Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Has Doofus Trump touched the third rail of Republican politics by suggesting that Republicans need to be “flexible” in their demands for stricter rules preventing tax dollars from being used to fund abortions through healthcare subsidies? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-massive-betrayal-pro-lifers-react-to-trump-s-hyde-amendment-comments/ar-AA1TLoSr?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Trump reportedly said:

“You have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” Trump said, referring to the Hyde Amendment, a legislative provision that has been attached to spending bills since the 1970s that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for most abortions.

Pass the popcorn. Has Trump (or Barron) perhaps impregnated a Medicaid recipient?

[dwb68]

Because all those anti-abortion activists will suddenly vote Democrat?

Shocking, I know: compromise is the art of politics. Democrat progressives are too busy trying to cancel the moderates to get it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the antiabortion activists simply won’t bother to vote.

Ask Mitt Romney (2012) about that….

[dwb68]

If they are one-issue voters. Most aren't.

[ReaderY]

Ask not what you can do for your country.

Ask what your country can do for you.

For “country,” substitute “voters.”

Or for that matter, pretty much anything.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(or Barron) perhaps impregnated a Medicaid recipient?"

You suck. He's a college kid.

[not guilty]

Yes, he's a college kid. Which means he is well past puberty and presumably capable of impregnating a woman.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's not a politician or official. You know almost nothing about him.

So don't bring him into your Trump obsession.

[Drewski]

This from the guy who took potshots nonstop at Obama's girls.

[Magister]

I remember the conservative wailing over an impeachment witness mentioning Barron ("While the president can name his son 'Barron' he can't make him a baron") as an invasion of privacy, as if nobody was aware Donald Trump had a son named Barron.

[not guilty]

Did George W. Doofus make a deal with John Whoreberts and Sam Alito in 2005 to ensure that Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was not to be overruled until his twin lush daughters reached age 40?

[Joe_dallas]

Your commentary has become complete asshole commentary.

Hope you are proud of yourself

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump opposes abortion rights because it is useful for his position in the Republican Party. He, from time to time, purports to sound reasonable about such things. In a matter of speaking.

His comments aside, ultimately, it will be significantly up to Congress to set the guidelines here. Republicans have seen the political need for some flexibility (e.g., not trying to pass a national abortion ban).

In the day when signing a form to obtain a religious exemption from insurance requirements, some flexibility might be necessary. As Kristen Schall once noted on Jon Stewart's show:

For starters, we have to cut funding for fire departments. Hello?! What if an abortion clinic catches fire and the firefighters put it out — paving the way for more abortions? Abortionist firefighters paid for by our taxpayer dollars.

Anyway, if we have government-funded health care, of some sort, in this country, individuals should have wide discretion in deciding, per their own conscientious beliefs [many religions, e.g., believe abortion is justified in various contexts, sometimes even compelled], on what medical care they can use it for.

[AmosArch]

Far left activist goes to help out Somali fraudsters by interfering with law enforcement and gets shot when running her car at agents as clearly shown in multiple angles.

Even with said video offering ironclad self defense proof from multiple angles progs go Rittenhouse 2.0 in gaslighting. Her wheels were turned away from the agent so he should have measured the angle before opening fire as she was speeding toward him! She was trying to leave (in his direction) so they should have just let the crazy lady who disobeys orders take off in the 2-3 ton weapon!

The alternate universe takes looking at the same video footage are absolutely unreal in this one. I'm almost tempted to think they are bots and a good portion of them probably are. I have a hard time believing people can be so delusional they could swear the opposite from what is in front of their very eyes. But maybe I am just naive.

[santamonica811]

Your take is so bizarre that I've changed my opinion about you. Instead of you being an extremist and one of the more nutty posters here; I now think YOU are one of the chatbots, along with Riva and a few others.

Sorry to out you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You of all people ought to have known that the Honda has an EDR….

[Krayt]

None of that matters. Recall courts, as lead by the Supreme Court, consciously makes sure they are not in the business of second guessing split second decisions.

He's being sarcastic about measuring angle of the wheel. You don't even need to get into a flight data recorder to see if she accelerated briefly towards him. Just accidental as she tried to flee could be enough.

I don't hold them completely non-responsible though. She saw lights and sirens, and started waving them through; the first did so. Then another stopped to confront. That necessity needs analysis, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

The bottom line, though, is that she wasn't legally entitled to flee. And that puts it all in her court.

[SRG2]

It doesn't. Police cannot shoot a fleeing (potential) felon in all circumstances.

[Brett Bellmore]

They certainly can if they're in a car and they flee towards you because you're standing in the way of their car.

[SRG2]

Note that I said, "in all circumstances" - so there are indeed cases where you can shoot a fleeing felon. As it has not bee conclusively determined yet what happened you cannot say that it was all in her court.

Also, has anyone established what right ICE had to seize her in the first place?

[Michael P]

I am reminded of a sign near beaches in New Zealand, at least around Wellington "Dogs not allowed on the beach at all times." They don't mean that dogs are sometimes allowed.

[SRG2]

Yes, but had you read the full sentence, "Police cannot shoot a fleeing (potential) felon in all circumstances." you'd understand why the dog case is different. What I wrote, in easily comprehensible English, means that police can shoot a fleeing (potential) felon in some circumstances. Capeesh?

[Michael P]

You cannot take a dog to the beach at all times. You cannot shoot a (potentially) fleeing suspect in all circumstances. The grammar is the same, and the interpretation can be analogous.

Every time I pass those signs (I see them on a nice running route), I marvel at the ambiguity inherent in writing it that way. "Dogs prohibited from beach at all times" is not ambiguous. "You may only sometimes shoot at a (potentially) fleeing suspect" is not ambiguous. But if something is not allowed "at all times" or "in all circumstances", the meaning is ambiguous.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think you will find that OTHER BEACHES permit dogs at certain times, or once did,

[SRG2]

The grammar is the same, and the interpretation can be analogous.

The grammar may be the same but the meanings are not. In the dog case, "all" means the same as "any". In the police case it doesn't.

[Michael P]

The meanings are different *in your head*. In print they have the same ambiguity.

[SRG2]

Not if you actually know English.

[Brett Bellmore]

She wasn't fleeing away from the cop who shot her, she was fleeing towards him at the time. Her car actually hit him.

[MoreCurious]

No, it didn't. The video clearly shows that he was not hit. In fact, wasn't he violating law enforcement procedure by intentionally putting himself in harm's way when he crossed from the passenger side of the car to the front of the car? And instead of taking the time to draw his weapon and shoot at her, why didn't he simply take one step to his right instead of remaining in front of the car? And why did he continue shooting as the car passed him? No one, including him, was in danger at that point. Isn't that also a violation of procedure?

[Brett Bellmore]

First, no, the video does not clearly show that he wasn't hit. He wasn't hit squarely, to be sure, he was hit by the fender, but he does look like he was hit.

Second, I agree that he should have concentrated in getting out of the way rather than shooting, and I am dubious about the legality of any but the first shot, which was fired while he was in the path of the vehicle, and thus probably has a good enough excuse for, literally, government work.

I said yesterday that I'd like to see a trial, and none of this unqualified immunity BS, and I meant it. Let a jury of his peers decide if the shots were reasonable.

Third, even if you argue he put himself in harms way, (Didn't look that way to me.) let me hammer this point home yet again: You do not put your vehicle in motion when people are surrounding it! Even if they put themselves there.

Now, for added context that might explain why he was a bit on edge under the circumstances, and less than forgiving: He was THIS officer.

[Commenter_XY]

It is really a shame we don't put the child molesting POS illegal alien into the general prison population and let nature take its course. That ICE officer understood how dangerous that POS actually was, and wasn't letting him get away. He got a little messed up, too, in that encounter.

An AWFL FAFO is what happened. A woman is dead, there is a child who must now be cared for. It is tragic. The lesson to take to heart is you are taking your life into your hands if you confront federal LEOs executing their tasks and duties. It is a really, really bad idea to do that.

[Drewski]

You are legally entitled to flee from masked, unidentified, armed people exiting an unmarked car (even with blue lights). This is bedrock law. It is undisputed that they did not identify themselves as police at any time prior to shooting.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seek medical attention immediately. You got some bad drugs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If YOU have cause to believe someone is going to deliberately run over you, YOU can use deadly force to defend yourself.

[Drewski]

Idiot. If you pull a gun on someone, they try to run you over, and you shoot them, that's murder.

[Joe_dallas]

Double idiot - looks like she goosed the gas pedal (floored it) based on the video evidence of the tires spinning before he raised the gun.

Far too much effort with bogus crap from people trying to defend someone with would could have been vehicular homicide or some other crime.

[Joe_dallas]

Drewski 1 hour ago
"You are legally entitled to flee from masked, unidentified, armed people exiting an unmarked car (even with blue lights). This is bedrock law. It is undisputed that they did not identify themselves as police at any time prior to shooting."

Why lie about the actual facts?

Its undisputed that she was attempting to block the ICE personnel from performing lawful enforcement duties.

[jay.tee]

It’s also undisputed she knew the people on site were ICE, not some random masked criminal.

Nice try, Drewski.

[Drewski]

Ah, another country heard from. Did you learn of her personal knowledge from a seance? I haven't heard either side make foolish claims about her personal knowledge. Only trolls would try.

[David Nieporent]

How can the knowledge and intentions of a person who is dead, who left no written or recorded statements on these matters, be "undisputed"?

Is there a video that has been released where she can be heard saying, "I know you're ICE" to the thugs on the scene? Are there dozens of people who have said, "I expressly told him the election was legitimate her they were ICE"?

[Joe_dallas]

She parked her car across traffic specifically to impede traffic.
Her front drivers side window down, she had her arm out the window waving cars through until ICE showed up, with video showing they were announcing themselves.

Do you really want to put you integrity on the line claiming she didnt know they were ICE.

never mind, you already answered that question

[AmosArch]

She literally is an activist who came down to disrupt ICE. Of course you know this and are just playing dumb.

[David Nieporent]

Do you really want to put you integrity on the line claiming she didnt know they were ICE.

Do you know what the word "undisputed" means? Hint: it doesn't mean, "I think it's true." It doesn't even mean, "I'm positive it's true."

[David Nieporent]

She literally is an activist who came down to disrupt ICE.

Is that also "undisputed," or are you just repeating something you read on twitter? Her first husband said that she's not an activist. And "came down"? What does that mean? She lives there.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes David - Your integrity is an issue - You havent posted a factually correct statement today.

Lying about facts and distorting doesnt make something disputed.

[Joe_dallas]

Do you really want to put you integrity on the line claiming she didnt know they were ICE.

never mind, you already answered that question.

Yep - DN proudly announces his integrity is not on the line among his fellow leftists who worship his distortions!

[Drewski]

That is, in fact, disputed. Even for a foreign troll like you, that's a wild thing to say.

[Joe_dallas]

It’s also undisputed she knew the people on site were ICE, not some random masked criminal.

Its takes a lot delusions and detachment from reality to think otherwise.

[JD85]

She actually was. ICE don't have general policing power and don't have the right (until Kavanaugh stops were allowed I suppose) to stop or detain a citizen.

It just isn't in their legally allowable activities. Not that they care, obviously.

So you can run from ICE and it isn't felony evasion or anything similar. At worst its an obstruction charge if you were doing it intentionally to distract them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"don't have the right (until Kavanaugh stops were allowed I suppose) to stop or detain a citizen."

A lie.
8 USC 1357: Powers of immigration officers and employees
(5) to make arrests-
(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or
(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony,

[Kazinski]

What did Amos get wrong?

I posted this frame by frame analysis yesterday in the thread, I will post it here again:
"Looking at the video you can see her start backing up at 2:15 with her wheels cranked to the left, you see two ICE agents to her left engaging with her. There is another ICE Agent directly in front of her obscured by her vehicle and one of the other ICE Agents.

At 2:17 she starts going straight forward wheels straight ahead,

At 2:18 still going forward she starts cranking wheels to the right at the same fraction of a second he shoots, by the time it rolls over to 2:19, she is past him and already dead, and then you can see fully see him."

At 2:18 you see the 2 officers to the left, and the man in the white knit cap behind the white SUV to the right.

It isn't until 2:20 until she is completely past all of them do you see the officer who was directly in front of her SUV at 2:18 when her wheels were going straight forward and she started accelerating straight at him, by the end of 2:18 her wheels are cranked to the right. A lot happened in a second."

Here is the video I am referring to, you can start watching it at 2:00. It has the advantage of being shot from almost directly behind so you can see what directions her wheels are pointed and when she shifted from reverse to drive. There is also a white line in the street lined up with her passenger compartment so you can make an educated guess at the rate she was accelerating, especially in context with the other video of when she hits the parked car about 100' down the street after the shooting.

https://www.fox9.com/video/fmc-rshzshq077gp6y6k

Tell us what Amos got wrong.

[Michael P]

Yeah. For all the claims yesterday about how the threat was over by time X, people ignored that targets of vehicular homicide are not expected to make dispassionate assessments of all the facts in under a second about whether the threat has disappeared.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Also remember four things:

1: There is a processing time between observation of a threat, making a decision as to what to do, and doing it. The best example of this are the two figures given to stop a vehicle at a given speed — the reaction time and distance braking time.
Training can reduce the time to make the decision but cannot reduce either the time to observe the situation or to physically act.

2: The puff of rising smoke is AFTER the shots are fired. In terms of how fast things were happening, my guess is significantly after.

3: She was shot in my head and fell to the right, that’s why they extracted her out of the passenger side and why that door is open. If she had a hand on the steering wheel at the time, and she likely did her body moving to the right would have moved the wheel to the right. Hence, we don’t know if she deliberately intended to move to the right or if the vehicle did that because of her having been shot. Know how the windshield wipers were in use — that tells me her hand hit the lever as she was falling to the right.

4; As to the iceman not facing a potential lethal threat, do not forget the woman who died in Charlottesville. She also was to the left of a vehicle, just like this guy was.

[DeAnnP]

Let's see what the ME report shows was the kill shot. Because I saw at least 2 shots fired from the SIDE of the vehicle into the driver side window. Also no one is talking about how they just let her fucking rot and stopped a physician from attending to her. Also no one is talking about how the fucking president of the united states put out a statement that he was run over, in the hospital and lucky to be alive, yet another god damn lie. Fuck all you who support this piece of shit administration.

[Kazinski]

The agent was struck by the vehicle, that's close enough to "run over" and clearly the impact was enough to bruise him.

Its a fact the agent was struck yesterday, was injured, and was taken to the hospital. It does not appear his injuries were serious.

JD Vance said in his live press conference this agent had been struck before earlier this year by a car and got 30 stitches.

[DeAnnP]

Oh so he has a habit of NOT following training and ran to the front of the vehicle with his phone out!? FUCK HIM AND FUCK YOU! He shot THROUGH THE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW!

[Kazinski]

The bullet hole in the windshield proves he was in front of the car when he shot.

[BrotherMovesOn]

He shot THROUGH THE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW!

How can you not see this Jeremiah?

[Kazinski]

So CNN manufactured this picture?

Of the bullet hole in the front windshield?

I heard 3 shots in about 1/4 second on the audio.

"One video appears to show the vehicle make contact with the officer before he fires the first gunshot. Another video doesn’t capture that possible point of contact, but the officer’s body is seen moving away from the front of the vehicle and to the driver’s side of the car.

Two more gunshots sound as the vehicle pulls away and accelerates before crashing nearby."

