For years, many of us have raised concerns over the political weaponization of the New York legal system from the civil fraud case against the Trump company by New York Attorney General Letitia James to the criminal prosecution by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The popularity of these lawfare warriors shows how a dual legal system has taken hold in the city. That was never more evident than in the decision of Bragg to drop the case against Brianna J. Rivers, 30, who assaulted a pro-life advocate in a case of political violence. While blamed on negligence within his office, the dropping of the prosecution of Rivers is only the latest example of enabling those who turn to violence in our political system.
Rivers was captured on videotape attacking Craven Antao after she asked Rivers questions about abortion and repeated her answers. Antao was persistent and argumentative in the video below, but never threatened Rivers or in any way prompted an assault:
New York police arrested Rivers in April on one count of second-degree assault. Prosecutors had this videotape that showed no provocation or excuse for the violent attack. Antao had to go to emergency room for stitches and pay $3,000 in medical bills.
Nevertheless, Bragg’s office first downgraded the charge from second-degree assault to a misdemeanor and has now dropped the case entirely. He is going to let Rivers walk after an act of political violence captured on film.
According to reports, Braggs’ office missed a critical deadline to turn over evidence. However, this came after the office downgraded the case and then threw up its hands after missing the deadline. It is either a case of intentional scuttling or a lack of priority given an allegation of political violence. The most that Braggs’ office can claim is that it was incompetent in one of the most notorious cases in the office. The videotape received national attention with other examples of violent political incidents.
Bragg’s office could not focus on bringing even a misdemeanor case to show that political violence is unacceptable, even from those on the left.
If this were a pro-life advocate attacking a pro-choice person in New York, it is hard to imagine Bragg slow-walking the prosecution, downgrading the charges, and then dismissing the case after missing a deadline. There would have been an outcry from the public for deterrence and prosecution.
We have also seen the wholesale dropping of charges against rioters in major cities despite massive levels of property damage.
Compare the handling of lawyers in New York City who threw Molotov cocktails at police with a recent case in California. The attorneys (Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman) were given generous plea deals by the Southern District of New York with only 15 months in jail. The judge even praised one of the lawyers for her commitment to public interest. There were no state charges.
This week, a ‘scholar-activist” received almost 20 years in prison and a nearly $100,000 in fines for firebombing a University of California Berkeley police car and other acts of arson. Casey Goonan also claimed political motivations in supporting Palestine in the attacks.
Even given the more extensive record of violence of Goonan, the light punishment given to the New York lawyers was shocking to many of us. Admittedly, that was not a state case, but rather a federal case under the Biden Administration. However, it reinforced the uncertainty as to punishment for serious crimes in New York. There was no apparent move by the district attorney to bring state charges or to push for more serious penalties from their federal counterparts.
Some of today’s headlines:
– 4D chess: Trump says chugging Windex may be harmful, causing millions of Democrats to chug Windex
– New report indicates only 3 people in Jan 6 crowd were not FBI agents
– Nation resets ‘days since leftist terrorist attack’ counter back to zero
– John Oliver says men clearly have no physical advantage as women beat him at everything
– Democrat heads to gun range to practice for debate
– ABC unfires Kimmel for offensive comments so they can instead fire him for not being funny
– Americans return to not watching Jimmy Kimmel by choice
– Hillary says we all must stop pointing fingers, as we know the Republicans are to blame
– Kamala’s audiobook lets you pick which Kamala accent you want to hear for each chapter
– Hamas calls on Democrats to tone down the violence
– Democrats warn prosecuting political enemies may set dangerous precedent
– Ammo company unveils new giant shell casing with more room for left-wing terrorists to write out all their motives in detail
– Kamala does speaking tour to remind nation why Trump is president
– Rough week for liberal comedy as Kimmel’s, Colbert’s monthly cycles sync up
– 4D chess: Trump slams boring, ratings-challenged show ‘The Apprentice’ – and wow! NBC is bringing it back
– Cancel culture: leftist fired for simply having a different opinion on whether conservatives should be murdered
– Pregnant women begin downing Tylenol in hopes sons will start electric car companies and become billionaires
– U.S. begs Brigitte Macron to please, please not submit photographic proof she is a woman
– Nazi rally in Arizona inspires millions to forgive and love their enemies
Where do you get these? 😂
It’s like Manna from Heaven ain’t it…
———————————
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
All from the Babylon Bee. You should subscribe.
TDS Democrats refuse to breath
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1166085182208481
In real news, farmers get what they wanted and now are begging Trump to bail them out over the effects of the exact policies they voted to have in place.
Recall that The Apprentice success was the result of work by Mark Burnett, a British TV producer. Coaching and clever editing were required to make Trump look good. That big office Trump used? Not Trump’s. Completely fabricated TV set.
Jonathan: While DJT was in Long Island enjoying the Ryder Cup at taxpayer expense he did take time to make this psycho post:
“At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full force, if necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter”.
So why does DJT want to go to war in Portland? Well, the citizens of Portland are demonstrating en masse at ICE facilities for snatching people of the streets and disappearing them. The protests are peaceful. Portland is not “War ravaged” and the protesters are not “Antifa”, nor “other domestic terrorists”. But DJT is using the Antifa boogeyman to justify the use of military force, even lethal force, against peaceful protesters.
We have now gone over the edge into a full blown one man dictatorship. DJT is afraid of his own citizens so he now wants to use the military to go after them in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. It started with the immigrants but now no one is safe.
Federal action to protect federal assets is not a policing action and within Trump’s authority.
Your confusion is a result of TDS.
S. Meyer–
I seem to remember a photo of soldiers manning a machine gun protected by sandbags at the Capital during the riots after MLK was murdered.
Of course federal assets can be used to protect federal property
About riots in general, notice how there are no riots when people like Kirk are murdered.
As for Portland, I wish the feds would put in just enough to protect the people and property and serve as bait while a substantial force is on hand to surround and net the entire lot.
I observed a couple of small riots years ago and noticed the mob got upset and some panicked and ran when they thought their route of escape was blocked.
I was annoyed watching video of authority trying to control mobs in the recent LA riots and wondered why they didn’t get forces behind the rioters. It’s been a standard military goal for ages to catch the enemy from the flank or rear. For example, Lee and Jackson’s brilliant moves at Chancellorville.
We have professional rioters who are trained, funded, and sent out to create trouble. Behind them are groups that handle the details: the signs, slogans, and props. These aren’t spur-of-the-moment outbursts but planned operations we’ve seen here and abroad. Once the core gets things started, others join in—some out of curiosity, others just following the crowd—making it look like a wave of public anger when it’s really a small, organized group at the center.
We need pictures to compare the faces from one site to another. From that we find the professionals and then their leaders, which can be traced to the money.
real history proves you 100% wrong …
I think the real history begs the question, when will the Nation remember how it got to where we’re at, and what will happen if we collectively fail to remember the last time we were here?
“History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” — Mark Twain
American Battlefield Trust
Charleston Harbor, SC | Apr 12 – 14, 1861
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/fort-sumter
—————————————-
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
“So why does DJT want to go to war in Portland?”
Where did Trump say that ?
Trump ordered the Department of War to WIN a war that left wing nuts have been waging.
” Well, the citizens of Portland are demonstrating en masse at ICE facilities for snatching people of the streets and disappearing them. ”
Aparently you are not watching the videos – the numbers are very low anymore and they are almost entirely Antifa.
“The protests are peaceful.”
ROFL
“Portland is not “War ravaged” and the protesters are not “Antifa”, nor “other domestic terrorists”.”
Have you actually listened to the protestors themselves ? They admit to being Antifa,
” But DJT is using the Antifa boogeyman”
Not a boogeyman, Antifa is very real, they have a manefesto, scheduled meetings, email lists, social media accounts,
membership tests, membership lists.
“to justify the use of military force, even lethal force,”
Lethal force is justified against those that initiate violence and pose a threat to the life or liberty of others.
“against peaceful protesters.”
ROFL
No one cares what stupid ACTUALLY peaceful protests you wish to engage in.
Protest ICE, Protest Israel.
Protest puppies
You are free to take to the streets and express any stupid opinion you wish
And if that is all you were doing – I would be defending you – even if I could not stand what you were saying.
But Tyler Robinson Joshua Jahn Ryan Routh Thomas Matthew Crooks, Brianna J. Rivers,Luigi Mangione
These are NOT some aberations.
They are left wing nuts doing exactly what they hae been told to do
And exactly what those like you say is morally right.
“We have now gone over the edge into a full blown one man dictatorship.”
How so ? We still have a supreme court. We still have a congress, States have governors, and legislatures and courts.
The US supreme court has near universally found that Trumps actions – actions that in one form or another prior presidents had done, were constitutional.
When courts have – nearly always improperly usurped executive powers they do not have – Trump has obeyed those courts, challenged then and in the end won on apeal.
Al exactly the way the constitution says things are to work – well except the unelected left wing nut judges usurping executive power.
Nothing Trump has done has infringed on anything that is an actual right – something democrats do all the time.
The ONLY unusual things about the Trump presidency are
the vitriole you direct at it.
the fact he is trying to do as he promised,
and the fact that Trump is dismanteling powtions of the executive that idiot left wing nuts concocted unconstitutionally.
” DJT is afraid of his own citizens”
NO he is just not tolerating obstruction by the shrinking but increasingly violent far left.
“he now wants to use the military to go after them in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.”
If you beleive Posse Comitatus is being violated – you can challenge this in court – which with certainty you will.
“It started with the immigrants but now no one is safe.”
You are perfectly safe – and will not encounter the military in a law enforcement or security role so long as you are not tresspassing on non-public federal property.
The military is being used to provide security at non-public federal facilities – like Ice detention centers.
This is much like what the national guard did earlier – or units of the military running razor wire at the border or increasing security at military bases that are along the border.
The military could go home – it you left wing nuts would restrict yourself to peaceful protests at public forumns for free speach such as the capital – you know, the way J6 protestors did.
Are there no constitutional issues with such extreme disparity in criminal prosecutions? The common understanding of justice is that it must be more or less uniformly applied. How can justice be just when your political affiliations determine your fate?
That’s a good question. When a prosecutor decides to deny a victim justice because of her political viewpoint – in this case, pro-life – doesn’t that violate the Equal Protection Clause?
I remember when Obama’s AG, Eric Holder, refused to prosecute the Black Panthers who physically blocked whites from voting in Philadelphia. That seemed very similar.
Professor Turley’s comment today seems to have found a sensitive spot in the skin of the evil people.
The trolls are out in force, but they can’t touch him or the sane commenters.
The paid Soros/DNC or paid CCP trolls are out in force frequently these days. I try not to waste my time with them. If a comment begins with “Jonathan:”, or uses the word “Turls,” or says the professor “conveniently leaves out” something or is being “disingenuous,” you know it was written by a low-IQ troll and is not worth one’s time. The professor allows them to leave their stinky turds around this place, but we can still try to have a reasonable conversation among reasonable people.
Oldman– “but we can still try to have a reasonable conversation among reasonable people.”
One of several attractions at Professor Turley’s site.
I generally skip over the trolls.
“ We have also seen the wholesale dropping of charges against rioters in major cities despite massive levels of property damage.”
ROLF!
Pretty sure there is better context than that. He could be talking about Jan. 6 rioters or it could be that prosecutors could not prove some rioters were causing property damage. Maybe they were grabbed in the middle of the chaos of a riot and charged with crimes they could not prove. It happens, you know, like Jan. 6. Right?
“ It is either a case of intentional scuttling or a lack of priority given an allegation of political violence. The most that Bragg’s office can claim is that it was incompetent in one of the most notorious cases in the office.”
OR…..it was an honest mistake created when the case was handed over to a different prosecutor. Professor Turley “forgot” to mention that fact. By the way, is this as “one of the most notorious cases in the office”? Really? It was a street interview by a pro-life activist YouTuber who kept escalating the situation with her aggressive questioning and laughing at Rivers. She got punched and Riivers got arrested and jailed. The case was mishandled when a deadline was missed when the case was handed off to another prosecutor. It was not some sinister motive to give a “lefty” a free pass as Professor Turley wrongly claims and wants his less mentally capable readers to believe. It’s hilarious and unsurprising how easily people get suckered into false narratives like this.
“YouTuber who kept escalating the situation “
Again, the mental pigmy, George Svelaz X, blames the victim.
S. Meyer, wrong. It’s not blaming the victim. I’m pointing out that the victim is also responsible for her situation. She was laughing at Rivers and getting aggressive in her questioning of her response. She was not de-escalating the situation. The interview was already getting heated when Craven was interrupting and laughing at Rivers. That is not making things better.
If you spent some time actually researching the story instead of taking everything the Professor is saying as gospel you are not going to learn the truth about it.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/26/us-news/manhattan-da-quietly-drops-case-against-nyc-woman-who-sucker-punched-pro-life-activist/
Here’s the real story. It presents a very different context than Turley’s obvious attempt to skew it against the Bragg, making him look like he’s deliberately letting Rivers off the hook. Professor Turley is taking advantage of a mistake made by a prosecutor in his office into something that is not true.
“I’m pointing out that the victim is also responsible for her situation.”
GSX, that is exactly what blaming the victim is. Rivera didn’t have to walk over and answer questions. She was free to go elsewhere. Your article didn’t prove what you say it proved. Here is a quote: “Rivers had approached her before agreeing to be interviewed about Planned Parenthood and abortion”. Learn how to read.
S. Meyer, you need to learn to read. Your definition of “blaming the victim” is ONLY blaming the vicitm. I’m pointing out that the vicitm is also responsible for escalating the situation that led to get punched. She’s not completely innocent of from contributing to her attack. She had a hand in escalating the situation. Craven was also had the option of walking away. Right?
Hey X, only stupid libs think violence is a proper response to words, you stupid, idiotic, moronic, primate.
Only a criminally minded moron would suggest this woman had any right to violence.
In fact IT IS AGAINST THE LAW, you stupid moron. Jeez you are stupid. idiot.
Who is saying she had a right to violence? You’ve never been in a heated argument before? Some people lose their temper in such situations. When you push someone’s buttons a little too long you’re bound to get a physical reaction. Right? From what is being reported and what is being omitted by Professor Turley is the interview grew heated and obviously got out of hand and ended up with River punching Craven. Craven was not trying to de-escalate the situation. She kept arguing and throwing back the question that was getting River incensed. River lost her cool and got violent. That does not mean she is NOT guilty of committing the offense. But it also does not absolve Craven completely of the responsibility to de-escalate and/or end the interview. This is why I say this was not an unprovoked attack on Craven. She kept goading River with the question that was clearly getting her riled up. Also, it does not help the situation when you start getting smug and laughing at River when she’s getting mad. Right?
Bragg did not intentionally drop the charges or the case as Professor Turley alludes because he was going easy on the ‘leftist’. Professor Turley left out an important fact, likely deliberately, a fact that points out this whole story is borne out of a genuine mistake AND a flawed NY discovery law that forced Bragg to drop the case. Prosecutors are not perfect. They too make mistakes and often with consequences on innocent people like Craven Anteo. But….to Professor Turley it was an opportunity to characterize the incident into something the right could get behind and cite as an example of left-wing political violence and tie into the bigger false narrative the right is pushing to rile up its base. Smarter people can see through the Professor’s disingenuousness.
“When you push someone’s buttons a little too long you’re bound to get a physical reaction.”
Again, GSX is blaming the victim. At the trial of James Robinson, you will be holding up a sign saying Charlie Kirk was partly at fault. Like the innocent woman in the video, Charlie Kirk asked similar questions and was murdered. I am waiting for you to tell us what a wonderful person Rivers was because she didn’t shoot the woman.
“When you push someone’s buttons a little too long you’re bound to get a physical reaction. Right? ”
Wrong – stopping or punishing that is LITERALLY what the social contract is about.
You have the right – without using force to “push the buttons” of anyone you wish.
Neither they nor you have the right to use FORCE except in Defense of SELF or OTHERS From actual FORCE.
You may NOT get Physical – because someone else has “pushed your buttons”.
Your buttons are YOUR problem – not theirs.
If they can yank your chain – accidentally or deliberately and get you to resort to violence YOU are wrong. YOU are the criminal.
“From what is being reported and what is being omitted by Professor Turley is the interview grew heated and obviously got out of hand and ended up with River punching Craven. Craven was not trying to de-escalate the situation. She kept arguing and throwing back the question that was getting River incensed.”
Not in the video I saw and not relevant.
Right here all the time – you make idiotic and false arguments, you are “out of hand” your are out of control”, you are NOT trying to de-escalate, That does not Justify anyone else initiating violence against you – or you initiating violence against others.
There are conditions in which violence is justified – self defense and defense of others are among those. There are OTHER circumstances that justify violence – I would suggest reading the declaration of independence, because that is quite litterally the philosophical basis and the justification for political violence. But the declaration REQUIRES that political violence is only justified, when govenrment is abusing your rights, and even then only when you have exhausted every other means, and even then, only when it is part of a long trane of abuses.
“River lost her cool and got violent.”
That is called assault.
“But it also does not absolve Craven completely of the responsibility to de-escalate and/or end the interview. ”
But it does. Unless Craven used force to violate Rivers rights – River may not initiate force against Craven”
“This is why I say this was not an unprovoked attack on Craven. ”
Everyone who has ever attacked anyone else thinks they were provoked and justified.
Again there are only very limited circumstnaces in which initiating violence is justified – this is not even close.
“She kept goading River with the question that was clearly getting her riled up.”
You call it goading – I call it making a better argument.
Regardless, it is irrelevant what you guess as to Craven’s motives are.
It is even irrelevant what Cravens actual motives are.
Rivers initiation of force was NOT justified.
This is something people are supposed to learn when they are four.
“Also, it does not help the situation when you start getting smug and laughing at River when she’s getting mad. Right?”
Wrong, your efforts to justify Rivers acts all rest on mind reading Craven.
You are free to do that, but it will NEVER provide a justification to initiate force – even if you are right.
Like saying a woman was partly at fault for getting raped because her skirt was too short. Despicable, disgusting, and abhorrent.
That is not something unthinkable when you think of the leftist squad.
In this case Craven was actively engaging. This is sparring and being surprised at getting punched.
I think musing on killing children in foster care deserves a fat lip or, at least, a rubber room for those who threaten to kill children.
You can think whatever you want. Opinions you do not like – even the most vile opinions in existance do NOT justify initiating force. That is litterally the foundation of the social contract that makes any form of society possible. We spent 150K – to possibly 800K years working that out, if the genetic data on the split between home sapiens and neanderthals is correct.
“I’m pointing out that the vicitm is also responsible for escalating the situation that led to get punched. ”
That is litterally the definition of “blaming the victim”.
Would you say that women are responsible for being raped because they wear attractive cloths ?
Regardless, not only are you blaming the victim – but you are doing the equivalent of saying that a nun in her habit was asking to be raped for wearing sexy cloths.
You are both blaming the victim AND distorting the facts wrong to do so.
“She’s not completely innocent of from contributing to her attack.”
That is EXACTLY what she is – completely innocent.
” She had a hand in escalating the situation.”
No she did not – asking questions you do not like on a topic you do not want agree – particularly when you VOLUNTEERED for exactly that is NOT escalating.
“Craven was also had the option of walking away. Right?”
There is no duty to speak only on subjects that do not make others violent.
GSX, you can try and manipulate words as much as you wish, but in the end, the attempt demonstrates the foolishness and ignorance you provide in every reply on every subject. I watched the video more than once, and that punch came out like the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk. Leftists are violent. Being unable to talk with their mouths, leftists talk with their hands.
“S. Meyer, you need to learn to read. Your definition of “blaming the victim” is ONLY blaming the vicitm. I’m pointing out that the vicitm is also responsible for escalating the situation that led to get punched”
GSX, let me add, you are admitting that you blame Charlie Kirk’s murder on Kirk. You are vile. Thank goodness we are on the net and not in physical reach, or you would be swinging a baseball bat at my head.
You say interview. This was an ambush. Craven didn’t just ask what the woman thought, she ridiculed it.
Who said “Do we kill the kids in foster care?” ?
The person who asked that is sick; put them in a mental ward and never let them out level of sick.
Unless you think it was hyperbole. To which the answer “Why not” is also hyperbol,e as a response to the ugliness and derangement in the initial question.
Craven got the exact response she was looking for. Proof that if one sufficiently antagonizes those with alternative opinions, they can take things from the intellectual level to the physical one. Craven didn’t like the intellectual level answers and kept pushing.
Here’s a litmus test. If abortion is murder (though many abortions are to remove a dead fetus before it rots and kills the mother, particularly the late term abortions) then how would you react to a fire at a fertility clinic. There are 10,000 fertilized eggs (you would call them babies) on the 3rd floor in a liquid nitrogen freezer and one three year old on the 4th floor. You can only reach one floor before the fire becomes too intense. There is plenty of time once the freezer is out of the building to move it to a place of safety. Do you save 10,000 babies or one toddler? In other words, do you allow 10,000 babies to burn to death to save just one?
“You say interview. This was an ambush. Craven didn’t just ask what the woman thought, she ridiculed it.”
While I disagree with your characterization that is not what the video shows – unless you have the thinest skin in the world and can not tolerate anyone disagreeing.
But your claim is irrelevant. Not liking the way an argument is going – does not justify the initiation of FORCE.
“Who said “Do we kill the kids in foster care?” ?”
Does not matter who said what. Your feelings about what was said do not matter.
Those of you on the left say the most viole and repugnant things all the time – right here on this blog.
That still does not justify anyone here using FORCE against you.
“The person who asked that is sick; put them in a mental ward and never let them out level of sick.”
False and irrelevant. It is a valid argument. If you are going to say that abortion is moral and should be legal, but killing a one year old is not, YOU are obligated to provide the basis for the distinction.
It is a perfectly valid question. I use Reductio ad absurdem arguments all the time – this is a very mild form
reductio ad absurdem – testing an argument at its limits, or seeking to get the person on the other side of the argument to provide and defend limits is not repugnant, it is a valid part of debate.
“Unless you think it was hyperbole.”
Irrelevant, Principles have constraints – or they do not.
We debate Free speech here alot. Either free speech is completely absolute – and you can order somone to murder another, and you can provide pornography to children – or there are limits to speech – which of course there are. But going the other way if you can not define the limits to free speech or if you do so without bright lines – then there is no such thing as free speech at all for anyone.
Every single principle in existance has parameters – and determinging those is quite litterally why we debate – to test each others parameters for some principle.
That inherently means debate is going to “Push your buttons” – that is what it is supposed to do.
A debate is a test of your ideas, your principles against those of another.
We expect people to do that rationally – but sometimes it gets heated – emotionally charged.
That generally leads to the perception that the person who lost their cool, also lost the debate – though that is not always true.
“To which the answer “Why not” is also hyperbol,e as a response to the ugliness and derangement in the initial question.”
You do not get to control how another person argues against your position.
Those of you on the left rely on logical fallacies all the time.
That is absurd – but then the left always presumes that whenever anyone speaks or acts differently than they want that Force AKA government is justified.
What that really shows is the inability to rationally debate an issue.
“Craven got the exact response she was looking for. Proof that if one sufficiently antagonizes those with alternative opinions, they can take things from the intellectual level to the physical one. ”
Generally when you do that you both lose the argument and commit a crime.
“Craven didn’t like the intellectual level answers and kept pushing.”
So ? You make stupid arguments here all the time. You lie about the arguments of others.
Then after losing the debate – you start the same idiotic claim all over as if you had not just been proven a fool on that very issue.
Are the rest of us allowed to punch you ?
“Here’s a litmus test. If abortion is murder (though many abortions are to remove a dead fetus before it rots and kills the mother, particularly the late term abortions) then how would you react to a fire at a fertility clinic. There are 10,000 fertilized eggs (you would call them babies) on the 3rd floor in a liquid nitrogen freezer and one three year old on the 4th floor. You can only reach one floor before the fire becomes too intense. There is plenty of time once the freezer is out of the building to move it to a place of safety. Do you save 10,000 babies or one toddler? In other words, do you allow 10,000 babies to burn to death to save just one?”
The correct answer is YOU DO NOT PUNCH THE PERSON MAKING YOUR ARGUMENT!
This is not about the validity of some hypothetical or argument.
It is about when the use of FORCE is justified.
I do not get to control the arguments you make. I do not get to control how stupid or inflamatory they are.
And I do not get to punch you for making an argument I do not like.
It does not matter whether your argument is a good one or an abysmal one – you can not respond to an argument you do not like with FORCE.
“This was an ambush.”
Once someone opens with a claim like that, you can stop reading. It’s proof they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Craven was approached on an open city street by a violent leftist while the interviewer stood still in place. There were no walls, alleys, or barriers, nothing resembling an ambush. Craven could have walked away at any time. The interviewer never moved.
This is the same foolish anonymous we criticize on a daily basis.
” I’m pointing out that the victim is also responsible for her situation.”
One person’s words do not justify violence by another.
Ever.
” She was laughing at Rivers and getting aggressive in her questioning of her response. She was not de-escalating the situation. The interview was already getting heated when Craven was interrupting and laughing at Rivers. That is not making things better.”
All both false and irrelevant.
You seem to beleive that left wing nuts have the right to control the speech of others.
While your description of what happens is evidence you did not watch the video.
Your delusions even if true do not change anything.
People laugh at you all the time – and they are free to.
You do not get to dictate others opinion of you.
Again you use words like aggression which connotes violation when there is no actual violence.
You have an absolute right to aggressive speech.
You do not have a right to actual aggression.
You are free to interupt others – outside of structured events, such as debates.
You use heated – again connoting anger and violence – when there was no anger – except in rivers.
And even if there were – anger does not justify violence.
There is no duty to “make things better” – again typical left wing nut trying to control the speech of others.
“If you spent some time actually researching the story instead of taking everything the Professor is saying as gospel you are not going to learn the truth about it.”
The video is available to anyone – you have misrepresented it, and even if your alkse claims were true – they do not justify initiating violence.
Here is the real story
Bragg is valing to enforce laws against initiating violence against others.
He is likely doing so based on choices about ideology. But he may not do so regardless.
If the YouTuber committed a crime, arrest her.
Arrest her, then drop the charges. To send a message.
“Pretty sure there is better context than that. He could be talking about Jan. 6 rioters”
YOU mean the thousands of actually peaceful protestors who were excercising their constitutional rights who were prosecuted by DOJ ?
Sorry George – by the only thing left of the J6 claims – is investigating the malfeasance on the left.
Two people were killed on J6 – Rose Boylan and Alishi Babbit – BOTH by police.
The vilence was initiated by the CP – the crowd was peaceful until the CP lobbed eargass first at themselves and then the crowd.
You can not tear gas people who are not violating the law – and prior to being tear gassed no one was.
Tear gassing people who are not violating the law is ACTUALLY a crime – it is assault.
It does not matter if you are a police office. The police may not assault people who are not committing a crime.
More recently we learned there were 247 FBI agents at J6 – that is approximately 1 in 10 of the people at the capital.
Yet there is no evidence they were there to secure the capital or for any legitimate law enforcement purpose.
We do not YET have the evidence that the FBI was INCITING violence. But we do KNOW from numerous incidents in the past – as recent as the Michigan Wolverines mess that the FBI DOES entrap people and incite violence.
Regardless, this is something that MUST be investigated. We most certainly do not ever want the FBI CAUSING one political group or another to act violently.
We KNOW that Hoovers FBI did exactly that. But we also KNOW that the FBI did exactly that under Clinton and Obama and Biden – and even under Trump – except targeting the right.
Almost no one would be surprised if the FBI was directly or indirectly responsible for much of the violence.
We also KNOW that the crowd was infiltrated by Antifa – the famous Alishi Babbit video was shot by an Sntifa member.
We do NOT KNOW the extent of antifa and the lefts role in turning all this violent.
But we also KNOW that the actual extent of violence on J6 PALES compared to pretty much any night in Portland.
There were no firearms, no frozen water bottles, no rocks, no molatov cocktails, most of the claims of looting and theft proved false. Most people do not consider moving pelosi’s lecturn 20ft theft. No lasers to blind police, no fireworks, no arson of any kind, no hair spray and cigarette lighters, no prepositioned pallets of brick.
Pretty much everything that you find at any ordinary daily protest/riot at Portland was not present at J6.
J6 is NOT an example of unprosecuted right wing political violence – people who were peaceful spent YEARS in jail before being pardoned. People who were not even in DC that day spent years in Jail.
People who did nothing more that walk peacefully through the pre-eminent public forumn in the world that can not constitutionally be “locked down” while congress is in session – without violating the first amendment, were arrested
prosecuted and convicted for Felony tresspass and many spent time in jail.
J6 is not an example of the right wing run amuk – it is a perfect example of the double standards and hypocracy of democrats.
“it could be that prosecutors could not prove some rioters were causing property damage. Maybe they were grabbed in the middle of the chaos of a riot and charged with crimes they could not prove. It happens, you know, like Jan. 6. Right?”
J6 is an example of MASSIVE over prosecution and a biased justice system.
One of the reasons Trump opted for a blanket pardon rather than a combination of pardons and commutations and leaving some cases alone – was because the J6 investigations and prosecutions were so corrupt it was going to take years to sort out. And pretty much no one received a fair trial.
“it was an honest mistake”
Once maybe – but the NYDA prosecutes people who engage in self defense and defense of others.
And it does not prosecute people who are violent – especially if that violence is political and against the right.
This is just lawless. It is not an honest mistake.
You get to argue that when there are not myriads of other examples of political bias.
“It was a street interview by a pro-life activist YouTuber who kept escalating the situation with her aggressive questioning and laughing at Rivers.”
When you initiate violence – nearly always you commit a crime. Another persons words or questions do not ever justify violence.
“She got punched and Riivers got arrested and jailed. The case was mishandled when a deadline was missed when the case was handed off to another prosecutor.”
Are you actually trying to argue that Rivers did NOT commit a violent crime ? In fact by YOUIR laws a HATE CRIME ?
It is only mildly important whether Braggs office was incompetent or biased.
They allowed a violent crime to go unpunished.
That is a failure of the NYDA.
Most of us grasp that it was political and consciously wrong.
But claiming that it was just incompetence begs the question of why Bragg is DA ?
“It was not some sinister motive to give a “lefty” a free pass ”
It was unpunished left wing political iolence. Almost no one buys that it was incompetence.
But even if it was – that changes little.
John Say,
“ Are you actually trying to argue that Rivers did NOT commit a violent crime ? In fact by YOUIR laws a HATE CRIME ?”
No, that is not what I’m trying to argue. Pay attention. Professor Turley’s angle on the story is intentionally skewing the narrative into something that is not true. I’m NOT saying Rivers did not commit a crime. I never said that nor implied it. By the way, “MY” laws? What makes you thing is “MY” law? Cleary you have issues.
My argument with Turley’s take on the story is the fact he’s falsely portraying it as a deliberate motive of Bragg to drop the charges and claim there is a “two tiered form of justice”. It took a little bit of research and ALL the facts to put the story in the proper context.
Craven Antao is a pro-life Youtuber who was interviewing Rivers on the street. The interview grew heated when Craven Antao started deliberately interrupting and laughing at River and raising tensions. From the NY Post,
“ The interview gradually grew sour as Craven Antao routinely interrupted Rivers, claimed women who have undergone abortions were “killing babies” and even laughed at her interview subject, the video showed.
Things took a turn when Craven Antao asked whether foster kids should be killed because “they’re not wanted,” and Rivers responded, “Why not? Who’s going to take care of them? I need to know the percentage of people who take children from foster care and abuse them and molest them, who make them personal slaves. I need specifics before you come to talk to me about pro-life,” the assailant said. The pair went back and forth for another minute before the video clipped. Craven Antao then is heard repeating the foster care question she had posed to Rivers.
“I’m not the one who admitted they would be OK with killing babies in foster care and killing children that have been abused. Rivers, of the Bronx, later apologized on social media for socking her interviewer in the face – but claimed her “antagonistic” victim goaded her into violence.”
https://nypost.com/2025/09/26/us-news/manhattan-da-quietly-drops-case-against-nyc-woman-who-sucker-punched-pro-life-activist/
That is what led to the violence. That is not saying it was not wrong or not a crime. But it was also Craven Antao’s continued pushing of River’s buttons that kept escalating the situation. It wasn’t. some random out of the blue attack on a pro-life activist.
Turley’s characterization of the incident is false when he states Bragg dropped the case as if it were intentional example of going easy on “the violent left”. That is not what happened at all.
Professor Turley left out a crucial detail that puts the whole thing in context.
From Fox News, the part Turley left out,
“ Every victim deserves their day in court, and our office has reached out to apologize to Ms. Craven Antao for the unacceptable error of missing the discovery deadline,” the spokesperson said. “We are taking immediate internal steps in light of this case.
Bragg’s office said the deadline was missed after the case was reassigned to a different prosecutor. The office also noted that Bragg had pushed the legislature this year to revise New York’s discovery law, citing dismissals like this as examples.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/da-braggs-office-drops-case-against-woman-who-allegedly-sucker-punched-pro-life-activist
NY discovery laws are the culprit. Not Bragg. Once the deadline was missed, not intentionally, but by pure mistake the outcome was out of Braggs hands.
“ It was unpunished left wing political iolence. Almost no one buys that it was incompetence.
But even if it was – that changes little.”
It was a mistake and flawed NY discovery law. Not a conspiracy to have the crime go unpunished.
But Professor Turley saw an opportunity to take advantage and use it to create a false narrative to make the left look bad and blame them for politiical violence theme MAGA has latched on to that helps the right score political points.
Let’s be clear here the facts speak for themselves. Bragg did not let a crime go unpunished. He couldn’t do anything about it since it’s a flaw in NY law that tied his hands after the mistake of missing the deadline when the case was handed over to another prosecutor.
You’re already fantasizing this kind of ulterior motive scenario based on Turley’s false narrative and ready discard the facts because a “lefty” is telling you Professor Turley’s take on the story is intentionally misleading.
George Svelaz, you are justifying violence, and by doing so justify the killing of Charlie Kirk.
John Say,
““ Are you actually trying to argue that Rivers did NOT commit a violent crime ? In fact by YOUIR laws a HATE CRIME ?”
No, that is not what I’m trying to argue. ”
Then you are doing a bad job.
Rivers committed a crime – she should have been prosecuted.
In a trial by the criminal trial rules we have today – your arguments would not even be allowed in court.
I have a problem with that – I beleive that a criminal defendant should be allowed to argue anything they want.
We have juries for the purpose of evaluating the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor.
Regardless, those are the rules today.
You seem to be trying argue some form of justification or mitigation that would not get into court today.
“Pay attention. Professor Turley’s angle on the story is intentionally skewing the narrative into something that is not true. I’m NOT saying Rivers did not commit a crime. I never said that nor implied it. By the way, “MY” laws? What makes you thing is “MY” law? Cleary you have issues.”
So you accept that Rivers committed a crime or atleast that there is probable cause that the actions alleged constitute a crime – then Bragg was obligated to prosecute. End of Story, that is the requirement for the rule of law.
The concept of hate crimes is near universal on the left – are you saying you do NOT support hate crime laws ?
Are you a closet libertarian ?
“My argument with Turley’s take on the story is the fact he’s falsely portraying it as a deliberate motive of Bragg to drop the charges and claim there is a “two tiered form of justice”. It took a little bit of research and ALL the facts to put the story in the proper context.”
The criminal justice system – particularly the prosecutors role is to prosecute crimes when all the required elements of a crime can be proven.
I am all for allowing jury nullification – but that is something only the jury can do.
“Craven Antao is a pro-life Youtuber who was interviewing Rivers on the street. The interview grew heated when Craven Antao started deliberately interrupting and laughing at River and raising tensions. From the NY Post,”
None of that is relevant. You do not get to punch someone because an argument gets heated.
You do not get to punch them because they laugh at you.
You do not get to punch someone because you agreed to a street interview.
You do not get to punch someone because they are pro life.
However I – not our justice system – will allow you to make all those arguments to a jury – that I hope will convict you anyway. But the prosecutor must prosecute if the required elements of the crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt – and here they easily can.
It you want to try to argue mittigation to a jury – go for it, but the prosecutor should not be deciding the case – the jury should.
You want to try to litgate the actual debate. The actual debate is irrelevant – except as it appears to indicate Bias on the part of bragg
I do not care if craven was arguing that Martians were eating babies. Your views on the argument do NOT change the fact that the only crime committed was by Rivers.
“That is what led to the violence.”
What lead to the violence – short of one of the few things that actually justify the initiation of violence which are not present in this case is irrelevant to the vact that Rivers committed a violent crime and Bragg gave her a pass
“That is not saying it was not wrong or not a crime.”
Then Bragg should have prosecuted it. PERIOD.
” But it was also Craven Antao’s continued pushing of River’s buttons that kept escalating the situation. It wasn’t. some random out of the blue attack on a pro-life activist.”
You keep returning to a just below the surface version of the same argument.
That the subject of the debate somehow changes whether punching someone is a crime.
The only reason that what they were aruing about was relevant is because the failure to prosecute is evidence of political bais by Bragg.
“Turley’s characterization of the incident is false when he states Bragg dropped the case as if it were intentional example of going easy on “the violent left”. That is not what happened at all.”
There are really only two choices – incompetence or bias.
The most likely answer is bias. But even incompetence is a reason to chastize Bragg.
“Professor Turley left out a crucial detail that puts the whole thing in context.”
No he left out the irrelevant.
““ Every victim deserves their day in court, and our office has reached out to apologize to Ms. Craven Antao for the unacceptable error of missing the discovery deadline,” the spokesperson said. “We are taking immediate internal steps in light of this case.”
Most here – with good reason think Bragg’s office is politically corrupt. And view Braggs remarks as more lies on lies.
“Bragg’s office said the deadline was missed after the case was reassigned to a different prosecutor.”
And it is the DA’s job to make sure that does not happen.
“The office also noted that Bragg had pushed the legislature this year to revise New York’s discovery law, citing dismissals like this as examples.”
The DA is obligated to work with the law as it is – not make excuses.
But typical left wing nut – refusing to take responsibility.
“NY discovery laws are the culprit.”
Nope, the prosecutors knew the law.
” Not Bragg. Once the deadline was missed, not intentionally, but by pure mistake the outcome was out of Braggs hands.”
It is amazing how you beleive everything Bragg says and nothing Trump says.
You also beleived everything Comey said, and everything Schiff said and everything that the Bidens said,
and you did not beleive any of the people who ultimately were telling the truth.
Your not very good at knowing when people are lying or not.
You universally seem to decide that those on YOUR SIDE always tell the truth – no matter how often they were caught lying to you.
“It was a mistake and flawed NY discovery law. ”
False – the law is not flawed – that is just an excuse. DA’s have managed prosecutions with the laws as they are for years.
Should the law be changed ? I do not know. What I do know is a lame excuse – and probable deception when I hear it.
Prosecutors must work with the laws as they are.
I am highly suspicious that if I dug into the discovery law further I would conclude it is a GOOD law.
Prosecutors are REQUIRED to procede on a case with dispatch – only the defendant can waive time limits.
And that is how it should be.
I have no problems with prosecutors being force to procede on a case with dispatch.
I have a problem when they fail to do so.
Rivers is absolutely entitled to a speedy trial.
If she does not get one – they charges mus be dismissed and the PROSECUTOR held accountable.
That is what Turely is doing – that is not disengenuous.
“Not a conspiracy to have the crime go unpunished.”
In competence, corruption – does not matter alot, but Bragg’s office seems far more of the latter than former.
“But Professor Turley saw an opportunity to take advantage and use it to create a false narrative to make the left look bad and blame them for politiical violence theme MAGA has latched on to that helps the right score political points.”
Bragg does look bad and he narative is not false.
“Let’s be clear here the facts speak for themselves.”
Yup.
“Bragg did not let a crime go unpunished.”
That is exactly what he did.
“He couldn’t do anything about it since it’s a flaw in NY law that tied his hands after the mistake of missing the deadline when the case was handed over to another prosecutor.”
As you describe it the law is NOT flawed – the DA is obligated to give the defendant a speedy trial if they want it.
The DA’s administrative problems are NOT an excuse and they are not a flaw in the law.
“You’re already fantasizing this kind of ulterior motive scenario based on Turley’s false narrative and ready discard the facts because a “lefty” is telling you Professor Turley’s take on the story is intentionally misleading.”
Turley is not misleading. Most of us do not beleive the nonsense you do.
If this were a one off – we might.
Bragg’s office has NUMEROUS examples of this kind of selective prosecution or non prosecution, this is just one.
Bragg should resign if he can not manage the job, and he should fire someone if this was not intentional.
When it appears mistakes are made and no one is held accountable – it probably was not a mistake.
I want to see the unedited version. There is a lot that was clipped from that exchange to make it favorable to Craven’s position.
What is “political iolence”?
Take more care and check your work before hitting the Reply button. There are nearly a dozen other errors including getting the name of the woman who was killed by the MAGA mob wrong. Peaceful MAGA rioters literally stomped that woman to death.
By the way, do we still have a country? Trump said if they didn’t stop the vote counting that they would not have a country anymore. Was that true or was it a lie?
Also, what does it mean – “begs the question.” Do you mean “Begging the question” or do you mean “raises the question”? Because one cannot beg a question.
Thanks to AI: ” For example, saying “The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible” is begging the question because it assumes the Bible’s truthfulness to prove its own truthfulness.”
Need proof that the Law is now a joke? Here you go! And the apologists for the situation, those who blindly regard the Law as sacred no matter how dreadfully it is manipulated, they are hopelessly blind. When I see officers of the courts step up and rein in their own, then we can talk about respect and obedience. Until then, Hell no!
What I find amusing about this article is the tone and deliberate mischaracterization of the incident into something greatly exaggerated to elicit sympathy for right-wing “victims”. It’s almost similar to Trump’s escalator incident and Fox News’ hysterical claims that it was some assassination plot or an attempt to injure the President and the First Lady.
Did Craven deserve to get punched? No. Was it “unprovoked”? Not really.
This was a mistake made when the case was handed over to a different prosecutor and a deadline was missed. Not some sinister plot to avoid prosecuting a “lefty” as Professor Turley wants his readers to believe. Thus perpetuating the atmosphere of hatred towards the left. It’s really predictable. Sadly. You can see it in the comments. It’s pearl-klutching at it’s finest.
With respect to the UN escalators – I beleive people have been fired, it is my understanding that emails were exchanged planning to shutdown the escalators and other fascilities in response to Trump’s visit.
But lets presume that it was merely bad euipment maintanence that the escalator failed immediately after Melania stepped onto it – that still reflects badly on the UN.
This is NOT about victimhood. Trump and Melania handled it fine. they were not hurt, they did not have more than minor inconvenience.
But if it was deliberate – and there is evidence that it was – then it represents more left wing violence.
No it was not an assassination attempt.
But if it was deliberate – as appears, it would be a minor assault.
Further Trump and Melania are over 65 so it would be a hate crime.
You made these laws – don’t blame me.
It would also be another of the many examples of left wing political violence – a small one, but still an act of left wing political violence.
But if it was not intentional – it reflects badly on the UN.
Under no circumstances does it reflect badly on Trump.
With respect to the incident Turley wrotes about – Yes it is violence – political violence by the left.
An No it was NOT provoked.
You are spraying most leftist stupid nonsense.
People having and expressing views you do not like is NOT provocation of violence.
None of this is an effort to elicit sympathy for Trump or the right.
It is just represenative of the willingness of the left to resort to VIOLENCE
“Was it “unprovoked”? Not really.”
It was absolutely unprovoced – expressing an opinion you do not like is NOT provoking violence.
“This was a mistake made when the case was handed over to a different prosecutor and a deadline was missed. Not some sinister plot to avoid prosecuting a “lefty” as Professor Turley wants his readers to believe. ”
It is NYC – prosecutors in NYC go after people for self defense or defense of others.
You say it was a mistake – funny how the mistakes in NYC always go one way.
That is Turley’s point.
“Thus perpetuating the atmosphere of hatred towards the left. It’s really predictable.”
There is nothing wrong with hating those who do violence to others.
” Sadly. You can see it in the comments. It’s pearl-klutching at it’s finest.”
Actually what we are seeing from YOU is a left wing straw man
Had Bragg done the job he was elected to – no one would be screaming about the criminal politicization of the justice system
Do not prosecute political enemies for non-crimes.
Do not dump prosecutions of political friends for actual crimes.
These are reuired to have the rule of law.
Yet another example of John Say’s flights of fancy and nonsensical stories with no foundation in reality.
He says he BELIEVES that people have been fired at the UN over the escalator problem.
He probably also believes in the tooth fairy.
There was no conspiracy at the UN escalator.
No one has been fired. There were no emails.
Trump’s personal videographer was riding the escalator ahead of him. He was riding backwards, facing down the escalator to film Trump. At the top, where people riding properly step off, there is a comb plate where the steps sink down. If something hits the comb plate with even minor force it trips a microswitch that stops the escalator. The videographer’s heel struck the comb plate because he was riding backwards.
John Say also goes completely batsh!t crazy by trying to say that this was political violence and a hate crime because both Trump and Melania are over 65 years of age.
Apart from the insanity of this accusation of a political hate crime, John Say displays his ignorance when referring to the age of Melania. She is 55 years of age.
This is just a minor, but very telling example of John Say’s ignorance.
He simply makes stuff up on a regular basis. Facts are a complete stranger to him.
He has absolutely zero credibility.
“He says he BELIEVES that people have been fired at the UN over the escalator problem.”
More than one source has reported that.
In this instance I said beleives – because I am not an eyewitness, and i have not seen the evidence – emails etc that others have reported exists.
This is distinct from you left wing nuts who claim as fact things that you have heard on the news without any corroboration.
“He probably also believes in the tooth fairy.”
Beat that straw man.
“There was no conspiracy at the UN escalator.
No one has been fired. There were no emails.”
Because you say so ?
“The Sunday Times report that said UN employees ‘joked that they may turn off the escalators and simply tell him they ran out of money, so he has to walk up the stairs.’ ”
This story ran BEFORE Trump appeared at the UN.
Are you saying that BEFORE Trump showed up at the UN and the escalators stopped when Melania got on.
that the Sunday times lied about what UN employees were joking about ?
“Trump’s personal videographer was riding the escalator ahead of him. He was riding backwards, facing down the escalator to film Trump. At the top, where people riding properly step off, there is a comb plate where the steps sink down. If something hits the comb plate with even minor force it trips a microswitch that stops the escalator. The videographer’s heel struck the comb plate because he was riding backwards.”
That is the UN’s speculative claim – there is not actual evidence of that.
There is no evidence that the videographer tripped anything. Again just speculation.
There is REPORTING from the sunday times BEFORE the event that UN employees had joked about doing exactly this and other things.
“John Say also goes completely batsh!t crazy by trying to say that this was political violence and a hate crime because both Trump and Melania are over 65 years of age.”
Can you read ?
Please do not put words into my mouth.
I WROTE
“But if it was deliberate – as appears, it would be a minor assault.
Further Trump and Melania are over 65 so it would be a hate crime.
You made these laws – don’t blame me.”
That statement is correct – if this was deliberate – it is a hate crime – because assaulting elderly people is a hate crime. I did not make that law YOU dingbats did.
“Apart from the insanity of this accusation of a political hate crime,”
That is the law – I did not make the law.
“referring to the age of Melania. She is 55 years of age.”
You are correct – I was mistaken about Melania’s age.
“This is just a minor, but very telling example of John Say’s ignorance.
He simply makes stuff up on a regular basis. Facts are a complete stranger to him.
He has absolutely zero credibility.”
Aside from Melania’s age – which is only mildly relevant. Trump is 79.
If this was intentional it would still be a hate crime.
AGAIN spo that we are clear – there should be no hate crime laws.
They are unconstitutional. Equal protection of the law requires that a crime committed against a white person, a black person, a young person an old person must be treated the same.
Hate is a motive, it is not a crime.
But dingbats like you made hate crime laws
Your ranting at me for pointing out the stupidity of YOUR laws,.
So you really think that an anonymous poster attacking the credibility of somone who has been posting here under the same name for a decade is smart ?
It is almost impossible to have less credibility than someone posting anonymously.
That is unless you are now posting anonymously because you used to post under a name whose credibility you had actually managed to make WORSE than anonymous
You do realize that mirroring someones arguments back at them is pretty 4 year old.
Can you atleast make an original argument ?
John Say,
“ With respect to the UN escalators – I beleive people have been fired, it is my understanding that emails were exchanged planning to shutdown the escalators and other fascilities in response to Trump’s visit.”
You are making stuff up. The facts have already been out for a while. The escalator was shut down by Trump’s own videographer who reached the top first and accidentally tripped the safety switch while positioning himself to capture the president’s ascent. Of course the nutty conspiracy theorists on the right went crazy with accusations of plots and more assassination attemps and intending to harm the first lady. It’s the hysterics all over again. By the way. There was a perfectly functioning escalator right next to them. I don’t see why they didn’t just shuffle over to the next one.
“ This is NOT about victimhood. Trump and Melania handled it fine. they were not hurt, they did not have more than minor inconvenience.“
Fox News sure made a big stink about it. Making all kinds of accusations and claims that it was intentional and an attempt to harm the first lady. The right was going crazy with all kinds of assumptions. Even Press Secretary Leavitt was making all kind of cray cray accusations without evidence. It turned out to be Trump’s own videographer who tripped a safety switch.
“ It would also be another of the many examples of left wing political violence – a small one, but still an act of left wing political violence.“
REALLY? Really John? You think the escalator incident was another (very small) example of political violence from the left?! Wow. This is why there is a lot of mochery and derision of the right’s victimhood culture. Anything can be a plot or agenda of poltical violence coming from the left. Hilarious. Come on John.
“ It is NYC – prosecutors in NYC go after people for self defense or defense of others.
You say it was a mistake – funny how the mistakes in NYC always go one way.
That is Turley’s point.“
No, that is NOT Turley’s point. Now you’re trying to make excuses for Turley’s false narrative. That is not what he saying.
Prosecutors are also human John. Not perfect automatons which you seem to think they are infallible when it comes to procedure and law. “I” am not the one saying it’s mistake. Bragg is and his explanation is a valid one. YOU are don’t want to accept that explanation because YOU want it to be an intentional action to justify your animosity towards the right.
You’re so fixated on “the left is ALWAYS wrong” mantra because that is the only way you can minimize or keep any accountability away from the right and Trump. I’m sure don’t really believe that, but you sure work hard to make it that way.
“The escalator was shut down by Trump’s own videographer who reached the top first and accidentally tripped the safety switch while positioning himself to capture the president’s ascent. “
You are making things up. It is a possible explanation; a guess. Why do you always change the facts and lie? Third parties have yet to release their evaluation, and I don’t know if third parties received the data.
Ly’in George is at it again.
What you claim is a FACT is speculation by the UN. I beleive that SS is still investigating.
There is no evidence the videographer tripped or tripped anything – that is just a guess.
Frankly it is a self serving and bad one.
Presumably you have ridden an escaltor before – unless the UN one is incredibly differnt from most.
They do not just stop because someone tripped at the top.
I have tripped at the top of escaltors before.
I have even tripped on the “comb” at the top.
I am sure there is a safety mechanism. But it near certainly requires more than merely tripping to set it off.
Otherwise the escalator would reset constantly.
And all this presumes that the videographer actually tripped – maybe he did – but the UN does not say – there is video of him tripping, or he says he tripped. They speculate.
Then they make a claim about the equipmnt records – that is not impossible – but unlikely
One of my businesses does building inspections. Most of the escalators and elevators in the US are pretty reliable. What they are NOT is loaded with sensors and motors to keep detailed records of the causes of anything. The typical elevator in the US as an example has a control system that is entirely driven by relays
and has a design from the 50’s. These systems have continued to be built used and maintained for 60+ years.
Product liability laws in the US make it dangerous to make changes to a product – even ones that make it safer if there is even the slightest risk they interoduce new failure modes.
This is an actual flaw in our laws that slows innovation.
We see complete redesigns – when some major change requires it.
In the past decade I have seen a new type of traction elevator that is faster, cheaper, and uses an entirely different mechanism – that type is resplacing both hyraulic and traction elevators for many reasons – mostly cost though. Those elevators have newer modern computerized controls.
But even when there are computers on older elevators – they usually are not the actual control systems – which have mostly not changed in 60 years.
i am less familiar with escalator controls – but I highly doubt that have changed in 60 years either.
There is a rule regarding innovation, and that is that with few exceptions something new does not replace something old if it is only a 15% improvement – it generally has to be almost an order of magnitude.
Humans rarely even notice 15% improvements.
John, you make a lot of sense. In subways and department stores, we’ve all watched people sliding down rails, banging packages, or tripping over steps, yet the escalators keep running. For GSX to insist it was definitely the cameraman is pure guesswork, the kind of leap made by people who can’t control what comes out of their mouths.
John Say,
“Thus perpetuating the atmosphere of hatred towards the left. It’s really predictable.”
There is nothing wrong with hating those who do violence to others.“
There is something wrong with hating those who do violence to others when you’re making up false narratives that the “others” are violent and exaggerating stories to incite the hate you’re experiencing. You’re being played John and clearly they are succeeding in convincing you because you don’t bother to research or exercise some skepticism about Turley’s or anyone on the right’s stories about the left.
I just showed you how Turley tells this story with YOU in mind instead of relying on the facts. Leaving out the fact that the dropping of the charges is not intentional because Turley omitted that there was a mistake and NY discovery law tied Bragg’s hands. He’s a lawyer and he should know better than to leave out pertinent facts. He does that to lead YOU into believing the narrative that the left is against you. It’s sad, because I think you are a very smart individual and more than capable of exercising some skepticism when Turley publishes a story that upon cursory reading shows that something is off.
Ly’in George is lying again. Professor Turley provides the facts and then sometimes offers an opinion.
“There is something wrong with hating those who do violence to others when you’re making up false narratives ”
Both false and irrelevant.
One of the reasons that I oppose hate crime laws is that – your motives are irrelevant to whether you committed a crime.
Your argument here – literally is that what you were arguing about and how you were arguing matters with respect to whether punching someone because you do not like an argument is a crime.
“You’re being played John”
No I am being rational.
I am aware of all the facts and “context” that you claim to be.
Critical thinking means gathering information – facts, sorting out what is relevant to a particular question,
and ignoring the rest with respect to that question.
In this case the first question is whether rivers committed a crime.
That she and Craven were arguing and what they were arguing about is irrelevant to that.
What is relevant is whether Rivers was justified in using force.
The answer is no – there is no topic of debate that justifies the use of force.
There are few instances where the use of force is justified – defense of self or others against actual force being the primary ones.
The next question is whether Bragg’s failure to prosecute is political or not.
For that decision the topic is relevant – as is Braggs history of prosecutions and non-prosecutions.
It would really be nice if we could take District attorney’s at their word, and that is the default.
But it is not absolute. It is a default that can not be easily overcome in a single event.
But a pattern of behavior has more weight than the DA’s words.
“clearly they are succeeding in convincing you because you don’t bother to research or exercise some skepticism about Turley’s or anyone on the right’s stories about the left.”
That is a stupid claim – time and again here – including this story it is self evident that I have done more “research” than you. It is also evident that my decisions are not based on what other people “say”.
But on FACTS, logic and reason.
It is not about who I beleive, it is about what the evidence says – and given the evidence what is most probably true.
My judgement of the left does not come from Fox or Trump or others – but from Facts, logic, reason and patterns of conduct.
Overall I am not a big fan of the right either. But that does not mean the right and the left are equally bad or equally truthful.
“I just showed you how Turley tells this story with YOU in mind instead of relying on the facts. ”
Neither true nor relevant.
Every post Turley makes is for the purpose of expressing some theme or story using the facts.
Most speech has some persuasive purpose – including yours and mine.
All speech has an audience.
Left wing nuts constantly state the obvious as if it is only true of their enemies.
“Leaving out the fact that the dropping of the charges is not intentional because Turley omitted that there was a mistake and NY discovery law tied Bragg’s hands. ”
To the extent Turley left that out it is because it is both false and irrelevant.
You claim dropping of charges was unintentional – but you only have Braggs word that is the case, and Bragg has a long history of decisions that contradict that word.
You claim that NY discovery law tied his hands – that is an absurdly stupid claim.
ALL prosecutions must conform to the constitution and a lot of laws that we hope reflect the requirements of the constitution. ALL of these prosecutions are constrained by those laws FROM THE START.
Braggs claim – and your parroting it essentially is that at the last minute Bragg discovered the NY Discovery law and suddenly was unable to meet its requirements.
That is absurd. The laws is years, probably decades old. It is a constraint on prosecutors from the start.
I do not know the details of this particular law – but I am inclinded to disbeleive Braggs claim that the law needs changed.
If Bragg failed to comply with that law – the case must be dropped. I fully support that.
I wish that prosecuters complied with laws that protect defendants rights always and fully – and I wish the courts enforced those rules. I wish that criminal defendants whose constitutional rights are violated would go free.
Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent is convicted.
But that does not alter the FACT that Rivers is guilty and the fact that she has not faced trial and confiction is because the prosecutor failed at his job. The Law did not fail – Bragg did.
Even if the law was wrong and should be changed – which we only have Braggs word on, and that words is worth crapp. Generally the word of prosecutors that laws that protect the rights of criminal defendants should be changed is highly suspect – but from Bragg that would be even more suspect.
Ordinarily – the DA would get the benefit of the doubt – and I would assume incompetence rather than malice or political bias. But as the declaration of independence argues – we can conclude malice from a long train of abuses.
Regardless, unlike you I weight what people SAY with significantly less importance than facts that can be established.
Throughout this debate you are CONSTANTLY fixated on what is said and who said it.
But that is only important in the context of deciding whether the failure to prosecute was political,
and even then that conclusion can not be reached from a single incident.
I do not beleive Bragg, because many many many cases demonstrate a pattern of politics driving his decisions.
With respect to Rivers Crime – that is trivial – Two people met, they argued, One punched the other.
What they argued about is irrelevant.
“He’s a lawyer and he should know better than to leave out pertinent facts.”
He did not. You are dwelling on facts that are irrelevant and then on words that are NOT the same as facts.
“He does that to lead YOU into believing the narrative that the left is against you.”
That may be one of his purposes. If so it has taken him YEARS to reach that conclusion – Turley is not a republican, he is NOT MAGA, he is not even libertarian. He is a pretty typical later 20th century liberal.
His sympathies hand biases have been with the left. To a very large extent they still are with the liberal left,
as opposed to the progressive woke left.
The point is that I am fully aware of Turley’s position and his biases.
Regardless ALL of us come with biases – Turley is not blind to his – but you are absolutely blind to yours.
I am NOT blind to my own – nor to those of others. One of the most important tasks in evaluating some issue or decision or event is sorting the wheat from the chaffe. Sorting out what is relevant and what is not.
That is a significant part of critical thinking.
Just as NOT taking what one party or another says as truth – except as evidence of what they said.
“It’s sad, because I think you are a very smart individual and more than capable of exercising some skepticism when Turley publishes a story that upon cursory reading shows that something is off.”
You are the person whose biases so obviously cloud your judgment.
You have argued ENDLESSLY that what was SAID in this conflict matters with respect to assessing whether a crime was committed. That is BLATANTLY and obviously false.
I do not care what Rivers and Craven were arguing about. I do not care what their politics are.
Rivers punch was an assault PERIOD.
You claim that Turley picks and choses stories and facts to suit a “narrative” – of course he does.
All of us do all the time. that is not evil. It is normal, it is even positively GOOD.
The question is NOT whether Turley is using one story to tell another, that is almost always what people do.
The question is NOT whether Turley made choices about what information to provide to suite the narrative that he is telling.
The question – YOU are trying to raise is whether those choices actually alter the facts and conclusions.
That is your question – not necessarily everyone else’s – and YOU failed at it.
I trust Turley – not with my life, but whith his editorial choices – because I know and understand his biases and because while they do reflect his evolution and his incredibly slow journey away from 20th century liberalism to something closer to left libertarianism, he has NOT made those choices deceptfully – as those on the right occasionally do and those on the left nearly always do.
