American Bar Association condemns the use of government power to threaten political opponents

The American Bar Association (ABA) has waded into a politically charged dispute over Justice Department independence, releasing a statement condemning the use of government power to threaten political opponents and officials “who were doing their job.” The move underscored the organization’s increasingly visible advocacy role, reported JURISTnews.

In the statement, the national professional organization for lawyers in the US wrote:

Using government power to threaten people and groups on political grounds is antithetical to our system of justice and the rule of law. Intimidating a political opponent, a lawyer or law enforcement official who was doing their job, an organization that pursued missions not favored by the president, state attorneys general and even members of Congress is unacceptable. Evidence, not ideology, should always be the north star.

Additionally, ABA noted that decisions of prosecutors must be free from political influence to avoid the erosion of public trust in the judicial and political system. The association reiterated that 15 years ago, a policy was passed concerning the political interests of prosecutors and other government lawyers.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, commonly known as the Appointments Clause, grants the President the authority to “nominate” with the advice of the Senate, “Officers of the United States,” including federal prosecutors. This provision limits undue political influence over the justice system by requiring the Senate’s confirmation role in preventing partisan appointments to the judicial system.

In addition to appointments, however, the threat of utilizing the already-appointed officials is imminent as indicated by the ABA statement. In Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935), the Supreme Court argued that the Attorney General is not a representative of an “ordinary party to a controversy,” but of a “sovereign whose obligation to govern impartially,” and whose prosecution may have earnestness and vigor, but no liberty to strike unfairly.

Earlier this month, former FBI director James Comey was indicted on making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. According to Comey, the DOJ is politically attacking him for his stances against President Donald Trump.

The politically charged statement highlighted the ABA’s increasingly visible advocacy role at a time when several Republican-led states are questioning whether the organization should continue overseeing law school accreditation. Texas on Friday became the first state to announce it would end that arrangement, while Florida has cited concerns about the “ABA’s active political engagement” in launching its own review.

The ABA is the nation’s largest voluntary legal network, representing more than 400,000 lawyers. It has served as the sole federally recognized accreditor of American law schools since 1952. Many states have traditionally required graduation from an ABA-accredited law school as a prerequisite for bar admission, making the organization’s approval essential for most law schools. But the ABA serves functions beyond academia as well, including in vocally advocating for the legal profession and advancing the rule of law.

To read more CLICK HERE

'Department of War' pushes for first military execution in 60 years

The Pentagon is preparing to ask President Donald Trump to authorize the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former Army major convicted of carrying out the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, a senior Department of Defense official told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

If approved, it would be the first U.S. military execution in more than six decades. Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, killed 13 people and wounded 32 others in the attack.

Hasan entered Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Center armed with a semi-automatic pistol and opened fire on fellow service members preparing for deployment. 

During his subsequent trial, Hasan admitted to the shooting and claimed it was necessary to protect the "Islamic Empire" from American forces.

The Pentagon had categorized the massacre as an act of "workplace violence," a decision that drew sharp criticism from lawmakers, victims’ families and national security experts. They argued it obscured the ideological and terrorist motivations behind the attack.

In 2013, a military jury convicted Hasan and sentenced him to death. 

He has been held on death row at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, ever since. 

After years of appeals, Hasan's final legal challenge was rejected in April 2025, clearing the way for execution.

"I am 100% committed to ensuring the death penalty is carried out for Nidal Hasan," Department of War Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News Digital. "This savage terrorist deserves the harshest lawful punishment for his 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood. The victims and survivors deserve justice without delays."

Hasan is one of just four prisoners facing the death penalty under military jurisdiction.

The Army secretary has already recommended execution, and the Department of War is advancing the request.

To read more CLICK HERE

The Trump vengeance tour coming to a politician near you

 According to The New York Times, Donald Trump has never been coy about his intentions. He ran in 2024 on a promise of payback, and declared in a speech at the Justice Department this year his intention to pursue vengeance against the “scum” he says weaponized the criminal justice system against him.

While Mr. Trump and his team acted quickly to purge the Justice Department and the F.B.I. of officials who had roles in prosecuting him and his allies, it has taken a while for the president to exert maximum pressure to bring charges against his highest-profile foes.

In July, William J. Pulte, an obscure but ambitious housing finance official, padded into the Oval Office and pressed doubts in Mr. Trump’s mind about Mr. Siebert’s role in the James investigation. It fueled his growing frustration over the pace of Justice Department inquiries into all of his enemies, including Mr. Comey.

Mr. Pulte argued that Mr. Siebert was slow-walking the James case in order to get confirmed by the Senate for a job in a state with two Democratic senators, according to people briefed on the conversation.

The president’s drive for vengeance was stoked by allies in and outside his government, most notably Mr. Pulte, whose accusations of wrongdoing against a Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, helped instigate Mr. Trump’s move to oust her. Mr. Pulte has often teamed up with Ed Martin, who runs the Justice Department’s “weaponization” task force.

Mr. Pulte, who referred the James mortgage case to the department earlier this year, was not just veering out of his lane. He had jumped the median. Todd Blanche, the former Trump defense lawyer who now runs the day-to-day operations of the Justice Department as the deputy attorney general, made it clear he did not appreciate Mr. Pulte telling the boss what the department should do, according to officials briefed on their interactions and familiar with Mr. Blanche’s thinking.

Mr. Blanche told people in his orbit that Mr. Pulte was hyping up the president’s expectations, even though the legal threshold for bringing charges against Ms. James, proving criminal intent, had not been met.

Mr. Pulte declined to comment. Mr. Blanche did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Blanche is a Trump loyalist. He left a partnership at a top New York law firm when colleagues refused to let him take on Mr. Trump as a private client, and he has promoted the view that Mr. Trump has nearly unlimited authority under Article II of the Constitution. He strongly believes law enforcement was weaponized against the president.

Yet unlike Mr. Martin and Mr. Pulte, Mr. Blanche is also a seasoned former federal prosecutor with a firm grasp of evidentiary rules and an appreciation of work done by career department investigators that is not shared by the president, or many others in the West Wing.

He passed along their unwelcome findings in the James investigation to the White House, knowing it would not be happily received, according to officials.

He knew that Mr. Trump viewed him as his personal lawyer. He also knew his client wanted revenge, not a legal lecture, and understood that it was futile to protest too much.

By late summer, bigger political forces were at work, namely the backlash over his department’s failure to release the full tranche of investigative files into the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. In what was seen as an effort to divert public attention, many pro-Trump influencers — egged on by government officials like Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director — turned up the volume on their demands about prosecuting the president’s enemies.

The calls for vengeance reached such a frenzy that Mr. Trump himself eventually issued a chilling yet all but undeliverable threat: He claimed that former President Barack Obama had committed treason and should face “consequences.”

Enter Mr. Martin, a far-right activist from Missouri, who had been given an ill-defined but potentially powerful role at the department to pursue Trump enemies after Senate Republicans quashed his nomination to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

He had a direct line to the White House, at times bypassing Mr. Blanche, and had a mandate to work directly with U.S. attorneys to bring cases.

By mid-August, he was focused on indicting Ms. James over questions Mr. Pulte had raised about a mortgage application for a house she had purchased in Virginia. One of the spurs driving him: His special agreement to work with Mr. Siebert’s office on the James case expires at the end of this month.

Prosecutors working under Mr. Siebert, however, determined that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.

But Mr. Trump was growing increasingly fixated on the fact that the Justice Department had not yet indicted a single person he had targeted, according to multiple people in his orbit, and was receptive to the agitation of advisers. Mr. Pulte soon had frequent access to Mr. Trump by phone, and efforts by some Trump advisers to stall Mr. Siebert’s dismissal were failing.

Sergio Gor, the director of the presidential personnel office, moved to dismiss Mr. Siebert after Mr. Trump said multiple times that he wanted him fired, according to two people with knowledge of the events. And Boris Epshteyn, a longtime Trump legal adviser, spoke with Ms. Halligan, who was serving as a lawyer in the White House, about stepping in to lead the U.S. attorney’s office. The president quickly settled on her for the role, according to a person familiar with the situation.

Senior Justice Department officials, meanwhile, suggested that the Comey investigation was moving forward, and did not rule out the possibility of a prosecution.

Another deadline accelerated the pace of that investigation: the five-year statute of limitations on potential crimes emanating from Mr. Comey’s Senate testimony, which would have expired on Tuesday.

In early September, prosecutors from Mr. Siebert’s office subpoenaed Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia law professor and close adviser to Mr. Comey, in connection with an investigation into whether the former F.B.I. director lied about authorizing Mr. Richman to leak information.

Mr. Richman’s statements to prosecutors were not helpful in their efforts to build a case, according to people familiar with the matter. And Mr. Siebert began expressing serious doubts about the case, which quickly made their way up the chain of command.

By mid-September, Mr. Trump was determined to rid himself of Mr. Siebert, a 15-year veteran of the office. Ms. Bondi and Mr. Blanche, who had worked closely with Mr. Siebert on immigration, drug and gang cases, pushed back.

The president was unswayed. On Friday, Sept. 19, he told reporters he wanted Mr. Siebert to leave. The prosecutor, who had hoped to find another job in the department, knew that time was up and resigned, according to officials in his office who requested anonymity to avoid retribution.

The next morning, shellshocked staff members in the U.S. attorney’s office awakened to find an email in their inboxes from Maggie Cleary, a veteran state prosecutor, saying she was their new boss.

At 6:44 p.m. on Saturday, Mr. Trump dashed off a rambling but pointed social media message to Ms. Bondi demanding action. It landed with a boom.

It read: “Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action.’ Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.’”

His coda erased any questions about his intentions.

“JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” he wrote. Soon after, Comey was indicted by a grand jury.

To read more CLICK HERE

America's alarming democratic slide outpaces India and Turkey

Edward Luce writing in the Financial Times: 

It has been widely observed that the speed of America’s democratic slide surpasses that of other “elective autocracies” such as Narendra Modi’s India and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey. But that understates Trump’s impatience. Others have shifted to authoritarianism with relatively fast-growing economies, which makes it easier to sustain public support. Trump’s trade war and his “big beautiful [budget] bill” will rob most Americans of income growth. The idea that the disaffected middle will therefore clip Trump’s wings in next year’s midterm elections is quixotic. Having silenced most institutional dissent within his first nine months, what could Trump accomplish in the next 14? 

To read more CLICK HERE

Texas executes baby killer, the second execution of the day

 The 33rd Execution of 2025

Texas death row inmate Blaine Milam was executed on September 25, 2025 for the 2008 killing of his then-fiancée’s 13-month-old daughter after his two previous execution dates were delayed, reported the Texas Tribune.

In 2008, Milam and the girl’s mother, Jesseca Carson, called police to their home near Tatum, where authorities found 13-month-old Amora Carson dead, with human bite marks on her body and signs of physical and sexual assault, according to court documents. The two initially gave police different reasons for the toddler’s death, including that they had left the home and found her injured, that she had eaten insulation and later that they had performed an exorcism on the child.

Milam was executed by lethal injection and pronounced dead at 6:40 p.m., according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In his final statement, the 35-year-old thanked those who supported him while he was on death row and the TDCJ chaplains for helping him find religion.

"If any of you would like to see me again, I implore all of you no matter who you are to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and we will meet again," Milam said.

Milam’s appeals in the years since his conviction largely focused on his potential exemption from the death penalty due to intellectual disability and since-discredited bite-mark science used during his trial. Executing intellectually disabled inmates is unconstitutional, and the discreditation of bite-mark science has led to at least one overturned conviction in Texas under the state’s “junk science” law.

Milam received two stays on his execution in 2019 and 2021 to have appeals heard, but all eventually failed as he was ruled mentally fit for execution. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles unanimously declined to grant Milam clemency on Tuesday.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Milam's application for a stay of execution on Thursday. The application claimed “demonstrably unreliable and prejudicial forensic evidence” was used because prosecutors could not justify a motive for Milam to have killed the toddler, as well as new understanding of bite-mark science and updates to DNA testimony.

Milam's death marks the fifth execution in Texas this year, the same number of executions as 2024. In March, David Wood’s execution was halted two days before he was scheduled to be put to death. The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals granted him a stay, and subsequently remanded Wood’s case back to trial court, where it awaits further action.

 remainder of the year is that of Robert Roberson, whose innocence in the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, has long been maintained not only by him but by a number of state lawmakers. On Wednesday, Roberson’s lawyer said the 58-year-old inmate would not seek clemency, but rather focus on obtaining a new trial.

In August, Roberson filed a new appeal that provided new evidence the petition claimed was only made available because of intervention by Rep. Lacey Hull, R-Houston. The appeal alleges that the Anderson County Judiciary acted unconstitutionally multiple times in the opening days of Roberson’s case, including improperly informing the hospital caring for Nikki that her grandparents had the right to remove her from life support.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Alabama carries out execution by nitrogen gas

 The 32nd Execution of 2025

Geoffrey Todd West, 50, was executed on September 25, 2025 at William C. Holman Correctional Facility in Alabama for killing a woman during a 1997 gas station robbery.  He was executed by nitrogen gas, a method Alabama began using last year. It was one of two executions on the night in the country, as Texas put to death a man convicted of killing his girlfriend’s 13-month-old daughter.

West was convicted of capital murder in the 1997 killing of Margaret Parrish Berry, 33, according to The Associated Press.

West said “No sir” when asked by the warden if he had final words. Strapped to the gurney with a blue-rimmed gas mask covering his face, he gave a thumbs-up in the direction of his attorney as the execution began at about 5:56 p.m.

West’s eyes were open as he appeared to gulp and struggle for breath during the first two minutes. His head rocked from side to side, his left fist curled up and he appeared to slightly foam at the mouth. At about 6:01 he began to take a long series of breaths with long pauses in between before becoming still at about 6:07. He was pronounced dead at 6:22.

In a final statement provided by his attorney, West said: “I have apologized privately to the family of Margaret Parrish Berry, and am humbled by the forgiveness her son, Will, has extended.”

He added that he was baptized in the Catholic Church this year and was “at peace because I know where I am going.”

Berry, the mother of two sons, was shot in the back of the head while lying on the floor behind the counter at Harold’s Chevron in Etowah County on March 28, 1997.

Prosecutors said she was killed execution-style to ensure there was no witness. Court records state that $250 was taken from a cookie can that held the station’s money. A jury voted 10-2 to recommend a death sentence.

AD

West, in an interview last week, did not deny killing Margaret Berry. He said that at age 50, he struggles to understand what he did as a young man. He and his girlfriend were desperate for cash and went to the station, where he once worked, to rob it.

“There’s not a day that goes by that I don’t regret it and wish that I could take that back,” West told AP by telephone. He said he wanted Berry’s family to know he regrets what happened.

A plea from victim’s son

Will Berry urged Alabama’s governor to commute West’s sentence to life in prison. He said taking another life will not help his family. He exchanged letters with West ahead of the execution.

“I forgive him and so does my dad. We don’t want him to die,” Will Berry said.

He was 11 when his mother was killed, and he said prosecutors urged the family to support a death sentence. Now a father and grandfather, Will Berry said time and faith have given him a different perspective.

Ivey said in a Sept. 11 letter to Berry that she intended to let the execution go forward. She wrote that she appreciates his belief but said it is her duty to uphold Alabama law.

“Almost 30 years ago, Margaret Parrish Berry went to work at the convenience store, but she would never get to return home. Geoffrey West went in with the intent to rob and kill, and he cowardly shot Ms. Berry in the back of the head,” Ivey said in a statement issued after the execution.

“Tonight, the lawfully imposed death sentence has been carried out, justice has been served, and I pray for healing for all,” the governor added.

Also in a statement Thursday, Will Berry expressed astonishment at the execution and offered condolences to West’s loved ones.

“From what we understand, he acted out of character that night. People he grew up with said he was a good person who got off track,” Berry said. “We pray that he gains peace when he meets his maker.”

Berry and West asked to meet ahead of the execution, but the Alabama Department of Corrections denied the request citing security regulations.

The Federal Defenders Office of the Middle District, which represented West, said in a statement that denying the meeting was a “lost opportunity — for closure, for healing, for humanity.”

“The execution of Mr. West demands that we reflect as a society: on how we handle capital punishment, on how age and life circumstances are considered, on how we balance justice, mercy, and the possibility of redemption,” his attorneys said in a statement.

Nitrogen gas

The execution method used to put West to death involved strapping a gas mask to his face and forcing him to breathe pure nitrogen gas, depriving him of the oxygen needed to stay alive.

Asked about West’s movements during the execution. Corrections Commissioner John Hamm said he believes they were largely involuntary and things went “just as expected, according to protocol.”

Alabama became the first state to carry out a nitrogen gas execution in 2024. Nationally, the method has now been used in seven executions: six times in Alabama and once in Louisiana.

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump gets his revenge and the rule of law takes a big hit

The clearest way to understand the extraordinary nature of the indictment of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, is to offer this simple recitation of the facts by The New York Times:

An inexperienced prosecutor loyal to President Trump, in the job for less than a week, filed criminal charges against one of her boss’s most-reviled opponents. She did so not only at Mr. Trump’s direct command, but also against the urging of both her own subordinates and her predecessor, who had just been fired for raising concerns that there was insufficient evidence to indict.

Visit The New York Times

 

America's prisons are greying, elderly prison population ballooning

 A new report from ACLU on the greying of America's prisons:

America’s prison population is aging — and aging faster than ever. The graying of America’s prisons is transforming the landscape of the nation’s correctional systems, presenting myriad operational and fiscal challenges for prison systems across the country. Of most importance, though, is that the ballooning elderly incarcerated population, coupled with correctional agencies' inability to adequately address their distinct needs, has created conditions that are ripe for a multitude of civil rights violations, the exacerbation of chronic medical conditions, and ultimately, needless suffering and preventable deaths. These problems are only getting worse.

To read the report CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Where Have All the Heroes Gone

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
September 23, 2025

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest civilian honor that can be bestowed on an individual by the President of the United States. The honor was established by former President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

The award has been given to 673 people, and collectively to the crew of Apollo 13.

As the president demands his Attorney General Pam Bondi prosecute his political foes, we would do well to remember a past recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom — William D. Ruckelshaus.

Ruckelshaus was known for his work protecting the environment, fighting pollution and serving as the first leader of the Environmental Protection Agency, but tucked away in the White House statement announcing his award, he was recognized for his courage to stand up to former President Richard Nixon, who sought to circumvent the rule of law.

In 1972, five men hired by the committee to re-elect Nixon broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Building in Washington, D.C.

About a year later, Archibald Cox was appointed to investigate the matter.

Cox demanded that the White House turn over 10 hours of secret Oval Office recordings, some of which could implicate the president in covering up the break-in.

Later that year, Nixon, feeling the investigation closing in on him, demanded the Department of Justice fire Cox for refusing to obey the president's order to abandon his demand for the "White House tapes."

Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned rather than dismiss Cox. Nixon then turned to Ruckelshaus, his Deputy Attorney General, to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also chose to resign. The incident became known as the "Saturday Night Massacre."

Robert Bork, the solicitor general, became acting attorney general and fired Cox. Within minutes, the White House sent the FBI to seal the offices of the Special Prosecutor, Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.

Under enormous public pressure, Nixon appointed a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski. He eventually obtained the missing tapes and Nixon resigned the following year.

Ruckelshaus is certainly not a household name, but he was a true American hero. He told The New York Times years later, "I thought what the president was doing was fundamentally wrong — I was convinced that Cox had only been doing what he had the authority to do; what was really of concern to the president and the White House was that he was too close. He hadn't engaged in any extraordinary improprieties, quite the contrary."

Ruckelshaus took a principled stand and was willing to put it all on the line for what he believed in — the rule of law. The conduct of our current president reveals just how few American heroes we have today.

In his letter of resignation, reprinted at the time by The New York Times, Ruckelshaus politely thanked Nixon for the opportunity to serve and wished him well, but admonished that "my conscience will not permit me to carry out your instructions to discharge Archibald Cox. My disagreement with that action at this time is too fundamental to permit me to act otherwise."

According to Reuters, the Department of Justice under Bondi has launched criminal probes into Trump's perceived enemies, searching the home of former national security adviser John Bolton, and using grand juries to probe mortgage-fraud allegations against New York Attorney General Letitia James, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff and Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. What will Pam Bondi do?

In 2018, Ruckelshaus wrote in the Washington Post, the "Saturday Night Massacre" was not only the beginning of the end for Nixon, "but it also accelerated the growing wave of political cynicism and distrust in our government we are still living with today. One manifestation of that legacy: a president who will never admit he uttered a falsehood and a Congress too often pursuing only a partisan version of the truth."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Law Enforcement: No connection between left wing 'radicals' and Tyler Robinson

The federal investigation into the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has yet to find a link between the alleged shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, and left-wing groups on which President Donald Trump and his administration have pledged to crack down after the killing, three sources familiar with the probe told NBC News.

One person familiar with the federal investigation said that “thus far, there is no evidence connecting the suspect with any left-wing groups.”

“Every indication so far is that this was one guy who did one really bad thing because he found Kirk’s ideology personally offensive,” this person continued.

In addition, two of the people familiar with the probe said it may be difficult to charge Robinson at the federal level for Kirk’s killing, while the third source said there is still an expectation that some kind of federal charge is filed against Robinson.

Factors that have complicated the effort to bring charges at the federal level include that Robinson, a Utah resident, did not travel from out of state; Kirk was shot during an open campus debate at Utah Valley University. Additionally, Kirk himself is not a federal officer or elected official.

A Justice Department spokesperson said, “The investigation is ongoing and beyond that we decline to comment.”

Robinson currently faces state charges, which were announced on Tuesday. He is being charged with aggravated murder and obstruction of justice, among others, and Utah prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in the case. Prosecutors said Robinson targeted Kirk, the co-founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA, during the Sept. 10 event because of his “political expression.” His mother told investigators in part “that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left.”

Thomas Brzozowski, who was until recently the Justice Department’s counsel for domestic terrorism, told NBC News that while Kirk’s assassination appears to meet the definition of domestic terrorism, finding a federal charge to bring against the shooter might be a challenge. There’s no federal law that makes acts of domestic terrorism a stand-alone crime, although prosecutors can seek a sentencing enhancement after conviction.

The FBI is frequently involved in domestic terrorism investigations that ultimately result in only state-level charges.

“As is always the case, the FBI needs a federal hook to initiate an investigation,” Brzozowski said. “Here, it appears that they’re acting in an assistance to state authorities’ capacity.”

Charging documents filed Tuesday also contained a series of texts between Robinson and a roommate, whom police described as “a biological male who was involved in a romantic relationship” with the suspect and transitioning to female. The roommate’s identity has not been made public.

To read more CLICK HERE

Cash bail keeps people not convicted of a crime behind bars

This is The Marshall Project’s Closing Argument newsletter, a weekly deep dive into a key criminal justice issue. Want this delivered to your inbox? Sign up for future newsletters.

On Monday, North Carolina lawmakers will return to the state capitol with plans to tighten rules around bail and pretrial release for people accused of crimes. The proposed legislation would require that people arrested in the state pay a cash bail to be released from jail before trial if they have a prior violent offense on their record.

The push comes on the heels of the fatal, unprovoked stabbing of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska on a commuter train in August. Footage of the attack went viral and was amplified by some right-wing commentators and political figures, including President Donald Trump, as proof that lenient bail policies are allowing violent criminals to roam the streets.

The alleged attacker, Decarlos Brown Jr, had a long criminal history and had been released without posting bail after his most recent arrest. It’s not clear that the newly proposed bill, had it been law at the time, could have prevented Zarutska’s death. The maximum sentence for the crime in Brown’s most recent arrest — for misdemeanor misuse of 911 — is 120 days. A retired North Carolina judge noted that even if Brown had been denied bail altogether, he almost certainly would have been released by April, long before the August stabbing.

Cash bail is money a defendant pays to be released from jail before trial — often thought of as a kind of collateral or placeholder to ensure that the accused returns to court. In practice, however, courts often intentionally set bail at amounts defendants can’t afford — effectively using it as a tool to keep a legally innocent person detained until trial.

Republicans in New York are also working to advance new bail laws that would limit pretrial release, more than five years after a hotly contested bail reform package was signed into law. Currently, the state is somewhat of an outlier on pretrial release due to a 1971 law that makes it illegal for judges there to consider a person’s “dangerousness” when setting bail. The bill proposed earlier this month would allow considering dangerousness, and make it a key factor in release decisions.

The New York effort faces unlikely odds in the Democratic-controlled state legislature. The North Carolina bill has a clearer path to pass in the Republican-controlled legislature, but could face a veto by Democratic Gov. Josh Stein.

Then there’s Texas, which passed comprehensive and bipartisan bail-stiffening laws earlier this summer, including limiting the situations where people are eligible for cashless bond – or released without paying money. Voters there will also consider a state constitutional amendment this fall that would ban bail altogether for defendants charged with certain violent crimes.

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is trying to dismantle bail policy in the state’s largest city. In a landmark 2017 ruling, a federal judge concluded that the misdemeanor bail system in Harris County — where Houston is located — violated the constitutional rights of poor people who could not afford to purchase their freedom. The ruling led to an agreement with the federal government that dramatically reshaped misdemeanor bail in the county, and it’s that agreement Paxton is trying to vacate.

Some criminal justice reform advocacy groups, like the Texas Civil Rights Corps, see these moves as connected to broader national political trends. In a statement, the organization said the changes in Texas mirrored an executive order signed by Trump in late August aimed at cracking down on jurisdictions with “cashless bail” pretrial release. Trump’s order gave Attorney General Pam Bondi until this coming Wednesday to name jurisdictions that have “substantially eliminated cash bail” for crimes that “pose a clear threat to public safety and order.” Under the order, those jurisdictions would then lose access to federal funds if they don’t change their bail systems.

Trump’s order was quickly followed by proposals in the U.S. House and Senate with similar aims. Nicole Zayas Manzano, deputy director of policy at The Bail Project — a national nonprofit that advocates for ending cash bail — said these efforts reflect a genuine belief among some supporters in the utility of money bail. But she added that they’re also “getting at the idea of increasing pretrial detention wherever possible,” suggesting that the deeper goal may be keeping more people in jail, rather than preserving any specific feature of the current system.

Even some of the president’s supporters agree that getting money back into the system isn’t necessarily the goal. John Koufos, a lawyer who worked with the Trump administration on the 2018 First Step Act, argued in a recent USA Today op-ed that the end result of Trump’s order would not be a broad revival of cash bail, but policies that put “risk of re-offense and severity of the crime first.”

As we often mention in this newsletter, laws are mostly written at the state level and enforced locally. That means threats to federal funding (or the promise of new grants) are the primary way for the president or Congress to influence the workings of the criminal justice system, and it’s not a partisan concept. In 2021, eight Democratic legislators introduced a bill to discourage the use of cash bail by taking federal justice grants away from states reliant on it.

That effort never made it out of committee, let alone to a floor vote. The recent Republican cash bail bill is much more likely to advance, with the party in control of Congress and the issue being a top priority for Trump.

Some conservative legal scholars have argued that these efforts may violate the Tenth Amendment, which sets limits on how much the federal government can intervene in areas traditionally handled by the states, like criminal justice.

Research on cash bail and crime rates is incomplete and mixed, but most studies have found that eliminating it does not increase overall crime rates, while reducing jail populations and minimizing the harms of jail. In fact, some research has concluded that time in jail is so destabilizing that increasing pretrial release reduces recidivism — which is to say, future criminal activity.

But public safety research may carry less weight if that isn’t the real focus of the administration’s efforts. “I don’t think there’s really much logic or much policy behind Trump’s declaration here,” Sharone Mitchell Jr., the chief public defender of Cook County, Illinois, told Bolts last month. “I really do think this is much more about politics. It’s about getting over a blue state.”

To read more CLICK HERE

NYT: Border Czar Tom Homan accepted $50,000.00 in cash during FBI sting

Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, accepted a bag with $50,000 in cash in an undercover F.B.I. investigation before he was named to the job. The case was later shut down by Trump administration officials.

 To read more CLICK HERE

Kimmel was 'jawboned' censorship by proxy

As First Amendment scholar Evelyn Douek watched the news unfold of ABC yanking Jimmy Kimmel from air, she was aghast: "The hypocrisy is enough to give one vertigo," she told NPR.

It's shocking to Douek, because she is a close-watcher of what's known as "jawboning," when regulators or government officials pressure private actors, like a social media company or broadcast network, to stifle speech. The libertarian Cato Institute calls the practice "censorship by proxy."

For years, Republicans excoriated social media platforms over their belief that the Biden administration overly pressured Twitter and Facebook to remove Covid misinformation. It spurred a constant drumbeat of online attacks, Congressional subpoenas and hearings in Washington.

Now, the Trump administration's Federal Communications Commission appears to have bullied ABC into dropping Kimmel, said Douek, a professor at Stanford Law School. She said it makes social media companies' removal of Covid-related posts at the request of government officials "gentle by comparison."

The Kimmel episode follows CBS' cancellation of Stephen Colbert's The Late Show, which often pilloried President Trump. Together, the incidents have intensified concerns among free speech experts that the Trump administration is using the extraordinary powers of the federal government to muzzle political speech.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who in 2020 called political satire one of "the oldest and most important forms of free speech," wrote on X on Thursday that broadcast stations have "long retained the right to not air national programs that they believe are inconsistent with the public interest, including their local communities' values."

Gigi Sohn, a former senior advisor to the FCC under President Obama, said Kimmel's suspension is the result of decades of media consolidation, where financial determinations can override concerns about free speech.

"When control of media and tech are in the hands of a handful of companies, it becomes easier for authoritarian leaders to control them," Sohn wrote.

What happened exactly?

On Monday night, Kimmel's opening monologue included remarks about the suspect in the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Camera crews and onlookers gather in front of the Jimmy Kimmel Live studio on Hollywood Blvd. in Los Angeles on Wednesday.

He said: "We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it," he said. (It should be noted that authorities say the suspect in the shooting, Tyler Robinson, targeted Kirk over his conservative political views, but the full extent of Robinson's political ideology has not yet surfaced in his legal case. Kimmel's comments were made before prosecutors in Utah unveiled their charges against Robinson.)

On Wednesday, Carr appeared on the podcast of MAGA influencer Benny Johnson. In the interview, Carr said, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."

He went on to say: "These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

Hours later, Nexstar and Sinclair, which own more than 60 local ABC stations, announced that they would not carry Kimmel's program "for the foreseeable future," over his Monday night comments about the Kirk slaying.

Soon after, ABC, which has aired Kimmel's late-night show since 2003, said it was suspending him indefinitely.

The decision is not happening in a vacuum. Nexstar announced recently that it is in the process of trying to acquire its rival, Tegna, in a deal estimated to be worth $6.2 billion that is subject to the review of Carr's FCC.

Nexstar also needs Carr's support to loosen regulations to complete the deal. Under current rules, no one company can own stations that reach more than 39% of U.S. households. The Nexstar-Tegna tie-up is estimated to extend the company's combined reach into 80% of American homes.

Carr celebrated the series of events kicked off by Nexstar, thanking the company on X for "doing the right thing."

Carr wrote: "I hope that other broadcasters follow Nexstar's lead."

First Amendment expert: Kimmel is "prime example" of government censorship

Legal observers say the Kimmel saga could be setting up a high-profile First Amendment case.

Government officials are legally permitted to try to persuade a private actor, like ABC, to change speech, yet they cannot coerce a broadcaster to do so, according to Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

The delicate line between persuasion and coercion was at the heart of a Supreme Court case last year that examined whether the Biden administration broke the law in its communication with social media companies about Covid misinformation.

By a 6-3 vote, the court found that states did not have standing to sue the Biden administration because there wasn't enough evidence showing a direct line between government outreach and social media companies restricting content.

The court declared that in order for government influence to violate the First Amendment, there needs to be a "concrete link" between officials' actions and the suppression of speech.

In the Kimmel case, according to Abdo: "It's as direct a line as you could dream up."

He added: "An FCC regulator threatening legal liability against a media company for Constitutionally-protected political speech. If the First Amendment was meant to prevent censorship, this is the prime example of it."

Jennifer Huddleston, of the Cato Institute, said if the Kimmel decision sticks, there could be a chilling effect, with network television dialing down the tone of their political jokes and confrontational news coverage, lest they wind up in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.

"That is one of the greatest risks," Huddleston said. "It's not only the impact on a specific situation, but what signal does that send to the broader discourse and to other networks watching?"

President Trump cheered Kimmel being pulled from the airwaves on Truth Social. He called on NBC to cancel The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon and Late Night with Seth Meyers.

"Do it NBC!!!" the president wrote.

For Kimmel, experts say even if he has a strong legal case, it does not guarantee that he will fight his departure in court, especially if he believes ABC reinstating him is unlikely.

"In some sense, it almost doesn't matter if they're right in the law, because, on the ground, they're achieving the censorship of protected speech, which is their goal," Abdo said. "The truth is Kimmel's voice is silenced and the voice of others will likely be silenced."

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida carries out another execution the 12th this year

 The 31st Execution of 2025

A Florida man convicted of killing his estranged wife’s sister and parents and setting their house on fire was put to death on September 17, 2025, a record 12th execution in the state in 2025.

David Pittman, 63, was pronounced dead at 6:12 pm local time following a lethal injection at Florida state prison near Starke, under a death warrant signed by Governor Ron DeSantis. Florida’s Republican governor has signed more death warrants this year than any of his predecessors.

DeSantis spokesperson Alex Lanfranconi said the execution was carried out without complications. Pittman’s last words, according to Lanfranconi, were: “I know you all came to watch an innocent man be murdered by the state of Florida. I am innocent. I didn’t kill anybody. That’s it.”

Pittman’s final appeal was rejected by the US supreme court.

Two more Florida executions are scheduled for this fall. Victor Tony Jones is scheduled to die on 30 September for the 1990 killings of two people during a robbery. Samuel Lee Smithers is scheduled for execution on 14 October for the murders of two women in 1996.

Pittman was convicted and sentenced to death in 1991 on three counts of first-degree murder, according to court records. Jurors also found him guilty of arson and grand theft.

Pittman and his wife, Marie, were going through a contentious divorce in May 1990, when the killings occurred, and investigators say he had threatened to harm her family several times.

Trial testimony showed Pittman cut a phone line at the Mulberry, Florida, home of his wife’s parents, Clarence Knowles, 60, and his wife, 50-year-old Barbara Knowles. Pittman stabbed the couple to death as well as their other daughter, 21-year-old Bonnie Knowles. Pittman then set their house on fire and stole Bonnie Knowles’s car, which he also set ablaze. The family was found dead on 15 May of that year.

A witness during his 1991 trial identified Pittman as the person running away from the burning car. A jailhouse informant also testified that Pittman had admitted to the killings. Jurors recommended the death penalty on a 9-3 vote.

Pittman’s most recent appeals focused on recent evidence indicating he suffers from intellectual disabilities, including an IQ in the low 70s, that was apparent at the time of the killings. His lawyers say his execution would violate the constitution’s protection against putting to death a person with severe mental problems.

Lawyers for the state disagreed, contending it was now too late for Pittman to claim mental impairment from years earlier. The Florida supreme court, reversing a previous decision, ruled in 2020 that such claims cannot apply retroactively.

“Pittman’s underlying intellectual disability claim is meritless. He was not intellectually disabled when he murdered the three victims in 1990 or when he went to trial in 1991,” the state attorneys told the US supreme court.

Before Pittman, 30 people have been executed in the US in 2025, with Florida leading the way behind the flurry of death warrants signed by DeSantis. The last execution in Florida was the 28 August lethal injection of 59-year-old Curtis Windom, convicted of the 1992 murders of his girlfriend, her mother and another man.

Florida executions are carried out via a three-drug injection: a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart, according to the state department of corrections.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses death penalty for Tyler Robinson of WFMJ-TV21

Watch my interview with Lindsay McCoy of WFMJ-TV21 on the arrest of Tyler Robinson for the murder of Charlie Kirk.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

CREATORS: This Is a Time To Be Gracious and Acknowledge Grief

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
September 16, 2025

Violence is never the answer. Charlie Kirk's death is tragic, but unfortunately not unprecedented in this country. During the final decades of the nineteenth century and the infancy of the twentieth, three American presidents were murdered.

From 1963 to 1968, a president, a candidate for president and two civil rights leaders were slain. Not unlike those prior assassinations, the reaction to Kirk's death is both sympathetic and callous.

In the wake of Kirk's death, U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., called for the immediate firing of multiple people in her state. "This person should be ashamed of her post. She should be removed from her position," Blackburn wrote on X about an assistant dean at Middle Tennessee State University, reported NPR.

Screenshots shared by Blackburn from the assistant dean's Facebook posts included: "Looks like ol' Charlie spoke his fate into existence. Hate begets hate. ZERO sympathy." The assistant dean was fired, according to USA Today.

Fifty-seven years ago, in the state Blackburn represents, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.

Elizabeth Bumiller wrote in The New York Times about Kirk and King. She suggested "Beyond an ability to inspire passion in others, Dr. King and Mr. Kirk had almost nothing in common," with the exception that they were both influential political leaders never elected to office.

U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., posted on X that he planned to "use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled (Kirk's) assassination."

"I'm also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their driver's licenses should be revoked," he wrote.

Imagine if Congress had censored comments after King's death or threatened the careers of people exercising their First Amendment rights, a right that Kirk celebrated on college campuses across the country. After all, Kirk was free to say that King was "awful" and "not a good person" and to describe the Civil Rights Act as a "huge mistake."

The rhetoric after King's death was caustic. U.S Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina blamed King for his own violent death. He dismissed King as an "outside agitator" who was "bent on stirring people up, making everyone dissatisfied."

Thurmond attributed the assassination to the very movement King led, writing to his constituents, "We are now witnessing the whirlwind sowed years ago when some preachers and teachers began telling people that each man could be his own judge in his own case."

Former President Ronald Reagan, who was governor of California at the time of King's death, said it was "a great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order and people started choosing which laws they'd break". This view suggested that the civil disobedience central to King's activism created a general disrespect for law that eventually led to violence and King's death.

Georgia's Governor Lester Maddox called King an "enemy of our country". He refused to attend King's funeral ceremony or close state government offices for the day. He even considered personally raising the flags outside the Capitol that were at half-staff.

On the evening of King's assassination, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, then a candidate for president — two months later himself a victim of assassination — told a crowd in Indianapolis that "it is perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in."

Elizabeth Bumiller interviewed Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington for her Times article. "Public grief is necessary and this is a time for those who loved and admired Charlie Kirk to grieve and to grieve publicly." She continued, "For those who were hurt or aggrieved by his positions, I think this is a time for us to be gracious, and allow grief to be expressed."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses the arrest of Tyler Robinson on Court TV

Watch my interview with Kelly Krapf on Court TV about the arrest of Tyler Robinson for the murder of Charlie Kirk.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Kirk was a fierce defender of the First Amendment, his admirers are crushing it

In the days since the assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk, institutions from airlines to schools have moved quickly to discipline employees accused of celebrating or mocking his death, a reflection of the charged atmosphere surrounding the killing, reported NBC News.

On the right, some have called for the aggressive punishment of anyone seen condoning his assassination. Former adviser to President Donald Trump and right-wing podcaster Steve Bannon called for mass arrests and a crackdown on universities, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed staff to identify and discipline service members who mocked or condoned Kirk’s killing, two defense officials told NBC News.