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/us/unanswered-questions-minneapolis-ice-shooting

[BrotherMovesOn]

Appreciate your response. There's one bullet hole shown in the bottom corner of the windshield. The second and third shots were fired
THROUGH THE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW!
Bullets shot through the open driver's side window would not show up in a photograph of the window, consistent with the assertion that he shot THROUGH THE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW!
I don't see how you cannot see that.
But I do appreciate your response, and hope you have better visual accuity when amongst the Grizz.

[Kazinski]

And all three shots were fired in less than 1 second.

BBC says it was .7 seconds, seemed faster to me.

Which also underlines how fast she was accelerating that the first shot was from In front of the car and within .7 seconds he could shoot the last shot through the driver side window.

I am not a fan of how many shots police typically fire once they start shooting, but it seems to be something that is almost universally trained, to keep shooting until the target is neutralized.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"within .7 seconds he could shoot the last shot through the driver side window."

It wasn't the 'last shot', it was the last two shots, fired at a perpendicular angle to the vehicle.

[myself]

Oh, sure, the very slowly moving SUV was an attempt at "vehicular homicide".

Why no empathy for the difficulty of making a dispassionate assessment when masked men are screaming at you with guns drawn?

[Life of Brian]

Oh, sure, the very slowly moving SUV was an attempt at "vehicular homicide".

As I pointed out earlier, this very slowly moving video shows how she stomped on the gas right when the shooting agent was directly in front of her, and the wheels didn't engage immediately.

In my view, the armchair quarterbacks are being quite glib about what the agent should and should not have done in the second or so after the engine wound up and the car actually started moving directly at him.

Why no empathy for the difficulty of making a dispassionate assessment when masked men are screaming at you with guns drawn?

This part seems a bit overdone. She knew exactly who they were -- she had been there for a long time for the express purpose of "observing" them!

[David Nieporent]

As I pointed out earlier, this very slowly moving video shows how she stomped on the gas right when the shooting agent was directly in front of her, and the wheels didn't engage immediately.

The video does not show her leg or foot, and thus literally cannot show her "stomping" on anything.

[Joe_dallas]

The actions of the car show otherwise - Keep playing the same denial game - its fun to watch you make an idiot of yourself.

[David Nieporent]

First, your statement isn't even grammatical. I said the video doesn't show her stomping on anything. That is 100% true. What on earth does "show otherwise" even refer to?

Second, pretending you knew the English language, and you meant to say that the actions of the car are consistent with her stomping on the gas, the actions of the car do not in fact reflect that she stomped on the gas. Obviously it's overwhelmingly likely that she pressed the gas pedal, but that's very different than stomping on the gas.

[Joe_dallas]

What a bullshit response to your lie and distortion of Life of Brian statement.

Misstate Life of B's statement, then you lie about the facts in a bogus attempt to discredit LofB. Pathetic

[Joe_dallas]

DN 's comment - actions of the car are consistent with her stomping on the gas, the actions of the car do not in fact reflect that she stomped on the gas."

Have you ever driven a car ?
Are you going to continue making yourself look like an idiot - never mind - the 20+ posts today have already accomplished that.

[Life of Brian]

Have you ever driven a car ?

Appears so, despite how hard he's trying to pretend otherwise. In the realm of stuff you can't make up, maybe even a front-wheel drive Honda!

[David Nieporent]

I have indeed driven a car. I do it every day. In a very short while I will be able to cut back on that frequency as my oldest will have her license (fingers crossed!) and will not require chauffeuring to/from the myriad of activities in which she is involved.

Nothing about the video reflects any "flooring" of the gas or "stomping" on the pedal or anything similar. The agent in front of the vehicle was able to move out of the way w/o any trouble!

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 2 hours ago
"Nothing about the video reflects any "flooring" of the gas or "stomping" on the pedal or anything similar. "

Bullshit - The video absolutely shows she she attempted to accelerate quickly. Do you really want to continue destroying any credibility you once might have had.

Never mind - you comments today answered the that question in the negative.

[David Nieporent]

"Accelerate quickly"? Now we're on the third derivative? But attempted to accelerate quickly? Were you looking at the thought bubbles over her head? LOL. Do, or do not; there is no try.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Bookkeeper Joe wears many hats.
Today he is the country's leading forensic accident reconstruction expert. Is there any subject that he's not an expert on? Economic geography? Studies on spatial intelligence? Changing behaviors of the annual Serengeti migration through Tanzania and Kenya?
The influence of NIL on college football? Railroad coupling technology from the 1960s?
(sorry, that's Dr. Ed) Ivermectin and its uses? Who needs AI when we have bookeeper Joe!
The obnoxious expert of everything!
Who knows what esoteric wisdom he'll bless us with tomorrow!

Can you imagine having to work with this asshole?

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Bunch of us are going to the pub after work. You in?"

"Did you ask Joe?"

"Hell no!"

[Joe_dallas]

Brother idiot - this isnt forensics - This is basic car driver knowledge and basic knowledge of how cars work. Stuff that you should know after about 2 years of driving a car. All you are demonstrating when you complain about my "expertise " is an admission that you are extremely embarrassed on how things work.

Continue to embarrass yourself with an idiots level of knowledge.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Bookkeeper Joe's new hat!
Driver's License Test Inspector!
Dr. Ed, for God's sake, has "weighed in" on this already, with his usual insane Oliver Stone-level inanity. So you are in, umm, good company?

[David Nieporent]

Brother idiot - this isnt forensics -

Right. But it's attempted forensics.

[Life of Brian]

I suspect most readers here are comfortable with the difference between "shows how she stomped on the gas" (what I said) and "shows her stomping on the gas" (your recasting).

And that recasting is even less plausibly deniable given that I explained in the other thread exactly which indicia in the video "showed how" she pushed the gas hard enough that she managed to chirp the tires on a front-wheel drive vehicle. Weirdly, you didn't respond in that thread.

[David Nieporent]

In my view, the armchair quarterbacks are being quite glib about what the agent should and should not have done in the second or so after the engine wound up and the car actually started moving directly at him.

In my view, it's a great racket by the cops: step in front of a running vehicle, and then claim to be scared the vehicle is going to hit you, so you had no choice but to shoot.

Also: if it was so obvious that she was trying to run the guy over, why did none of the other cops shoot to protect him?

[Life of Brian]

Also: if it was so obvious that she was trying to run the guy over, why did none of the other cops shoot to protect him?

Setting aside the fact that all this went down in the span of a couple of seconds, this doesn't strike me as particularly serious given that it took most of yesterday to push you kneejerkers off the notion that the agent at the side window was the one who shot her.

[David Nieporent]

No idea what you're talking about here; I don't recall anyone here or anywhere else suggesting that. The point is that the guy who shot her — the guy who had been in front of the car — fired several shots at the side of the car after it was past him.

[Kazinski]

In .7 seconds according to the BBC.

So her car must have traveled about 6 feet in that span, which is very close to my estimate of 9 feet in 1 second, Which of course means she floored the the gas pedal on her Pilot when the ICE agent was directly in front of her.

[myself]

Sure, who are we going to believe. You and President Trump or our lyin' eyes!

[Life of Brian]

I'm honestly not sure what to make of this response to my point about what a slowed-down video shows our lyin' eyes.

[myself]

The video you posted was deleted. But the car wasn't moving quickly and was turning away from the officer.

We don't know if she was trying to get away or just get out of the middle of the road (she was waiving the vehicles past just previously) but to claim the officer, who deliberately walked in front of a running vehicle, and then continued to shoot as the vehicle was past, was panicked and fearing for his life is beyond ridiculous.

The video shows a murder and I'm appalled that you're so eager to defend it.

[Life of Brian]

The video you posted was deleted.

As already hashed out in the parallel thread I referenced. I'll repost it here in case you missed it.

As to the rest of your comment, I'd suggest you thoughtfully watch the video and see how many of your characterizations of the behaviors and timeline you still want to carry forward. Unless actual, plainly visible facts just get in the way of the vibez, in which case carry on.

[myself]

I'm tired of this.

