Whatever happened to “independent journalist” John Sullivan, who filmed the killing of Ashli Babbitt?

The New Neo Posted on by

In connection with yesterdays’ thread about a man claiming to be an “independent journalist” who has been convicted for the Capitol breach on J6, commenter “gallchobhair” has this question:

Does anyone happen to remember what ultimately happened to “journalist” John Sullivan, who gleefully filmed the Ashli Babbitt murder? If I recall correctly, he got off pretty much scot free.

I hadn’t thought of him in a long while, but he certainly got a lot of attention at the time. Most of the articles about him were written in the initial weeks after the event. But I found an update from this past August:

John Earl Sullivan, arrested in Salt Lake City, no date listed. Indicted on 2/3/21 and pleaded not guilty to six counts. Remains free on personal recognizance.

You can see that he was quickly arrested and indicted and then released. That was two and a half years ago. I found more in an article from May of 2021 which stated that money Sullivan had gotten from the sale of the Babbitt video was confiscated by the feds. And in his Wiki profile, it says this about the conditions of his quick release:

He was released as the authorities did not have sufficient proof to keep him in custody, and under the conditions that he keeps a job where he has to work full-time; remains at home except to go to work, church or court; only posts to social media to request jobs; does not leave Utah and surrenders his passport to the authorities; does not work anymore with Insurgence USA though still being allowed to handle its financial transactions and tax returns; has a mental health evaluation; does not possess firearms.

You may recall that Sullivan was somewhat of a mysterious figure who was suspected of being in league with the left. What do the authorities mean about not having sufficient proof? From what I’ve read, they had plenty of video of Sullivan’s activities, which were not among the most innocuous. It seems to me that some people were kept in custody for a long time with a lot less proof of any particular wrongdoing, but it’s hard to get any details on this. I’d love to see a breakdown of which people they kept incarcerated and why, versus those they quickly released.

The charges against Sullivan: “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Civil Disorder; Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, o rPicketing in a Capitol Building; Aiding and Abetting.”

Will Sullivan ever be tried? Perhaps, but I predict that if he is tried he will get some sort of sweetheart deal like Epps: a misdemeanor charge, perhaps even with a suspended sentence, and a promise not to prosecute him for other actions committed on January 6th.

NOTE: Stephen Horn, the J6 “independent journalist” who was convicted a couple of days ago, also had not been incarcerated after his initial arraignment. And his trial also took a long time to occur. However, his involvement in any riot activities was far less than Sullivan’s – in fact, as far as I can tell, it was non-existent.

J6 independent journalist convicted

The New Neo Posted on by

The DC jurors also convicted a ham sandwich along with Steven Horn:

Stephen Horn was found guilty of entering or remaining in a restricted area, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in the Capitol building.

In a post to X, Horn wrote, “I told the same truth to the jury that I posted along with my video on January 7th: ‘I did not enter the capitol building as part of the protest, or for cheap thrills, but to accurately document and record a significant event which was taking place.'”

It doesn’t appear that anyone thought he was there for any other reason. I’m surprised they didn’t try to charge him with spying for his attempt at reporting.

The J6 convictions are a travesty; that’s the reason for my “ham sandwich” remark in the first sentence of this post. It is probably good advice to anyone on the right wishing to demonstrate – even peacefully – against anything to avoid doing it in DC, because if the federal government wishes to get you they will get you by using the DC “justice” system to do it.

There’s also this:

And we should not forget Ray Epps, a curious case of DOJ leniency – almost as curious as Hunter Biden’s initial plea deal, and probably motivated by similar factors:

Housing first

The New Neo Posted on by

They’re the homeless, right? So they need housing, right? Only problem is that “homeless,” once a relatively descriptive term, has become only the tip of the iceberg of the problems of the “homeless” – now often referred to by the woke with the euphemism “unhoused.” That makes the problem seem far more simple than it is and far more soluble. But mental illness, substance abuse, and criminal activity of many kinds are a lot more difficult to deal with, and to a large degree they are the drivers of homelessness today.

Therefore, I don’t see how the solution called “housing first” could even have looked good on paper. Maybe it appealed because it didn’t cast blame; the problem and the solution would reside outside the messy realm of personal responsibility or personal flaws. And a “housing first” approach does make one aspect of the problem less visible by getting at least many of the homeless off the streets, and makes the city look less like the slums of Calcutta.

Only problem is, that’s probably all it does [emphasis mine]:

One resident threatens a security guard with a Taser. Another menaces a tenant with a “big kitchen knife.” Serious mental illness either goes untreated or is not treated effectively. One “savvy and resourceful” resident uses her apartment to fence stolen retail goods to fund her heroin habit. Not only is drug use normalized, causing a wave of overdoses; drug dealing in the building is also common. The local police precinct considers the building a “hot spot.” Those few residents who don’t use drugs report feeling socially isolated. Meantime, the program promotes “communal use,” so as to reduce the risk of fatal overdoses.

At the end of the article, readers learn that 16 inhabitants of the building died, mainly of suspected overdoses, in just the first eight months of this year. With 305 apartments for the formerly homeless in the building, this represents a death rate of about 5 percent, though the actual rate is probably higher because apartments were not filled until partway through that time …

The program’s high death rate owes to several factors. Private apartments are more accommodating to drug use than congregate-style shelters. They also provide addicts more time and funds to get high—a problem that researchers have elsewhere called the “check effect.”

Most importantly, this Housing First program, like many nationwide, gives preferential treatment to those addicted to drugs and alcohol. Those who stay sober and are trying to get their life together are left on the street, while those who can show they are abusing drugs get a brand-new private apartment. To say that this sends the wrong message to the homeless is an understatement.

It seems like the program “works” by rewarding those homeless people with the worst behavior, allowing them to go to the front of the housing line. These are perverse incentives.

Progress report on Gerard’s book

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s coming along.

I finally seem to have gotten a handle on most – not all – of the formatting. I want to learn how to do it in case I decide to publish a book of my own someday. But first I have to finish this one. Even though I don’t have to actually write it, there’s been a ton to do, beginning with choosing the essays. At the moment, there are about forty-five of different lengths. Some are serious and some are funny, and I’ve tried to vary the order rather than having sections devoted to one type or the other. Another chore was getting rid of anything that might cause a copyright problem, and every single link. Because the essays were originally blog posts, that became a surprisingly formidable task.

Then of course there’s the usual copy editing, which is different for a book than a blog. Quite different, and much more nit-picky. I plan to issue a print book and also an ebook, and the print book is far more demanding for a host of technical reasons. Then of course there’s how to print it and with whom.

Last night I spent a lot of time on cover design. It’s possible to spend a lot of time on every single aspect of book publishing, I’ve discovered. I don’t want it to go on and on and on. I’d like to get the thing out in the next month, and have it be available for holiday gifts. But I know that Gerard, having had a background in book publishing and art, was very into how things look. But of course I’m on my own with all these decisions about fonts and colors and photos and all the rest.

The cover design templates are supposed to be intuitive but for me they’re really not. And although there are tutorials to supposedly teach you how to do it, there are so many and they’re so complicated that one could spend many hours spinning wheels watching the tutorials and still not understand how to do it. All the websites on the subject emphasize how important a book cover is for selling books, but I can’t imagine it would matter all that much for this one because the audience is almost certainly Gerard’s readers. I do plan to market it somewhat in order to try to expand its reach, but I doubt the book will be sitting on a table in a bookstore and needing a snazzy cover to attract passers-by.

Then again, who knows?

This photo is as far as I’ve gotten so far with some very very preliminary front cover ideas – haven’t tackled the back. This cover probably doesn’t contain any of the recommended elements, but I’m curious what you think. Of course, I could always hire someone to do the cover, and end up with something that looks like a science fiction novel and that wouldn’t necessarily help sell a single copy.

Anyway, here is one of my first efforts; I have more. Those of you who have read Gerard’s essay “The Name in the Stone” probably know what the photo represents, but I’m wondering whether those of you who haven’t read it and can tell or guess:

The Fetterman standard of decorum

The New Neo Posted on by

You’ve probably read the brouhaha about the relaxation of dress codes for senators in order to accommodate Fetterman. If you’re not, and you need to get up to speed, see this. An excerpt:

There has been some outrage after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) relaxed the dress code for the Senate floor to accommodate the homeless fashion styles of Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).

Since the aptly dubbed “Fetterman Rule” came to be, several Republicans in Congress have been justifiably critical of undermining tradition and decorum because one senator can’t be bothered to dress appropriately. …

“Of course, I’ve heard about it,” Fetterman replied. “I’ve heard that some people are upset about that, and the right have been, like, losing their mind. You know, they’re just like, ‘Oh my God, you know, dogs and cats are living together,’ and you know, like I said, aren’t there more important things we should be talking about rather than if I dress like a slob?”

Earth to Fetterman: yes there are, and you know what? People are talking about those things, too. Most of them don’t revolve around you – although the ones that do revolve around you are hardly limited to your mode of dress, which is merely a symbol of a host of other more important things that are wrong with you.

And yet that word “decorum” is an interesting one and a meaningful one as well. It is the outward manifestation of an attitude of respect: “dignified propriety of behavior, speech, dress, etc.” What is someone saying by abiding by it, and what is a person who rejects it saying? How we present ourselves to the world is a message about both us and our attitudes to others, and I keep coming back to that word “respect.” In this, Fetterman is emblematic of our degraded times.

I wonder if anyone has ever asked Fetterman why he dresses as he does; so far I haven’t been able to find it, but I assume such as interview exists. However, I imagine that the reason is that even before he was a senator it was his trademark. You might say it’s his brand. What does he mean for it to signify? That he’s cool, that he’s different, that he doesn’t put on airs? This article on the subject of Fetterman doesn’t explain, except to say that he “hates” suits and that his casual attire is a sign of his recovery from depression (never heard that before of anyone; usually it’s the other way around).

I’m with DeSantis on this:

The US Senate just eliminated its dress code because you got this guy from Pennsylvania [Fetterman] – who’s got a lot of problems … he wears, like, sweatshirts and hoodies and shorts … We need to be lifting up our standards in this country, not dumbing down.

Good luck with that.

Hunter Biden says how dare the IRS investigate me!

The New Neo Posted on by

You almost got to admire Hunter Biden for being such a good demonstration of the old Jewish joke about the definition of chutzpah – the guy who murders his parents and says the court should be lenient with him because he’s an orphan.

No, Hunter didn’t murder Joe. But he does have the chutzpah to sue the IRS:

Hunter Biden’s attorneys filed a lawsuit against the IRS on Monday, alleging that agents have “targeted and sought to embarrass” the president’s son.

Biden’s Monday morning filing cites two major examples in IRS agents Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, two whistleblowers who claimed the IRS mishandled aspects of its investigation into Biden.

Biden’s lawsuit seeks for the court to declare that the IRS “willfully, knowingly, and/or by gross negligence, unlawfully disclosed Mr. Biden’s confidential tax information.”

It’s enough to make you root for the IRS.

More:

Shapley’s legal team responded to Biden’s lawsuit in a statement Monday morning, dismissing the move as a stalling tactic.

“This suit against the IRS is just another frivolous smear by Biden family attorneys trying to turn people’s attention away from Hunter Biden’s own legal problems and intimidate any current and future whistleblower,” Shapley’s attorneys wrote. “The federal judge in Delaware who oversaw the aborted plea deal shot down similar claims against the whistleblowers after they exposed the secret backroom deal between Hunter Biden and the Department of Justice. Neither IRS SSA Gary Shapley nor his attorneys have ever released any confidential taxpayer information except through whistleblower disclosures authorized by statute.

It’s also difficult to understand how Hunter Biden could be embarrassed at this point. He seems to act with no sense of shame, as far as I can see.

Jonathan Turley on Jack Smith’s attempt to impose a gag order on Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Turley writes:

Smith told District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., that Trump could “present a serious and substantial danger of prejudicing” his 2020 federal election interference case.

Smith compared Trump’s comments on the trial to the “disinformation” spread by Trump after the 2020 election — the subject of the indictment.

The motion states that Trump’s “recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals — the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors.”

I have long criticized Trump’s inflammatory comments over these cases, but Smith’s solution veers dangerously into core political speech in the middle of a presidential election.

How many people are confident in the Court, the jury pool, and prosecutors in this DC case? I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “confident” is. Democrats are probably quite confident that Trump will be found guilty no matter how weak the evidence in the objective sense, or how convoluted the legal theories employed to charge him. And Republicans are probably quite “confident” of the pro-left bias of those institutions.

Another thing: it’s the trial itself that involves a blatant attempt to “prejudice” the 2024 election – against Trump. That is also glaringly obvious.

Turley says:

Ironically, Smith’s move will likely be seen as reinforcing Trump’s claim of intentional election interference by the Biden Administration.

Ya think?

You may recall that Turley is not a Trump fan at all, but he tends to be one of those people who tries to apply the same standards to both sides. Quaint.

It is also rather quaint that Turley follows up that statement about the perception of intentional election interference by the Biden administration with this:

I do not view it that way, but I do believe Smith is showing his signature lack of restraint in high-profile cases, a tendency that led to the unanimous overturning of his conviction of former Virginia Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell.

If Turley doesn’t view this lawfare as intentional election interference, then what is Smith’s “lack of restraint” about? It seems to mostly or only be directed at GOP targets – does this not arouse Turley’s suspicions?

More:

More importantly, this is no typical case.

Smith has pushed for a trial before the election and the court inexplicably shoehorned the trial into a crowded calendar just before the Super Tuesday election.

Doesn’t seem all that “inexplicable,” if you imagine that it’s deliberate election interference.

On election fraud and mail-in ballots

The New Neo Posted on by

Here are the allegations:

Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim just won the Democratic primary, effectively securing his seventh term as mayor of the largest city in Connecticut. However, his Democratic opponent — John Gomes, a city employee fired by Ganim earlier this year — isn’t conceding. He claims Ganim stole the election by tampering with mail-in ballots, and he’s released video he claims proves that’s what happened. …

It turns out Gomes had good reason to question the validity of the ballots, and this wasn’t some outrageous attempt to delegitimize the election. Ganim also won the 2019 primary election with a come-from-behind victory that resulted from counting absentee ballots. Media accounts surrounding that election reported the absentee ballots in that election were “rife with irregularities.”

On Aug. 30, almost four full years later, Connecticut’s State Elections Enforcement Commission recommended criminal charges for three people connected to Ganim’s campaign relating to their suspected mishandling of absentee ballots in the 2019 election. …

Now John Gomes has released video that he says shows city employee Wanda Geter-Pataky, who is affiliated with the Ganim campaign, stuffing ballots into drop boxes. “State statute says absentee ballots can be returned only by the ballot applicant, their family members, police officers, local election officials or someone who is directly caring for someone who receives an absentee ballot because they are ill or physically disabled,” according to the Mirror.

More at the link.

It seems intuitively obvious that mail-in ballots and drop boxes are a recipe for trouble. Prior to 2020, that used to be a universally accepted concern. Now the MSM and the Democrats want us to believe that such things are always highly secure – that is, unless the battle is Democrat to Democrat in Bridgeport.

Or unless the Republican wins, as in 2016.

Red flags galore for Hunter Biden’s transactions, and then what?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Richard Aubrey” asks a good question:

I was in the life insurance business up until about 2016. For the last ten years or thereabouts, several companies with which I had contracts wanted me to take a quick class on spotting money laundering and reporting it. Had to retake annually. And I wasn’t a banker or financial advisor or tax accountant or any of that sort of thing.

Among other things, transfers between companies with no noticeable business advantage were suspect. Ignoring early withdrawal penalties…. Transactions of $10k or more were automatically flagged…for somebody to look at. Various other items were to be looked for or reported. Point is, lots of people with Duty To Report almost certainly saw Biden money going past. Did they raise a red flag? Then what?

And here’s the answer:

From 2015 until present, several federal agencies were alerted to suspicious activity and potential criminal activities by Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son. Each time, the allegations did not result in any consequences for the first son.

The pattern – over eight years and three separate presidential administrations – has some in Congress now seeing a protection racket. …

“Well, there’s two things we’re investigating; the Biden crime, and the Biden crime cover-up. And the cover-up continues to grow and expand,” he added during an interview with the Just the News, No Noise television show. “..This cover-up has been going on for a long time.”

That’s what happened: nothing. Why nothing happened is the question. The allegations and alerts are well-documented. Here is one:

Morgan Stanley crafted a bank compliance presentation in the spring of 2015 after becoming aware of the suspicious activities surrounding Rosemont Seneca. Morgan Stanley sought to flag suspicious activity in a scheme that involved fraudulent Native American tribal bonds. The transaction structure described by Morgan Stanley contained numerous entities and individuals with ties to Hunter Biden, including Devon Archer, Rosemont Seneca, and Burnham Financial Group. …

Morgan Stanley eventually referred the matter to the SEC, which opened a probe with the FBI and IRS that led to the arrest and conviction of Archer and other Hunter Biden associates for securities fraud. But Hunter Biden – though he was subpoenaed – was hardly mentioned in the case and never charged.

More at the link. Also this from a year ago, a quote from a letter to “the Biden Administration and several banks and financial institutions” written by James Comer. The records in question were ultimately provided, after delays:

“Troubling reports have recently surfaced that numerous international business transactions tied to Hunter and James Biden, the President’s brother, were flagged to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) through Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). At the same time, the Biden Administration is restricting Congress’ access to SARs. This reversal of longstanding policy raises serious questions about the motives behind the change, including whether it is intended to protect Hunter Biden,” wrote Ranking Member Comer to Secretary Yellen. “More than 150 international business transactions tied to Hunter or James Biden were flagged by U.S. banks in SARs filed with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The sheer number of flagged transactions in this case is highly unusual and may be indicative of serious criminal activity or a national security threat. We are particularly concerned where those transactions may involve business with firms or entities, including those with direct ties to foreign governments, hostile to the United States’ interests.”

Apparently the impeachment inquiry will involve the possible crimes and the possible coverups.