RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-yorks-government-is-the-real-villain-in-the-daniel-penny-trial

Now that Daniel Penny has been acquitted of the absurd homicide charges against him, perhaps New York City and State officials can be put on trial. They are responsible not only for the death of Jordan Neely, the drug-addicted schizophrenic whom Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg accused Penny of recklessly killing, but for the assaults on and killings of hundreds of New Yorkers by mentally ill vagrants whom politicians allow to roam the streets. Yet according to Bragg and his office, it was Penny who needed to be imprisoned, for the safety of city residents, for having protected his fellow citizens from a potential murderer.

For now, the heroic male virtues of chivalry, self-reliance, and initiative have been vindicated, in the face of government’s effort to snuff those values out. How much longer those traits will survive under elite pressure remains to be seen. New York officials should take the Penny acquittal as a wakeup call, however. Their authority may be slipping away, a development adumbrated by last month’s national election results.

The Daniel Penny homicide trial was a travesty of justice. On May 1, 2023, a psychotic, wildly gesticulating vagrant burst into a New York subway car as it travelled beneath Manhattan’s SoHo district. The new arrival, Jordan Neely, started screaming that he wanted to return to jail and was ready to die. Some eyewitnesses recalled that the 30-year-old Neely threatened to kill the straphangers.

The passengers were terrified, and rightly so. New York’s seriously mentally ill residents are time bombs who regularly explode. They push subway riders in front of moving trains; above ground, they club, shoot, and stab their victims. Three weeks after the May 1, 2023, subway incident, another street denizen slammed a woman’s head into a subway car, paralyzing her for life. This November 18, a 51-year-old vagrant with the inevitable long rap sheet and seeming immunity from extended incarceration went on a stabbing rampage throughout Manhattan, slashing to death a 36-year-old construction worker, a 67-year-old man fishing in the East River, and a 36-year-old woman sitting on a park bench. As recently as December 1, a screaming female pushed a 43-year-old man onto the subway tracks in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. She has not been apprehended, but it is a virtual certainty that she, too, has had numerous run-ins with outreach workers and the police that resulted in no long-term confinement.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/12/10/bidens-pardon-a-smokescreen-for-corruption/

Joe Biden has carefully cultivated his image as an empathetic man of the people. In reality, his career has been marked by a relentless pursuit of wealth for himself and his family. His son Hunter Biden was central to these schemes, operating as the family “bag man” for various influence-peddling operations overseas.

As such, Joe Biden’s decision to pardon Hunter is not an act of mercy or justice or even paternal loyalty but a cynical maneuver to shield both Hunter and Joe Biden from responsibility.

Its brazenness has moved even Joe Biden’s most ardent defenders to condemnation.

Double Standards and the “Rule of Law”

After all the pious talk invoking the “rule of law” during the years-long prosecutions of Donald Trump, Hunter’s pardon shows that there has always been a parallel set of rules, through which the powerful and politically favored can escape scrutiny. This case is also a reminder of how the rule of law can be perverted not only by being too harsh but also by being too solicitous.

The media have feigned shock at his pardon, but they should have known better. Even before he was facing charges, Hunter’s job as a highly paid board member of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, was absurd on its face. He had no relevant skills or qualifications justifying a $50,000 monthly salary—except, of course, his last name.

Similarly, the revelation that Hunter involved his father in business meetings with individuals from Kazakhstan and other foreign nations gained little traction among the media or official Washington. The media even dismissed the infamous “10% for the big guy” email found on Hunter’s laptop, which strongly implies a quid pro quo arrangement between Hunter and his dad.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/12/09/bidens-paranoid-pardons-and-leftist-morality/

Pardoner-in-Chief

Joe Biden has now established two precedents in presidential history.

First, he “pardoned” his own son Hunter.

No prior president has ever tried that shameless act, which is an affront to the entire hallowed notion of “equality under the law.”.

Second, he did so in a way that no president has rarely, if ever, pardoned anyone.

Hunter, a convicted federal felon awaiting sentencing, was gifted by his father a blanket exemption from federal prosecution over the entire past decade (2014-2024).

Biden thus exempted Hunter from a series of much-discussed past criminal activities and provided further pardons for any federal criminal exposure occurring over the last ten years—yet to turn up.

Given the Biden suppression of the justice system and the media’s complicity in hiding the Biden family’s criminality, it is quite possible that in the next few years, disinterested prosecutors might finally expose Hunter Biden’s long-suppressed, sordid career. And that could mean possible criminal exposure for three generations of Bidens.

Third, in the remaining waning 40 days of his now nonperforming presidency, Biden threatens to establish yet another presidential precedent. He contemplates issuing pardons to a variety of controversial cronies, bureaucrats, and officers—even though none of them have yet been indicted or even are under federal investigation.

Worse, Biden completed his shameless trifecta by breaking his serial pledge, voiced at least six times, and most prominently as a 2024 campaign plug, unequivocally not to pardon Hunter Biden.

That performance-art braggadocio was serially greeted—by design—with glee in the media.

On spec, the vow supposedly contrasted Biden’s “reverence for the rule of law” with a purportedly legally insubordinate Trump.

Biden would put the law above family. Trump, in contrast, was supposedly chronically questioning the morality, fairness, and legality of his own five criminal and civil indictments over the campaign cycle—some of them (i.e., Bragg, Smith, Willis) demonstrably with the full knowledge of, if not coordinated by, the Biden White House.