Tag Archives: E. Jean Carroll

Broken-Window Theory On A Federal Level

Posted on by

In 1994, Rudy Giuliani became Mayor of New York City. The prior Mayor was David Dinkins who became Mayor in 1990. In the early 1990’s the crime rate in New York City was staggering. There were 2,245 murders, over 100,000 robberies, and over 200,000 burglaries (source here). When Rudy Giuliani was elected, he instituted a broken-window policy.

Basically, the broken-window theory says that visible signs of disorder and neglect lead to more serious crimes. It supports the enforcement of laws preventing broken windows and other seemingly minor crimes to deter more serious crimes.

By the end of the 1990’s, New York City was one of the safest cities in the nation.

On Sunday, The American Thinker posted an article suggesting we use the broken-window policy in the Department of Justice.

The article notes:

The left is outraged that Trump is seeking retribution.  Duh!  Retribution is a key component of the crime-punishment equation.  The punishment must be severe enough to deter future crimes.  That the left continues to attack our right of self-governance proves that the punishment has not reached adequate severity — yet.

The left insists that the DoJ is not Donald Trump’s tool to use against his enemies.  We know that — Merrick Garland isn’t the attorney general anymore.  The Trump DoJ is actually going after our enemies — those who attacked our constitutional republic.  The left attacked our institutions of law and order and must be held accountable — or there will be no law or order.

When a law enforcement officer is attacked, the system reacts far more energetically than it would for other assaults.  That’s because an attack on a police officer is an attack on the institution we have commissioned to maintain social order.

When an ICE agent was struck in Washington, D.C., it wasn’t one guy hitting another guy with a sub sandwich.  It was a citizen giving “we the people” the finger by attacking our agent.

When E. Jean Carroll sued Donald Trump, it wasn’t a ditz with a bad memory trying to get a windfall from a billionaire with a big mouth.  It was part of a planned conspiracy to undermine our right to choose our leadership.

When James Comey posted “86 47,” it wasn’t an innocent photo of sea shells.  It was a threat against our president, using the same symbolism violent protestors are using to call for his murder.  The fact that there have already been numerous attempts against on the president’s life makes Comey’s posting all the more egregious.

The article concludes:

Rudy Giuliani used the “broken window” strategy to clean up the mess that the Dems had made of New York City. He punished delinquents for misdemeanors to deter them from becoming felons. It worked.

Is the DoJ using Giuliani’s strategy in its pursuit of Comey and Carroll, or are they just pieces of a much bigger strategy?

As silly as James Comey’s posting was, it was an illegal implied threat against a president. Carroll’s alleged perjury was an illegal undermining of our justice system. Both acts had a shared objective of preventing Trump from being our president. That makes both offenses something far more important — recent acts of an ongoing conspiracy. As such, Comey and Carroll have reset the statute of limitations for all acts of the conspiracy that came before them.

Now the conspirators are faced with the necessary consequences of their actions — without a statute of limitations shield. James Comey, John Brennen, James Clapper, Letitia James, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and numerous others must be held to account for the crime-punishment ledger to balance. Their combined offenses undermined our right to free and fair (i.e., honestly informed) elections, and all should be treated as such.

Perhaps prosecution of the Comey and Carroll “window breakers” will lead to the eventual downfall of the traitorous conspirators.

Using a broken-window policy may be the only way to stop the weaponization of the Justice Department in the future.

 

The Story Just Keeps Falling Apart

Posted on by

This week E. Jean Carroll was in the news again. She is the person who has accused President Trump of raping her in a department store dressing room although she can’t remember when. She claims the incident took place in late 1995 or early 1996. A defendant has no way of coming up with an alibi if the supposed victim can’t remember when the crime took place. If she could remember the date, the President could show the court his planner from that date. I suspect that is the reason she can’t remember the date.I am amazed that this case even made it to court. Why were there no store clerks or people near the dressing room that heard the commotion?

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about the case.

Here are a few highlights:

CNN reported that the investigation is centered on whether Carroll committed perjury. Prosecutors, CNN said, are focusing on a deposition Carroll provided in 2022 in which she said she received no outside funding for her lawsuit. Despite her testimony, it turns out billionaire Democrat donor Reid Hoffman paid some of her legal fees and expenses.

…Carroll accused Trump of raping her in a Bergdorf Goodman and then sued him for defamation when he denied it in 2019. Carroll notably declined to press criminal charges against Trump because, according to her, she “would find it disrespectful to the women who are down on the border who are being raped around the clock.” Carroll then filed a second lawsuit in 2022 after the state of New York temporarily changed a statute of limitations law.

…Ultimately, Trump was held liable for merely denying the allegation. After Carroll’s allegations went public in 2019, Trump released a statement in which he categorically denied even meeting Carroll.

“She is trying to sell a new book; that should indicate her motivation,” Trump said. “It should be sold in the fiction section. Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try to get publicity for themselves or sell a book or carry out a political agenda.”

The article concludes:

To recap: A known anti-Trump Democrat mega-donor financed a lawsuit built on allegations by a woman who couldn’t remember the year of the purported assault, and a state changed its laws to facilitate the lawfare — all to assassinate the character of a sitting president who was punished for maintaining his innocence.

I hope at some point this case winds up in a court where the judge has some common sense and throws the whole thing out.