A bunch of cowboys high on authority terrorized a mother of three.

She panicked, and one of those cowboys took the opportunity to become a killer.

I don't believe in hell, but if was is one that's where that officer will eventually be going.

[Life of Brian]

I'm tired of this. . . . terrorized . . . panicked . . . cowboys . . . hell

Wow, that's quite the snap-pivot from "should we believe X, or our lying eyes" just two posts ago.

As I said, carry on.

[Magister]

It's pretty much demonstrated that commenters like Life of Brian are unable to judge the speed at which things happen, but the two posts ago was at 2:38pm (and referenced you and Trump, not X) and the last post was at 6:19pm, so that's not a very quick pivot, and certainly consistent with discovering more information. But the earlier post is consistent with believing this was a murder at that time.

Trump worship has made Life of Brian stupid, or at least stupider.

[David Nieporent]

As already hashed out in the parallel thread I referenced. I'll repost it here in case you missed it.

I must confess that I cannot fathom why you think this video somehow helps your case.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — You get everything wrong. You indulge motivated reasoning, tailored to excuse murder by LEOs.

1. The driver was purposefully stalked by a team of would-be assailants, who deployed systematically to assault her. She had done nothing to warrant any more than a civil approach by a single officer, to tell her to move along. The single officer who did first approach her did so in a way which precluded being struck, but with an evident aggressive and hostile intent, instead of a cvil demeanor chosen to deliver a peaceful encounter. It was that aggressive approach which exposed the shooter to any danger he suffered, as he foolishly deployed near the front of the vehicle, while his teammate assailed the driver from the side.

2. Were those assailants civilians, instead of ICE officers—who had no jurisdiction over this American citizen, and no legitimate law enforcement purpose they could show to justify this conduct against this citizen—then what you see would example first degree murder by a gang of assailants. That tape would be conclusive evidence to convict any gang of civilian assailants who did likewise. Every member of the gang would be charged.

3. These were not civilians, however, only government officials attacking without justification. Given that, a legitimate purpose for their pre-planned conduct might justify reducing the charge to murder in the second degree. But they had no legitimate purpose.

4. Any innocent citizen, suddenly finding herself surrounded by a gang of assailants, and then actually assailed, is legally entitled to flee, and even to use deadly force herself to accomplish an escape. This victim did not choose deadly force. No evidence shows she intended any such response. She did intend to flee. She was shot by an assailant with intent to prevent her from fleeing.

5. The act of putting the car in reverse—and backing away from the armed assailant who approached her from in front—and then cranking her wheels to get clearance to avoid him, was so evidently a Y-turn maneuver that the shooter should have understood its purpose and stepped away from her obviously intended path. The shooter should have done that both for his own safety, and for hers. Capacity to make that kind of judgment is used by drivers and pedestrians all the time, and requires no miraculous split-second judgment to accomplish. The entire backing and turning maneuver was far from instantaneous. There was more than enough time for assessment, comprehension, and rational response.

6. The shooter did not do what any civilian would have and could have done. The notion that to protect himself against a sudden purposeful surge in the shooter's direction is thus ridiculous. At the distance shown, even killing her instantly would have afforded the shooter no protection from the vehicle's momentum, if the vehicle had indeed been surged directly at him. Indeed, taking a stand to shoot at that moment, and instantly killing the driver, was probably the only way a normally functioning human in the shooter's location could have assured himself of being hit by the vehicle. That point is reinforced by the fact that the tape plainly shows the shooter drew his firearm, achieved a two-handed shooting position, aimed, and began firing, during the time he could have better protected himself by stepping away.

7. The shooter was not struck by the vehicle, not even slightly. Instead, as the vehicle passed by, the shooter continued firing through the side window, at a time when hitting him with the vehicle had already become an impossibility. If there is an honest coroner's investigation, and if your account of the timing of the various maneuvers is correct, then the investigation will show that the first shot fired was not instantly fatal, and may not even have struck the victim, but one of the later shots was instantly fatal. Had it been otherwise, the turn down the street would not have been completed, and the shooter would have been hit or very narrowly missed by the vehicle, if he was quick enough to jump back.

8. Shortly after the incident, the shooter was whisked to the hospital for no apparent reason except creation of an alibi. And officials in the Trump administration, including Trump, falsely claimed he had been hit by the vehicle. Those events show a pattern of guilty self-protection which would not have been needed if your own interpretation were accurate.

9. DHS policy against shooting into moving vehicles explicitly reinforces every one of the points made above. To do what he did, the shooter had to ignore that explicit policy. The fact that the shooter proved himself professionally proficient with the firearm, and showed by his shooting conduct the imprint of professional training in its use, strongly suggests that he was trained and aware of the official rules about shooting into moving vehicles, and ignored them on purpose.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow. Just wow.

1-3
Lathrop, I will gladly admit that much of what government does, and everything that government does that's distinctively 'governmental', would be a serious crime if done by people outside government.

But! Unless you're an anarchist, that's kind of irrelevant.

As you concede, they actually were governmental agents, engaged in enforcement of a legally legitimate law. That you, or the driver of the car, don't LIKE that law has no legal significance at all.

There are lots of laws I don't like. Some of them I'm actually convinced are unconstitutional, though the courts don't agree. If I tried to impede enforcement of those laws, and took actions that endangered the lives of law enforcement in the process, I'd probably get shot the same way this lady did, and it would be legal.

Because my opinion of those laws has no legal significance.

4. No, you're not legally entitled to flee police.

5. No, you're not legally entitled to put your car into motions that would injure people unless they get out of your way.

6. Doesn't matter, because the shooter was a cop enforcing the law, and was legally entitled to obstruct the vehicle's path.

7. The videos show that he was struck.

8. And he was injured.

9. The DHS doesn't have rules against shooting into moving vehicles in the process of trying to run you over.

Seriously, wow. You're more deranged than usual today.

[SykesFive]

Brett, I've watched a lot of video and I just don't see the officer being struck or injured.

Is there some video you think shows the officer being struck by the car? If so, can you link it and (if you think it will help) provide a time stamp or other information that shows it?

Is there some video you think shows evidence of injury? Same thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

A little distant, but a good angle. At the 3 second mark.

Not as good an angle, at 11 seconds.

He was struck. I expect not terribly hard, because the car only had a couple of feet to accelerate, on ice yet, but there's absolutely no legal reason for the car to have been moving in the first place, making it vehicular assault.

[Ridgeway]

It is not clear to me from those recordings whether he actually got hit by the car or slid around the front corner before it could hit him. It looks like he came from the right, across the front of the car, while the other officer was engaging the woman through the driver's side window. I wonder if she even saw the other officer of if she was looking off to the left through the window.

Not an expert on MN law, but in general, assault requires intent, meaning she had to intend to hit the officer, not just to drive away. If she never saw him, there could be no intent.

In any event, the whole fleeing felon argument is silly. The one that matters is self defense -- whether the officer reasonably believed she was going to hit him with her car at the time he fired. If yes, then OK. If no, then not OK.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's a defense of others aspect as well. One cop had her arm in the vehicle, and her feet were dangerously close to the car's tires.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've never said she was a fleeing felon. I've said she put her vehicle into motion under circumstances that rendered doing so illegal.

That would be a traffic offense, I have no idea whether it would be felony level. But he fact that the action was itself illegal would have some bearing on the matter of vehicular assault, I expect.

[Ridgeway]

Assume for the sake of argument that she was lawfully stopped by the police and told to stay put [from what I have read, she may have been given conflicting instructions, but lets leave that aside.]

If she disobeys that order and tries to drive away, that would likely be irrelevant to whether she committed assault. Like I said, assault normally requires intent. However, she is likely guilty of something along the lines of "609.2113 CRIMINAL VEHICULAR OPERATION; BODILY HARM", which generally seems to require only gross negligence.

Without more facts, though, that would not give rise to an inference that she posed an ongoing threat to the public. It is just pulling out right there under those circumstances that could be seen as grossly negligent.

Long story short, if I were a defense attorney, I'd be putting all my efforts onto showing that the officer reasonably feared for his own safety at that moment, not that he was concerned that she would harm someone else down the road (excuse the bad taste pun).

[Joe_dallas]

ITs the drivers responsibility to know what is in front of them when driving.

[Ridgeway]

Failure to do so does not usually merit the death penalty though.

[Joe_dallas]

Watch the video - At the point in time that she initially drove forward the front wheels were turned left. then 1/2 sec later they were turned forward and another 1/2 later they were turned right.

Kaz has done excellent job with a more detailed explanation. At the time of the initial shots, the car was driving directly at the officer.

[Bunny495]

Assuming facts not in evidence, only an ASS ASSumes facts not in evidence.

[Riva]

Not sure I had a “take” on you, but since you bring up the topic my take on you is clownish parrot troll.

[Sarcastr0]

AA: "ironclad self defense proof from multiple angles."

I don't think this will play out of MAGA types who are full on "reject the evidence of your eyes and ears"

The videos look pretty murdery to anyone normal.

Once clue is all the intensifiers Amos has to use.
clearly (above)
clearly (again, in a new post)
clearly (same post, a second time).
clearly (third post)

Amos *clearly* has a feeling that his own posts need some extra oomph.

[Armchair]

Andrew C. McCarthy basically says what I said yesterday.

"Undoubtedly, if it is reasonable to construe the woman’s action as a deliberate attempt to mow down an ICE agent with a speeding vehicle, the use of force was justified. But even if the woman was mainly trying to get away (which is what it looks like to me), she was engaged in an actionable assault on a federal officer, a felony under Section 111 of the federal penal code."

In fact, in this instance — unlike in my case all those years ago — if the assault or intimidation is carried out with “a deadly or dangerous weapon,” the penalty is up to 20 years’ imprisonment. That’s a weighty felony offense.

Even if you believe, as I’m inclined to believe based on what we’ve seen so far, that the woman was just trying to get away, she did so by swiping the car in the agent’s direction. She may not have intended to run him over, but she sure didn’t appear to be trying to avoid running him over if that was necessary to escape.

Either way, the agent’s life was jeopardized, and the responsive use of force would be reasonable. It is settled Fourth Amendment law that a police officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if he has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. (See, e.g., Tennessee v. Gardner (1985).) Here, I believe the driver was in the act of committing a dangerous assault when the agent opened fire. And the driver’s reckless operation of the vehicle, coupled with the fact that she was heedless of harming armed law enforcement agents as they were carrying out their official duties, underscores that it was reasonable to believe she posed a serious threat to the agents and others."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-legal-fallout-from-the-minnesota-ice-shooting/

[Life of Brian]

Uh oh. That's probably the end of Andy's recent 15 minutes of lefty credibility....

[Sarcastr0]

Undoubtedly.

Handwaiving and formalism don’t mix. Especially in service of dismissing a shooting like this.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're the one handwaving away the fact that she put the car into motion in a situation where doing so would not be legal on account of it endangering lives.

[Sarcastr0]

she put the car into motion in a situation where doing so would not be legal on account of it endangering lives.

That's not at all what I'm seeing in the video.

But I'm not surprised you see that. Nothing makes you tell yourself a story to absolve government like when they kill a liberal.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're somehow not seeing her put the car into drive with somebody standing right in front of the car? With somebody else having their arm in the car? Are you in the same universe as us, or is your brain just not capable of processing evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

You can't, outside of extreme circumstances, put your car in motion with people that close. And "I want to get away from cops" are not circumstances that excuse it.

[Kazinski]

There was somebody directly in front of her car, she hit him.

You can't see that?

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "Formalism."

That's your new go-to word to describe truthful statements you choose to dismiss as false.

If I found out you've always been surrepticiously operating on behalf of the right, your behavior would make sense to me for the first time.

[Sarcastr0]

Right or no, weedling analyses of 4th Amendment are for the courthouse.

This was also hand waivy as analyses go.

And we aren’t on a courthouse.

This is not hard to understand, even for a recently disaffected liberal.

But you are ever motivated to misunderstand my posts.

[Joe_dallas]

Andrew McCarthy post at national review is a reasonable assessment of both the facts and the law without all the hyper partisanship .

[Bob from Ohio]

"The videos look pretty murdery to anyone normal."

You are not normal though.

Opinions are completely polarized. Pro-Trump, good shoot. Anti-Trump, murder.

[Joe_dallas]

A good non partisan take on the event is Andrew McCarthy's post at National Review.

[bernard11]

Andrew McCarthy is not non-partisan. His article only reads that way to you because you share his partisan views.

[Joe_dallas]

His post was not partisan and very much a good assessment of the facts and the law
- Feel free to continue to distort what he wrote.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The videos look pretty murdery to anyone normal."

Lol. Wow, the Vibrator strikes again. I haven't come to any strong conclusions, but jeez. Heck of an analysis, Brownie.

[ReaderY]

“Running her car.”

Simple driving is now a capital offense? Or is it driving with anti-ICE bumper stickers? Doubtless those bumper stickers put ICE-man in fear of his life.

[hobie]

I watch lots of bodycam videos every day. As much as I would love to see officers start blasting a fleeing subject, they, in fact, NEVER do so. That's what properly trained law enforcement do.

[Michael P]

So how many bullet holes were in the back of this lady's car? Or is your illusion of a fleeing subject just another hallucination?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What is in the left side of her windshield and I would not be all surprised if the other two went over that vehicle and down range.

[Bwaaah]

You would be right, excepting human fallibility in a necessarily short half-second window within which the officer had to make the judgement call here.

Some people, mostly on the left, resolve ambiguity in favor of the criminal whenever he's facing off with a cop. Other people, most people, resolve ambiguity in favor of the police.

Anyway, how do people get shot like this? Fuck around and find out.

[Sarcastr0]

Holding ICE blameless.
Blaming the left.
And the dead woman.

Terrible.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't say totally blameless; I've been nearly run over in a parking lot by somebody in a van with a really high window, and my mind was focused like a laser on getting out of her way, I don't think if I'd been packing heat it would have even occurred to me to shoot the driver, it would have interfered with not being run over.

But, the fact remains that her car absolutely, unambiguously, no excuses, should not have been in motion.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett 'just the tip' Bellmore tries to have it both ways, but comes down on MAGA.

Just like for birtherism, and January 06, and the 2020 election getting stolen.
You say you don't buy the MAGA line, you just have a weird paralell line that ends in the exact same place.

Your timeline is off; the ICE agent was in no danger, and put himself in the line of the car.

It'd say it's crazy you assert otherwise, but I know you well enough by now that reality is no barrier to you believing what you want. And you often want to believe a liberal killing was cool and good.

I'm surprised you didn't find signs of Antifa.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are, of course, delusional.

[Joe_dallas]

"It'd say it's crazy you assert otherwise, but I know you well enough by now that reality is no barrier to you believing what you want. "

Sacastro - no reason to be redundant when you are talking about yourself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"the ICE agent was in no danger, and put himself in the line of the car."

These two statements contradict each other.

I haven't seen video that shows how he got in front of the car, but the video shows him in front of the car when it starts moving forward.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Holding ICE blameless.
Blaming the left.
And the dead woman.

Terrible.

Wasn't that pretty much your position on the Ashli Babbit shooting, Sarcastro? Except that you were blaming the right?

[hobie]

Oh, she was definitely fucking around. Not sure that shooting her in the face was an appropriate find out.

One thing for sure, I'm not gonna spend half a decade promoting her as a blameless saint.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a fair remark whether you're talking about Good or Babbitt.

[Life of Brian]

Simple driving is now a capital offense?

I think it was probably more the flooring the gas while pointed right at the agent (at about 0:30 of this super-slow version you can see the rear of the car squat and the front wheel start to spin before it caught and the car started moving forward).

