Minnesota DA’s woke two-tier justice prizes Tesla violence above all

New York Post - Apr 25th, 2025

Mary Moriarty, the County Attorney for Minneapolis, is facing intense scrutiny for her decision not to charge Dylan Adams, a state government employee, for vandalizing six Teslas. Instead, Moriarty offered Adams 'diversion' despite causing $21,000 in damages. The move has sparked a national debate, with local media and public figures like Anoka County's lead prosecutor, Brad Johnson, criticizing her approach as overly lenient. Moriarty claims that diversion is in the best interest of public safety, helping offenders like Adams to keep their jobs and pay restitution. However, this decision has been branded hypocritical as Moriarty previously charged a young woman with a felony for a lesser crime.

The controversy highlights Moriarty's reputation as a 'soft on crime' prosecutor, a perception exacerbated by her political affiliations and endorsements from figures like Rep. Ilhan Omar and George Soros-backed Keith Ellison. Her leniency towards Adams is seen as politically motivated, fueling concerns that crimes aligned with leftist causes are being tolerated in Hennepin County. The Minneapolis Police Department, which arrested Adams, has expressed frustration, emphasizing that Moriarty's decision sends a problematic message. As she faces re-election in 2026, the case underscores the ongoing debate over crime and justice in politically charged contexts.

Criminal Justice Hennepin County George Soros Ilhan Omar Political Bias Minneapolis Tesla Vandalism Mary Moriarty Dylan Adams Diversion Program

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a compelling narrative on a controversial topic, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in prosecutorial decisions and suggesting political motivations. While the core facts are generally accurate, the story exhibits a clear bias and lacks balanced perspectives, which affects its overall reliability. The use of charged language and opinionated statements detracts from the neutrality of the information, although the article remains engaging and timely. To enhance its credibility, the story would benefit from more diverse sources and transparent disclosures regarding the basis for its claims. Overall, it serves as a provocative piece that is likely to spark discussion and debate on important issues related to justice and political influence.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that are mostly accurate but require some verification. For instance, the identity of Mary Moriarty as the Hennepin County Attorney and her decision to offer diversion to Dylan Adams instead of pressing charges is confirmed by multiple sources. However, the claim about Moriarty's office guidelines limiting diversion to property crimes below $5,000 is not explicitly verified and needs further evidence. Additionally, the comparison with a 19-year-old woman charged for a similar crime lacks independent confirmation, highlighting a potential inaccuracy. Overall, while the core facts are generally supported, some specific claims remain unverified.

Balance

The article exhibits a clear bias against Mary Moriarty, labeling her as a 'woke prosecutor' and suggesting political motivations behind her decisions. It predominantly presents a critical perspective without adequately exploring Moriarty's reasoning or potential justifications for her actions. The story lacks a balanced representation of viewpoints, as it does not include any statements or perspectives from Moriarty's supporters or neutral legal experts. This one-sided portrayal contributes to an imbalanced narrative that primarily supports the author's critical stance.

Clarity

The language and structure of the article are generally clear, but the tone is heavily opinionated, which may affect the reader's perception of the facts. The narrative follows a logical flow, presenting the main claims and supporting arguments in a coherent manner. However, the use of loaded terms and phrases, such as 'woke prosecutor' and 'politically inspired violence,' introduces bias and detracts from the neutrality of the information. Despite these issues, the article is relatively easy to follow and understand.

Source quality

The article references several sources, including public statements from police and prosecutors, which lend some credibility to the claims. However, it lacks direct citations or links to official documents, such as Moriarty's office guidelines or court records, which would strengthen the reliability of the information. The story relies heavily on the author's interpretation and opinion, rather than providing a comprehensive range of authoritative sources. This limits the overall quality of the sources and the impartiality of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides limited transparency regarding its sources and methodology. While it mentions statements from police and prosecutors, it does not disclose how these were obtained or verified. The story also lacks transparency about the basis for some claims, such as the alleged diversion guidelines and the comparison with the 19-year-old woman's case. The absence of clear explanations and disclosures affects the reader's ability to fully understand the context and the factors influencing the article's conclusions.