double the house’s estimated $549,300 value in 2016, and then sold it 17 months later after his younger son was admitted to Harvard’s fencing team, the Globe reported. Zhao took a loss of over $300,000 and had reportedly never moved in. He told the Globe had had purchased it as an investment but then decided to later sell it to move on a new investment opportunity.

The article also details that scrutiny is now being placed on Zhao’s and Brand’s ties with the National Fencing Foundation. Zhao gave the group $1 million in February 2013, and the foundation gave the Peter Brand Foundation $100,000 in 2014, the Globe reported.

“That fall, Zhao’s older son, who had a sterling high school academic and fencing record, started at Harvard,” the newspaper reported.

Well, I suppose bribing the fencing coach is one way for an Asian kid to get into Harvard against the blatant discrimination Asians receive from the Harvard admissions process.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses