Throughout my life, no matter who has been in charge of federal or state prosecutions, there have been voices alleging some level of politicization of the law enforcement process. Mostly, those allegations have been about improper use of government resources to protect those in power, who should be relying on their own private lawyers when their own conduct is at issue.
But then there is the subject of use of the government’s law enforcement and regulatory authority to harass, disable and convict political opponents of the régime. Prior to the Trump Derangement Syndrome era, those sorts of abuses had been notably rare during my lifetime. (That doesn’t mean that they have been unknown during the existence of the United States. Important examples of prosecutions of political opponents of the incumbent régime since the founding of the Republic include the many prosecutions during the John Adams presidency in 1799-1800 under the Alien and Sedition Acts, the prosecution in 1807 of ex-Vice President Aaron Burr by President Thomas Jefferson, and the prosecution in 1918 of Eugene Debs under President Woodrow Wilson.)
But there is nothing remotely comparable in our history to the diversion of law enforcement resources during the past four years toward the effort to take down the political opponents of the régime. The most important example by far is, of course, the effort by the Biden Administration, plus Democratic Party prosecutor allies in deep blue cities New York and Atlanta, to convict Donald Trump as a way to prevent him from re-taking the office of President. I have previously written about that subject, for example here.
For today I want to focus on treatment during this time period of some others who have appeared to the powers that be to be insufficiently politically correct.
Daniel Penny
Editor's Note: This article was originally published before the verdict clearing Penny was in, but the points being made remain. RK
Penny is currently on trial in Manhattan for allegedly killing a guy named Jordan Neely on a New York subway train in May 2023. This case has been big news in New York, but others will likely be less familiar with the facts. Penny’s prosecutor is our woke icon, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Bragg is famous, among other things, for his absurd prosecution of Trump for mis-characterizing in his own books the blackmail payments to Stormy Daniels, as well as for refusing to prosecute thousands of cases of things like shoplifting and fare-beating in the subway.
Penny, then a 25-year-old ex-Marine from Long Island, was riding a subway train in Manhattan in May 2023 when a deranged homeless guy named Jordan Neely entered the car and began threatening and menacing the passengers. Penny stepped up to protect the others and got Neely in a chokehold, while others called 911. Penny held Neely for 6 minutes until the police arrived, and then released him. Although Neely was alive when Penny released him, he subsequently died. As an example, one of the witnesses to the event testified that she was “scared s—tless” by Neely’s conduct. For more details on the facts, see a December 3 New York Post account here. While letting thousands of shoplifters and fare-beaters go, Bragg has chosen to prosecute Penny.
The case went to the jury on Tuesday this past week. I was expecting that the jury would quickly acquit, but instead on Friday it announced it was deadlocked on the main charge of manslaughter. At the prosecution’s request that charge was then dismissed. The jury will return on Monday to consider a lesser charge of negligent homicide, which is not a trivial charge.
Michael Byrd
For a fair comparison to the treatment of a régime enemy like Penny, consider the treatment of régime friend Michael Byrd. Byrd was one of the officers of the Capitol Police who were present during the January 6 protests in 2021. Byrd is the guy who drew his pistol and fired at point-blank range, killing unarmed, non-violent demonstrator Ashli Babbitt.
By April 2021 the Justice Department had announced that it had closed its investigation into the incident without bringing charges. Justice also helpfully kept Byrd’s name a secret (although he subsequently outed himself). John Solomon at Just the News has an update on the case on December 4. According to Solomon’s piece, both then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and her deputies Steny Hoyer and Tim Ryan, got involved in getting various sorts of special treatment for Byrd. He ended up with a special bonus of $37,000, a promotion to captain, and help in raising charitable funds of over $100,000. From Solomon:
Internal USCP emails obtained by (Representative) Loudermilk’s subcommittee and reviewed by Just the News show the police department worked to provide significant benefits to Byrd after the shooting, including housing, security protection due to threats to his life, and went to great lengths to promote then-Lieutenant Byrd to captain. At the same time, the emails suggest House Democratic leadership, including the office of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Rep. Tim Ryan worked closely with the Capitol Police to secure benefits for Byrd. . . .
Regulatory harassment: De-banking
Back in January at a speech in New Hampshire, candidate Trump raised the issue of “de-banking” as something significant that régime regulators were doing to their political opponents:
We’re going to place strong protections to stop banks and regulators from trying to debank you from your— your political beliefs what they do. They want to debank you.
He was promptly hit by a shower of ridicule from Democrats who claimed that he had made up the term. MSNBC here called Trump’s line a “rant” with a “message to far-right extremists.” On SNL on January 28, the “Weekend Update” segment mocked Trump for using the word “de-bank,” and suggested that he had made it up.
De-banking is very real and deadly serious. The Telegraph did a major piece on December 6, which can be found outside of paywall at Yahoo News here. Excerpt:
Technology billionaires, many of whom supported Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, accuse the Biden administration of cutting them off from the US banking system. Executives, primarily drawn from the cryptocurrency industry, have railed against what they have dubbed “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” – an alleged government effort to smother their businesses by making it almost impossible to maintain a formal banking presence. “This is one of the reasons we ended up supporting Trump,” Marc Andreessen, the billionaire co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, told the podcaster Joe Rogan last week. “We’ve had, like, 30 founders debanked in the last four years.” Over the last week, these claims have been amplified by billionaire Trump supporters, including Elon Musk, as well as dozens of cryptocurrency and tech founders. They allege they have been cut off from the US banking system by the Biden administration and government watchdogs.
So exactly what legal or regulatory authority do members of Biden administrative agencies have to cut political opponents off from the banking system? Basically, most of it is extra-legal. The regulators go to banks and politely suggest that they will face “reputational risk” if they continue to service Mr. or Ms. X as a customer. Example of some prominent people who have been de-banked:
In her book, Melania Trump, the former first lady, claimed her bank account and that of her son Barron were shut down in the wake of the Jan 6 riots. “This decision appeared to be rooted in political discrimination,” she wrote.
Over in the UK, Nigel Farage got the same treatment.
I’m starting to get very excited with anticipation of a lot of these deep state types finally getting held accountable when Trump resumes office. And by the way, I’m not looking for them to be prosecuted criminally, or even “de-banked.” Firing would suffice.
No comments:
Post a Comment