Far-left George Soros in op-ed claims policies of progressive DAs are popular, dismisses skyrocketing crime


The following includes editorial content which is the opinion of the writer and doesn’t necessarily represent the views of Law Enforcement Today…but it probably does.

Billionaire socialist George Soros took to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal where in an op-ed he made a lame attempt to defend the indefensible.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, Soros and his deep socialist pockets are the reason cities from Philadelphia to Chicago…St. Louis to San Francisco…have turned into crime-ridden third-world hell holes.

The New York Post reports that in a Sunday op-ed, the 91-year-old claims he has no intention of stopping his support for radical leftist district attorneys, who are responsible for revolving door justice policies in major American cities.

Those policies have turned the criminal justice system into a revolving door, where criminals are often back out on the streets before the ink on the arrest reports is dry.

Soros, who claims his dumping of millions of dollars to support unhinged radicals has made the criminal justice system “more effective and just.”

Perhaps Soros might want to explain that to crime victims and their families, along with survivors left behind where police officers are gunned down in the street and criminals are let go with impunity. Yes, the criminal justice system is “more effective”—at getting people killed.

Soros, born in Hungary argued that the radical agenda being pushed by prosecutors such as New York City’s Alvin Bragg were both “popular” and “effective,” at least among criminals.

“This agenda includes prioritizing the resources of the criminal-justice system to protect people against violent crime. It urges that we treat drug addiction as a disease, not a crime. And it seeks to end the criminalization of poverty and mental illness,” Soros wrote. 

“The goal is not defunding the police but restoring trust between the police and the policed, a partnership that fosters the solving of crime,” he added.

Breitbart reports that since 2018, Soros and his multi-billions have been responsible for electing dozens of prosecutors in large jurisdictions, primarily controlled by Democrats where these unhinged radicals have replaced more centrist-leaning Democrats.

Since they were elected, these DAs have overseen spikes in violent crime and general social mayhem, leading people to flee large cities in droves.

Soros may consider these policies to be “popular” and “effective” but voters are seeing it quite differently.

In June, voters in San Francisco had radical Chesa Boudin successfully recalled, while in Los Angeles, the numbers are close to force a similar recall against another Soros-backed stooge, George Gascon.

Ask former Baltimore DA Marilyn Mosby, who just lost a primary for reelection, if the policies are popular. Baltimore is once again becoming the murder capital of the mid-Atlantic.

Meanwhile in New York, Bragg, another recipient of Soros cash to the tune of nearly $3 million via a political action committee called Color of Change is under fire for releasing habitual criminals out of jail.

In a high-profile incident last month, however, Bragg levied charges against a bodega owner who fatally stabbed a man who was trying to rob him.

Bragg’s decision even got liberal mayor Eric Adams’ ire, along with former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton, both of whom argued the man was clearly acting in self-defense. Prosecutors, citing lack of evidence to support a murder charge, dismissed charges against the man, Jose Alba.

Soros attempted to lay blame for the crime increase across the nation on “a disturbing rise in mental illness among young people due to the isolation imposed by Covid lockdowns, a pullback in policing in the wake of public criminal-justice reform protests, and increases in gun trafficking.”

While at least two of those factors may be true, soft-on-crime prosecutors were put in place long before Covid or reform protests were a thing.

Soros then attempted to label Second Amendment rights supporters as hypocrites, claiming “many of the same people who call for more-punitive criminal-justice policies also support looser gun laws.”

Soros then outlined a litany of feel-good programs which look good on paper but which prove largely ineffective.

He argued that “we need to invest more in preventing crime with strategies that work—deploying mental-health professionals in crisis situations, investing in youth job programs, and creating opportunity for education behind bars. This reduces the likelihood that those prisoners will commit new crimes after release.”

A couple of observations. First, if Soros took the tens of millions he invested in getting radical lunatics elected to DAs offices and redirected it toward “investing in youth job programs,” he wouldn’t appear as such a flaming hypocrite.

Secondly, most state correctional facilities offer the “opportunity for education” behind bars. Hell, some prisoners have been able to get law degrees, all on the taxpayers’ dime. More BS from Soros.

Soros addressed the “disparity” between blacks and whites when it comes to incarceration, however he conveniently ignores the fact that blacks offend at a much higher rate than whites, or in fact other minorities, all provable by criminal justice statistics. He claims that disparity “is an injustice that undermines our democracy.”

In other words, Soros is asking not for equality but equity. This would mean that for every black offender, there must be a white one. Or perhaps he thinks the prison population should be allocated not by those who offend but as a percentage of the overall population.

Soros claims the stooges he gets elected as well as “other [political hack] law enforcement officials around the country have been coalescing around an agenda that promises to be more effective and just….includes prioritizing the resources of the criminal-justice system to protect people against violent crime.”

Great idea. How about locking up…for a very long time…those who commit violent crime, instead of turning them loose at the first opportunity.

For an example, look at what happened to Republican New York gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin a couple weeks ago. If not for quick reflexes, he would have likely been stabbed by a crazed lunatic.

It should also be noted that Zeldin is a sitting member of the House of Representatives. Yet, the suspect in that case was released without bond in mere hours.

Soros also made the bogus and cherry-picked claim that murder rates are highest in Republican-run states,” a claim first made by greaser Gavin Newsom, governor of the number one craphole in the US, California. Newsom and Soros, however, ignore the fact that murder rates in Democrat-run cities are highest.

Soros, however, doesn’t care.

“This is why I have supported the election (and more recently the re-election) of prosecutors who support reform. I have done it transparently and I have no intention of stopping,” Soros continued.

“The funds I provide enable sensible reform-minded candidates to receive a hearing from the public. Judging by the results, the public likes what it’s hearing.”

That may have been true, but now with Americans reeling from skyrocketing inflation, a recession (no matter how the Biden administration tries to redefine it), and being unable to walk the streets of American cities (and now also towns) without being in fear of their lives, that is likely changing and fast.

According to the Capital Research Center, as of January of this year, Soros has given over $29 million to far-left DAs. Aside from Boudin, Gascon, and Mosby, he has also supported wingnut Larry Krasnerin Philadelphia, husband-beater Kim Foxx in Cook County, Ill., fraudster Kim Gardner in St. Louis, and the incompetent Kim Ogg in Harris County (Houston), Texas.

Let’s see…91-years-old…maybe we won’t have to worry about the Mad Hungarian for too much longer. The full text of Soros’s comments may be found here.


For more on Soros-backed DA Krasner, we invite you to:


PHILADELPHIA, PA – An extraordinary development occurred this past week that many in law enforcement hope is a quickening of the downward spiral for Philadelphia’s far-left, George Soros-funded district attorney, Larry Krasner.

State Supreme Court Justice Kevin Dougherty, a Democrat, on July 20 charged DA Krasner with abusing the grand jury process in his crusade to indict former police officer Ryan Pownall for murder in a racially charged, officer-involved shooting.


Dougherty wrote in a concurring opinion that the district attorney’s office under Krasner has been “driven by a win-at-all-cost office culture” that “treats police officers differently than other criminal defendants.” Dougherty wrote:
“This is the antithesis of what the law expects of a prosecutor.”
Dougherty added that under the law, a prosecutor is supposed to be a “minister of justice.”
The formal admonishment was one of two losses Krasner, who is being threatened with impeachment by the state House of Representatives, suffered on the same day: In a 4-2 majority opinion, the state Supreme Court ruled against the DA’s office on a key issue in the Pownall case.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling by the state Superior Court that said the DA’s office could not retroactively rewrite a law defining justifiable use of deadly force by a police officer so that former officer Pownall could then be convicted of murder.
In its unsuccessful appeals, the DA’s office attempted to circumvent the Pennsylvania statute which states:
“[A police officer is] justified in using deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or such other person.”

The law further states:
“[The officer must believe] such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape [or if the suspect] has committed or attempted a forcible felony or is attempting to escape and possesses a deadly weapon.”
That’s exactly what happened, said Derrick Jacobs, a detective who investigated the Pownall case on behalf of the Philadelphia Police Department.
The opinion of Det. Jacobs, who is black, was a problem for Krasner, who then tried to retroactively change the law so that he could prosecute officer Pownall.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Dougherty said the DA’s handling of the Pownall case was steeped in prosecutorial misconduct. Among the issues, the justice said, was the fact that Krasner’s office didn’t fully inform the grand jury of the law involving justifiable use of force by a police officer.

Because of that intentional omission, Justice Dougherty said, the grand jury produced a “slanted” report that Krasner’s office then fed to the media, which then published articles based on a biased version of the circumstances surrounding the shooting.
The case began on June 8, 2017, when PPD officer Pownall was  transporting Terrence Freeman, a witness in another case, and his two children to the Special Victims Unit. While in transit, Pownall saw David Jones weaving in and out of traffic and otherwise driving recklessly on a dirt bike, which is not a street-legal vehicle.

Pownall pulled Jones over and during the stop frisked him for weapons. Pownall discovered a handgun in Jones’ waistband and a struggle ensued. Officer Pownall drew his sidearm and directed Jones not to touch his weapon. During the fight, Pownall attempted to fire on Jones but his gun jammed.

Jones then fled on foot and the officer fired three times, killing him.

Former Det. Jacobs spoke with Big Trial before the ruling and said Pownall acted within guidelines. Jacobs noted:

“Jones was armed.”
In addition, Jacobs said, during the fight between the two men:
“Pownall believed he was shooting Jones to protect himself and possibly Freeman and his children as well.” 

After the shooting, Pownall was fired by then-Police Commissioner Richard Ross. Krasner invoked social justice reform and charged Pownall with murder, to be held without bail.
It was the first time in 20 years that a Philadelphia police officer had been charged after a police shooting. A judge subsequently reduced the charge to third-degree murder and Pownall was released on bail.

In December 2019, Pownall filed a motion to quash the presentment on the basis that the DA’s office had “intentionally failed to notify the grand jury of the peace officer justification defense.”

In intentionally not informing the grand jury of the legal justification for the use of the deadly force, Pownall argued, Krasner’s office knew that “to do so would have prevented the grand jury from recommending criminal charges.”
Justice Dougherty wrote:
“However, the misconduct did not end there. The prosecution then asked the grand jury to return a presentment on homicide charges which included murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter, without defining any of those charges.”
Pownall’s lawyers argued in his motion:
“This grand jury had no idea that they would have to have found from the evidence that Pownall acted with premeditation for murder of the first degree, malice for any form of murder, a mistaken belief in self defense for voluntary manslaughter, or criminal recklessness for involuntary manslaughter.”
“This may be [the] first time in the history of Pennsylvania jurisprudence that a District Attorney requested a grand jury to authorize criminal charges without explaining the law that applies to those charges because to do so would have prevented a finding of probable cause.”

Justice Dougherty agreed. He wrote:

“In my view, if these allegations are true, as they appear to be, it implicates a potential abuse of the grand jury process.

“The grand jury must know what crimes it is to investigate. Yet, the DAO appears to have obtained a presentment in this case without providing the grand jury the definition for the crime that was actually charged in the subsequent complaint (third-degree murder), or the possible justification for that criminal offense.”

