--:-- John Bickley: The NFL is back, and FanDuel's got everything you need to play your game. From same-game parlays to live betting. Right now, new customers bet $5 and get $300 in bonus bets if you win. 21-plus in president select states. 18-plus in Kentucky and Wyoming. Must be first online real money waging. $5 deposit required. Bonus issued is non-withdrawable bonus bets that expire seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply. See full terms at FanDuel.com slash sportsbook. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
--:-- John Bickley: What do we want 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.
--:-- Georgia Howe: 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 know.
--:-- John Bickley: 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.
--:-- David Marcus: First, tell us about this encounter. 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.
--:-- David Marcus: 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 him, but Neely appeared to remain unconscious.
--:-- David Marcus: 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 man 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.
--:-- David Marcus: 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.
--:-- David Marcus: 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 have they been saying?
--:-- David Marcus: So Massachusetts representative Ayanna Pressley 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.
--:-- David Marcus: But look it worth noting that Mayor Eric Adams an ex himself has called on New Yorkers not to rush to judgment and even called out Representative Alexandria Ocasio for doing just that by calling the incident a murder Here what Adam Santa say.
--:-- John Bickley: 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 and allow them to do their job.
--:-- David Marcus: What do we know about Neely? Apparently, this was an individual who authorities were really well acquainted with, correct?
--:-- David Marcus: 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.
--:-- David Marcus: 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 and elsewhere. People are scared. And that it was only a matter of time before New Yorkers began taking matters into their own hands.
--:-- David Marcus: The statistics back this feeling up. Since 2020, more than 20 New Yorkers were violently murdered on the subway.
--:-- John Bickley: Critics counter that Neely, despite his criminal record, was supposedly harmless and should have been offered help by the city and those riding the subway.
--:-- David Marcus: 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.
--:-- John Bickley: What have police said so far? And do we know if this Marine is likely to face any charges?
--:-- David Marcus: The NYPD initially detained the Marine but let him go. Since then, the medical examiner ruled the death of homicide. But as of Thursday afternoon, District Attorney Alvin Bragg of recent Trump indictment fame was weighing the possibility of charges, which activists are demanding.
--:-- John Bickley: It's really unclear at this point how the city might respond to whatever decision the district attorney makes.
--:-- David Marcus: Another tragedy that's been turned pretty quickly into a racially and politically divisive case.
--:-- John Bickley: Indeed. Dave, thanks for joining us.
--:-- David Marcus: Thanks for having me.
--:-- John Bickley: That was Daily Wire contributor David Marcus.
--:-- John Bickley: Coming up, an investigation by The Daily Wire raises financial ethics questions about a left-leaning Supreme Court justice.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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?
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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
--:-- John Bickley: Why did Breyer recuse himself?
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: But Sotomayor's millions in book advances were similar in scale, and Penguin Random House was her sole source of earned income outside of the court.
--:-- John Bickley: So was that technically against the rules?
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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?
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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 art.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: How do these stories compare?
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: 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.
--:-- John Bickley: Well, we certainly hope that the same standard would be applied to both sides.
--:-- Luke Rosiak: Luke, thanks for reporting.
--:-- John Bickley: That was Daily Wire investigative reporter Luke Rosiak.
--:-- John Bickley: 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.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: 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 Tarrio. He was the former chairman of the Proud Boys and three other lower level leaders Ethan Nordean Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rell 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 and Rell could lose their military benefits from past service.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: Now, Dominic Pozzola, 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.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: And what specifically are the men accused of doing on January 6th?
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: So the only defendant who was accused of any sort of violence was Pizzola. He apparently used a riot shield that belonged to an officer to break a window pane on the western front of the Capitol. Pizzola was arrested back in January of 2021 and has remained in jail since.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: It's also notable that Tarrio, 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 Tarrio and others.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: In one message used by prosecution, Tarrio said, quote, make no mistake, we did this.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: 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.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: 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.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: To that point, Tarrio actually spoke about this speech issue from jail. He suggested the trial concern to free speech and said the government is trying to manipulate how people speak to each other privately.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: 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.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: 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.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: 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 Boys involvement in the riot appeared to be a quote photo opportunity.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: 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.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: But the DOJ has gone forward with them and has secured, what, 14 seditious conspiracy convictions so far, right?
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: Yeah, that's correct. So the DOJ has had near-perfect success in prosecuting J6 defendants before D.C. 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.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: 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.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: There is no case for seditious conspiracy. Certainly, they can be charged with trespassing or vandalizing property. No one 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.
--:-- John Bickley: Well, a very politically charged and very serious set of convictions here.
--:-- Amanda Presta-Giacomo: Amanda, thanks for reporting.
--:-- John Bickley: That was Daily Wire reporter Amanda Presta-Giacomo.
--:-- John Bickley: Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back later this afternoon with more news you need to know.
