This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge who personally took two innocent children from a hallway outside his courtroom and escorted them to a nearby jail, where they "were forced to remove some of their clothing and sit in separate jail cells" now wants to escape liability for the apparent violation of their constitutional rights.
Judge Eric Eighmy, of Taney County court in Missouri, already has lost once at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when he demanded to be held faultless for his personal attack on Kadan and Brooklyn Rockett. The judges there first ruled he was not qualified for judicial immunity "because judges have no authority to moonlight as jailers."
Back in the courtroom where the children were seeking damages from him personally, he now insists that he has "qualified immunity," a doctrine that protects government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations as long as the right was not "clearly established."
It is the Institute for Justice that has filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the appeals panel now on behalf of the children.
"The last time this case came up on appeal, Judge Eighmy asked the court to expand judicial immunity to completely shield him from accountability for violating the constitutional rights of two children, Kadan and Brooklyn Rockett. The court declined that invitation," the brief explains. "Now, Judge Eighmy asks the court to expand a different immunity doctrine—qualified immunity—to invalidate a jury verdict in the Rocketts' favor.
"Again, the court should decline. Cases like this one highlight the practical and jurisprudential perils of qualified immunity. Time and time again, defendants invoke the doctrine to escape accountability for egregious constitutional violations, so long as no identical case exists in a binding jurisdiction. Some courts allow this gambit to work. Others rightly see through it, finding instead that obvious constitutional abuses can be remedied without carbon-copy precedent presaging the exact violation at issue.
"This second approach—the one this court should follow—is more consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance that qualified immunity is inappropriate in the face of 'particularly egregious facts[,].'"
The institute explains qualified immunity does not protect an officer "where the constitutional violation was so obvious under general well-established constitutional principles that any reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unconstitutional."
Those are the circumstances in this case, the IJ reported.
The case already has had a jury verdict, in favor of the children, but Eighmy insists on overturning that ruling.
"Every reasonable American knows that it's unconstitutional for a sitting judge to take off his robe, descend from the bench, and throw innocent children in prison," said IJ Attorney Dylan Moore.
"Qualified immunity shouldn't exist to begin with, but it certainly shouldn't protect such obvious violations of the Fourth Amendment."
The case dates to 2019 when the family was in court for a custody hearing.
The parents decided, in court, "that the kids would go home with their mother that day."
Outside the courtroom, the children argued, expressing a desire to go home with their father.
"Eighmy injected himself into the children's disagreement with their mother. When the kids stood their ground, Judge Eighmy escorted them to a nearby detention center. There, at Judge Eighmy's direction, the Rocketts were forced to remove some of their clothing and sit in separate jail cells for about an hour. Judge Eighmy eventually returned, and the children agreed to leave with their mom—but only after the judge threatened to throw them in foster care, where they would never see their family again," the institute explained.
The father then sued Eighmy for violating the Fourth Amendment.
First Eighmy tried the judicial immunity claim, and lost.
The next step was a jury trial, where a jury ruled the kids were entitled to $5,000 each in damages, from the judge personally.
So Eighmy now is claiming qualified immunity protections.
"Immunity doctrines should not shield government officials from accountability when they clearly violate people's constitutional rights, as Judge Eighmy did here," said IJ lawyer Anya Bidwell. "For years, Judge Eighmy has been trying to hide behind different immunity doctrines, despite the fact that this court has already ruled he isn't protected by judicial immunity."
The filing notes the Supreme Court repeatedly has admonished against the expansion of protections for officials "whose actions were plainly incompetent, knowingly illegal, or obviously unconstitutional."
The judge's claims apparently rest on the fact that no judge before ever had intervened in a family argument, taken two children into custody and jailed them, meaning there was no "precedent" that such actions were obviously wrong.
"The children were never suspected of committing a crime. Judge Eighmy never initiated contempt proceedings against them. And the children were not free to leave their jail cells until they agreed to Judge Eighmy's terms. Instead, Judge Eighmy leveraged his position of state authority to circumvent the very legal process he was charged with administering, detaining two innocent minors because he was unhappy with their reaction to being stuck in the middle of an acrimonious custody dispute," the filing points out.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lawmakers in the United Kingdom are warning of the likely "chilling effect" on speech, as well as the actual threats to those targeted with such accusations, should parliament move forward with a scheme that involves defining "Islamophobia."
Islamophobia already is defined by those on the left as "the irrational fear of, hostility towards, or hatred against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general."
They claim Islamophobia is "primarily a form of religious or cultural bigotry."
They even have a derogatory name for those they arbitrarily convict of such attitudes: "Islamophobes."
Actually, the term most often is used against those who have criticisms of Islam, whether it be for religious reasons, the fact that Islam is connected today to terrorism worldwide through some of its factions, or whether it involves demands made by Muslims on others in society, such as in European cities where there are now no-go zones for non-Muslims.
Leftists blame the surge in such attitudes on "the radicalization of Christian nationalist and far-right groups with growing hostility towards Muslims."
But then similar attitudes exist for and against all religious traditions, and seldom do appear the words "Hinduphobe," or "Christianphobe" or "Buddhaphobe," "Shintophone" or "Sikhphobe."
Now a report at the Christian Institute in the U.K. explains members of the House of Lords are warning against adopting a proposed definition.
"In a letter signed by 36 members of the House of Lords, the peers called the attempt at a definition 'misguided' and stated that it would only increase division in communities."
The report said the Labour Party already defines the word as "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness."
But it's not that easy to pin down what it means, the report said, and what damage could be inflicted.
Those objecting warned while the definition would be non-statutory, there would be problems, particularly in universities: "defining Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred and urging universities to prohibit it will inevitably inhibit legitimate academic research about Islam."
They cited Trevor Phillips, who was suspended from the Labour Party for Islamophobia offenses, but later was clear.
And there would be problems with legitimate criticisms of Islam.
They pointed out: "Sarah Champion, the Labour MP who exposed the grooming gangs in Rotherham, was shortlisted by the Islamic Human Rights Commission for 'Islamophobe of the Year', as was Baroness Casey."
Grooming gangs in various U.K. cities are part of those "no-go" zones and have repeatedly assaulted and abused young girls.
"There are already laws on the statute books that protect Muslims and other racial and religious groups from hatred and discrimination, such as the sections of the Public Order Act 1986 that criminalize stirring up racial and religious hatred, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the Equality Act 2010," the lawmakers noted.
"Embedding an official, government-approved definition of a particular form of racial or religious hatred in civic speech codes – and threatening people with penalties if they breach those codes – is a wholly inadequate way of tackling hatred and discrimination," they warned.
The institute said, "A new term risks confusing criticism of Islam as a religion – a democratic right – with hostility to Muslims as people. This confusion is most explicit with the term Islamophobia."
It continued, "Formally embracing a concept of 'cultural racism' risks threatening the freedom to criticize aspects of Islamic culture. A member of an organization that has signed up to this kind of definition could be disciplined for Islamophobia if they criticize mandatory female head coverings or suggest that U.K. law is preferable to Shariah [Islamic religious] law."
The House of Lords members who object to the plan represent multiple parties.
They explained an "official definition" likely would create additional conflicts.
The letter also challenged the logic behind defining "Islamophobia" or "Anti-Muslim Hatred" at all, particularly in light of protections already provided by the law.
Their letter was to Dominic Grieve, head of a "Working Group on 'Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred," which, in fact, is made up solely of Muslims or those with Muslim heritages, except for one member.
The letter said, "If you are genuinely concerned about the potential of the definition to have a chilling effect on free speech, why not include members of free speech advocacy organizations in your group, as well as representatives of the world's other major religions? The monocultural character of your group suggests that whatever definition it comes up with will likely include legitimate criticisms – as well as accurate observations – of the religion of Islam, such as the historical fact that it has, on occasion, been imposed on subjugated populations by force."
Further, too, there was alarm.
Criticism by Muslims of suggestions already made is "an example of how any definition of 'Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred' is vulnerable to being weaponized by Muslims seeking to protect their communities and their religion from legitimate criticism."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A conservative who launched a joke at Hillary Clinton fans during the 2016 election, telling them to avoid the lines and vote online, which of course was impossible, was the target in a war from Joe Biden's administration as soon as he took office.
Ultimately, his case was thrown out, and now he's striking back with a lawsuit for damages.
A report at Revolver explains it is Douglass Mackey who revealed on Donald Trump Jr.'s show that he is suing the U.S. government.
