With the toppling of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, terrorist leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani is stepping into the spotlight.  In about two weeks, the 42-year-old head of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) — a U.S.-designated terrorist organization and the most successful of the Syrian rebel groups — toppled the tyrannical Assad regime in an unexpected offensive. But who exactly is he? Once affiliated with Al-Qaeda and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, al-Jolani has had a $10 million FBI bounty on his head since 2017. The leader of a rebel pseudo-government in northwestern Syria, he has been accused of grave human rights violations and wants to impose Sharia. But he’s also sought to reinvent himself as a moderate force for a tolerant Syria. Here’s what you need to know.   Al-Jolani’s Origins Al-Jolani, whose real name is Ahmed Hussein al-Shara, was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1982 to parents exiled from Syria, according to The New York Times. His nom de guerre, al-Jolani, refers to the Golan Heights, the area his family hailed from, which Israel occupied and annexed after the Six-Day War in 1967. Al-Jolani’s father, Hussein Al-Shara, was an Arab nationalist who was imprisoned for protesting against the 1961 Ba’athist coup in Syria as a student, according to al-Jolani. He eventually escaped and fled to Baghdad to continue his studies, and briefly went to Jordan to work with Palestinian groups opposing Israel. After returning to Syria and making a failed run for parliament, Al-Shara moved to Saudi Arabia to work in the oil industry. By the end of the 1980s, he returned to Syria with Al-Jolani, a child at the time. Despite living in what he describes as a middle-class liberal neighborhood, Al-Jolani says he was radicalized by the Second Intifada in the early 2000s.  “I was 17 or 18 years old at the time and I started thinking about how to fulfill my duties defending the nation, which was being persecuted by the occupiers and invaders,” he said in an interview with PBS, adding that he was a young man so it was a “spontaneous, innate thought.” Someone advised him to pray at a mosque during this time, which he said made him grow in his Muslim faith. “There was something inside of me that was pushing me to search for the truth. How do we reach justice? How can we relieve the people of oppression? How can we spread goodness among people? I started searching for all of these meanings in God Almighty’s book, the Holy Quran, in the practices of the prophet.” Two weeks before the United States invaded Iraq, al-Jolani, then 21 years old, said he went to Baghdad to join Al-Qaeda in the fight against the United States. He told PBS that he was against Al-Qaeda’s tactics of deliberately targeting civilians, stating that “many of us with a conscience and a true understanding of Islam were against the killing of any innocent person even in cases where killing many enemies was going to cause the death of one innocent person.” When asked why he didn’t leave Al-Qaeda at the time, he deflected, telling his interviewer that “if there was no American presence, there would not have been a resistance.” Al-Jolani rose through the ranks of Al-Qaeda until he was arrested by U.S. troops around 2005 and imprisoned for about five years in various prisons including Abu Ghraib. He said he used his time to write a long document about how to advance jihad in Syria. “It was long, like a research paper, analytical, close to 50 pages in which I recounted Syria’s history, its geography and sectarian diversity and how Assad’s family came to power, etc,” he said, adding that he no longer has a copy of it. After his release, he became an Al-Qaeda commander in Mosul and sent his paper to eventual ISIS leader al-Baghdadi. “I wrote my thoughts about Syria to him,” al-Jolani told PBS. “I had numerous observations about it. Mainly, we should not repeat the Iraqi experience in Syria.” He believed that any mission in Syria would differ from Al-Qaeda in Iraq because the focus would be to oppose Assad rather than launch a sectarian conflict. When al-Jolani met al-Baghdadi, he said he was “surprised” by his lack of “competence to analyze situations” and his lack of “strong personality.” Al-Jolani then returned to Syria with six men —  wearing a suicide belt in case he was caught — in 2011 after the Arab Spring kicked off and led to mass protests in Syria, according to PBS. He claims he was given about $50,000 for the six-month mission. With the uprising already in full swing, al-Jolani formed the group Jabhat al-Nusra and pledged its allegiance to Al-Qaeda in 2013, making it the Syrian affiliate of Al-Qaeda. That same year he was designated a global terrorist by the State Department and was sanctioned, which made him subject to having his assets frozen, a travel ban, and an arms embargo, according to the FBI.   Al-Jolani said he used the money allocated to him to strike military targets rather than civilians. Like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, al-Jolani’s group has used suicide bombers, though he claims they were deployed against military targets rather than civilians. Experts told PBS it is true that his tactics differed from the other terrorist groups and he did not indiscriminately target civilians, but that his hands aren’t entirely clean. At the time, al-Jolani borrowed tactics from Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood to win the hearts of Syrians including providing the necessities and social services people needed to survive, which the government was failing to do, PBS reported. In one year, Al-Jolani said he grew the group from six men to 5,000. To raise money, the group took donations from sympathizers in the Arab world, looted factories, and ransomed foreign civilians. One of the hostages was American freelance reporter Theo Padnos, who said he was subject to torture and imprisoned for just under two years. The group demanded 22 million euros for his release. “For months and months and months they were just beating me,” Padnos said of his time in prison. “They would pretend that this was an interrogation, but they weren’t taking notes. …They were not after specific information.” In his interview with PBS, al-Jolani said he had not heard of Padnos. The group became so prosperous that al-Jolani even gave a $2 million payment to support al-Baghdadi in Iraq as ISIS murdered civilians, PBS reported. Al-Baghdadi, threatened by al-Jolani, declared that the name Jabhat al-Nusra would be banned and the group would be absorbed by the newly-renamed ISIS, which added Syria to what had previously been the Islamic State of Iraq. The next day, al-Jolani responded, stating that he was not aware of the announcement until he saw it in the media. In an interview with Al Jazeera at the time, al-Jolani said Al-Nusra would continue to operate as an independent group. By 2014, the two were full-blown rivals, with Al-Baghdadi seizing Raqqa from al-Jolani.   Breaking from Al-Qaeda In 2016, he revealed his face in public for the first time, broke ties with Al-Qaeda, and changed the name of his group to Jabhat Fath Al Sham (Conquest of the Levant Front). The group later evolved into Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (Organization for the Liberation of the Levant).  In a video announcing the split, al-Jolani said the new formation “has no relation to any external party.” Analysts believe the split was driven by the burden of its Al-Qaeda affiliation which was a liability when seeking out new partners to work with. The split kicked off a war between al-Jolani and ISIS and other groups operating in the area. “Though we tried hard to avoid this confrontation, it was inevitable, so we fought against ISIS,” al-Jolani said. “Our security forces captured and imprisoned many of them. They were trying to sabotage the Syrian revolution.” He took part in operations against ISIS, which included the 2023 killing of ISIS leader Abu Hussein Al-Husseini al-Qurashi, CNN reported. “We are against killing innocent people, even if we’re the ones who were oppressed and defending our rights,” he added. “So when it reached this level, we split, and we distanced ourselves from those who kill innocent people. That was the defining compass.” “If we had planes, we would have used planes,” he said. “So what’s the difference between a plane that drops a barrel bomb and kills innocent people, which is not condemned, while he who wants to defend those innocent people so he sacrifices himself so they can live in safety, is condemned.”   Ruling In Idlib Al-Jolani has governed Idlib, home to over 3 million people, under the Syrian Salvation Government (SSG). The pseudo-government was created to provide civil services, education, healthcare, a judiciary, and even collected taxes and issued identity cards, according to the New York Times and Al Jazeera. “I don’t claim that the situation in Idlib is ideal,” he said. “But I’m saying that given the current circumstances…there’s a self-asserting model that is capable of running the whole area’s affairs according to Islamic rule.” Al-Jolani supports Sharia law, and plans to impose it in Syria following the ousting of Assad. (Photo by OMAR HAJ KADOUR/AFP via Getty Images) “It is a just and right call,” al-Jolani said of Sharia in the PBS interview. “This mercy, humanity, justice that it contains can embrace all factions, including Christian, Jews and other factions belonging to Islam and other doctrines.” “Calling for Sharia law does not mean we want to exclude the others,” he added. “It’s the complete opposite.” In Idlib under his rule, there have been unlawful killings, unjust detention, kidnappings, recruitment of child soldiers, and other human rights abuses, according to a 2022 State Department report. Al-Jolani has denied most accusations. “There is no torture,” he said. “This is completely rejected. Human rights organizations could come and inspect the prisons or take a tour. Our institutions are open to everyone. We have no problem and if there are any mistakes, we will rectify them.”    Claiming A New Image While al-Jolani in 2014 threatened to attack U.S. troops if his fighters continued to be attacked with airstrikes, he has spoken about his opposition to fighting the United States and the West as early as 2014. al-Jolani bluntly said he will not support any attacks on the United States in his PBS interview.  “I repeat and reiterate that the era — our involvement with Al Qaeda in the past was an era, and it ended, and even at that time when we were with Al Qaeda, we were against external attacks, and it’s completely against our policies to carry out external operations from Syria to target European or American people,” he said. The interview was his first time speaking to a Western reporter, in what appears to be an effort at overhauling his image to Western audiences. He even shed his terrorist military garb for attire that many have pointed out is similar to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s style. In the interview, he denied that he is a terrorist. “That is an unfair characterization,” he said. “It’s a political label that carries no truth or credibility. We haven’t posed any threat to Western or European society. No security threat, no economic threat, nothing.” “Our message to them is brief: We here do not pose any threat to you, so there is no need for you to classify people as terrorists and announce rewards for killing them,” he said. Jolani reached out to the Trump administration during Donald Trump’s first term, asking to partner, claiming they weren’t terrorists but only opposed Assad. Former Ambassador James Franklin Jeffrey, who was the U.S. Special Representative for Syria Engagement told PBS he did nothing in response. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE “Why should I take the high risk position of urging someone to get dropped from the terrorist list?” Jeffrey said. In a rare interview last week with CNN, al-Jolani blamed his youth for his radical affiliations with Al-Qaeda when he was younger. “A person in their twenties will have a different personality than someone in their thirties or forties, and certainly someone in their fifties,” he told CNN. “This is human nature.” While ruling Idlib, al-Jolani has tried to appeal to various minority communities including the Druze and the Kurds, PBS reported. During the CNN interview, al-Jolani acknowledged that minority groups such as Christians have suffered from jihadist groups during the Syrian civil war but said they will live safely under the new regime. “There were some violations against [minorities] by certain individuals during periods of chaos, but we addressed these issues,” al-Jolani said. “No one has the right to erase another group. These sects have coexisted in this region for hundreds of years, and no one has the right to eliminate them.” Since capturing Damascus, al-Jolani has attempted to set the tone for what comes next, making an appearance in the city’s Umayyad Mosque where he declared the fall of Assad and declared “victory for the entire Islamic nation.” A senior rebel commander appeared on state TV later on, declaring, “Our message to all the sects of Syria, is that we tell them that Syria is for everyone.” As the situation continues to develop, it is unknown how Islamic Sharia will impact Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities as well as the secular Muslims living in the country. 

Two kindergartners who were critically wounded in the shooting at Feather River Adventist School in Oroville, California, last week are showing signs of improvement after undergoing surgery, Action News Now reported. Roman Mendez, 6, and Elias Wolford, 5, both came out of surgery on Friday and are recovering, according to their families. The young boys were shot on Wednesday when a crazed man opened fire in the school after meeting with the principal about enrolling his grandson, what authorities believe was just a “ruse” to get into the school. In writings obtained by law enforcement after the shooting, the shooter — a 56-year-old man with a criminal record and a history of mental health issues — wrote that he was seeking out “child executions” in response to “America’s involvement in Genocide and Oppression of Palestinians,” according to authorities. “A little 5-year-old gets shot with a nine millimeter and survived, it’s a miracle,” said Wolford’s aunt Tawnee Preisner, according to Action News Now. “This has shattered his childhood, he’s still in really critical condition. All those other kids that were in the school. This is all very traumatic. One thing that is really devastating too, they were targeted because of their religion. Nobody should ever have to go through this.” Preisner added that Wolford has been sleeping a lot since his surgery, but he has talked to his dad since the shooting. Mendez’s sister Vanessa Diaz wrote on social media on Sunday that the 6-year-old boy is awake and breathing on his own. Diaz said that the first words Mendez spoke after the tubes were removed from his mouth were, “Where is Elias?” On Friday, the annual Christmas tree lighting in Oroville, a town of around 20,000, began with a prayer vigil for the Mendez and Wolford. Kenn Malone, a local pastor and a chaplain for the Butte County Sheriff’s Office, said, “No matter where you go, there’s evil and there’s bad people but there’s a whole lot more good that goes on what people realize, so that’s how we do it, keep this thing going by this thing called love.” CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE After shooting the two kindergartners, the shooter turned the gun on himself. District Attorney Mike Ramsey said it’s possible that the shooter would have been charged with a hate crime if he had survived. The shooter was a homeless man who moved around the Chico and Sacramento areas, CBS News reported. The 56-year-old white male was convicted of multiple crimes in the 1990s and early 2000s, including theft, fraud, and forgery. According to Sheriff Honea, the shooter also had a juvenile record. Just last month, the shooter was arrested in South San Francisco after he was suspected of stealing a U-Haul truck. Law enforcement officers found him in the stolen truck, and he was transported to the San Bernadino County Jail. He pled not guilty and was released from jail on November 21. After he was released, the shooter stayed at various motels in the Chico area, which is about 30 miles north of Feather River Adventist School.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) said on Monday that she had a good conversation with President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, as he continues to meet with Republican senators. “I appreciate Pete Hegseth’s responsiveness and respect for the process,” Ernst said after the meeting. “Following our encouraging conversations, Pete committed to completing a full audit of the Pentagon and selecting a senior official who will uphold the roles and value of our servicemen and women — based on quality and standards, not quotas — and who will prioritize and strengthen my work to prevent sexual assault within the ranks.” “As I support Pete through this process, I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources,” she added. Hegseth has faced scrutiny after a settlement surfaced last month involving a woman who alleged that he raped her several years ago in a hotel — an accusation that he vehemently denies. He has faced other accusations of misconduct, which he also disputes. ? ERNST out with a statement on HEGSETH She says “as I support Pete through this process…” but doesn’t clearly indicate she is voting for his confirmation. pic.twitter.com/LFe91x5OmX — Aishah Hasnie (@aishahhasnie) December 9, 2024 Hegseth briefly spoke to reporters after the meeting, saying that their meeting was “very good.” “The more we talk the more we’re reminded of as two combat veterans how dedicated we are to defense,” he said. “She has been dedicated to making the Pentagon work for warfighters for a long time.” Trump said during an interview over the weekend that Hegseth did not care about risking his high-paying job in the media to serve in the U.S. government because he wanted to serve his country. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE “I told him — so he’s making a lot of money at Fox, [his family is] doing very well,” Trump said. “And I said, ‘You know, if for some reason you don’t get this thing, you’re not going to be able to go back. And all that money you’re making, you can kiss it goodbye.’ He said, ‘This is all about America.’” “You know he didn’t say, ‘Well, let me think about it. Let me discuss it,’” Trump continued. “That’s a very big, risky thing he’s doing. When he goes and he says, ‘I’m going to give up, you know, millions of dollars in order to possibly become the secretary of defense,’ a lot of people would say, it’s a great position, there’s probably almost no greater position, but a lot of people would say, ‘I have to think about it.’ He said, ‘I don’t have to think about it.’” Related: DeSantis To Join Trump At Army-Navy Football Game Amid Defense Secretary Speculation

Big breaking news today. In the trial we’ve been following very closely, Daniel Penny, the man who stepped up to protect a subway car full of passengers from a violent, drug-addled vagrant, has been found not guilty. He is a free man. Justice has prevailed. In spite of all that was stacked against him, in a trial that never should have happened, Daniel Penny will walk free. He should be awarded the Medal of Freedom for the courage he showed on that train that day — and maybe, with Trump coming in, that may still happen — but for now he will have to settle for, if not the Medal of Freedom, than freedom itself.  Here’s Newsmax breaking the news: BREAKING NEWS: Jury finds Daniel Penny not guilty of negligent homicide. pic.twitter.com/AhaucyvGQz — NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) December 9, 2024   This is, of course, a major victory for justice, fairness, and the rule of law. But we should not succumb to the temptation to just move on, let bygones be bygones, and forget about the injustice and persecution Penny suffered, as if the not guilty verdict means there is no harm and no foul. Penny’s acquittal is a credit to the jury, which ultimately made the right choice, in spite of the media pressure and violent threats from the crazed mob of BLM protesters outside and around the country. But justice is happening here in spite of the court system in New York. In spite of the corrupt, far-Left prosecutor. And in spite of the judge.  So, let’s go back and review what happened just in the last couple of days, before this verdict was decided. There was an attempt — a rather desperate one, at the last minute — to rig this trial once and for all against Penny. It failed. But we should remember it, and talk about it. And before we do, I want you to remember back to the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, when one of the arguments we heard — over and over again — was that Rittenhouse had unlawfully carried a firearm across state lines. PolitiFact published a whole “fact check” asserting it was false to claim that Rittenhouse had any legal right to possess his AR-15 in Kenosha. Don Lemon, meanwhile, claimed that Rittenhouse was a “white teenager who crossed state lines with an AR-15-style rifle.” Joe Scarborough said, “He crossed state lines with an AR-15.”  Various members of Congress made the same claim, clearly implying that there was something sinister — even illegal — about Kyle Rittenhouse possessing and transporting his firearm. Ultimately the entire narrative fell apart — and not just because Kyle Rittenhouse never actually crossed state lines with an AR-15. Shortly before jury deliberations began in Rittenhouse’s murder trial, the prosecution was forced to admit that, under Wisconsin law, Kyle Rittenhouse had every legal right to possess his rifle. That’s because the rifle barrel of Rittenhouse’s AR-15 was longer than 16 inches, which is the minimum barrel length that Wisconsin state law allowed. So with very little fanfare, after months of lying by the press, the judge dismissed the gun charge against Rittenhouse before the jury could even consider it. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show That’s the normal procedure that occurs in a criminal trial before the judge sends the jury to deliberate. It’s the kind of thing that happens when the judge is interested in a fair trial, as the Rittenhouse judge clearly was. Before the jury gets the case, there’s an effort to make sure that the jury is considering a specific slate of charges that are well-founded in the law. You want to clarify exactly what charges the defendant is facing, prior to sending the jury away to deliberate.  Otherwise — if you start removing or adding charges after deliberations have begun — then you risk confusing the jury and sending signals that are obviously unfair to the defendant. This is the kind of thing that fair prosecutors and fair judges do everything they can to avoid. What happened in the Daniel Penny case on Friday, on the other hand, demonstrates once again that neither the judge nor the prosecutors were remotely concerned about basic principles of fairness. Fortunately the jury was, but they weren’t. So, after several days of deliberation in the Penny case, the jury announced that it was deadlocked on the second-degree manslaughter charge, which requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny deliberately disregarded a serious risk of causing death to Jordan Neely, and that Penny did not act in self-defense. In response, the judge sent the jury back for some more deliberations to make sure they were deadlocked. This is called an “Allen charge” or a “dynamite charge,” and it’s normal in many jurisdictions when a jury says that it can’t reach a verdict, including New York. The idea is to remind jurors that it’s important that they try to reach a unanimous verdict if at all possible, without forcing them into finding one.  And then after receiving this “Allen charge,” the Penny jury confirmed that, indeed, they were deadlocked on the first count. The jury did not return any verdict on the lesser-included charge of criminally negligent homicide, which requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny should have known he was posing some deadly risk to Jordan Neely, even if he didn’t deliberately and consciously ignore that risk. It also requires that the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Penny was not acting in self-defense. At this point, the appropriate thing for the judge to do would be to declare a mistrial. That’s what should happen when a jury repeatedly says they can’t reach a verdict, after deliberating for several days, and after the judge does his best to remind them of the importance of finding a verdict. Any other result risks influencing the jury, and suggesting that they should reach a certain outcome. It also happens to be inconsistent with New York law. But instead of declaring a mistrial, the judge — whose name is Maxwell Wiley — decided to do something that, by his own admission, doesn’t have any precedent in his state. He dismissed the manslaughter charge entirely and left the criminally negligent homicide charge intact. And then he told the jurors to come back for more deliberations on Monday. Watch: What’s not captured in that CNN segment is that, by the judge’s own admission, what he was doing in the Penny case has no precedent. It’s not just lawyers and CNN commentators who are saying this. As the judge put it, “I’ll take a chance and grant the prosecution’s application.” Yes, the judge actually said that. He said he’ll “take a chance” and implement a novel application of criminal law by dismissing the manslaughter charge while retaining a “lesser-included” offense. He’s conducting a little legal experiment in the middle of a homicide trial. He’s throwing out the established rules, and effectively allowing the prosecution to change their strategy, after jury deliberations have already begun. This was clearly a violation of Daniel Penny’s constitutional rights. He has the right to be treated like every other criminal defendant, under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. But the prosecution and the judge abandoned that principle for the most flagrantly political reasons imaginable. Instead of the jury getting an “Allen charge,” they’re now being told to conduct a whole new set of deliberations, with new rules. To give you a sense of why this was such a significant