Kirk was one of the right’s most prominent and polarizing voices. He built his following by amplifying the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen and by railing against what he called “woke” culture. His comments on race, feminism, LGBTQ rights and immigration often drew sharp criticism, sparking campus protests when he visited and making him a lighting rod for mockery and inspiration.

Kirk was the 31-year-old co-founder of conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, a nonprofit that promotes conservative politics on high school and college campuses nationwide. He was fatally shot Wednesday during an event at Utah Valley University.

Officials on Friday identified 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, now in custody, as a suspect in his murder.

Since Kirk’s assassination, terminations and disciplinary actions against employees have mounted across industries.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy called for the firing of American Airlines pilots accused of celebrating Kirk’s death. The pilots were “immediately grounded and removed from service,” according to Duffy.

“We heal as a country when we send the message that glorifying political violence is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!” he wrote on X.

American Airlines confirmed it had “initiated action to address this,” emphasizing that “hate-related or hostile behavior runs contrary to our purpose, which is to care for people on life’s journey.”

Delta Air Lines also announced it had suspended employees pending an investigation after they shared social media posts that “went well beyond healthy, respectful debate.” The airline did not disclose details about the posts, but said that violations of the company’s social media policy can lead to termination.

Schools and universities

Idaho’s West Ada School District said it fired an employee who allegedly posted a video online. The school district did not elaborate on the contents of the video but said in a statement that it was “shocked and saddened” by it.

“West Ada remains committed to nurturing and supporting our students and families, and to addressing harmful actions thoughtfully, with care, and with a focus on doing what is right,” the school district said in a statement.

In Oregon, a middle school science teacher was placed on administrative leave for posting on Facebook that Kirk’s death “brightened up” his day, NBC affiliate KGW reported. The teacher ultimately resigned.

South Carolina’s Clemson University announced Saturday that an employee was suspended pending further investigation after they made social media posts about Kirk’s death. The university did not share the contents of the posts and said it was also thoroughly reviewing posts made by other employees in response to Kirk’s death.

“Clemson University remains committed to upholding the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the employment laws of the State of South Carolina,” the university said in a statement.

The actions at Clemson prompted Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to post, “Free speech doesn’t prevent you from being fired if you’re stupid and have poor judgement.”

Health care sector

The University of Miami’s health system announced that it fired an employee after “unacceptable public commentary,” but did not elaborate on what the individual said.

“Freedom of speech is a fundamental right,” the statement read. “At the same time, expressions that condone or endorse violence or are incompatible with our policies or values are not acceptable.”

A Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta employee was fired after making “inappropriate comments” about Kirk’s killing Friday.

“This type of rhetoric is not acceptable for Children’s employees and violates our social media policy,” a spokesperson for the health care center said in a statement.

In Portage, Michigan, an Office Depot employee was fired after allegedly refusing to print flyers about Charlie Kirk at a customer’s request. The specific contents of the flyer are not clear at this time.

Office Depot called the incident deeply concerning, adding that the employee’s behavior “is completely unacceptable and insensitive, violates our company policies, and does not reflect the values” of the company.

“We are committed to reinforcing training with all team members to ensure our standards of respect, integrity, and customer service are upheld at every location,” the company said in a statement.

The investigation into Kirk’s death is ongoing.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino featured on Court TV's Vinnie Politan Investigates

Watch my interview on Vinnie Politan Investigates with guests anchor Ted Rowland on Court TV.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Utah's law allowing some to open carry on college campuses is under scrutiny

In the aftermath of the tragic shooting of far-right activist, and ardent Second Amendment supporter, Charlie Kirk -- recently passed Utah legislation allowing people with concealed-carry permits to carry firearms openly on college campuses has drawn fresh scrutiny, according to The Guardian.

Utah has allowed for permitless open and concealed carry of weapons since 2021. But before the passage of HB 128, firearms had to be concealed when carried on college campuses. The law allowed people with the proper permit to carry them openly.

When the law passed in August, university staff voiced concerns about what carrying could mean for classroom emergencies that might require students to act as armed responders and their presence in laboratories where harmful and potent chemicals were stored.

While it’s unclear whether the suspected shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was legally allowed to own the hunting rifle used in the shooting, or have one on a university campus, the proximity between the bill’s passing and the shooting has pushed the law into headlines across the US.

The bill did not come in a vacuum, but added to Utah’s already second amendment-friendly legislative landscape. The state doesn’t have extreme risk protection orders (Erpo), known as red-flag laws, which allow people such as police officers and family members to petition a judge to have someone’s firearms temporarily taken away. It is one of 29 states that allows people to carry concealed firearms without a permit. It has a law aiming to get guns out of the hands of people in crisis, but requires people to flag themselves in the federal background check system.

When Utah lawmakers have addressed campus safety, their efforts have typically centered on K-12 schools, where there is a greater expectation and need for campuses to be largely closed to the public.

There, in lieu of policies restricting gun access and training requirements for prospective concealed-carry permit applicants, the state has leaned into legislation meant to make it harder for shooters to enter and move freely around schools – for example, by adding doors with automatic locks, surveillance cameras and fencing. This approach, known as school hardening, is to deter shooters from entering schools and responding quickly to stop them and secure students.

For example, HB 119, which passed last year, incentivizes K-12 teachers to get training so they can keep a firearm in their classroom. HB 84, a sweeping piece of legislation passed in 2024, requires classrooms to have panic devices and schools to have at least one armed person – be it a school resource officer or security guard – on campus daily.

Advocates of Utah’s gun laws have argued that making sure guns are easily accessible can serve as a deterrent, whether to would-be home invaders, carjackers or shooters hoping to take advantage of “soft targets” like malls, campuses and grocery stores, and allow for armed responses if some start shooting.

“We sort of take the view here that the second amendment is very broad and a permit to carry a concealed weapon is just one obstacle in being able to exercise that right. There’s a mentality that there should be as few obstacles as possible,” said Johnny Richardson, a Utah-based attorney and former editor at the Utah Law Review.

“In effect, there’s a belief that gun control laws will impede access to those who are already law-abiding and put them at an unfair disadvantage to those who aren’t,” he continued.

While permitless carrying may have some effect on deterring offences such as robberies, it is inadequate in the face of grievance and politically driven violence, said Brandon del Pozo, an assistant professor of medicine and health policy at Brown University.

“The deterrence effect of concealed carry only applies to rational actors. And you get to a point in political extremism where you’re not dealing with rational people,” he said.

Before he went to Brown, del Pozo spent 19 years in the New York police department, and four years as the chief of police for Burlington, Vermont, where, like in Utah, permits to carry and licenses to sell firearms are not required. Del Pozo says that the circulation of guns was on his mind while planning safety for rallies and the annual city marathon, which attracts thousands of people. Through these experiences, he’s found that cities and states where many residents are armed in public can fail to account for the large presence of concealed guns and to plan to provide an accompanying level of screening.

“In places like Utah where there’s going to be a lot of guns in circulation, you have to decide when you’re going to carve out spaces where people are screened for guns,” he added.

“And if you’re a small police department, it’s hard to secure something outdoors. But if you’re coming to a provocative political rally, you need to be screened.”

In a press conference following the shooting, Utah Valley’s campus police chief, Jeff Long, told reporters that there had been six officers assigned to the Charlie Kirk event, which drew a crowd of about 3,000 people. His department coordinated with Kirk’s personal security detail, he said.

Students who attended the event noted that there were no metal detectors or staff members checking attendees’ bags, according to the Associated Press.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Replace violence 'with an effort to understand'

 Elizabeth Bumiller writing for The New York Times:

On the night in April 1968 that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, then a candidate for president, told a shocked and largely Black crowd in Indianapolis that “it is perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in.”

“Those of you who are Black,” he said, could be filled with “a desire for revenge.” Or, he said, the nation could try to replace violence “with an effort to understand.” It was considered one of the finest speeches of his life. But in the wake of Dr. King’s death, riots, looting and arson erupted in more than 100 American cities, and Kennedy himself was assassinated that June in California.

Fifty-seven years later, the nation is at another polarized moment after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old conservative activist gunned down on a college campus in Utah. Beyond an ability to inspire passion in others, Dr. King and Mr. Kirk had almost nothing in common. But their murders both occurred in a country already awash in violent political rhetoric and partisan anger.

Americans are now grappling with the brutal killing of a young leader who is viewed through radically different lenses. On the right, Mr. Kirk has been lionized as an inspiration to a new generation of Republicans. On the left, he has been pilloried as a divider who attacked civil rights, transgender rights, feminism and Islam.

As people wrestle over Mr. Kirk’s legacy, historians and scholars say the lessons of this particular time will depend on Americans themselves. It is another test, they say, of the American experiment.

“Does a reprehensible crime against a political figure lead to more reprehensible acts, or does it remind us that we have to be able to live with people whose opinions we despise without resorting to violence?” asked the presidential biographer Jon Meacham. “If this is open season on everybody who expresses an opinion, then the American covenant is broken.”

In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Kirk’s murder, anger has pulsed loudly. President Trump blamed the left for what he said was savage rhetoric that had led to Mr. Kirk’s death and vowed to go after “those who contributed to this atrocity.” Democrats and Republicans in Congress lashed out at each other and are ever more fearful for their own safety. People who castigated Mr. Kirk and his views have been targeted and exposed by right-wing influencers. Mentions of the term “civil war” skyrocketed on social media platforms.

Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah, a Republican, has stood out for trying to turn down the heat. “This is certainly about the tragic death, assassination, political assassination, of Charlie Kirk,” he said at a news conference on Friday. “But it is also much bigger than an attack on an individual. It is an attack on all of us.” Mr. Kirk, he said, championed free speech, and “in having his life taken in that very act makes it more difficult for people to feel like they can share their ideas, that they can speak freely.”

Mr. Kirk did speak freely. He called Dr. King “awful” and “not a good person.” He described the Civil Rights Act as a “huge mistake” and George Floyd as a “scumbag.” He said that Islam “is not compatible with Western civilization,” and accused “Jewish donors” of fueling radicalism by financing “not just colleges — it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.” Democratic women, he said, “want to die alone without children.”

But among thousands of young conservatives on American college campuses he was a rock star, a gifted speaker who relished debating with more liberal students. At the 2024 Republican convention, he reached out directly to his generation. “Democrats have given hundreds of billions of dollars to illegals and foreign nations, while Gen Z has to pinch pennies just so that they can never own a home, never marry, and work until they die, childless,” he said.

To Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s first campaign manager in 2020, Mr. Kirk “loved America and was truly remarkable.” Mr. Parscale recalled that Mr. Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, the nation’s pre-eminent right-wing youth activist group, had come to him in 2018 to offer his help for the campaign. “But I told him, ‘Go do your own thing and you’ll help the president 100 times more. The campaign will hold you back. You’re bigger than this.’ And he was,” Mr. Parscale said.

To Dan T. Carter, the author of “The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism and the Transformation of American Politics,” Mr. Kirk was a dark force. His assassination, he said, “is a terrible thing for America, but I don’t think we gain anything by embracing him as some kind of open-minded individual who strengthened democracy.”

Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, who angered Mr. Trump when she asked him the day after his second inauguration to “have mercy” on immigrants and L.G.B.T.Q. people, said rage from those anguished over Mr. Kirk’s death was to be expected.

“Public grief is necessary and this is a time for those who loved and admired Charlie Kirk to grieve and to grieve publicly,” she said. “For those who were hurt or aggrieved by his positions, I think this is a time for us to be gracious, and allow grief to be expressed. And at the same time, not to be surprised that other emotions are also communicated.”

When someone dies, she said, “we try to focus on the good, to the point that some people say, ‘I don’t recognize the man who is being eulogized.’ But I hear that from a son speaking about his father. I’ve been in those rooms. If that happens in family life, why would we be surprised if it happens in our national life with a public figure? Can’t we be gracious about that too?”

Dannagal Goldthwaite Young, a professor of communications at the University of Delaware who researches media psychology and public opinion, said she had noticed a restraint in mainstream media reporting about Mr. Kirk’s death.

“I think there is a recognition that this moment is so important, and this country is such a tinderbox, that people who are in media and journalism, especially those on the left, are aware that they have a responsibility to take the temperature down. And I think that’s a very good thing in terms of democratic health.”

But she said she thought some things had gotten lost, notably that people who praised Mr. Kirk for civility were confusing the term with politeness. “Charlie Kirk was polite, which is about your mode of discourse,” she said. In her opinion, he was not civil because, she said, he excluded certain groups from the public sphere.

Despite the vitriol of the moment, Professor Young said she was an optimist, thanks in part to what she has learned from public opinion research. “I know what people really want. Americans are sickened by these moments. By and large, Americans reject political violence.”

On Friday, after announcing the arrest of the man suspected of killing Mr. Kirk, Mr. Cox made an appeal to young people. Some of them loved the young activist, he said, and some of them hated him.

For his part, Mr. Kirk would say, “Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much,” the governor recalled.

“To my young friends out there, you are inheriting a country where politics feels like rage,” Mr. Cox said. “It feels like rage is the only option, but, through those words, we have a reminder that we can choose a different path.”

“Your generation,” he added, “has an opportunity to build a culture that is very different than what we are suffering through right now.”

To read more CLICK HERE