[David Nieporent]

"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."

[Life of Brian]

Sure enough. Apparently there was a Community Notes pile-on having nothing to do with the video itself, but the still photo he posted with it.

Hopefully he reposts the video alone -- it was one of the more useful renditions I had seen. Though you can get the same effect just by slowing it down and/or advancing frame by frame at the critical point.

[Life of Brian]

This version isn't quite as slowed down, but you can still clearly see the front wheel skip and the car squat at about 0:05-0:06.

[David Nieporent]

Fake cop murders woman and fascist bootlickers defend cops by lying about what happened. She was driving slowly; one jackass agent stepped in front of her car, pretended to be scared, stepped out of the way, and then opened fire.

[Joe_dallas]

8 lies in just two sentences - Not a new record, but close. A leftists is proud of his distortions

[Bob from Ohio]

"Fake cop"

ICE agents are real federal law enforcement officers.

[Joe_dallas]

Doofus Dave - long ago quit making any attempt to be honest - consistent with most every other leftist posting here.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is the root cause of this incident, really: Democrats have decided to declare federal immigration law enforcement to be illegitimate. Never mind that the laws were duly enacted, never mind that the administration was elected specifically to enforce them.

They're Democratically illegitimate, and so the people tasked with enforcing them are Democratically illegitimate, nothing but a criminal gang.

And enough of their followers have swallowed this line that ICE is running into an increasing number of people who self-rightiously obstruct them.

[Kazinski]

You said she was driving slowly yesterday, the video evidence shows she had it floored. This is based on the Fox9 video I posted

If you look frame by one officer is next to her window when the it turns 2:18 with his foot on the white line, by the time it turns 2:19 the rear of her car is 2-3 ft past the white line and has spun the officer to her left forward by about a yard.

A Honda Pilot is 16 feet, so she has traveled 9-10 feet in one second on an icy road. 0-9 ft is .56gs, .56 gs is 0-60mph in about 5 seconds, in perfect conditions going straight ahead, on dry pavement a Honda pilot will go 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, if she was going that fast with her wheel cranked on an icy road she had it floored, and the only reason she didn't spin out was because it was front wheel drive.

If that's not good enough this video from further away shows how fast she accelerated from a dead stop. She is stationary behind the light colored SUV to the left at the beginning of the video, where you can see the flashing lights, she gets to full speed in just 2 seconds before she crashes into the parked car because she has already been shot.

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2009074537108001140

And there are multiple videos showing the officer being struck by the car, including this one which with the audio shows the shots are simultaneous with him being struck.

[Life of Brian]

A Honda Pilot is 16 feet, so she has traveled 9-10 feet in one second on an icy road. 0-9 ft is .56gs, .56 gs is 0-60mph in about 5 seconds, in perfect conditions going straight ahead, on dry pavement a Honda pilot will go 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, if she was going that fast with her wheel cranked on an icy road she had it floored, and the only reason she didn't spin out was because it was front wheel drive.

I missed this earlier -- nice objective analysis. No wonder the rear of the car plunged so hard when she hit the gas.

[David Nieporent]

Is "plunged" like some weird MAGA term of art or something? I don't know from that video what you are referring to.

[Kazinski]

Go ahead look at the fox9 video, I gave what I consider an accurate estimate on how far her car traveled from where 2:17 ticked to 2:18 when she was stationary to where it was when it ticked to 2:19, one second.

But you have to focus on plunged because you have nothing substantial to offer.

I'm not the last person who's going to do this analysis, I'm sure.

[Kazinski]

A new video from a new angle shows the ICE agent who shot the anti-ICE protester was struck by her SUV., He was not knocked. down, but it was clearly enough for him to have a reasonable fear for his life or at least great bodily harm from the impact.

You can't tell when the shots were fired, whether before he was struch , simultaneously, or a.split second after.

https://x.com/curiousone0007/status/2008977837550916090

And here is another video showing her rate of speed when she hit the agent.

She is parked just behind the light colored SUV to the left of the second video, and she starts from a dead stop, and quickly reaches full speed, and it appears to me at least there is no further acceleration before she its the parked car, which makes sense because she had already been fataly shot.

https://x.com/i/status/2009074537108001140

It really is a shame all around, she didn't deserve to die, but she did make a series of bad decisions that led to her death. It was not the officers fault.

[AmosArch]

Thats a very bad quality video that still shows the danger the agent was in.,

This one below clearly shows they only started shooting after she started to flee and there was an officer clearly in front of her. Not the one with the hoodie which people focus on for some reason who still had justification to fire due to the damage she could have caused by side swiping him. Another one is clearly in front and steps out just in time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3caI3di8c

[Kazinski]

The bullet holes are in the front of her windshield which means it was the officer she actually hit that fired the fatal shot.

I would think he would have had to fire the shot right before she hit him, the video you post shows a still with the officer pointing the gun from the side, but that is almost certainly after he shot her from the front and after the impact spun him.

[AmosArch]

They clearly don't fire until she starts moving. You can literally see his hand going for the gun as its moving.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I wrote yesterday, after seeing multiple videos of this from different angles, I'm persuaded that at least the first shot was legally good. I just wish that the lady in the car were alive and facing vehicular assault charges, not dead.

Because that's what it was. Not domestic terrorism, that's a stretch. But vehicular assault? Pretty cut and dry. It was just luck that you didn't get a couple of people with broken bones from being run over.

This is what you get when the Democrats embark on a push to persuade the more excitable and credulous of their supporters to view normal federal law enforcement as criminal. Some of them actually fall for the propaganda and start acting on it.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I just wish that the lady in the car were alive and facing vehicular assault charges..."

Which is very sweet of you. And since she didn't engage in "vehicular assault", those charges would have been dismissed just like scores of other grotesquely bloated charges filed to harass protestors.

Plus she'd be alive (ie : not murdered because she dissed a poorly trained goon).

[Brett Bellmore]

Sorry, GRB, but if you floor it with somebody directly in front of your car, that's vehicular assault.

No matter how many excuses you make, she could not legally put that car into motion under those circumstances.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ...but if you floor it with somebody directly in front of your car..."

That might well be true. Of course it's not anything close to what an average person sees when watching the videos.

And "floor it" ?!? Where the hell did that come from? Probably some distant fantasy planet where Ms Good was a secret ANTIFA operative. She "put that car into motion", some poorly-trained thug thought that gave him hunting rights to take a trophy, so he murdered her. That's what's on the videos.

I'd like to know which shot killed her: The one where he leaned in to get a bullet into the very corner of the windshield, or those unloaded from the side. Of course the FBI just changed their initial stance and are refusing Minnesota law enforcement any access to the evidence - so we can expect that evidence to be released at the glacial pace of the Epstein files. After all, criminals have to look out for each other, don't they?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Of course it's not anything close to what an average person sees when watching the videos."

It's not clear that she floored it. But it's clear that she put it in drive and moved forward with someone standing right in front of her car.

[Kazinski]

You are welcome to refute my analysis, based on the video. But based on the elapsed time, and and my rough estimate of how far she traveled from a dead stop in one second, 9ft. That's based on the 16 foot length of the Honda pilot, and the white line than was directly below the drivers door and being strattled by the officer.

If she accelerated from a dead stop and traveled about 9 feet, in one second that's about the maximum acceleration of a Honda Pilot.

View the Fox9 video I posted and look at it frame by frame from when it turns 2:18 to when it turns 2:19, and tell me what your estimate is of how many feet she traveled, and her approximate acceleration. It works out to about 0-60 in less than 6 seconds.

But you are capable of verifying that, so based on that, what's your estimate of her ft per second acceleration from a dead stop per the fox9 video?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, my estimation of the shooter's acceleration capability is that he could have traveled at least 15 feet out of the way during the 3 seconds he had between when she put the car in motion, and when he took his first shot.

A mediocre high school athlete can start from a crouch and go nearly 60 feet during that interval. If the shooter did not want to be endangered by the car, he could easily have made it impossible to hit him in the time he had after she first put the car in reverse.

The question is thus why did the shooter ignore his chance to get safely out of the way? The answer is 2-fold. First, he believed he was in no serious danger. Second, he wanted to optimize his chance for a deadly shot as she went by.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The perp fell to the right after being shot. If her hands are still on the steering wheel, which they likely were, that probably would’ve moved the wheel to the right.

I’d wanna see the EDR data, and I’m not saying this is what happened, but one possibility is that shooting her cause the vehicle to swerve away from the iceman, i.e. just suddenly swerve, hard to the right, and the video indicates that happened.

[Commenter_XY]

Sadly, an AWFL FA&FO.

The upshot? Don't screw with Federal LEOs. They are not playing around.

[Nelson]

Just submit to the government, eh?

[Bwaaah]

Well that's just a nonsense interpretation of what C_XY said.

[TwelveInchPianist]

We'll see how it shakes out. It was clearly closer to being justified than Ashli Babbit. We'll see how many people start calling this woman a dead traitor.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

In the Capitol hallway it wasn’t just Ashtray, it was maybe 30 meth heads breaking glass windows with their bare hands vs 1 cop with an unholstered handgun. And the people pushing Ashtray to her death saw the cop with the unholstered handgun and continued to push her through the broken window because the doors were locked.

This woman was driving a vehicle on a road and the ICE agent moved in front of the moving vehicle when he had no reason to move in front of the vehicle because the 5 ICE agents had her license plate number and her physical description. So with Ashtray the cop wasn’t looking for trouble while the ICE agents were looking for trouble confronting a single woman when it was multiple armed ICE agents and they approached her knowing she wasn’t dangerous. Ashtray and the meth heads looked very dangerous and the cop had every reason to believe they would beat him or knife him or kidnap him.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"In the Capitol hallway it wasn’t just Ashtray, it was maybe 30 meth heads breaking glass windows with their bare hands vs 1 cop with an unholstered handgun"

Try four or five meth-heads and Ashli Babbit with a bunch of cops carrying AR15's behind her. Heck, one of the cops almost took out the cop with the handgun before he figured out what was happening.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm puzzled: I haven't heard of any evidence at all that any of the J-6ers were on meth.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's possible that the meth-head part is uninformed speculation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or that it was a reference to some of our less honorable public servants.

[Nelson]

Ashlii Babbitt was as justified as it gets.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/

[jay.tee]

Sure, but only if you’re an authoritarian bootlicker.

She posed no immediate threat to anyone’s life.

She was unarmed.

She was in a compromised, defenseless position as she attempted to climb through the window.

The shooter had a history of recklessness with his firearm and shouldn’t have even been law enforcement.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've said it before, will doubtless say it again: If you climb through a window with a cop on the other side pointing a gun at you and telling you to stop, you should expect to get shot.

Should he have shot her? The other cops present, reportedly, thought not.

But that she got shot was not terribly surprising, it's what anybody who was thinking straight would have expected.

[jay.tee]

There’s a massive gulf between “expect to get shot” and “legally justified shooting.”

If Byrd was so concerned about her, he could have easily grabbed her, yanked her through the window, and restrained her. Instead, he stood there, pointed his weapon, and ultimately shot her.

Plenty of time to analyze the situation before he acted since he wasn’t in danger.

[TwelveInchPianist]

One of the 5 cops behind her could also have grabbed her.

[Brett Bellmore]

There is indeed a massive gulf between "expect to get shot" and "legally justified shooting". But people who don't want to get shot avoid putting themselves in "expect to be shot" circumstances anyway, 'cause getting shot is bad for your health regardless of the legalities.

I don't call her a suicide by cop because I think she SHOULD have been shot, just because she should have expected it.

[David Nieporent]

If Byrd was so concerned about her, he could have easily grabbed her, yanked her through the window, and restrained her.

If she were on her own, absolutely. But she was at the head of an attacking mob, and his job was to protect the officials who were behind him, not to make an arrest per se.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Ashlii Babbitt was as justified as it gets."

No. Ma'Khia Bryant was as justified as it gets. Ashlii Babbit was nowhere near justified.

[not guilty]

The shooting of Ms. Babbitt was regrettable, but lawful. The officer had reason to fear that she -- plus the mob behind her -- posed an imminent threat to the lives of members of Congress if they continued beyond the window that she broke through.

Defense of others is available as justification to the same extent as is self-defense.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. How does a diminutive, unarmed woman pose an imminent threat to anyone?

2. The "mob behind her" was largely cops with AR-15's.

She at most posed a speculative, potential threat.

[Magister]

So the window was broken by cops with AR-15s? Or by a mob that was outnumbered by armed police? No, that's not in the widely circulated video.

[ducksalad]

Question for the criminal defense lawyers here:

A person is engaged in illegally breaking and entering into an occupied space, for the purpose of committing a felony. That person is carrying a knife.

Is the person considered armed, or not armed?

[not guilty]

That would be burglary in any event. Whether the grade or degree of the offense would be enhanced by carrying a knife would depend on the language of the particular statute(s). If, for example, the statute referred to aggravation of the offense if committed while in possession of a deadly weapon, (and if the knife was something more substantial than, say, a butter knife,) then the person would be considered armed.

[Kazinski]

Is the person brandishing the knife?

The standard is whether the person is brandishing the knife in a threatening manner, and certainly not if the knife is in their pocket.

Here is a prominent case:

"On August 30, 2010, John T. Williams, a Native American woodcarver, was shot four times by Officer Ian Birk of the Seattle Police Department. Williams died at the scene.[1] The shooting was ruled "unjustified" by the police department's Firearms Review Board.[2] The department's actions were scrutinized by the United States Department of Justice as a result of the incident"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_John_T._Williams

[ducksalad]

You are answering a question I didn't ask. I didn't ask whether Ashli was a good shoot.

I asked whether a person breaking and entering to commit a felony, with a knife in their pocket, would be considered armed or unarmed. Because a claim was made that she was unarmed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, she was unarmed, the folded up pocked knife in her pocket notwithstanding.

[Nelson]

“ 2. The "mob behind her" was largely cops with AR-15's.”

The mob behind her were violent pro-Trump rioters who smashed their way into the Capitol. Being at the front of an angry, violent mob is the definition of being dangerous. Breaching a barricade is justification for killing her.

It was a barricade that the mob smashed its way through and was trying to breach in order to get at the people on the other side, which included coos as well as members of Congress. That’s as justified as it gets.

Are you claiming that she wasn’t breaching a barricade, attempting to get to those on the other side?

Oh, wait. Maybe her tourist map said she should go that way to see the best parts of the Capitol. Because she was just a peaceful tourist, after all.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the shooting of Ashley Babbitt was justified,would’ been justified using nukes.

[David Nieporent]

We'll see how it shakes out. It was clearly closer to being justified than Ashli Babbit.

This woman was trying to get away. Ashli Babbitt was trying to attack people.

[Joe_dallas]

Again distorting a lying about facts.

There is absolutely zero evidence of Ashli Babbitt trying to attack people.

[David Nieporent]

You mean, other than her being at the head of a mob that was attacking people? Are you going to stick with the "tourist" idiocy?

[Joe_dallas]

As previously stated - You have lost any integrity. Almost 20 post from Craxy dave and not a single one that is even remotely factually accurate.

Keep it up - it fun to watch you make an idiot of yourself with the incessant lies.

[ducksalad]

Joe, what do you think her objective was in breaking the glass and climbing through the window?

[Joe_dallas]

Breaking glass and climbing through the broken window are not the same as attacking people. Dishonest Dave is just going through usual lies. Something like 30+ plus today . He is approaching a record for a single day.

[Nelson]

The makeshift barricade was defended by armed officers who warned her to stop. “Breaching a barricade at the head of a violent, angry mob that had already attacked law enforcement” is something that should be considered a threat by any rational person.

