Connect with us


Antifa rioters attack Andy Ngo again over Memorial Day weekend



Screen Shot 2021 06 03 at 9.17.57 AM

Journalist Andy Ngô told the story of Antifa’s most recent attack in a series of tweets Wednesday. He also appeared on the Ingraham Angle to talk at length about his narrow escape from the angry mob.

Ngô was undercover, reporting on the most recent riots in Portland, Oregon Friday, when some rioters approached him. “I think what gave it away though was they paid attention to the fact that I wasn’t engaging in criminal activities,” Ngô said. According to him, they snatched his mask, recognized him and shouted: “That’s him! Get him! Get him!”

Next, “I was chased, attacked and beaten by a masked mob, baying for my blood,” the journalist said. Luckily, he found shelter in a nearby hotel, and eventually was treated by EMTs who arrived at the scene. Meanwhile, rioters banged on the doors to the hotel. The last time Ngô came under a violent attack was in April of this year, while he covered a similar riot in Portland. In 2019, he was beaten so badly while covering ANTIFA that he suffered brain hemmorrages.

“Antifa wants me dead because I document what they want to stay hidden,” Ngô tweeted. “The attacks against me and threats on my life are retribution for my work as a journalist . . . But it is the right of every journalist, protected and preserved by the founding fathers, to report freely without fear.”

Later, police only arrested one of Ngô’s many attackers from that night. The man was charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon, felony attempted assault, felony riot and other crimes. But, “His bail was immediately covered by an Antifa bail fund group,” Ngô tweeted.

You can follow Jenny Goldsberry on Twitter @jennyjournalism.

Continue Reading


BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling



Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading