http://donpolson.blogspot.com/ Bringing you the very best information, analysis and opinion from around the web. NOTE: For videos that don't start--go to article link to view. FAVORITE SITES FOR INFO: https://pjmedia.com , www.powerlineblog.com , https://rumble.com/c/Bongino , instapundit.com https://justthenews.com , https://Bonginoreport.com
As we previously reported, on Thursday, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Donald Trump for alleged campaign finance violations over so-called “hush money” payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. The indictment was a surprise for a number of reasons. For starters, on Wednesday, it was reported that the grand jury would be going on break for a month “largely due to a previously scheduled hiatus.”
According to Politico, the break “would push any indictment of the former president to late April at the earliest, although it is possible that the grand jury’s schedule could change.” According to the report, the grand jury was not expected to examine any evidence in the Trump case on Thursday.
Then there were reports that prosecutors were having trouble persuading the jury to accept that Trump is guilty of a crime.
“They are having trouble convincing the jury to swallow the case. It’s a weak case and has caused divisions in the DA’s office,” a source close to the investigation told the Daily Mail.
So, in a week’s time, the grand jury went from being unconvinced to indicting Trump, despite few opportunities to hear more evidence after Costello’s testimony?
The looming indictment seemed to really be fizzling out when Bragg himself started downplaying the possibility that Trump would be indicted, accusing Trump of creating “a false expectation” of a pending arrest. How did we get from a case falling apart to an indictment? Whatever happened, I suspect that Bragg was too invested in his witchhunt not to continue pushing it until the grand jury sided with him. The implications of this would be significant.
The fact that a former president who is currently running for president can be targeted by a blatantly partisan district attorney for a non-felony offense implies that anyone, including you, can also be targeted if you don’t have the right political views. We have to expose this corruption at every turn. Join us in our efforts to expose the leftists abusing the justice system to target Trump by becoming a PJ Media VIP member. Use the promo code WITCHHUNT to take advantage of a 50% discount on your membership.
No sooner had word emerged that a Nashville Christian school had been attacked by a mass shooter on Monday than the Left began dissembling about guns again. The shift from “thoughts and prayers” to “grab the guns from law-abiding gun owners!” occurred at hypersonic speed. And it was all wrong.
To save time, here’s a simple request by people who believe in the right to bear arms, which is explicitly guaranteed in the United States Constitution and is a God-given right. Stop lying. Try. It’s not that hard, and someone’s life depends on it.
First, let’s acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a real and treatable mental issue and obviously experienced by this 28-year-old biological female, who lived with her parents, and who police called a “she” even though the media insist we call her a “male.” She’s dead now, and her feelings won’t be hurt anymore by someone telling the truth about her. She can’t be defamed. And, obviously, “dead-naming” her is no longer an issue.
Think about this and many other after-effects of these lies. Imagine how this kind of “misgendering” will show up in crime stats. Males do the overwhelming number of mass shootings. It’s a fact. Will this wanna-be man show up in the crime stats as a male or female now? How does that help society understand the mentality of mass shooters? We need to stop lying about that too.
But here’s today’s lesson for the Left. You’ll want to commit this to memory, so pay attention as I explain this in words of one syllable.
Repeat after me: good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.
And I can prove it.
First, who was called when the shooting broke out? That’s right, cops. Cops are called because they have guns. And let’s say something about these police officers who selflessly and bravely ran up the stairs to the sound of gunfire. They passed at least one body of a child without flinching and continued running to stop the monster. And they quickly dispatched this killer — unlike the cops in Uvalde, Texas. Watch the bodycam footage below.
You know the sad cliché: when seconds matter, cops are only minutes away.
And the killer knew it too. I repeat: the killer knew it too. This murderer knew this peaceful Christian school she’d attended as a girl years before was a gun-free zone, as are most schools in Tennessee.
During the news conference Monday after the shooting, Police Chief John Drake told the truth about this killer. It’s a near-universal truth about mass shooters.
It was the only school that was targeted. There was another location that was mentioned , but because of a threat assessment by the suspect — too much security — decided not to in another area of Nashville.So we’re continuing with that investigation as well. [emphasis added]
We know this because, like so many mass killers before, the killer left a manifesto that expressly stated she had another target in mind, but there were too many people with guns there.
The killer was dressed in camo, a tac vest brimming with what was likely ammo, and tactical gloves. The troubled killer, who was undergoing mental health therapy and was possibly suicidal, chose the school because there was no one with a gun who would fight back and put her down.
The Left needs to be relentlessly, but gently, corrected and acidly, but calmly, castigated for using the false and deadly trope that fewer guns mean fewer shootings. They couldn’t be more wrong.
As we’ve learned from the Crime Research Center’s John Lott, the defensive use of a concealed handgun stops 34% of all kinds of attacks. This is contrary to the view of the FBI, which claims only 4%. The FBI generally keeps pretty ship-shape crime stats but has omitted from their stats cases that Lott has included in his.
But even if the Left doesn’t like his stats, in this case, good guys with guns defeated a killer. Indeed, the killer could have been stopped sooner had one adult in the school been armed.
So the Democrats decided to indict Donald Trump after all. (I assume that Alvin Bragg would not have proceeded without a green light from higher-ups in the party.) Here, as in so many other areas, we are in uncharted waters. The Democrats have launched a sort of blitzkrieg against our traditions, our Constitution, our culture (at least, our culture as it was), and every form of restraint that makes civil society possible. They have unleashed a wind, and seem serenely confident that they will never face a whirlwind. I don’t know, maybe they are right. I do know that after today, our country will never be the same again.
In the short term, the indictment will help Donald Trump politically. Perhaps that was the Democrats’ intention. But I don’t think any of us can foresee how it will play out. Legally speaking, the indictment is a joke. No doubt Trump will try to have it dismissed, but I don’t know enough about criminal procedure in New York to have any idea how long that will take, or what his prospects of success are. Bear in mind that any motion to dismiss will most likely be heard by a Trump-hating Democratic judge. If the case makes it to trial, it will go before a New York jury that probably will consist entirely of Democrats and–once again–Trump haters. There is no way a conviction can be ruled out. Appeals would follow, likely taking a year or more.
No doubt Trump will get a political bump in the short term, but what if the case is still going on when the primary season begins? Will Republican primary voters really want to nominate a candidate who is in the midst of a criminal proceeding that theoretically could send him to jail? I don’t know.
But I do know that today is an evil day in America’s history. The Democrats are behaving like a party from a pre-Enlightenment, pre-constitutional era. Seeing themselves in the driver’s seat, they are making a naked grab for totalitarian power across a broad range of issues and institutions. Indicting a former president on frivolous grounds is shocking, but it is of a piece with the strategies Democrats are following in Washington and across the country.
Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) took to the House floor Monday in response to the Nashville school shooting, saying he was furious at Republican “cowards” who “don’t give a damn” about children and won’t back gun control legislation.
The freshman congressman slammed his Republican colleagues in a terse but fiery speech:
I rise today because I am furious, angry that three kids died today in Nashville, Tennessee. Angry that hundreds of parents had to cry their eyes out today not knowing if their child would come home from school, and angry that we have to live day after day when we turn on the news and see rampant gun violence claiming life after life.
And all of this is because politicians in this chamber that have been bought and paid for by the NRA, that put profits over people, over human lives. Cowards who wasted our time last week passing a Parental Bill of Rights, not giving a damn about the rights of children to go to their classroom without the fear of being gunned down due to senseless gun violence.
“It is likely that at this moment, the next mass shooter is planning their shooting,” Frost said. “What will this chamber do about it? I filed my bill last week to simply create a federal office of gun violence prevention. Three kids are dead today and every day that we wait, 100 more people die. I pray to God there are some Republicans in this chamber that can help support my legislation to save lives.”
Alright, folks. We know what Frost has to say about this.
Now, it’s my turn.
Dear Rep. Frost,
I see that you’re rather upset about how your Republican colleagues have not joined you in passing gun control measures you believe to be the way forward, calling them “cowards.”
That’s a fascinating take, but one that has absolutely no reflection on reality.
You see, for them to be cowards in this instance, it would require them to believe that gun control is the right answer but are too afraid to pass it for whatever reason. Neither you nor anyone else has presented anything in the way of evidence to support this, however, which makes me wonder a few things.
First, what do they have to be afraid of, anyway? People such as yourself routinely claim that the public agrees with you on gun control. If that’s true, then they wouldn’t have anything to fear from their constituents, now would they?
And don’t try to sell me on the idea that these lawmakers are beholden to the NRA for anything. I know it’s a common talking point among gun control advocates, but the truth is that groups pushing for that gun control have deep pockets too.
So what do they have to be afraid of?
The answer, of course, is nothing. So the idea that they secretly agree with you doesn’t seem to hold up under scrutiny.
So what is the answer? Why do they refuse to pass gun control as you wish, Rep. Frost?
Maybe the issue is that people such as yourself can’t muster a coherent argument in defense of your precious gun control and must resort to high-school-level antics of trying to shame grown adults into compliance. Instead, you throw a temper tantrum because this House passed bills that had nothing to do with gun control or mass shootings–nor were they intended to, it should be noted–while you fail to lash out at your fellow Democrats for their own non-gun control efforts.Pro-gun lawmakers aren’t cowards. They aren’t afraid. That’s just something you tell yourself when you go to bed so you can feel better about being about as convincing as a four-day-old salad.
So knock it off.
If you want something done, calling your colleagues names isn’t exactly going to entice them to come over to your side. Act like an adult, for crying out loud, and try talking to people who disagree with you and find areas where maybe you can make a change without trampling on our rights.
Last week, the city of Philadelphia agreed to pay $9.25 million to 343 left-wing protesters who alleged they suffered “physical and emotional injuries” when police used tear gas and pepper spray to clear them off a major highway in downtown at a Black Lives Matter-style direct action in 2020.
Videos recorded at the time showed the mob shut down the highway while vandalizing public property.
Some believe billionaire George Soros is responsible.
And they would be partially correct. Soros funds groups that form part of the support apparatus of left-wing militants — district attorneys, biased media and legal groups.
But his money doesn’t directly reach the pockets of militants on the street.
Who ends up paying far-left rioters like Antifa? Too often, taxpayers like you and me.
Through a developed network of radical leftist legal groups, like the National Lawyers Guild, lawfare against cities and police departments is the go-to method for payloads. At nearly every left-wing “direct action” or riot, you’ll see NLG “legal observers” move in and out with the mob to record police. This “evidence gathering” is propaganda made to portray the police in the worst possible light while specifically omitting any recordings of what their comrades do.
Independent press are subjected to assault and robbery by others in the group to maintain tight control over the narrative and any photographic evidence. Kyle Seraphin, a former-FBI agent who was assigned to do surveillance in Portland during the 2020 Antifa riots, says the green-hat “legal observers” were linked via radio with the mob and worked as auxiliary counter-surveillance.
Seraphin told me: “My team witnessed several instances of NLG hat-wearing ‘legal observers’ calling out the license plates of suspected surveillance personnel [over] radios — sometimes accurately, sometimes not. These call-outs were met with a response by 5-6 uniformly clad, black-bloc individuals who attempted to intimidate the suspected ‘fed.’ ”
On March 5, an NLG member and staff attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center named Thomas Jurgens was charged with domestic terrorism for his alleged involvement in a violent Antifa attack on police in Atlanta.
When the NLG’s legal observers and their comrades are arrested, they’re immediately provided with pro-bono legal aid and connections for bail money (rioters often write the NLG’s phone number on their body in anticipation of arrests.)
In Detroit, NLG members are suing the city for alleged wrongful conduct stemming from its police response in 2020.
Nearly every American city afflicted by mass protesting and rioting in 2020 ended up settling and paying out millions in taxpayer money to radical protesters who were allegedly subjected to force by law enforcement.
Denver settled to pay $1.6 million to just seven people.
Austin settled to pay $17.3 million.
The cities, led by Democrats, don’t even bother to fight the cases, preferring to write a check.
The settlement cash doesn’t just end up rewarding the protesters, awarded inflated attorney fees are used to reinvest in the legal groups to grow the operation for the next cause. Additionally, law enforcement morale declines as they are punished for doing their jobs.
But lawsuit settlements aren’t the only way that militant protesters and riot suspects get paid. Bail funds have emerged as a lucrative cash source with progressive district attorneys refusing to prosecute most left-wing riot-related cases.
In Portland, for example, the 2020 riot suspects that needed bail money due to the seriousness of their felony charges later received the cash back when district attorney Mike Schmidt declined to prosecute. I witnessed this creating an incentive for rioters to get arrested, as outside groups covered the bail and the suspect would keep the returned cash when the case was dropped.
The NLG is just one among dozens of well-financed legal groups across the U.S. operating to help the far left.
In Philadelphia, the Legal Defense Fund, which was one of the groups representing the plaintiffs in last week’s multi-million dollar settlement, previously received a $1 million pledge from Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
The second most-asked question I’m asked is if mass far-left riots will erupt again. I can’t predict when but the answer is yes.
The systems that provide legal, social and financial incentives to far-left extremists, no matter how violent they are, have become better funded following 2020.
Andy Ngo is senior editor at The Post Millennial and author of the NYT bestseller, “Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy.”