The report explains, "Back in 2020, right after Joe Biden was installed in the White House, one of the very first things his weaponized DOJ did was launch a political hit job on Douglass Mackey, a conservative influencer who dared to mock Hillary Clinton with a satirical meme during the 2016 election. The meme was obviously a joke and clearly protected speech. But that didn't matter. What mattered was the message it sent: mock the regime, and we'll destroy your life. So, that's exactly what the Biden regime did."
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just recently ended the Biden administration's war against Mackey by vacating his conviction.
Revolver reported, "Many also believe the Mackey case was a test run. Because if they could twist a meme into a federal crime and throw a young guy in prison, could they also go after a former president? Turns out, yes. They could. And they did."
The report also noted Mackey was "bringing in some serious firepower," as his lawyer is James Burnham, who previously was general counsel to President Donald Trump's DOGE.
Revolver explained in the Trump Jr. interview, Mackey's attorney "made it clear that securing compensation for the damages Mackey endured will be priority number one, and those damages total in the millions in legal fees, lost opportunities, defamation, and untold stress and hardship."
Also possible? Suing DOJ attorneys in their personal capacity and filing misconduct complaints against them.
Also they will work with Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate how the case could come about, "who originated it, and whose heads need to roll for it."
When the 2nd Circuit ruling was announced, it tossed Mackey's conviction for election interference.
WND reported the joke by Mackey triggered a conviction for "election interference."
But he appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the decision, arguing that if the government's case against him stands, the results necessarily would criminalize not just political misinformation and satire, but also "lies about also whether and for whom to vote. Such a sprawling political speech code is in the teeth of every applicable canon for reading criminal laws, and grossly offends the First Amendment."
There were claims Mackey tricked some 5,000 people into voting by text or social media, even though there was no process to accommodate those attempts.
WND also reported that a "progressive activist told Trump supporters to vote by text, but she was not prosecuted.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The fight over pro-life activists who want to protest near abortion businesses, displaying signs offering to adopt babies, and more, has gone on again and again across the United States.
Many times the battles are the result of ignorance on the part of city officials who fail to recognize that speech, in fact, is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
But the arguments often take up court time, and incur costs for those targeted anyway.
It appears that might not be the case in Carbondale, Illinois.
There, city officials cited in a lawsuit brought by the American Center for Law and Justice on behalf of pro-life activist Brandon Hamman have failed to respond to the accusations.
They only filed a motion for summary judgment, the ACLJ said, "without filing any responsive pleading to our complaint."
"When the ACLJ filed suit to defend Brandon's constitutional rights, we expected the city to file an answer denying our allegations. Instead, they made a critical procedural error that has blown their case wide open. … Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6), this means they have legally admitted to every single allegation we made against them. This changed everything."
The legal team explained, "The city's own lawyers have handed us a constitutional confession."
It described the situation as a "stunning procedural misstep."
Their admissions now include that they discriminate against religious speakers simply because they advocate for the sanctity of life.
The client, Hamman, "embodies the heart of the pro-life movement. As a dedicated Christian missionary and sidewalk counselor, Brandon serves through his ministry, Gospel for Life. His ministry offers hope and practical support to women facing crisis pregnancies. His work flows directly from his deep faith and belief in the sanctity of every human life," the ACLJ reported.
He was peacefully displaying signs near an abortion business in Carbondale in April, signs that included "We will adopt your baby." "Love your preborn neighbor as yourself" and more.
But Community Development Manager John Lenzini and city attorney Jamie Snyder targeted him.
They "declared that Brandon's pro-life signs were 'commercial' and therefore prohibited and when he cited the First Amendment, Lenzini said he didn't have that right.
They threatened him with citations.
"By failing to file an answer, the city of Carbondale has been forced to admit some truly damaging facts in our complaint," the report said, including viewpoint discrimination, selective enforcement, denial of permit rights, and no legitimate safety concerns.
"These admissions are devastating. Now, the city could ask the court to relieve them of these admissions – but doing so would require them to publicly acknowledge their procedural mistake and demonstrate inexcusable neglect. Such a motion would be an admission that their legal team failed to follow basic federal court procedures, undermining their credibility before the very judge who will decide this case," the legal team noted.
The case, the ACLJ said, represents a troubling pattern across the country, of "government officials weaponizing vague ordinances against pro-life Christians, while allowing other forms of expression to proceed freely."
The judge handling the case now has been delivered a proposed motion for summary judgement that would declare Carbondale's ordinance unconstitutional and an injunction preventing future discrimination.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – Why did President Donald Trump end his friendship with fellow Palm Beacher Jeffrey Epstein years ago?
The commander in chief answered that question Tuesday, saying the convicted pedophile "stole" female staffers from his spa at Mar-a-Lago.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said Epstein hired away numerous spa workers despite being repeatedly told not to. He said some of the gals were young women, including then-17-year-old Virginia Giuffre.
"Everyone knows the people that were taken and it was the concept of taking people that work for me is bad," Trump said.
"But that story has been pretty well out there, and yes, they were [young women] … People were taken out of the spa, hired by [Epstein]. In other words, gone. And other people would come and complain 'this guy is taking people from the spa,' I didn't know that. And when I heard about it, I told him, 'Listen, we don't want you taking our people, whether it was spa or not [the] spa.' I don't want him taking people, and he was fine. Then not too long after that, he did it again and I said, '[You're] out of here.'"
When a reporter asked if Giuffre was one of the employees hired away from the spa, Trump responded: "I don't know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so, I think that was one of the people, yeah.
"He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know. None whatsoever."
The president noted the hiring spree by the disgraced financier was "the end" of his time at Mar-a-Lago.
"I don't want to say any number, you're talking about a number of years ago. But yeah, he took people and I said, 'Don't do it anymore, they work for me.'
"And he took beyond that, he took some others. And once he did that, that was the end of him."
In April, Giuffre reportedly committed suicide at age 41. She previosuly asserted Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her to perform sex acts.
She told the BBC in December 2019 that Prince Andrew sexually abused her three times at Epstein and Maxwell's homes when she was 17, an allegation which the prince denied.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday made a prediction about the next major TV personalities to be fired in the wake of Stephen Colbert getting canned by CBS.
"Next up will be an even less talented Jimmy Kimmel, and then, a weak, and very insecure, Jimmy Fallon," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The only real question is, who will go first?"
Trump also noted: "Everybody is saying that I was solely responsible for the firing of Stephen Colbert from CBS, Late Night. That is not true!
"The reason he was fired was a pure lack of TALENT, and the fact that this deficiency was costing CBS $50 Million Dollars a year in losses – And it was only going to get WORSE!"
"Show Biz and Television is a very simple business. If you get Ratings, you can say or do anything. If you don't, you always become a victim. Colbert became a victim to himself, the other two will follow."
Meanwhile, a protest of CBS in support of Colbert on Sunday drew a mere 20 people in New York City.
"Organizers say the protest was supposed to be a nationwide call for integrity after the Late Show was canceled," Fox News reported.
Former NBC "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno is now criticizing his fellow late-night comedians for alienating half their audience with politics.
"I like to think people come to a comedy show to kind of get away from the things, the pressures of life," said Leno.
"And I love political humor … don't get me wrong. … People wind up cozying too much to one side or the other. Why shoot for just half an audience all the time?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Vaccine manufacturers can make, market and sell their products in America without any fear of a side effect that would harm someone.
They have no liability for damages or injuries from their products since the creation in the 1980s of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
That forces American taxpayers to pay individuals for those injuries, through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
But now that exemption could be coming to a close.
Patriot.TV reports U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., has introduced legislation that would repeal the legal protections that now shield vaccine makers from lawsuits.
It would allow injured people to sue the makers directly in state and federal courts.
"The bill arrives amid heightened concerns over vaccine safety, particularly regarding COVID-19 shots, and seeks to bypass the underperforming Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which has approved only 39 out of nearly 14,000 COVID-related claims," the report explained.
There already are 28 cosponsors.
A report from Natural News explained Gosar's HR 4668 is a derivative of an earlier plan by Gosar, who has stated, "Big Pharma should not be given a free pass for injuries caused by their dangerous vaccines."
The report noted since it was created, the VICP has paid about $5 billion to 25,000 claimants.
But Gosar said the system is "stacked" against those submitting claimants.
The report noted the debate was reinvigorated just days ago when, during a Senate hearing on vaccine injuries, when pro-vaccine lawmaker Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., admitted reform is needed.
"The government has decided that this particular industry gets a free pass," admitted U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio.
Gosar argued, to those who say liability would suppress research and innovation. that the move simply would incentivize transparency and safety.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An anti-Trump federal judge who already had been described as a threat to the rule of law now is the target of a complaint filed by the Department of Justice accusing him of undermining the nation's judiciary.
Attorney General Pam Bondi explained the complaint over "misconduct" by James Boasberg, a federal judge who once wildly ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to turn around airplanes that already were in international airspace to return the illegal alien criminals they were deporting to America, involved his "making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration."
These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary," she confirmed.
A DOJ official confirmed, "Judge Boasberg first tried to persuade Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump administration would not follow court orders, despite having no basis for his belief. Then he acted on his baseless belief again and again in litigation over which he was presiding. Judge Boasberg violated the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, including the requirement that he 'promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'"
The Washington Examiner said the official complaint, for "misconduct," against Boasberg charged him with those "improper public comments" about the administration.
Boasberg has fought the administration's agendas, including that for securing the borders and deporting illegal aliens, especially criminals, for months.
He once ordered two jets carrying deported illegals to be returned, without addressing the fact of whether those jets, already in international airspace, would have fuel to return.
WND has reported it was the Federalist that obtained access to comments Boasberg made at a recent judicial conference undermining the president.
He disparaged the president, even though he's required to be neutral on issues and people in his court, where Trump is a defendant in a number of cases brought by activists trying to undermine his agenda for America.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche later described Boasberg as a "threat to the rule of law" for using his own agendas in his court rulings to try to control the decisions of the Executive Branch.
A report at the Washington Examiner said Blanche was responding to Boasberg's comments and said, the judge was in "serious breach of the judicial oath and a threat to the rule of law."
"This memo confirms that at least some federal judges were predisposed against the Trump administration," Blanche wrote. "Every litigant, regardless of politics, is entitled to a fair forum."
The report noted, "Other senior DOJ officials, including Chad Mizelle, called the report 'very troubling' and said it 'perhaps explains the completely lawless order issued by Judge Boasberg (which was unsurprisingly stayed by the D.C. Circuit).'"
The judge's misbehavior was revealed by the Federalist which confirmed investigative reporter and senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland uncovered the fact that Boasberg, based in Washington, D.C., complained to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that his colleagues were "concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
Boasberg is the chief judge in the judicial district and has been at center of a judicial campaign to prevent Trump's agenda to secure the American borders and deport illegal aliens, those who are in the United States illegally, and often have committed subsequent crimes.
Further, Boasberg also was at the center of activism before President Trump's first term when Trump was under attack in the fabricated Russiagate conspiracy theory launched by the Hillary Clinton campaign and others with lies about Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
Boasberg was chosen for his job by leftist Barack Obama, who now is just one subject of a congressional investigation into a vast conspiracy that developed in Washington targeting Trump.
Boasberg, in fact, when sentencing an ex-FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted doctoring a 2017 email regarding Deep State's work against Trump, refused to give him any prison time but told him to do community service.
Boasberg ruled against Trump in one deportation dispute and told him to order airplanes carrying illegal aliens out of the United States to turn around mid-air and come back.
The White House responded that the jets, carrying the "terrorist alien" individuals, already had left U.S. airspace and the judge had no jurisdiction there.
Federal judges already have heard hundreds of claims by those wanting to stop Trump's agenda to remove unneeded personnel from federal payrolls, stop handing billions of tax dollars to unfriendly foreign interests and more.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A can of soda weighs in at an arm-breaking 12 ounces. A large slice of pizza, maybe inflicting only a sprain, weighs around 8 ounces.
Nash Keen, when he was born 19 weeks premature, weighed in right between those, at 10 ounces.
And now he's a smiling, bouncing, engaging baby boy of one year old.
The Christian Institute in the United Kingdom marked the birthday for Keen, born to an Iowa family at 21 weeks, one day earlier than the previous Guinness World Record holder.
"He spent the first six months in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at Stead Family Children's Hospital in Iowa, but is now home,," the institute reported.
"His mum Mollie thought they would lose him," the report said.
"I had to take it one day at a time. I focused on the small victories and leaned hard on my support system," she explained.
"Being in the NICU as long as he was, you'd think that he would be, you know, more fragile and stuff. And he's not. He's a very determined, curious little boy, and he's just all smiles all the time," she continued.
He was able to leave the hospital in January.
