RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.city-journal.org/article/murder-of-officer-diller-a-wake-up-call-for-nyc

New York City was shaken Monday by the shooting death of NYPD officer Jonathan Diller, 31, during a car stop in Far Rockaway, Queens. Diller reportedly sensed something was off about the Kia illegally parked, blocking a bus stop, and approached. After Diller repeatedly asked Guy Rivera, 34, to step out of the passenger seat, Rivera shot the officer through the door, fatally hitting him below his bulletproof vest.

Known as a selfless, already-decorated public servant, Diller lived on Long Island with his young bride and one-year-old son. His cold-blooded murder resonated with New Yorkers’ growing personal fears of crime and lawlessness. In a recent Citizens Budget Commission poll, barely a third of New Yorkers report happiness with their neighborhood’s safety. Less than half feel even somewhat secure riding the subway during the day, down from over 80 percent across recent decades; at night, that figure drops to 22 percent. And no wonder: Monday’s 6 p.m. gunfire sent those at the nearby Rockaway–Mott Avenue station scattering in terror.

The nightmare of such violence and of Officer Diller’s death should be understood as a referendum on New York’s current elected leadership, which takes every opportunity to undercut basic solutions to danger. Despite overwhelming evidence that police, prosecution, and incarceration are how cities keep citizens safe, New York’s clueless progressive leaders continue to demand laws barring these tools, advocating instead for magically curing crime’s “root causes.”

This hubristic approach was epitomized at last week’s city council hearings by New York City Public Advocate and gubernatorial hopeful Jumaane Williams. After helpfully invoking “peace and blessings,” Williams insisted that crime is just a misperception, and that, since New York State enacted bail reform in 2019, “recidivism rates are pretty similar and some points have even gone down.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/potemkin-feminism/

Remember Christine Blasey-Ford? She is the psychologist whom former California Senator Dianne Feinstein discovered and groomed to be a hostile witness in the 2018 Supreme Court hearings for Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Her appearance was carefully timed for the end of the hearings for more impact. But her story describing Kavanagh’s alleged sexual assault of her at a high school party decades earlier was full holes and lacked credible evidence.

Now, just in time for the November election, she’s on a book-tour, garnering screen-time and specious praise for her “bravery.” So far, all the tour has accomplished is to publicize one of her own witnesses, Mark Judge, who she claimed was also at the party. But Judge told Fox News that he wasn’t there. And at the time of the hearings, in a letter to Senators he also said, “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

These tactics, replete with hoaxes lacking confirmable empirical evidence, are sadly all too familiar. For example, in 2006, the Duke University lacrosse team, three of whom were charged by an incompetent or unscrupulous District Attorney with kidnapping, rape, and first-degree sexual offenses against an exotic dancer. Many corporate media outlets rushed to judgement, wielding stale politically correct clichés that libeled the team––“The Real Face of Duke University,” “Spoiled Sports,” “Jocks and Prejudice,” “Wolves in Blazers and Khakis,” and “Will Duke Take a Look at Itself?” are a few.

By the way, does anyone believe that in this age of radical “woke” prosecutors, those Duke students would have been exculpated because the state bar filed ethics charges against the District Attorney for “withholding exculpatory evidence and making inflammatory statements about the case”?

These politically weaponized tactics have sprung from the hijacking of feminism that was obvious in the Nineties. A movement that had begun in order to ensure the integrity of women’s Constitutional rights, has now become a political weapon for pushing progressivism’s technocratic ambitions for expanding the reach and power both of the government, and of the factions sharing that aim to “fundamentally transform” the United States.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/03/no-one-is-above-the-law-that-means-a-trump-doj-must-indict-joe-biden/

Let’s apply the new Trump standard.

Special counsel Robert Hur found that there was enough evidence to charge Joe Biden with a crime, yet he didn’t.

As we know, Hur concluded that a jury would probably find that Biden didn’t have criminal intent, although he stipulated during his congressional hearing a couple of weeks ago that a reasonable juror might conclude that Biden was guilty.

If this wasn’t an outlandish decision on Hur’s part, neither was it inevitable. Clearly, the fact that recommending charges against Biden would have been a thermonuclear political event, potentially affecting the election outcome, helped stay Hur’s hand. He could have gone by the strict letter of the law but allowed prudential considerations — again, not unreasonably — to play a role.

The ongoing bout of civil cases and criminal indictments against Donald Trump and, soon enough, a criminal trial raise the question: Why, if Trump wins election, should his Justice Department accept Hur’s judgment? Why wouldn’t it simply take Hur’s report and fashion it into an indictment of former president Biden?

After all, if there’s anything we’ve learned recently, it’s that no one is above the law.

After getting her fraud judgment against Trump, New York attorney general Letitia James said, “No matter how big, rich or powerful you think you are, no one is above the law.”