Trump Commutes Sentence of Chicago Gang Leader Larry Hoover, But it's Not What You Think at All...
President Donald Trump seems to be fond of handing out pardons to people who apparently make nice to him or to people who seem to not deserve it. We see it with the current batch of crooks he's letting loose, including 1,500 January 6 rioters; two Washington D.C. cops who killed a Black man; and most recently, reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley who flexed $30 million in fraud.
Trump is getting headlines for commuting the sentence of Larry Hoover, co-founder of Chicago gang Gangster Disciples, who was sentenced to prison in 1973 for ordering the murder of a drug dealer. Trump said that these people and a list of others were victims of a 'weaponized' criminal justice system, but there are others who he has not yet explained why they are being released.
Hoover was hit with between 150 and 200 years and was federally convicted in 1997, receiving a life term. He must still serve the state charges, so currently there's no sign he'll walk free.But Trump's decision to commute Hoover's sentence is a mixed bag. Here's why:
Hip-hop has advocated for Hoover's release for quite some time now. In 2021, Kanye West and Drake performed in a benefit concert for him, that was put together by Rap-a-Lot founder J. Prince. Many in hip hop have been part of an effort to gain awareness of Hoover's efforts to reform the GDs (which he proclaimed in the 90s to mean 'Growth and Development' and helping to form a record label and a nonprofit organization.
'There definitely was more to it than just him being a gangster. He was a real leader, and he was trying to lead people in the right direction,' Larry Hoover Jr. told WBEZ last year.
On the other hand, nobody can deny what the Gangster Disciples meant in the streets of the Chi for many years. The GDs were one of a number of South and West side gang sets, which are still infamous. While the GDs evolved from other gangs that formed to push back against racist gangs terrorizing Black Chicagoans, the latter result was Black Chicagoans still living in terror.
The GDs were not responsible for all of this, but they did have their share, and it was largely the result of what emerged from Hoover's actions.
Okay, so Trump is saying Hoover is done serving time as far as he's concerned. But if he's granting him a reprieve, presumably because of the unfairness of the justice system, then can the governors of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York do the same for Assata Shakur, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Joy Powell, respectively?
Or at least get the FBI off Shakur's back? Not to mention the people ICE is 'disappearing' from the country just for being Latino or Muslim. Although the three names mentioned are state cases, the evidence is clear that what Trump considers justice means it's time to question the entire justice system.
—————————————————
Madison J. Gray is a New York-based journalist. He blogs at www.starkravingmadison.com.
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board
How should a corporate board respond to a CEO publicly insulting and shaming a sitting president? It's not a question that most need to consider, since few chief executives dare to directly criticize the White House. When CEOs do speak out against a federal directive, their messages are usually delivered behind closed doors, or in a collective open letter. But this week, Elon Musk changed all that and forced the issue in a prolonged public spat with Donald Trump. The pair had a much-anticipated falling out over Trump's budget, also referred to as the 'big beautiful bill,' on Thursday, which quickly got personal. Musk asked his social media followers if it was time to create a new political party, said that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession, and even claimed that Trump's name was in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sexual offender. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. The feud has already been costly for Musk and his many businesses, including Tesla. The automaker's shares took a tumble as the back-and-forth took over the news cycle, dropping 14% in on Thursday, and costing shareholders $150 billion. Now analysts warn that feuding with Trump could cost Tesla billions, considering that Trump could repeal electric vehicle tax credits and other measures that have boosted Tesla's earnings. The company could also face increasing regulatory obstacles around its autonomous driving vehicles, the technology that is meant to drive Tesla's future and has been cited by stock watchers as a reason for the stock's sustained eye-popping performance. Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives seemed to speak for investors early on Friday when he wrote in a research note: 'This needs to calm down.' At a regular company, there's a solid chance that the events of the last few days would spur a board to dismiss a CEO. But will the Tesla board fire Musk to protect public shareholders from potential damages? 'They should,' Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told Fortune. 'But they won't.' The Trump-Musk spat is just the latest in a series of events that have forced the question of what role Tesla's board actually plays in the company. 'Over the years, Musk's behavior has become more outrageous,' says Elson. 'The board's lack of response makes you wonder, 'Who are these people? Why are they there?'' It has long faced criticisms for being too close to Musk, and therefore willing to overlook numerous management issues. For instance, it famously approved Musk's much-disputed 2018 pay package for $56 billion, and has silently witnessed a year of high-profile divisive behavior from the chief executive that has led to public protests and customers distancing themselves from the company. And recent allegations about Musk's drug use echo reports that have surfaced in the past without putting Musk's role at risk. There are a few contributing factors as to why that is. Musk is a controlling shareholder in Tesla, where he holds 22% of the voting power, making it extra challenging for board members to have the votes needed to force him out. The board is also in a tough position in that firing Musk could tank the stock, considering that his name is so closely associated with the company. Many directors also have particularly close ties to Musk. That includes his brother Kimbal Musk, an entrepreneur and restaurant owner, and Joe Gebbia, a cofounder of Airbnb and a friend of Musk's. There are no car industry or green energy CEOs in the group, as one might expect at a typical EV company. The directors are also paid very well. This year, a Delaware court ordered the board to give back more than $900 billion in pay after finding it had paid itself too handsomely. Robyn Denholm, Tesla board chair since 2018, earned $600 million, far more than people with the same position at other companies. The court found 'the compensation was so significant, it made it really almost impossible for them to be independent directors,' says Elson. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,' says Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert, quoting Upton Sinclair. 'That's this board.' To be sure, this year, there were signs earlier this year that Tesla's directors were taking more control over the company's governance. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the board had begun looking for a successor and selected a search firm to assist them. It also reported that the board had met with Trump weeks before he announced he would be spending less time at the White House. It seemed that between the backlash against Tesla provoked by Musk's focus on Washington, and Tesla's shrinking share price, finally pushed the board to act. But the board denied the report outright, with Denholm calling it 'absolutely false.' Even considering his own predilection for conflict, Elon Musk's latest squabble is in a category of its own. But board experts agree that to expect action from the Tesla board is misguided. 'There have been so many 'Now the board has to do something moments,' and they have failed every time,' says Minow. 'I no longer feel that there is such a thing as 'Now they have to do something.'' There are technically ways that shareholders could move the needle if they wanted Musk out. They could vote directors off the board via shareholder proxy votes, and hope that new directors would fire Musk. Or they could try to sue the board for not kicking Musk to the curb when he put the brand at risk and split his focus between Washington and Tesla. But a shareholder who wanted to do that would need to own up to a 3% stake in the company, points out Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane University's Law School, and governance laws make it all but impossible to do. 'No shareholder is going to be able to show that this board is acting in bad faith by failing to replace Musk as CEO, which is really the level that they'd have to show,' she said. It's still theoretically possible that a Tesla board director could try to bring about change by suggesting Musk go. But they would have to make peace with potentially losing their roles, says Elson. 'They would say, 'Look, I will vote to move him along. And if I lose, I leave. I can't do this anymore,'' says Elson. Whether they'll do that depends on whether they're people of principle, he added, or 'people of convenience.''We'll have to see,' he said. This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jury begins deliberating in Weinstein's rape retrial
Jurors in Harvey Weinstein's rape and sexual assault retrial have begun deliberating in a Manhattan court, after a judge instructed them to weigh for themselves the credibility of the three accusers that the defence has said lied about their encounters with the once-powerful movie mogul. The Academy Award-winning producer and Miramax studio co-founder is accused of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann in 2013 and assaulting two other women in 2006 and 2002. Weinstein, who has denied ever having non-consensual sex or assaulting anyone, has pleaded not guilty. The trial began in April. Weinstein, 73, is on trial for a second time after a New York state appeals court threw out his conviction in April 2024. He faces up to 25 years in prison for two counts of criminal sexual acts and up to four years for one count of rape. After the jury was sent to deliberate, Weinstein, seated in a wheelchair and wearing a dark grey suit, thanked New York Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber and the court staff. "I have been treated incredibly fairly," he said. Weinstein's defence lawyer Arthur Aidala moved for a mistrial earlier on Thursday morning, because Farber replaced a juror who called in sick with an alternate. The judge denied the motion. Weinstein is already serving a 16-year prison sentence after being found guilty in December 2022 of rape in California. Two days of closing arguments wrapped up on Wednesday, and Farber will instruct the 12 jurors on the law before handing them the case. Prosecutors with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have portrayed Weinstein as a serial predator who promised career advancement in Hollywood to women, only to then coax them into private settings where he attacked them. "He held the golden ticket, the chance to make it or not. He made each of these women feel small, no match for the power broker of Hollywood," prosecutor Nicole Blumberg told jurors on Wednesday. Weinstein's defence lawyers have said his encounters with the women were consensual and accused them of lying about being raped after failing to make it big in Hollywood by sleeping with him. "They are lying about what happened. Not about everything, but about a small slice - just enough to turn their regret, their buyers' remorse, into criminality," Aidala told jurors on Tuesday. Weinstein was convicted of rape by a Manhattan jury in February 2020, but the New York Court of Appeals threw out the conviction and ordered a new trial, citing errors by the trial judge. Weinstein had been serving a 23-year sentence in a prison in upstate Rome, New York, when the conviction was overturned. That conviction was a milestone for the MeToo movement, which encouraged women to come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct by powerful men. Weinstein has been held at New York City's Rikers Island jail since his conviction was overturned. He has had several health scares while being held at Rikers, and in September was rushed to a hospital for emergency heart surgery. Miramax studio produced many hit movies in its heyday, including Shakespeare in Love and Pulp Fiction. Weinstein's own eponymous film studio filed for bankruptcy in March 2018, five months after the original sexual misconduct accusations became widely publicised. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