I would note the left is CONSTANTLY shilling naratives – again that is normal.
The problem with the left is that those narratives are shallow, deceptive and false.
Ist that sometimnes True of he right sure. I do NOT take what the right says as gospel.
As should be obvious from THIS discussion with you – except where the issue is literally about motives, intentions or what was said I DO NOT CARE about allegations regarding motives, intentions or words.
The question – Did Rivers assault Craven – is determined by ACTS – not ideology or words.
The question – Does Bragg show ideological bias in prosecuting or not prosecuting is determined by long term patterns of ACTS – not ideology or words.
And the corruption goes on.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The inflection point of the loss of constitutional American freedom was secession, which was not prohibited, fully constitutional, and reinforced by the 10th Amendment.
Reprehensible slavery must have been legislatively abrogated by elected officials, as it was legalized by elected officials.
In a society of laws, laws must be adhered to.
America lives through almost a decade of preposterous high criminal lawfare, and the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) claim that the evident Comey indictment is “weaponization.”
Now that’s rich!
A talking point used about the left (having no idea’s) is nonsense, a Tyrant needs no ideas, or Tyranny in general solves problems that threatens control by force if necessary but control none the less. Or said in more layman terms, the Left (National and International) has become gangrenous and the rot from their tyrannical actions are really become foul.
Jonathan: You continue to call the Letitia James and Alvin Bragg cases against DJT a “political weaponization” of the justice system. Not so. James won a massive judgment against DJT, proving he defrauded the people of NY by deliberately misstating the value of his properties to obtain favorable loan and insurance rates. That judgment has been upheld on appeal although the amount of the judgment may be reduced. In the Alvin Bragg criminal case DJT was found guilty by a jury on all 34 criminal counts. The trial judge rejected 2 appeals by DJT who has now appealed to the NY Court of Appeals. But in your telling any case brought against DJT must be for political purposes. That’s not how the justice system works.
In the Brianna Rivers case Bragg’s office dropped the prosecution because it missed a discovery deadline. It happens even in the best run prosecutor offices. In a statement Bragg’s office said: “Every victim deserves their day in court, and our office has reached out to apologize to Ms. Craven Antao for the unacceptable error of missing the discovery deadline. We are taking immediate internal steps in light of this case”. Bragg has longed pushed the NY legislature to revise the state’s discovery law, citing dismissals like the Rivers case. State and federal prosecutors sometimes screw up. But that doesn’t mean there has been a “political criminalization” of the justice system in NY.
Of course, the Rivers case is a convenient distraction from the real “political criminalization” of the justice system by DJT in charging Jim Comey. DJT has long wanted to go after his former FBI Director because he refused to be a lapdog and go after DJT’s political enemies. After a full investigation Erik Siebert, the head of the US prosecutor’s office in Virginia , said there was no probably cause to charge Comey. This was backed up by a memo from other prosecutors in Siebert’s office. DJT did not accept that sound legal advice. He fired Siebert and replaced him with his personal attorney who was a insurance lawyer and has no prosecutorial experience.
Most legal experts believe there is no evidence to charge Comey and he will win at either the pleading stage or at trial. It is clear this is a vindictive prosecution against one of DJT’s political enemies. DJT wants to send “chilling” message to anyone who opposes him: “I will use my DOJ to go after you”. That’s a complete corruption of the criminal justice system.
We have seen this same corruption by other authoritarians and dictators in the past. Remember Lavrentiy Beria? He was Stalin’s enforcer in chief and conducted the purges of Stalin’s political enemies. Beria was famously quoted as saying “Show me the man and I will show you the crime”. DJT is taking a page out of the Beria playbook. That will no be good for our Democracy!
“That judgment has been upheld on appeal . . .”
That is false.
The Court ordered that Trump is entitled to a new trial.
Dennis, nearly every claim you made is wrong:
No victims, no fraud – Every lender testified they profited and would lend again. Disagreeing on property value isn’t fraud; it’s negotiation.
No jury – The case was decided by a partisan judge who pre-judged guilt before testimony began.
Bragg’s “34 felonies” – All are duplicates of one bookkeeping entry, tied to a “crime” the jury never had to agree existed.
No federal basis – The FEC and DOJ both declined the case; Bragg invented a theory he had no authority to pursue.
Comey fiction – Presidents don’t file indictments. No one named Siebert was “fired” or replaced by a “personal attorney.” You made that up.
Beria analogy – Trump is appealing through lawful courts. The real “show me the man” crowd are the prosecutors who campaigned on “get Trump.”
When every fact in your argument collapses, maybe stop pretending you’re the lawyer in the room.
Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Those traits you possess in huge amounts.
The evidence piles up. A violent attack by this woman and the charges are dropped. A two million dollar bond is set for an Antifa arsonist and the Democrats come up with $200,000 dollars so he can walk the streets just to do it all again. A slap on the wrist for Antifa members who pursued Andy Ngo down the street and bloodied his head. What’s is it going to take for you to disassociate yourself from this madness.
Turning Point, in memory of Charlie Kirk, will happily assist you with your voter registration. The time has come to stop sitting on your hands.
Bond is intended to allow release of the defendant. If you think they should not be released then you think there should not be bond, so just say so. Setting a bond that is high is merely saying that only the poor stay in jail, and the longer the poor are there the more likely they are to lose their job, their home, all their belongings, and their family, and while presumed innocent.
Note that the 10% number is not refundable. It’s a fee paid to a bail bond company. I wonder how many judges own stock in companies that handle bail bonds and prisons and jail services.
The only people I see charge with arson from antifa backgrounds:
“All six were detained after they allegedly set fire to a police cruiser in protest of the police-involved killing of Antifa activist Manuel Esteban Paez Teran, 26.
The protesters are demanding an investigation into his death, but the Georgia Bureau of Investigation insists he did have a gun on him at the time of the shooting on January 18 and was responsible for shooting a Georgia State trooper.”
Killed. A. Person. No charges.
Set fire to a car.
What of MAGA?
“Trump supporter blamed Antifa: In 2022, a Trump supporter in Minnesota pleaded guilty to wire fraud after faking an arson attack on his own property. He created a “Biden 2020″ sign and then blamed the fire on Antifa. He later pleaded guilty to defrauding his insurance company and GoFundMe donors of over $300,000.”
Apparently some MAGA -are- Antifa.
The local elections board will happily assist with your voter registration and they will do so without the slanted sales pitch.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg must be subjected to a predawn FBI raid at his home and arrested and indicted for being complicit as an accomplice in assault and battery as a federal “hate crime” and “political violence” against a Black woman under the USC.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was negligent and derelict as a prosecutor and was, rather, a willing participant in the crime after the fact.
Yes, Soros and his hug-a-thug prosecutors are a poison injected into the body politic. And when Madman becomes mayor of NYC, it will become more of a hellhole than it already is. How do conservatives fight back? Take a page from Charlie Kirk: young conservative men – find a young lady who seems like she’ll make a good mom, marry her, and have lots of babies. Then train them up right. That’s the most effective way to fight back against the decay being foisted upon us by the forces of darkness and destruction.
In a country where the 250 year old justice system was founded and created with the, perhaps naive aspiration that judges and magistrates appointed or duly elected to trusted positions of jurisprudence, would forever more avoid succumbing to the seduction of absolute power but who are now turn a blinds eye to any actio stricti juris in civil law terms to that of criminal law adjudication. And so it would seem the future of America’s jurisprudence to be somewhat bleak. Remembering the first elements of the Weimar Republic to crumble in advance of the National Socialists rise to complete power was that Nation’s justice system.
“Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) Full Movie | Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster | Historical Drama Classic”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k__zr3LRko
(Enjoy the whole show, 2:59.11 of it).
So now, justice is decided by judges who issue decrees based upon their empathy for the accused and or the declared guilty, with no consideration to the rule of law, rather giving all equitable considerations of the criminals pre-, and post conviction detainment’s and incarcerations.
Pardon me Lady Justice, but your blindfold seems to have fallen down around neck.
——————————————————
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
Their endgame appears to be chaos and anarchy. The hard left has no fresh ideas or solutions. They embrace violence and vulgarities.
Their endgame is communism with agrarian families living together sharing plows. It’s sort of Amish without God. People roaming in herds and strangers invited into your little mud and wattle hut to share soup. No property ownership, barter and trade.
Does Antao have valid basis for a civil suit against Bragg?
Prosecutorial immunity shields Bragg from a direct lawsuit. A complaint can be filed with the Bar and State AG (Latitia James) but those are probably deadends.
*. The reporter lost 3000 dollars and physical harm in stitches, Bragg. I’m glad she’s OK. Iryna wasn’t so lucky.
“No Neck” Bragg strikes (out) again…. what a lame excuse for a prosecutor.
You can’t hate Democrats enough.