A functioning justice system is a citizen’s best peaceful defense of his liberty, assuring him that his lawful exercise of freedoms will be protected. There’s a reason four of the 10 original amendments the founders affixed to their newly minted Constitution regard the rights attendant to a fair trial. When the justice system forfeits citizens’ trust, trust in the integrity of the republic itself goes with it.

We don’t have real elections if candidates are jailed — or chilled by the threat of jail — to keep them from running. We don’t have real legal recourse if DAs indict lawyers until other lawyers become afraid to defend an ostracized client. For all Democrats’ pontificating about the rule of law, it doesn’t exist if it’s only applied and misapplied to half the country. If we no longer uphold equal justice under the law, we still have a country, but not the one we thought we had.

As my colleague Joy Pullmann wrote a year ago, “A country that harshly prosecutes people or lets them off Scot-free based on their political affiliation is a banana republic. A two-tier justice system is not a justice system. … Its purpose is not justice but population control.”

A fair justice system isn’t the first thing to crumble in a dying republic — there are plenty of warning signs — but it might be the hardest loss to come back from. After all, the law is supposed to be the authority to which Americans appeal when their rights are abused and trampled. What are they supposed to do when the law and its enforcers are doling out the abuse?

During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, another group of young leftists was allowed to commit heinous crimes that went largely, if not entirely, unpunished. Communist revolutionaries known as the Red Guards were allowed to torture and murder “class enemies” of their movement since it aided the revolution.

It is clear that in America, left-wing arsonists, vandals, and murderers are part of a similar protected class. Like China’s Red Guards, America’s Blue Guards evade prosecution because they are politically useful, hence why many believe we are living under a two-tier justice system. //

The similarities between China’s Red Guards and America’s Blue Guards go deeper than simply corrupt justice systems. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the communist decimated Chinese history and heritage, burning ancient scrolls and books, looting temples, and defacing relics. Likewise, in 2020, Marxist rioters looted and vandalized churches and burned and toppled American monuments and memorials. //

The American Blue Guard took aim at Junipero Serra not because he was a symbol of racism but because he is a symbol of American values and history. The Red Guard claimed they were dismantling classism, and the Blue Guard claims they are fighting racism, but the real enemy in both cultural revolutions is national heritage.

Divisive activists and media trick people into believing their sensibilities about right and wrong are something racial that must therefore be rooted out. //

For good people who refuse to judge their fellow man on the basis of his skin color, it’s confusing that these recent incidents would be painted in racial terms at all. We want a society that agrees that law-abiding, justice-loving people are the good guys and that antagonizing criminals are the bad guys. That’s not an equation that should consider race, nor one that needs to.

But a vocal minority of people who seek to weaponize unfortunate incidents like these to advance their own Marxist designs are construing these two events as the most recent face of the struggle for racial justice in America. And as they do, blue-collar workers and single moms and middle-class dads and the other millions of Americans who keep the country’s lights on — people who emphatically believe that everyone should have a chance at the American dream, no matter their skin tone — will see a fight they do not recognize. //

In reality, the fight is between decent Americans of every color and those in power who wink at rampant lawlessness and wield its messy results to pit neighbors against each other. It’s between two ideologies: one that says each individual should be responsible for his own actions, and another that says people should be treated differently based on their membership in an identity group.

Biased juries and politics, rather than an ‘objective view of the law and the facts,’ may dictate whether a defendant is convicted or acquitted. //

Special Counsel John Durham breached neither ethics nor etiquette when he highlighted the difficulty of obtaining a conviction in a politically charged case when the jury holds opposing partisan views. He merely stated the reality on the ground in D.C.-area federal courts. And by his own actions prosecuting the J6 defendants solely in the nation’s capital, Attorney General Merrick Garland has confirmed that assessment by proving the corollary: Criminal cases against individuals viewed by the local populace as political pariahs make for easy convictions.

“Did the Durham Report’s Criticism of Juries Go Too Far?” The Washington Post’s headline from last week asked rhetorically. It was quite an ironic concern coming from the legacy outlet serially guilty of publishing fake news to propagate the Russia-collusion hoax. A better question for the “democracy dies in darkness” rag would be: Did Clinton and Democrats’ Dirty Politics Go Too Far?

But no, instead of focusing on the substantive content contained in the 300-plus pages of Durham’s report detailing malfeasance by the Department of Justice and FBI and the Clinton campaign’s responsibility for the scandal, The Washington Post focused on Durham’s introductory remarks explaining the “special care” the special counsel’s office used in making criminal charging decisions — decisions Durham stressed were “based solely on the facts and evidence developed in the investigation and without fear of, or favor to, any person.”

After noting the high burden the Constitution places on the government in criminal cases, Durham explained why, in numerous instances, he did not seek criminal charges even though the conduct deserved “censure or disciplinary action.”

“In examining politically-charged and high-profile issues such as these, the Office must exercise — and has exercised — special care,” Durham explained. “First, juries can bring strongly held views to the courtroom in criminal trials involving political subject matters,” Durham continued, “and those views can, in turn, affect the likelihood of obtaining a conviction, separate and apart from the strength of the actual evidence and despite a court’s best efforts to empanel a fair and impartial jury.”

Those taking umbrage at Durham’s remarks, claiming they erode faith in our justice system, seem to have missed that the Justice Department’s manual, “The Principles of Federal Prosecution,” quoted in the special counsel report, makes the same point.

Good Samaritans don’t stand by and do nothing while others are threatened and attacked. //

Law and order are prerequisites for any positive vision, conservative or liberal, for America. An ideology that disdains order disdains the good of the citizens it aspires to rule, and will constantly sabotage its own stated goals. //

It is oppressive and unjust when George Soros-funded district attorneys refuse to prosecute crimes. It is a violation of social justice when those in power allow rioters to run free and destroy homes and businesses. It is wicked of government officials to permit violent men to threaten, harass, and assault innocent citizens. Yes, governmental efforts to enforce order will always be flawed, as government employees are imperfect. We should keep a close eye on police and other agents of the state and strive for accountability. But civilization cannot exist without order, so of course people will cheer those private citizens who step up to try to protect order when the legal authorities have abdicated their responsibilities to maintain it. //

People have a right, and sometimes even a duty, to defend themselves and others, and they do not always have the luxury of carefully calibrating their response to the sensibilities of New York Times writers. Trying to restrain a violent, mentally ill man, or protect oneself against an armed mob, is necessarily risky and imprecise. Self-defense isn’t a video game. //

Loving our neighbors means protecting them against violence. And we should even seek the good of those who threaten or commit violence due to drug abuse and mental illness, which means treating their addictions and illnesses when possible and keeping them away from those whom they might harm. Thus, it was no kindness to allow Neely to degenerate into a violent man who randomly threatened and attacked people. //

Letting the mentally ill roam free while they decline into violent menaces to everyone else is unjust both to their victims and to them. Put simply, law and order are social justice, and so a left-liberalism that refuses to maintain order will rightly be rejected by voters, and its projects will be ruined.

Jesus did not tell the parable of the Good Samaritan to teach us to stand by and do nothing while others are threatened and attacked.

Imperator
13 minutes ago edited
Trump has a known legitimate business which is/has been openly investigated out the wazoo. Not one iota of his business can effect national security. Biden has a known illegitimate business which is "off-limits" for open investigation, in spite of its national security ramifications. Ditto for the Clintons. No double standard here, is there?

On Thursday, Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder decided it was the time to bring the subtext of the Jan. 6 show trials and related domestic security state activities into the open.

“My guess is that by the end of this process, you’re going to see indictments involving high-level people in the White House, you’re going to see indictments against people outside the White House who were advising them with regard to the attempt to steal the election, and I think ultimately you’re probably going to see the president, former president of the United States indicted as well,” Holder told SiriusXM host Joe Madison. //

An indictment of former President Donald Trump would be a breathtakingly authoritarian turn. It would amount to the U.S. security state refusing to accept “no” from America’s voters yet again. An indictment would be an unelected and unaccountable federal agency overruling voters’ two-time rejection of impeachment through their elected representatives.

This is the core danger of the administrative state: Its now open propensity to go rogue. It is apparently hellbent now on turning the United States into a banana republic.

Democrats called Donald Trump a fascist, authoritarian, and wannabe dictator for chants at his rallies of “Lock her up,” referring to his opponent Hillary Clinton. At the time, leftists pointed out that imprisoning, interrogating, investigating, and otherwise using government resources to harass and prosecute one’s political opponents was the mark of tyrannical regimes such as Vladimir Putin’s and Adolf Hitler. “Democracies don’t lock up political opponents,” the Washington Post editorial board told us in 2016.

That is still true when the ones pushing the interrogations, investigations, entrapments into committing felonies, show trials in unusual venues with no cross-examination or due process, early morning home raids, excessive detainment, and asymmetrical punishments are Democrats. //

Amplifying pre-existing double standards of justice is far beyond troubling, it’s a destruction of the justice system. A country that harshly prosecutes people or lets them off Scot-free based on their political affiliation is a banana republic. //

We’re watching federal agencies use their powers not to catch criminals but to criminalize peaceful political views and actions. We’re witnessing a growing campaign to lock people up for their opposition to the ruling political party, which is not only profoundly un-American but profoundly dangerous societally. This is the prosecution of a political cold civil war that could very easily heat up again in another January 6-like outburst, or worse. //

We aren’t in business-as-usual Kansas anymore, Toto. We’re in crisis times that call for serious leadership, not LARPing as leaders on screens.

Sending billions to Ukraine while China grows stronger and every domestic sector is on fire isn’t serious. Lambasting Joe Biden for inflation while not pledging to pass the policies that reverse it, starting with slashing the federal government’s spending, isn’t serious. Yelling at the FBI director Republicans helped confirm isn’t serious (get better vetting staff, folks). Confirming a Supreme Court justice who obviously hates the Constitution isn’t serious. Not going on a crusade to clean out the FBI and DOJ Agean-stables-style isn’t serious. And pretending the Jan. 6 commission is anything but a miscarriage of justice is disqualifying.

We need the GOP to provide serious leadership, because Democrats are a serious threat to equal justice for all, and that’s going to destroy the country for good if it’s not stopped post-haste. Americans desperately need swift and prudent action to avert even more unthinkably dangerous events. Those who refuse to plan and take that action despite accepting from voters the responsibility to do so will be infamous to history as cowards and traitors.

“The Government presenting a person asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege in order to imply to the public that the person is ‘guilty’ of some crime is a McCarthy-esque tactic that offends the Constitution and is unworthy of the United States Congress,” 1st Amendment Praetorian’s lawyer wrote. Given the Committee’s past actions, McAdoo Gordon noted in her Thursday letter that she is “forced to anticipate that the Committee will use the same totalitarian tactic to improperly smear 1AP.” //

Quoting from the Supreme Court, McAdoo Gordon then reminded the committee that the high court has described the Fifth Amendment privilege thusly:

[W]e have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment’s “basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . `who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'”

The letter continued:

“The circumstances in which an innocent citizen finds himself faced with an out-of-control prosecutor, or a mistaken theory of criminality, or an overzealous legislative inquiry — which is the situation 1AP finds itself in — is precisely when the citizen most needs the protection of the Fifth Amendment. For the Congress to attempt to turn that protection into a weapon against a citizen, or a group of citizens, is repellant. I urge the Committee not to engage in such un-American behaviors. Unfortunately, I have little faith that the Committee will heed my appeal. This leaves me with no choice but to pre-emptively speak publicly about these issues before the Committee engages in wholesale defamation of 1AP from its powerful national platform.” //

“And now Congressman Raskin is telling the Times he plans to ‘explore the connection between those groups and the people in Mr. Trump’s orbit.’”

That is precisely what the First Amendment protects Americans from: being investigated because of the individuals with whom they associate. But not only does the Jan. 6 Committee not care, neither does the legacy media. The question remains whether Americans will, or whether they have lost their sense of decency.

As the New York Post Editorial Board mentions in a new op-ed, Bragg sets a terrible precedent that if someone has an illegal gun, commits a hate crime, or pushes an elderly person to the ground, they will get a minor punishment. Steal from any store or business, and it doesn’t matter how many times that person does it; there will be no arrest or jail time.

But apparently, Braggs will charge you if you defend yourself. Yes, you read that right. Hard-working Jose Alba, 51, was working as a cashier at a small grocery store on Broadway near West 139th Street. A woman and her boyfriend went into the store, as the woman wanted chips but could not pay. Alba did not want to give her the chips for free.

Her boyfriend, Austin Simon, an ex-con and career criminal, went behind the counter to confront Alba. Simon shoved Alba, grabbed Alba from his collar, and began walking with Alba in front of him. But Alba seemed to have grabbed a knife, and when he stood up, they continued fighting, but he quickly turned around and stabbed Simon. Simon was pronounced dead. As Alba came back into the frame, it seemed like his arm was bleeding, possibly due to Simon’s girlfriend stabbing Alba. Alba was holding a bloody knife in his hands. //

Alba defended himself–what he did is called self-defense. That still exists in the United States of America, as much as DAs like Bragg don’t seem to think so. //

Simon threatened Alba and assaulted him. But according to Bragg, an act of self-defense warrants murder in the second degree. Alba had his bail set at $250,000 cash bail, later reduced to $50,000 bail. He is currently being held on Rikers Island.

RNC Research
@RNCResearch
FLASHBACK: Chuck Schumer in 2020: “I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

11:05 AM · Jun 8, 2022

Mikel Crump 🇺🇸
@TheMikelCrump
Will Federal Authorities be giving Elizabeth Warren a visit for inciting an insurrection?

7:24 PM · May 3, 2022 //

Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
·
Jun 8, 2022
The Biden admin encouraged protests outside of justices’ homes.

Schumer threatened: “You have released the whirlwind & you will pay the price!”

Now a would-be assassin went to the home of a Supreme Court Justice. 1/x
Karol Markowicz
@karol
Breaking: A man was arrested outside of Brett Kavanaugh's residence around 1:45am last night. The man had a gun and said he was there to kill Kavanaugh. He was taken into custody without incident.
Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
Biden and the Dems need to stop their irresponsible and incendiary rhetoric on Roe and condemn the violence coming from their supporters. 2/x
12:09 PM · Jun 8, 2022

A California court sharply rebuked soft-on-crime LA County District Attorney George Gascon Thursday, ruling that he must comply with the law instead of just making his own.

“The district attorney overstates his authority,” the ruling said. “He (Gascon) is an elected official who must comply with the law, not a sovereign with absolute, unreviewable discretion.”

Their legalese might be a little better than mine, but basically what the judges are saying is, “Who the heck do you think you are?!”

The three-justice panel of the Appeals Court said in its ruling that Gascon cannot order prosecutors to refuse to charge three-strikes cases and cannot order prosecutors to drop or withdraw special circumstance allegations. The ruling upheld an earlier decision from a lower court that came to the same conclusion. //

George Gascón
@GeorgeGascon
Eliminated 8,127 years of unnecessary, excessive and expensive exposure to prison time.

Stopped seeking the death penalty in 17 cases.

Withdrew 77 pending motions to transfer kids to adult court.

Saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

All during my first 100 days.
3:17 PM · Mar 19, 2021 //

FOX 11 Los Angeles
@FOXLA
Since Gascón took office in 2020, data shows Los Angeles has seen a 34% increase in homicide, 15.5% increase in violent crimes, 6.7% increase in property crimes and 67% increase in shooting victims.
foxla.com
LA sheriff says George Gascón recall election on pace to happen: 'The country has had enough'
9:45 PM · May 5, 2022

A federal judge found a Jan. 6 defendant who entered the Capitol not guilty on all charges after he said he was waved in by two Capitol Police officers. The decision lays down the groundwork to push back against the Department of Justice’s charge that the hundreds of people on Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021 deserve to be punished.

U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden acquitted Matthew Martin of all misdemeanor charges on Wednesday after he said it was “plausible” that the defendant “reasonably believed” he had permission to be in the Capitol.

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson doled out a lenient sentence to a child rapist for violating probation — and he allegedly struck again during the time when prosecutors wanted him locked up, The Post has learned.

The Biden nominee’s handling of sex offender Leo Weekes’ case emerged in a tranche of court filings and transcripts sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday — just days before the panel is set to vote on whether to report her nomination to the full Senate. //

During Jackson’s confirmation hearing, the Biden administration gave the Judiciary Committee information on seven cases in which she had sentenced defendants to terms below what prosecutors and probation officers had requested.

The Weekes case — which was revealed just days before the Senate is expected to confirm Jackson to the highest court in the land — was not among them.

“At [Jackson’s confirmation] hearing, senators rightly raised concerns about the consequences of light sentences for sex offenders,” the Republican Judiciary Committee aide said. “As this case sadly illustrates, those concerns aren’t theoretical.

“Had the judge imposed the sentence recommended by the government, this child rapist would have been behind bars when he sexually assaulted another family member. Judge Jackson’s personal policy preferences steered her judgement.”

“Judge Jackson is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, over 60 sheriffs and police chiefs leading many of the largest and busiest departments in our nation, and 83 former state attorneys general from both parties – as well as a coalition of anti-sexual violence advocates and survivors,” a White House official told The Post Sunday evening. “She has answered the most questions for the record of any Supreme Court nominee in history and has provided thousands of pages of documents to the Committee, including about her decisions – all of which are public record.” //

Defenders of Jackson have argued her sentencing record is irrelevant, since criminal cases rarely come before the Supreme Court. Republicans and conservatives have countered by noting that such cases make up the bulk of Jackson’s record, since she has served just 10 months on the DC appeals court.

During her confirmation hearing, Jackson responded to criticism of her sentencing record by insisting that federal guidelines needed to be reformed by Congress, which did not sit well with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“It was not reassuring to hear Judge Jackson say that if senators want her to be tough on crime, we need to change the law, take away her discretion and force her to do it,” he said March 24 in announcing his opposition to her nomination.

“That response seems to confirm deeply held personal policy views seep into her jurisprudence, and that is exactly what the record suggests.”

Seventeen months after The Post was the first to report on Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop, lefty media outlets are finally admitting it's real.

If there’s one thing Joe Biden doesn’t need, it’s more problems. With soaring inflation pushing household budgets into the red, crime rising everywhere, the southern border open to all comers and his agenda stalled in Congress, the 46th president is beyond beleaguered. //

The sudden about-face from media outlets that scandalously said The Post was spreading Russian disinformation in 2020 reflects the likelihood that the Justice Department is close to deciding whether to file criminal charges against Hunter. A federal grand jury in Delaware has been hearing from a flurry of witnesses, indicating the case is coming to a head.

If Hunter is indicted, it’s hard to see how his father’s presidency survives.

That’s because any indictment of the son, no matter how carefully drawn, will inevitably implicate the father. Assuming an indictment would follow the usual prosecutor pattern of connecting the dots to associates to show evidence of Hunter’s guilt, it’s possible the president could be referenced in charging papers.

That would directly contradict Joe Biden’s claims he had no involvement in his son’s business and never once discussed it with Hunter. //

The second escape hatch offers a far more likely scenario: Biden’s Justice Department, already up to its neck in politics, bends to pressure from Dems and refuses to indict Hunter to protect the president.

The Times, in its role as Deep State errand boy, seemed to be laying the groundwork recently when it cited an internal debate among prosecutors about whether civil charges would be more appropriate. The paper reported that Hunter borrowed about $1 million to cover back taxes in hopes he would not be criminally charged and said the payment might make it more difficult to gain conviction at trial.

Among the advantages for the family with a civil case is that Hunter could cut a deal to keep details of the investigation secret, and could keep his law license. The fallout on the president would be minimal.

That would leave the White House where it is now — still failing because of an incompetent president and his disastrous policies.

If holding views about the 2020 election meant a justice couldn’t decide legal issues arising from it, then all nine would have to recuse themselves.

In the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case Wilson v. Arkansas, the court recognized that something called the “Castle Doctrine” and the “knock and announce” rule are embedded in the Fourth Amendment. The idea is that our protections from unreasonable search and seizure mean that police must knock, announce themselves, and give residents time to answer before they enter forcibly.

But here’s the hitch. The Wilson ruling allowed that in cases with “exigent circumstances,” police can enter without knocking if it means a suspect might be able to escape or destroy evidence. That exception prompted many police departments to simply declare in all search warrant affidavits that a no-knock raid was justified, citing the danger of a suspect fleeing, destroying evidence, or assaulting the officers serving the warrant.

That in turn lead to another Supreme Court ruling in 1997, Richards v. Wisconsin, which found that blanket exceptions to the “knock and announce” rule were unconstitutional. The ruling, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, found that, “If a per se exception were allowed for each category of criminal investigation that included a considerable — albeit hypothetical — risk of danger to officers or destruction of evidence, the knock-and-announce element of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement would be meaningless.”

These are not merely rhetorical questions. Well over a hundred political prisoners are being held by the Biden Justice Department for their role in the January 6 disturbance at the US Capitol, or, to describe it the way the RNC did on Friday, “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.” The conditions at the DC jail are squalid and brutal, their ability to consult with attorneys very limited, their accessibility to medical care nearly non-existent. The only reason that retirees are being held in confinement for what are essentially jaywalking tickets is that they committed an act of disrespect toward the liberal-progressive power structure that pointed out its illegitimacy. Keep in mind that Jake Angeli, the so-called “MAGA shaman,” will serve about half as much time in prison for sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s chair as Montez Lee will serve for burning a building and killing a father of three.

The difference is that the Biden Justice Department sees Montez Lee and his friends as allies and is fully in agreement with their goals. The January 6 people, on the other hand, represent the traditional order and are a threat to the norms Biden/Garland are trying to impose upon the rest of the nation.

We can’t exist with a legal system the left is trying to inflict upon us, one that was overthrown by the English barons at Runnymede when they forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That would be a system where your political affiliation determines your punishment, not the law and not precedent.

Bill Cosby had his sexual assault conviction thrown out Wednesday — in a stunning ruling by Pennsylvania’s highest court that found a prosecutor’s decades-old agreement should have shielded him from criminal charges.

The fallen funnyman, 83, is set to walk out of a Philadelphia-area prison a free man after serving more than two years of a three- to 10-year sentence. //

In its 79-page ruling, the State Supreme court found that an agreement with then-Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor Jr. prevented Cosby from being charged for allegedly drugging and molesting Andrea Constand in 2004.

Constand first reported the alleged encounter in 2005 to Castor, who decided not to pursue charges in the case, noting it took her a year to come forward and saying there were inconsistencies in her case.

So Constand sued Cosby in civil court weeks later, and the case was settled for an undisclosed sum.

But as part of that civil case, Castor and Cosby’s camp say they made a behind-the-scenes verbal agreement to have the actor give a deposition on Constand’s allegations in exchange for Cosby never being criminally charged over them.

Cosby had admitted in the deposition that he drugged Constand before performing a sex act on her, although he said it was consensual. //

“When an unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade,” the ruling says.

“For these reasons, Cosby’s convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged.”

One of the founding ideals of the United States was that the same system of laws would apply to everyone equally. Two people convicted of the same or similar offense, all things being equal, should receive approximately the same punishment. It doesn’t always work that way; wealth and fame do have a way of making crimes, like murder, go away, but those instances are anomalies. Over the last four years, though, things have started to come unglued. The courts willingly cooperated with the obscene persecution of Michael Flynn. Department of Justice functionary Andrew Weissmann was able to weaponize the judicial apparatus to carry out his personal vendetta against Paul Manafort and President Trump.

Since the summer of 2020, though, it has become blatantly obvious that we have a two-tiered justice system in this country, and your personal politics determines how the courts treat you. //

This no longer exists in the United States. People are prosecuted according to their politics, not their crimes. If you set off explosive devices, try to wreck a train, or give a cop a beatdown and you are Antifa or related scum, you probably won’t be arrested. If you are arrested you will be released without bail. If, by some misfortune, you are ever prosecuted, you are looking at the equivalent of a wrist slap.

On the other hand, if you are a rightwing demonstrator, you will be harried to the ends of the earth. You will be held under a hefty bond, assuming one is even permitted. Even if your behavior was lawful and is documented on video, you will be charged with a crime. If you plead guilty, the book will be thrown at you.

This is not right. This is not a sustainable system in any society.

Fourteen Republican House members led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia demanded Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser terminate Deputy Warden Kathleen Landerkin of the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility. Landerkin is overseeing the pre-trial detention of Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants.

In the letter sent Thursday, Greene railed the warden for running a “two-tier justice system” based on a recent congressional visit from the Georgia lawmaker with Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert, who also endorsed Landerkin’s termination.

“January 6 defendants were treated categorically different from the remainder of the prison population,” they wrote, referencing testimony from the accused that claimed “months of solitary confinement, verbal abuse (e.g., called ‘white supremacists’), harassment, beatings from guards, denial of basic medical care, religious services, communion, nutritious diet, and access to attorneys.”

While most of these inmates have no prior history and have yet to be convicted of any crime,” lawmakers added, “Landerkin is allowing them to be treated as subhuman.” Greene published her findings from the November visit in a 28-page eyewitness report titled, “Unusually Cruel” on Dec. 7.