Connect with us


‘Enough is enough’: Missouri AG Asks For McCloskey Case To Be Dismissed



Mark McCloskey defending home

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt vowed to intervene in the McCloskey case during a Monday night interview with Fox News anchor Shannon Bream, saying he’s pushing for the case to be dismissed altogether.

“The truth of the matter is this is nothing more than a political prosecution brought by St. Louis Prosecutor Kim Gardner,” he said. “The right to self-defense is deeply rooted in our constitution. It’s a fundamental right. It actually predates our Constitution. The founders knew how important it was. It’s a God-given right. It can’t be taken away or given to us by government. It’s unalienable.”

That right is not only provided by the Constitution, but also by the Missouri Constitution and the State’s statutes, Schmitt added. And, with rising crime in the state, “we’ve got a prosecutor now targeting individuals for exercising their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment,” Schmitt explained.

“Enough is enough. The law is very clear. It’s time, as the State’s Chief law enforcement officer to step in. We’re entering the case and we’re seeking to have this case dismissed, not just for the McCloskey’s, but for every Missourian whose rights are threatened by a rogue prosecutor who seeks to punish people for exercising their fundamental right to self defense.”

The McCloskey’s, a Missouri couple, are accused of weapons violations after they pointed guns at protestors who breached their gated property last month. Gardner filed charges against the couple Monday. In her statement regarding the move, Gardner wrote, “It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis.”

Mark McCloskey, however, had a few choice words for the St. Louis prosecutor on Monday’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “Now I’m just flat out pissed off. This has gotten to be outrageous,” he told Carlson, citing Gardner’s efforts to protect those threatening his family and his property.

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