Morning Wire - Neely Death Controversy & SCOTUS Finance Concerns | 5.5.23

Episode Date: May 5, 2023

Protests have broken out across New York after a homeless man who was threatening passengers on the subway died from being choked, a new Daily Wire investigation is raising ethics concerns about a left leaning SCOTUS justice, and a jury in Washington D.C. convicted four Proud Boys in connection to the January 6th riots. Get the facts first with Morning Wire.  Nugenix: Get a complimentary bottle of Nugenix Total T when you text ‘WIRE’ to 231-231. Genucel: 70% off Most Popular Package + FREE Shipping + Free Spa Essentials https://genucel.com/WIRE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Justice! Protests have broken out across New York after a homeless man who was threatening passengers on the subway died from a chokehold by a former Marine. What do we know about the case? And how are lawmakers reacting? I'm Daily Wire editor-in-chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe. It's Friday, May 5th, and this is Morning Wire.

While Legacy Media continues to target the conservative Supreme Court, a new Daily Wire investigation is raising ethics concerns about a left-leaning justice. And a jury in Washington, D.C. convicted four proud boys in connection to the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol. DOJ is not horsing around when it comes to seditious conspiracy. Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to now. Protests have erupted across New York after Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man was choked to death on a subway by a 24-year-old Marine veteran after threatening passengers with hostile and erratic behavior. The incident has divided New Yorkers with many calling the Marine a hero and others calling for his arrest.

Here with Moore's Daily Wire contributor, David Marcus. First, tell us about this encounter. Hey, John. So according to what we can piece together from videos, witnesses, and police statements, on Monday afternoon, Jordan Neely, a homeless man with a long rap sheet, boarded an F train and began screaming at passengers, telling them, quote, I'll hurt anyone on this train and that he was, quote, ready to die. just acting in generally a hostile manner towards the other strap hangers.

After a few moments, an unnamed 24-year-old Marine attempted to restrain Neely, taking him to the ground and placing him in a chokehold from behind. In video of the incident, Neely is seen kicking his legs and attempting to get out of the chokehold, prompting two other passengers to jump in, hold him down from the front. After a few minutes, as Neely goes unconscious, the men get off in, but Neely appeared to remain unconscious. We should also note, since the legacy media and activists are making this the issue, Neely was black and the Marine is white. Video shows the men tending to Neely as another strap hanger who appears to be black, praises the Marine veteran for his actions and says that Neely will be

all right. An independent journalist Juan Alberto Vasquez, who captured the incident on video, said, quote, none of us were thinking that Neely could die from it and that he was moving and defending himself. Now, since that video went viral, a growing number of lawmakers and activists on the left have come out with some pretty strong statements. What had they been saying? So Massachusetts representative Ianna Presley called the incident a modern-day lynching and said, Neely's skin color made him a target. Activists are accusing the NYPD of racism, saying that they let the 24-year-old Marine veteran go because he's white. But look, it's worse noting that Mayor Eric Adams and ex-cop himself has called on New Yorkers not to rush to judgment and even called out Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Gertes

for doing just that by calling the incident a murder. Here's what Adam Sand to say. I don't think that's very responsible at the time where we're still investigating the situation. Let's let the DA conduct this investigation with the law enforcement officials to really interfere with that is not the right thing to do. And I'm going to be responsible, allow them to do their job. What do we know about Neely? Apparently, this was an individual who authorities were really well acquainted with, correct? Yes, he has an extensive criminal history. Reports show that he's been arrested over 40 times for crimes ranging from assault to

criminal trespass. In fact, a warrant for his arrest for felony assault was issued on February 23rd. You know, on social media, a slew of New Yorkers have told stories about having been attacked or harassed by Neely in the past while riding the F-train. Those sympathetic to the Marines say the city has failed to address crime on the subways elsewhere. People are scared, and that it was only a matter of time before New Yorkers began taking matters into their own hands. The statistics back this feeling up. Since 2020, more than 20 New Yorkers were violently murdered on the subway. Now, credits counter that Neely, despite his criminal

record, was supposedly harmless and should have been offered help by the city and those riding the subway. In the days since the incident lawmakers like Presley and AOC have shared videos of Neely dancing on the subway dressed as Michael Jackson. And, you know, as I mentioned, they're accusing this Marine of murder. What have police said so far? And do we know if this Marine is likely to face any charges? The NYPD initially detained the Marine, but let him go. Since then, the medical examiner ruled the death of homicide.

But as if Thursday afternoon, District Attorney Alvin Bragg of recent Trump indictment fame was weighing the possibility of charges, which activists are demanding. It's really unclear at this point how the city might respond to whatever decision the district attorney makes. Another tragedy that's been turned pretty quickly into a racially and politically divisive case. Indeed. Dave, thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me.

That was Daily Wire contributor, David Marcus. Coming up, an investigation by the Daily Wire raises financial ethics questions about a left-leaning Supreme Court justice. The media has been awash in the last few weeks with stories about potential ethics and finance violations by conservative members of the Supreme Court, mostly focusing. on Clarence Thomas. Now, Daily Wire investigative reporter Luke Rosiac has found a potential financial conflict of interest involving left-leaning justice Sonia Sotomayor. So, Luke, your report found that Sotomayor received $3 million from a book publisher, but she did not recuse herself from some key cases involving that publisher. What happened there? So soon after Sotomayor joined the court in 2009, she got busy as a

prolific author, churning out books for publisher Penguin Random House. Between 2010 and 2012, she received $3 million in book advances, presumably for her memoir that came out in 2013. That year, she took part in a vote on whether the Supreme Court should take a case involving an author, suing that same publisher. And did she take the publisher's side in that case? It's not clear, but she definitely did not recuse herself. The vote was for whether to grant cert, which means whether the high court should take up a case. The court voted no, which helped the publisher. We don't know how Sotomayor voted because cert votes aren't disclosed,

but what is disclosed is whether any justice is recused. Fellow Justice Stephen Breyer did recuse, but Sotomayor did not. Why did Breyer recuse himself? He was in a similar position as Sotomayor. He had also written books for Penguin Random House. His wife is also related to the family that owned a stake in the publisher, and the couple held stock in that company worth $1 million to $5 million in 2013, shrinking down to 100K to 250K by 2020.

But so do Mayor's millions and book advances were similar in scale, and Penguin Random House was her sole source of earned income outside of the court. So was that technically against the rules? No, the Supreme Court leaves it up to individual justices to decide whether to recuse, and they want it to be vague so that lawyers can't game the system to get justices to recuse. But that 2013 case was really just part of a pattern. In 2020, she again voted on. whether to grant cert for an author who was suing Penguin Random House for copyright infringement.

And the court declined again? Yeah, a relatively unknown author published a book about a scrawny evergreen tree that dreamed of becoming the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree. And then Penguin Random House published a book with the exact same premise, made a bunch of money off of it, even turning it into a movie. You'd think they'd have a pretty strong case for copyright infringement, at least in the Third Circuit. It turns out that in a couple circuits, there's an interpretation that's, quote, radically different than everywhere else about what it takes to meet the standard for copying a work of

arts. Lawyers for the author said that kind of circuit split on an issue of broad importance is exactly the kind of thing the Supreme Court typically would step in on. Now, from 2017 on, Sotomayor was getting checks from Penguin every single year as she churned out these children's books. She received a check on the very same day in 2019 that she received this petition asking the court to take a look at a case that would be harmful to Penguin. But the court didn't take that case. Soon after, she received an $82,000 royalty check and went on to get more book contracts from this same publisher. Her total comes to $3.6 million, but that doesn't even include her newest book, which came out after the most recent financial disclosure. Now, ProPublica reported this week on a seemingly similar case, one alleging that

Clarence Thomas engaged in wrongdoing when a wealthy conservative paid for his grandnephew to attend a private school. How do these stories compare? Well, to me, one involves the actual business of the court. There are questions about whether a personal conflict could have impacted a vote and actually all of copyright law in America. And you're talking about a justice's primary source of income, not some distant relative. If you're a reporter just looking at these disclosures across the board, it's hard to see how these really tenuous things jump out about some justices and then seemingly more serious problems about the liberals are simply omitted. Well, we certainly,

hope that the same standard would be applied to both sides. Luke, thanks for reporting. That was Daily Wire investigative reporter Luke Rosiac. After six days of deliberation, a jury in Washington, D.C., has convicted four proud boys on the rare charge of seditious conspiracy in relation to the January 6th riot at the United States Capitol. Here to discuss the verdict and the dramatic trial is Daily Wire reporter Amanda Press-Azacamo. Hey, Amanda, what can you tell us about these convictions that came down on Thursday. Hey, John. So the defendants convicted of seditious conspiracy, or in this case, conspiring to prevent

peaceful transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden, are Enrique Tariot. He was the former chairman of the proud boys and three other lower level leaders, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and Zachary Rel. That rarely used seditious conspiracy charge can be punished by up to 20 years behind bars. And it could also mean Biggs, a Purple Heart recipient in Rel could lose their military benefits from past service. Now, Dominic Pazola, a U.S. Marine veteran and a member of the proud boys from Rochester, New York, he's bypassed a conviction on that seditious conspiracy charge. All five of the defendants who faced at least nine counts each were also convicted of conspiring to obstruct

congressional proceedings on January 6th and destroying government property. And what specifically are the men accused of doing on January 6th? So the only defendant who was accused of any sort of violence was Pazola. He apparently used a riot shield that belonged to an officer to break a window pane on the western front of the Capitol. Pazola was arrested back in January of 2021 and has remained in jail since. It's also notable that Tario, he was not even in Washington, D.C. on the day of the breach. The government instead cited mostly private and some public messages from Tario and others. In one message used by prosecution, Tario said, quote, make no mistake, we did this. defense lawyers maintained that there was not a single shred of written evidence to show that the men conspired to stop the certification of the 2020 election.

The government really did rely heavily on private communication from the defendants, hundreds of thousands of messages to make its case that the riot was spearheaded by these men and successful because of them. To that point, Tario actually spoke about this speech issue from jail. He suggested the trial concerned a free speech and said the government is trying to manipulate how people speak. to each other privately. Okay, so we know that there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding this trial, specifically about FBI informants. Tell us about that element, the FBI's role. Yeah, so there were at least eight FBI informants embedded in the proud boys in the months

leading up to the Capitol breach. That's according to the New York Times citing court papers. At least one of those informants testified during this trial. Messages shown to the jury from the informant said that the proud boys did not organize nor inspire the riot. He also testified that any proud boy's involvement in the riot appeared to be a, quote, photo opportunity. Okay, about these seditious conspiracy convictions. Let's talk about those. Some legal experts early on criticized the DOJ for these charges saying they were inappropriate and they risked acquittal, but the DOJ has gone forward with them and has secured, what, 14 seditious conspiracy convictions so far, right?

Yeah, that's correct. So the DOJ has had near perfect success in prosecuting J6 defendants before DC juries. This is a very liberal city where in 2020, Biden secured 93% of the vote. That likely emboldened the government to go forward with these charges. Now, reporter Julie Kelly, who's been covering these J6 cases from the beginning, she believes this was strategic from the DOJ with regard to Donald Trump. Here's Kelly on Real America's voice last month discussing just that. There is no case for seditious conspiracy. Certainly they can be charged with trespassing or vandalizing property.

know it is accused of assaulting a police officer. And the reason why the outcome of this trial matters is because the government is going to use this to indict Donald Trump on the very same offenses. Well, a very politically charged and very serious set of convictions here. Amanda, thanks for reporting. That was Daily Wire reporter, Amanda Presta Giacomo. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back later this afternoon with more news you need to know.