ruling, take a look at the verdict form that the jury was considering. Here it is: It begins by stating that, if the jurors find Daniel Penny guilty of manslaughter, then they’re done. They don’t have to consider the “lesser-included” charge of criminally negligent homicide. But then the form goes on to state that: If you find the defendant not guilty of count 1, manslaughter in the second degree, for the reason that the People have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified, then you must not consider count 2, criminally negligent homicide, and you must also find the defendant not guilty of that count. The form continues: If you find the defendant not guilty of count 1, manslaughter in the second degree, for some reason other than the lack of justification, then proceed to, consider, and render a verdict on count 2, criminally negligent homicide. What this is saying is that, if the jurors found that Penny was justified and acted in self-defense — to protect himself or others on that subway car — then a “not guilty” verdict on the manslaughter charge means that there also should be a “not guilty” verdict on the criminally negligent homicide charge. And that’s a pretty clear logical progression. Self-defense is a total defense to both charges, not just one of them. Now, very abruptly, the jury is being asked to throw out this whole logical progression. These instructions have basically been revised after-the-fact. Now they’re being asked to consider the charge for criminally negligent homicide in isolation. MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+ Again, it’s impossible to ignore the natural effect this was meant to have on the jury. The message was very clear. The judge was essentially telling the jury to compromise and convict on something. Officially, the judge’s reasoning was that, in most other cases, there’s a, “very clear” difference between the primary charge, and the “lesser-included charge.” But he said that’s not the case in this trial. So that’s why he says he allowed the prosecution to dismiss one of the charges while keeping the other, after the jury had already deliberated. This is a move that can politely be described as “novel,” as the defense attorney’s put it. More accurately, it’s a sleight of hand that undermines the legitimacy of the entire criminal court system. But the state of New York is evidently willing to sacrifice the legitimacy of its judicial system — whatever’s left of it, anyway — in order to punish Daniel Penny by any means necessary. And yet they still failed, because God is good, and truth wins in the end. Not that it really needs to be said, but the point of laws — especially criminal laws — is not to be “novel.” It’s to establish rules that apply to everyone, so that they can be enforced fairly, without regard to politics. Once prosecutors start bending the rules and coming up with “creative” ways to imprison American citizens, it’s clear that they’re not actually concerned with justice. They’re activists who want to punish their political enemies. And in New York, the judges are activists too, so they go along with it. Last week, we talked about the prosecutor in this case, Assistant Manhattan District Attorney Dafna Yoran. Just a few years ago, she dramatically reduced the sentence of a black man who brutally killed an Asian man during an ATM robbery, because she said she felt sorry for the “trauma” in his life. She didn’t want to apply the law — which clearly applied to the assailant’s conduct — because she wanted to try out a novel concept called “restorative justice.” In the Penny case, this same prosecutor was using a “novel approach” for a very different purpose. She decided, this time around, to go out of her way to punish a defendant in a homicide case. She employed every legal technicality in the book to throw him in prison. In fact, she came up with new technicalities that have never been attempted before. And it’s not hard to see why that is. Sure, Daniel Penny acted in self-defense, unlike the ATM robber. Sure, Jordan Neely was a menace to society, unlike the professor who was murdered while he was withdrawing $300. But also unlike the ATM robber, Daniel Penny is white. And for that reason — and that reason alone — the jury in this case was forced to continue deliberations. The judge and the prosecutors refused to drop this case, long after it’s clear that they’re legally obligated to do so. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE Ultimately, they failed in their scheme. The whole thing backfired. Now they can’t retry Penny for the charge that was dismissed, because they dismissed after deliberations began, so double jeopardy protections apply. And obviously they can’t try again on the charge he was just acquitted of. If they’d taken the mistrial last week, they could have kept trying to throw Penny in prison. But they gambled that this maneuver would result at least in a conviction on a lesser charge, and they’d still be able to throw Penny in prison for four years and ruin his life. That was the calculation. It didn’t pay off. They failed. They tried to railroad him, but they failed. We should never forget that. Daniel Penny surely won’t. But for now, what matters most is that he won. Justice won. And justice won in spite of the very people who are supposed to ensure that it wins.