The justice further wrote:

“Moreover, by failing to provide the grand jury with all relevant legal instructions, it also necessarily raises questions about the completeness of the factual record the DAO presented to the grand jury.
“In short, by depriving the grand jury of the full panoply of relevant legal definitions, the DAO has exposed the grand jury’s resulting presentment to legitimate attack” by Pownall’s lawyers, the justice wrote.
“In fact, given the circumstances, the presentment in this case is perhaps best characterized as a ‘foul blow,’ ” the justice wrote. “As discussed, the grand jury approved it without full knowledge of the pertinent law. That is disconcerting enough.

Justice Dougherty continued:

“Equally disturbing, though, is the presentment itself. It is thirteen pages long and includes an introduction, closing, and seventy-four purported factual findings. There is no discussion of the law, except for the recommended charges (which, again, do not include third-degree murder) listed on the final page.

“Also significant is the way the prosecution used the presentment. The DAO successfully moved to unseal it and then, after charging Pownall, directed the press to its purported factual findings.”
The media, led by The Philadelphia Inquirer, then did Krasner’s dirty work for him by excoriating Pownall as a racist murderer. The justice wrote:
“Not surprisingly, multiple news sources reported on the presentment’s one-sided account, with some even making the full document available online for anyone and everyone to read.”
But that’s not the way the system is supposed to work, the justice said. He explained:
“It is important to recall the Investigating Grand Jury Act defines a presentment merely as ‘[a] written formal recommendation . . . that specific persons be charged with specific crimes.’
“Nothing in this definition appears to endorse the type of gratuitous narrative provided in this case. Of course, it is anticipated that grand jury presentments will be somewhat biased.”
“Nevertheless, before endorsing the Commonwealth’s portrayal of a case, the grand jury must at a minimum be advised of the full breadth of the applicable law. That deficiency here renders the entire presentment suspect.”

The judge then blasted Krasner’s office for denying former officer Pownall a preliminary hearing. This is a common tactic of Krasner’s for any case involving a police officer as a defendant. Justice Dougherty wrote:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   “One implication of this statement is that a preliminary hearing would have exposed the DAO’s questionable means of obtaining the grand jury’s presentment.

“Another is that it might have led to the dismissal of some or all charges. Regardless, it is disturbing that the DAO went to such lengths to deprive Pownall of his statutory right to a preliminary hearing.”


Justice Dougherty wrote that the prosecution’s motions to limit the evidence, “much like the legal instructions it gave to the investigating grand jury — presented only half the relevant picture.” He added:

“This type of advocacy would be worrisome coming from any litigant.”
He pointedly noted that “all attorneys have a duty of candor toward a tribunal.”
Justice Dougherty also stated that Krasner’s office manipulated court proceedings to challenge Pownall’s rights to use justifiable force, to which the trial court had also objected. He wrote:
“The trial court’s frustration was well founded, considering the DAO had more than a year and two months after Pownall’s arrest to file its motion, yet it chose to wait until only weeks before trial was set to begin.

“But the timing of the DAO’s motion was more than just frustrating: it also raises ethical concerns. Pownall filed his motion to quash the grand jury’s presentment on December 18, 2019. Instead of responding to the accusations raised in that motion, five days later, counsel for the DAO ‘made an unscheduled appearance’ in the trial court and demanded the court rule on its motion.”

He noted that the DA:
“Further warned the court it would take an immediate interlocutory appeal — with or without the court’s permission — should the court deny its motion.

“After the court did precisely that, the DAO followed through on its threat and filed the present improper appeal, thereby forestalling its need to answer Pownall’s grand jury allegations by divesting the court of jurisdiction over the case.

“When combined with the other tactics highlighted throughout this concurrence, a compelling argument may be made that the DAO’s decision to delay Pownall’s trial further by taking an unauthorized interlocutory appeal was intended to deprive him of a fair and speedy trial.”
The state Superior Court subsequently denied the DA’s unauthorized interlocutory appeal. Krasner’s office then appealed, and the state Supreme Court on July 20 upheld the Superior Court’s quashing of that unauthorized appeal.

It would be an understatement to say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice was highly critical of how the DA’s office handled the Pownall case.Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts