New york

Daniel Penny is heading back to a New York courthouse today to face charges for the murder of Jordan Neely. Penny, with the help two other bystanders, held Neely, who had a criminal history and mental health issues, in a chokehold after Neely made repeated threats to other passengers on a subway car. Neely died during the incident — and Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg chose to indict Penny for second-degree murder, despite downgrading over 50 percent of felonies to misdemeanors in 2022. Crime has risen in New York City since 2020, and the city has done precious little to address it, though Mayor Eric Adams has been slightly more proactive than his predecessor, Bill de Blasio. Go back a few decades, however, and you find the Big Apple in an almost unimaginably worse situation.

The mixed verdict delivered by the jury in the Donald Trump civil rape case will be interpreted differently by those who support and oppose the former president.   On the main count that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll, the nine-person jury unanimously found that he did not. The plaintiff could not even satisfy its low burden of proof, namely proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In so finding, the jury apparently disbelieved at least part of the plaintiff’s testimony. She was very specific about being raped, not merely sexually abused or molested, as the jury did find.   It’s a strange verdict.

Tensions ran high this week after Jordan Neely, a homeless street performer with a record of violence, was killed by Daniel Penney, a twenty-four-year-old Marine. Penney placed Neely in a chokehold on a New York City subway train. The usual suspects, such as Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, swung into action, calling the incident “murder” and a “lynching” respectively. Conservative media was alive with dire warnings of potential violent protests in response to this death of a black man at the hands of a white man. But a funny thing happened on the way to the riots: they didn’t occur. So what makes this situation so different from incidents of racially tinged violence in the recent past?

So, everyone was even more right than they thought: Alvin Bragg’s breathlessly awaited arraignment of former president Donald Trump really was the Oakland of all arraignments. It was just as Gertrude Stein said of that California city: there is no there there. The indictment had thirty-four counts — thirty-four! Everyone expected them to be more or less the same count, just repeated with some sort of elegant variation to hold the attention of his audience. But, minimalist that he is, the George-Soros-funded district attorney exceeded expectation. Bragg came up with one charge. The statute of limitations had passed on it, but that didn’t matter. He liked the charge, misdemeanor though it was.

Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg officially indicted Donald Trump on April 4 on thirty-four counts of “falsifying business records in the first degree... with the intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” This makes Trump the first president in US history to be indicted on a criminal charge. Not willing to let any opportunity — however ignominious — go to waste, Trump is already selling t-shirts on his website featuring a digitally-created mugshot with the words “Not Guilty” emblazoned below and the prisoner code "45-47" (get it?). The former president was not required to take an actual mugshot by Bragg's office.

On the day after District Attorney, Alvin Bragg confirmed that a grand jury had indicted former president, Donald Trump, his office’s general counsel made a bizarre request of three House Republican committee chairmen. In a letter to Representatives Jim Jordan, Bryan Steil and James Comer, Leslie Dubeck asked the lawmakers to denounce Trump’s “harsh invective” against Bragg. Trump had warned that his indictment or arrest might unleash “death and destruction.” On social media, Trump’s supporters have vilified Bragg. “As committee chairmen,” Dubeck suggests, “you could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury.