Daniel Penny hired by prestigious venture capital firm
(NewsNation) — Daniel Penny, the Marine who was acquitted in the death of a fellow New York subway passenger he put in a chokehold, has been hired by a prestigious Silicon Valley venture capital firm weeks after he was set free.
The firm, Andreessen Horowitz, announced Penny's position saying he will join their 'American Dynamism team.'
'Daniel is a Marine Corps veteran who served his country, and in a frightening moment in a crowded New York City subway car, did a courageous thing,' Andreessen Horowitz partner David Ulevitch said in a statement.
Neely family attorney: Daniel Penny verdict sends apathetic message
Penny is expected to work on a team that supports 'national interests' including the aerospace, defense and manufacturing sectors, according to the company.
In an internal email to staff, Ulevitch said 'He was acquitted of all charges. Beyond that, it has always been our policy to evaluate the entire person and not judge them for the worst moment in their entire life,' according to The Free Press, which first reported the news.
Penny was charged in 2023 by the Manhattan district attorney's office with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide after a video of him fatally choking another passenger, Jordan Neely, on the subway for six minutes circulated online.
Neely, an agitated but unarmed homeless man, did not touch any passengers. One said he made lunging movements that alarmed her enough that she shielded her 5-year-old from him, which caused Penny to intervene.
A jury found Penny not guilty in Neely's death in December.
Vice President JD Vace had invited Penny to be his guest at the Army-Navy college football game days after he was acquitted.
In a post on X, Vance called Penny's hiring, 'Incredible news.'
Andreessen Horowitz has about $45 billion in assets under management and its co-founder Marc Andreessen has been a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and has served as an adviser to the incoming administration, reported Bloomberg.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I fought for the Constitution. Using Marines against protests disgraces it.
I am a Marine combat veteran. I wore the uniform with pride. Not for glory or politics, but to serve something greater than myself: the Constitution of the United States. I saw war up close. I lost brothers. I lived with the weight of what it means to take a life in the name of liberty. But I never imagined I'd live to see the same Marine Corps deployed on American soil — not to protect life or respond to disaster, but to stand guard against the very people we swore to protect. That is not leadership. That is not patriotism. That is cowardice. And it's a disgrace. Let me be clear: the U.S. military is not a private security force for any president or politician. Our loyalty is not to the office of power, but to the American people and the Constitution we swore to defend. That oath doesn't end when we hang up our uniform. It lives on, and it binds us to speak out when power is abused — even when it's our own. Especially when it's our own. Throughout our history, the military has been a symbol of honor and restraint. We've always drawn a sacred line: we do not turn our force inward against civilians. To cross that line is not only a constitutional crisis — it's a moral collapse. But now, we see uniformed Marines stationed around government buildings — not to serve, but to suppress. We see military force used to intimidate protesters, stifle dissent, and project strength where there should be humility. We see our brothers and sisters in arms being told, directly or indirectly, that their duty is to silence fellow Americans. That's not defense. That's not order. That's not justice. That is repression. Some Americans cheer this on. They call it 'law and order,' as if safety is more valuable than freedom. But order without justice is not peace — it is submission. Security without liberty is not safety — it is fear. We don't salute uniforms because they exist — we salute the principles they're supposed to uphold. The founders of this country understood the danger of turning soldiers into political tools. That's why we have the Posse Comitatus Act. That's why our system separates civilian and military power. Because when the military becomes a weapon of domestic politics, democracy dies with a boot on its neck. To the commandant of the Marine Corps: you are failing your Marines. Allowing this misuse of the Corps is not a neutral act. It's complicity. You dishonor the memory of those who died believing we were fighting for something nobler. I say this not out of bitterness, but out of love for what the Corps meant to me — what it's supposed to mean to all of us. To every American: this moment is not just about troops on streets. It's about the soul of our republic. It's about whether we still believe that power must answer to the people, not the other way around. Because if we stay silent now, if we normalize this erosion of liberty, we will wake up in a country where democracy exists in name only, guarded by soldiers who forgot what they were fighting for. I fought for the Constitution. I still would. But I will never stand by while it's trampled by the very institution I once called family. We are better than this. And if we still believe in America, we must demand better — before it's too late. Robert Rolls Highland Park This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: LA ICE protests don't need US Marines. It's a disgrace | Opinion
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Veterans are divided over the Army's big parade, being held on Trump's birthday
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — James McDonough served in the U.S. Army for 27 years, fighting in Vietnam and delivering humanitarian aid to Rwanda. For him, Saturday's military parade in Washington for the Army's 250th anniversary — coinciding with President Donald Trump's birthday — is about the resilience of a vital institution and the nation it serves. 'The soldiers marching that day represent all of that history,' said McDonough, 78, of Crofton, Maryland. 'They don't represent a single day. They don't represent a single person. It's the American Army still standing straight, walking tall, ready to defend our country.' Christopher Purdy, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, called the parade a facade that paints over some of the Republican president's policies that have targeted military veterans and current service members, including cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs and a ban on transgender troops. Purdy said the parade, long sought by Trump, will needlessly display U.S. military might on the president's 79th birthday. 'It's embarrassing,' said Purdy, 40, of Atlanta. 'It's expensive. And whatever his reasons are for doing it, I think it's entirely unnecessary.' Until recently, the Army's long-planned birthday celebration did not include a big parade. Added under the Trump administration, the event, featuring hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers, has divided veterans. Some liken it to the military chest-pounding commonly seen in North Korea, a step toward authoritarianism or a perverse birthday party for Trump. Others see it as a once-in-a-lifetime accounting of the Army's achievements and the military service of millions of soldiers over centuries. The parade is not about Trump, they say, but the public seeing the faces of soldiers when so few Americans serve. The Army expects up to 200,000 people could attend and says the parade will cost an estimated $25 million to $45 million. Trump, speaking at Fort Bragg this week, said Saturday would be 'a big day" and noted "we want to show off a little bit." 'We're going to celebrate our greatness and our achievements," he said. "This week, we honor 250 years of valor and glory and triumph by the greatest fighting force ever to walk the face of the Earth: the United States Army.' 'Divisive politics have ruined it' For Edmundo Eugenio Martinez Jr., an Army veteran who fought in Iraq, the parade is a missed opportunity to honor generations of veterans, many of whom paid a steep price and came home to little fanfare. 'Sadly, the timing and the optics and divisive politics have ruined it,' said Martinez, 48, of Katy, Texas. 'And I'm not picking one side or the other. Both sides are guilty.' 'It's just suspicious' Joe Plenzler, a retired Marine who fought in Iraq, said Trump wants to see troops saluting him on his birthday as tanks roll past. 'It's just suspicious," the 53-year-old from Middletown, Virginia, said of the timing. 'I absolutely love the Army from the bottom of my cold black Marine heart,' he said. 'But if the Army's birthday was a day later, we probably wouldn't be doing it. I'd rather see that $50 million take care of the men and women who went off to war and came back with missing arms, legs and eyeballs, and with damaged brains.' 'Part of American culture' Joe Kmiech, who served in the Army and Minnesota National Guard from 1989 to 1998, supports the parade because the Army is "part of American culture and our fabric.' He notes the Army's pioneering contributions to engineering and medicine, from dams to new surgical techniques. Like many veterans, he has a strong familial connection: His father served in the Army, and so did his maternal grandfather, who fought in World War II. 'I didn't vote for President Trump, but the commander in chief is going to be part of that celebration,' said Kmiech, 54, of Roberts, Wisconsin. 'The distinction needs to be made that the parade is a celebration of our Army, not of a person.' 'Stroking Trump's ego' For Gulf War Army veteran Paul Sullivan, Trump and the parade are inextricably linked. 'This Trump tank travesty is all about stroking Trump's ego,' said Sullivan, 62, who lives outside Charlottesville, Virginia. 'If Trump truly cared about our service members, he would sit down with them quietly and say, 'What can we do with $50 million or $100 million to make your lives better?' He's not.' 'We are a great nation' McDonough, the veteran from Crofton, Maryland, disagrees that the parade is about Trump or too costly. He said the U.S. held a grand celebration in New York after World War II when the nation was deeply in debt. 'We certainly need to bring our debt down, and we certainly need to take care of our veterans,' he said. 'But it's a false dichotomy. It's like saying if we bought two less aircraft carriers, we could do so much better to take care of our poor.' And McDonough said soldiers' oath is to the Constitution, not to Trump. The president 'understands the importance of doing this, not only for the Army, but for the nation,' McDonough said. 'A real dark turn' Purdy, the veteran from Atlanta, said the parade's brazen flex of military strength is not an American tradition, particularly absent a recent victory. 'I'm not saying we shouldn't celebrate the country," he said. 'But for us to be projecting this type of hard power, in such a real in-your-face way, that's just not who we are.' Trump is brushing aside old alliances and foreign aid that have helped maintain peace for decades, Purdy asserted. 'It signals a real dark turn if we're just going to roll out the tanks," Purdy said. 'People are the Army' Michael Nardotti, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said military hardware has long been in American parades, which can help recruitment. More important, he said, is the tremendous value in the public seeing soldiers' faces in a parade when active-duty troops make up less than 1% of the population. ''People are the Army,'' said Nardotti, 78, of Aldie, Virginia, quoting a former Army chief of staff. Nardotti said he'll listen carefully to Trump's speech. 'I hope it sends the right message,' he said.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge rules in favor of Texas woman after SWAT destroyed her house while pursuing a fugitive
Five years after police destroyed cancer survivor Vicki Baker's house while pursuing a fugitive, a federal judge has ruled that the Texas city she used to call home must pay her for the damage. "I've continued fighting this long, because if this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone," Baker told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement. "This case has always been about more than the money for me. I want to see real change." Baker's ordeal started in July 2020, when she moved to Montana and was in the process of selling her home in McKinney, Texas. 'This Is Personal': Marine Veteran Reacts To Judgment On Federal Loophole Police Used To Seize His Cash Wesley Little kidnapped a 15-year-old girl, fled from police and took refuge in Baker's home. Police surrounded the house and Little eventually released the teen but refused to surrender, according to court documents. A SWAT team tried to draw him out by launching a barrage of tear gas canisters at the house, shattering windows and punching holes in walls. Read On The Fox News App When police finally entered the house, they discovered that Little had killed himself. Baker's daughter's Chihuahua was inside during the onslaught and was left blind, deaf and sick from the tear gas and explosions. The dog eventually had to be put down, Baker said. A hazmat crew disposed of almost everything inside the house because it was saturated with a toxic film from the teargas, according to court documents. Damage to the home totaled at least $50,000, according to Baker and her attorneys at the nonprofit civil liberties law firm Institute for Justice. But her insurance company refused to cover the bulk of the damage because her policy — like most — excludes damage caused by the government. Justice Department Halts Dea's Random Searches Of Airport Travelers After Report Finds 'Serious Concerns' Baker tried to file a property damage claim with the city of McKinney, but officials refused to pay, citing qualified immunity, a doctrine often used to shield police and other government agencies from being sued for violating people's rights or destroying property during the course of their work. The Institute for Justice sued under the Fifth Amendment and the Texas Constitution, arguing that police may have been authorized to seize Baker's home in the interest of pursuing a dangerous fugitive, but that they should have to pay her just like they would if the government seized a home to build a road or other infrastructure. A prolonged legal saga followed, with one federal judge ruling in 2022 that Baker should be compensated and a jury awarding her nearly $60,000 in damages. The following year, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed her Fifth Amendment win. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case last year, but Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch acknowledged the high court has yet to address whether the government can require individuals to bear the cost of police actions. Last week, a U.S. district court judge ruled again that Baker is entitled to $59,656.59 plus interest under the Texas Constitution. "This ruling makes it clear that the Texas Constitution's promise of just compensation applies when police destroy innocent people's property, and that this entire lawsuit could have been avoided if the city simply did the right thing in the first place," IJ attorney Jeffrey Redfern, who represented Baker, said in an emailed statement to Fox News Digital. The City of McKinney is "evaluating its options for appealing this ruling," a spokesperson confirmed to Fox News Digital. The city previously offered to pay the full amount of the damage to settle the case, but Baker's team says they refused to settle unless the city also changed its policies to protect all homeowners from similar actions in the future. Redfern said he still hopes the Supreme Court will hear a case similar to Baker's in the future so "we can ensure that the United States Constitution also protects innocent property owners in cases like this." "I want to make sure that cities around the country are doing the right thing and paying just compensation to people in similar situations," Baker article source: Judge rules in favor of Texas woman after SWAT destroyed her house while pursuing a fugitive