The Biden-Harris administration’s Department of Homeland Security freed an illegal alien who was wanted of child rape in his home country into the United States. The illegal alien, a 25-year-old Ecuadorean national named Adrian Patricio Huerta-Nivelo, crossed the border into the United States on June 4th, 2021 before being apprehended by Border Patrol. Huerta-Nivelo was given a notice to appear in front of an immigration judge before being released into the interior of the United States. Just days after his release, however, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) discovered that the illegal alien was wanted in Ecuador in connection to the rape of a child. ICE arrested Huerta-Nivelo days after he was released into the United States on June 12th, 2021 in Boston, Massachusetts. The federal law enforcement agency held the illegal alien in their custody until an immigration judge ordered him to be deported from the country. He was then returned to Ecuador and handed over to law enforcement agents in his home country. Though Huerta-Nivelo is not believed to have committed any violent crimes during his brief time in the United States, numerous other illegal aliens have committed violent crimes after illegally crossing the border. One illegal alien, 20-year-old Venezuelan national, Jesus Alberto Pereira Castillo, was arrested in Denver, Colorado for allegedly raping a 14-year-old girl. The arrest came as the city’s Democrat mayor, Mike Johnston, indicated that he would resist attempts from the Trump administration to enforce federal immigration law in Denver. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE Massachusett’s Democrat Governor similarly said that she would refuse to assist federal immigration enforcement operations, even as ICE operations in the state resulted in the capture of three illegal aliens, each of which had been charged or convicted with raping children. One of those illegal aliens, Alexandre Romao De Oliveira, entered the United States in 2022 and had previously been convicted in Brazil of raping a child. President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to carry out the “largest mass deportation operation” in American history, with recent polling indicating that a majority of Americans are in favor of the plan.

Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour was the most lucrative concert tour ever. It wrapped on December 8 in Vancouver after 149 concerts in 51 cities around the globe. People reported the three-hour concert highlighted Swift’s impressive career and sold an unprecedented $2,077,618,725 in tickets. To put on a tour of that magnitude and success takes more than just Taylor. She has a dedicated team of staff members who worked tirelessly to ensure this would be her most influential era yet. Taylor Swift understood the importance of her team, and she doled out handsome bonuses as a thank-you. The amount of money is positively staggering. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Taylor Swift (@taylorswift) Taylor Swift Awarded Nearly $200 Million In Bonuses That’s correct. People reported that she presented her team with $197 million in bonus money for their efforts. That money was spread out among her entire staff, from truck drivers to caterers, dancers, security, and beyond. Her production company, Taylor Swift Touring, reported that more than 10,000,000 people attended the Eras Tour since 2023. There has never been anything like it in the music business. People reported during Taylor’s final show she told the crowd, “We have toured the entire world. We have had so many adventures. It has been the most exciting, powerful, electrifying, intense, most challenging thing I’ve ever done in my entire life.” It’s the end of an era, for sure, but it’s not the last we’ll see of Taylor, that’s for sure. She’s now a best-selling author, selling more than 800,000 copies of Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour Book in just two days, People reported. She’s also nominated for six Grammy awards, including Album of the Year for The Tortured Poets Department. We don’t know what’s next for Tay, but we know it will be huge. An engagement ring could be one heck of a bonus for Taylor Swift. Don’t you think, Travis? This story’s featured image is by Kevin Winter/TAS24/Getty Images for TAS Rights Management. The post Taylor Swift Gave Her Eras Performers An Earth-Shattering Amount In Bonuses appeared first on InspireMore.

'As I support Pete through this process'

'I think this goes back to the Patriot front issue,'

Once again, McDonald's is back in the news...

'These threats were real'