His dad, Randall, said, "He's surviving and he's thriving, and he's doing really good. So we're very proud of him." Nash is reported to be growing into a "strong, happy baby who is hitting developmental milestones."
Pro-life publication Life News noted, "This is little Nash Keen. He was born at just 21 weeks gestation and weighing a mere 10 ounces. No clump of cells. No ball of tissue. And Nash just earned the Guinness World Record as the most premature baby to survive!"
At Guinness World Records, the organization noted the child was known in the family as "Nash potato."
The family's hometown, Ankeny, made a big deal of his birthday: Gifts included 70 outfits, educational toys and a mountain of diapers.
His mom noted they need those.
At birth, he was 9.5 inches long and weighed less than a grapefruit.
Neonatologist Amy Stanford said, "Around the one-month mark, we all began to breathe a little easier. While we knew Nash still had a long journey ahead, that was the point when we started to feel more confident that he had a real chance of going home. It was a subtle but powerful shift – from day-to-day survival to long-term hope."
In a statement online, the hospital noted the parents, just a year earlier had lost a little girl, McKinley Keen.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As police in Cincinnati announce five arrests have been made in connection with the brutal weekend beating of several white people by an angry mob, the woman seen in a viral video getting knocked unconscious is revealing a disturbing detail.
"Holly said not a single local or state official had yet reached out as of earlier this afternoon, other than one police detective," said Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican candidate for Ohio governor, who spoke to the woman whose last name was not provided.
"I spoke to Holly earlier today (the woman tragically assaulted in Cincinnati this weekend)," Ramswamy said on X.
"She's a single working mom who went to a friend's birthday party. It's unconscionable that there were no police present in that area of Cincinnati on a Friday night, or even an ambulance to take her to the hospital."
Ramswamy continued: "Hard-working Americans shouldn't have to worry for their safety when they have a good time in our cities. Holly said not a single local or state official had yet reached out as of earlier this afternoon, other than one police detective.
"Leftists like to lecture about 'systemic injustice' while thugs turn our turn cities into war zones. I'm done with their excuses. As governor, I'll make sure they're behind bars, not running wild.
"Our cops will have the green light to restore order – no apologies. Holly appreciates the kind words and prayers from patriots across the country, and hopes that the publicity around her story ensures that local & state leaders clean up our failing cities. We hope to visit Holly soon as she recovers."
Cincinnati Police Chief Teresa Theetge said Monday that five people have now been charged with crimes for the violence early Saturday morning.
"At this time, we have victims and suspects identified, and we have charged five people in this offense," Theetge said. "I'm not going to release that information to you. I will say if individuals were down there and participated in this event, it would be in their best interest to come turn themselves in at one of our police districts."
"We have five we have charged and anticipate more," Theetge added. "Let me be clear. Anyone, anyone who put their hands on another individual during this incident in an attempt to cause harm will face consequences. I don't care which side of the incident or the fight they were on. If they place their hands on somebody in an attempt to cause harm, that is unacceptable."
Theetge slammed the estimated 100 witnesses to the incident, noting only "one phone call" to police was made, adding it "is unacceptable" that only "one person did the right thing and called 9-1-1."
FOX19 reported the incident may have been sparked by "racial comments."
"An anonymous witness reported that the situation started several minutes before the fight shown in the videos," the station reported. "The footage captured a man, who, according to the witness, seemed to be intoxicated.
"The witness says the man walked away, but returned about 15 minutes later with a group of people who were overheard making racial comments."
As WorldNetDaily reported, Vice President JD Vance on Monday was horrified by the perpetrators' actions, and urged law enforcement to "throw their a**es in prison."
"I don't know how the fight started, but the one part that I saw that was really gruesome is you had a grown man who sucker-punched a middle-aged woman. And from where I come from, at least, when you have a grown man who sucker-punches a middle-aged woman, that person ought to go to jail for a very long time," said Vance.
"And frankly, he's lucky there weren't some better people around because they would have handled it themselves. But if they're not gonna handle it, the cops in Cincinnati, the law enforcement, you've got to prosecute people. We've had way too much lawlessness on the streets of great American cities.
"We have got to make great American cities safe again for families and children," Vance concluded.
"If you want to take your wife or your children out for a meal, you shouldn't be worried about street violence, and the only way to destroy that street violence is to take the thugs who engage in that violence and throw their a**es in prison."