Flashback June 2020: Mark Steyn: “The Mann vs Steyn case is about to enter its ninth year in the choked septic tank of the District of Columbia (pending name change) “judicial” system.” … “The process IS the punishment.” The Costs of Mann Delay: or Michael E Mann, Loser (Again) and Deadbeat (for Sure) :: SteynOnline
#
Also see Mark Steyn’s devastating book: “A Disgrace to the Profession” – The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science – Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn, with illustrations by Josh
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1353165090992873472.html
Mark Steyn has filed an eviscerating and well-informed Motion for Summary Judgement in the Michael Mann vanity libel suit. https://t.co/VCCfPtnhWq
with memorandum https://t.co/fp4kkAXdrW— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) January 24, 2021
Comments by Stephen McIntyre: Mark Steyn has filed an eviscerating and well-informed Motion for Summary Judgement in the Michael Mann vanity libel suit. steynonline.com/documents/1097…
with memorandum steynonline.com/documents/1097…
5/ Steyn observed that Easterling participated in Inquiry Committee activities despite purporting to recuse. Steyn omitted most important example: Easterling intervened to prevent Inquiry Committee from contacting Mann critics and victims climateaudit.org/2011/11/15/new…
keep in mind (1) that Mann's lawsuit claims that he was "exonerated" and (2) that function of Inquiry Committee was NOT to determine guilt, but to determine whether to proceed to investigation. Don't read this phrase out of context.
— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) January 24, 2021
I was woefully behind on this issue, but reading this helped bring me up to date, I think. I didn’t know a court filing could be written this way, though. It started out more like a moderate polemic, and then settled down into being very informative. It was also very readable.
I hadn’t known any of the details it contains about the Penn State committee that was supposed to investigate Mann. It fits my preconceived notions of how the deep state works to protect its own, though. For example, a member of the committee who had recused himself continued to be involved behind the scenes. And the President of the university, to whom the committee was supposed to be reporting, was giving feedback and suggestions regarding the drafting of the report.
Steyn makes the point that the Michael Mann case is of one piece with the Jerry Sandusky case, in which Penn State also fostered a culture in which the university’s reputation was temporarily protected at the expense of ethical considerations.