Just so you understand what you are defending:

https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/

That’s what someone who deserved to be killed looks like. A good shoot every day and twice on Sunday.

Unfortunately they exercised restraint. Taking out more of the terrorists would have made the country a better place.

[ducksalad]

Perhaps you misread the question.

Joe, what do you think her objective was in breaking the glass and climbing through the window?

[Joe_dallas]

ducksalad 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Perhaps you misread the question.

Joe, what do you think her objective was in breaking the glass and climbing through the window?

Crap - your question has nothing to do with providing any support to justify crazy dave's original lie that she was attacking people.

[Nelson]

“ There is absolutely zero evidence of Ashli Babbitt trying to attack people”

No, she just smashed a door and tried to breach a defended barricade so she could continue touring the Capitol.

The disconnect between a clear video and the completely delusional claims of MAGA is surreal.

A woman trying to drive away from ICE agents is “trying to kill him” and is a justified shooting, but a woman clearly breaching a defended position at the head of an angry mob while ignoring warnings from the outnumbered defenders is murder?

I can’t even fathom how anyone could ever square that circle.

[Joe_dallas]

No - Liar dave claimed she was attacking people - Why defend his original lie.

[David Nieporent]

I did not. I made two claims, neither of which was "she was attacking people."

I said (1) she was at the head of a mob that was attacking people; and (2) she was trying to attack people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A woman trying to drive away from ICE agents is “trying to kill him” and is a justified shooting,"

Unfortunately she failed to drive away from them and ended up accelerating her vehicle toward one of them, putting his life in danger.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This woman was trying to get away. Ashli Babbitt was trying to attack people."

Ashli Babbitt wasn't heading directly at the cops, and she wasn't driving an SUV.

[David Nieporent]

She was heading directly at a cop, and she was driving a rabid mob.

[Frank Drackman]

I thought you Yankees knew how to drive on Snow?

[Bwaaah]

You sure you're not from Queens?

[dwb68]

Facts are mostly irrelevant to the narrative people want to tell. Progressives won't see the evidence; republicans are already convinced. Cognitive dissonance is just too painful a migraine, so people won't look into the light.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Progressives won't see the evidence; republicans are already convinced."

Exactly. Its just priors being reinforced.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — You can clearly see when the first shot was fired, because close examination shows a burst of smoke-like debris which was not positioned to be muzzle blast, but instead showed the result of a bullet impacting the vehicle, perhaps hitting the windshield.

Also, the video which showed the path of the car down the street after the shooting showed it was accelerating quickly. Note that when the collision at the curb happens, the rear of the vehicle lifts into the air. That does not happen when cars bump at moderate speeds.

That acceleration could be consistent with spasmodic nervous system activity. In my experience, such activity follows every time after game animals suffer instantly fatal head shots.

[Kazinski]

You and DN seldom agree on anything, including this.

He claims she was driving slowly, but you are correct she had it floored, at least initially.

[Magister]

He correctly says it was accelerating after the shooting, not initially. That a fatally wounded driver's car was accelerating away from where she was shot does not seem particularly surprising, whether spasmodic response or not.

[Kazinski]

How could she go from a dead stop to hitting the officer in half a second without accelerating?

[Magister]

Ooh, goal posts moving from "accelerating quickly" and "had it floored". Oh, it's Kazinski, famed for blaming his political opponents for right wing violence. Not impossible that in due course this will shift to Tim Walz sending somebody to infiltrate and discredit ICE.

[Josh R]

Almost certainly not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, to say the officer was not at fault is not right. He acted recklessly. Given he was side swiped, he could have gotten out of the way without firing.

Moreover, here is how the White House characterized the shooting:

weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them.

an act of domestic terrorism.

violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer

These are all knowing lies.

[Kazinski]

No they are 100% true.

I do not think she intentionally hit the officer, but you can see first she puts her car in reverse so she could position the car to drive away. Then she floored the car in reckless disregard of the officer directly in front her.

[Josh R]

Assuming for the sake of argument you are correct, driving her car away in a reckless manner as you described is not attempting to run over him, an act of domestic terrorism or actually running him over (leave alone violently, willfully and viciously).

[Kazinski]

-

[Kazinski]

She hit him, with her SUV.

[David Nieporent]

The video does not show that. And if her car did "hit" him, it was such a tangential glance that he didn't even flinch, let alone get knocked down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, now it has happened.

I said months ago, that if the local police would not back up ice, and Trump would not be allowed to have the national guide back them up, we will get into a situation where ice at a shoot its way out of confrontations. That’s now happened. Are you folks happy, yet?

Three things: first the SUV has an EDR. An event data recorder or black box similar to the one on aircraft, every car with an airbag has one, and over the past 40 years, they’ve advanced from nearly recording how fast the car was going when an airbag went off to collecting lots of data and situations, even where the airbag didn’t go off.

One of the things, a Honda EDR records is direction of the front wheels. So if the swerved towards the iceman, even even briefly with intent to merely scare him, there will be a solid documentable computer record of when that happened. With the vehicle then proceeding to strike a telephone pole, which the EDR would record, and a video of that to produce a timeline, it would be very easy to work backwards to the point a few seconds before the iceman fired and to see exactly what the vehicle was doing at the time.

Steering, brakes, acceleration, even if she was wearing her seatbelt.

Unless the FBI is exceptionally incompetent, they already have downloaded this information. Maybe flying a guy in with a laptop to do it, but that would only be three or four hours from anywhere in the country, so they probably have that information.

Trump is many things, but stupid is not one of them, and I don’t think he would be as bold as he is right now without some fairly solid evidence. The EDR may even have picked up the vehicle hitting the iceman — if there’s a sudden drop in velocity not related to breaking, one can make a credible augment that it was an energy loss due to the basic physics of the vehicle hitting the iceman.

Second, this particular iceman was reportedly struck and dragged by a vehicle last summer. Can you say PTSD?

Even without that, once you’ve been hit and dragged by a protester’s vehicle, the presumption that the protester is just trying to scare you is gone. As it should be.

And third, look at what tampon Tim did. Is this not clear evidence that he could’ve prevented the burn loot murder riots if he’d wanted to?

[Nelson]

Blaming the victim is always a bad look.

ICE has the responsibility here, they’re the ones with the guns.

[Bwaaah]

Obstructing, fleeing, driving your car (with skidding wheels) toward a police officer four feet in front of you.

You really know how to pick the "victim." Good luck with your "optics."

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems the victim's "wife" is blaming herself for bringing the situation about.

[Swede425]

Drama Queens with Main Character Disease trying to create a "situation".
Congrats. You did.

[Frank Drackman]

Is she hot at least?

[David Nieporent]

Trump is many things, but stupid is not one of them,

Trump is many things, and stupid is most of them.

[not guilty]

In an interview with the New York Times, Doofus Trump reportedly said that he expected the United States would be running Venezuela and extracting oil from its huge reserves for years:

President Trump said on Wednesday evening that he expected the United States would be running Venezuela and extracting oil from its huge reserves for years, and insisted that the interim government of the country — all former loyalists to the now-imprisoned Nicolás Maduro — is “giving us everything that we feel is necessary.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-venezuela.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20260108&instance_id=168965&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=213277&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

If Trump intends to work his will by means of employing U.S. military forces, that requires Congressional authorization. U.S. troops have been engaged in hostilities against Venezuela for more than four months now. Whether it involves ground troops in Venezuela or not, continued use of military force requires Congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, codified at 50 U.S. Code Chapter 33.

Per 50 U.S.C. § 1543(a):

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

President Trump reportedly complied with that reporting requirement (at least in part) within 48 hours of the September 2 attack on Venezuelan boats. https://www.wusf.org/2025-09-17/is-the-trump-administrations-attack-on-two-venezuelan-ships-legal-a-lawyer-weighs-in That report began the running of the timetable specified in § 1544(b):

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543(a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

We are now well beyond that 60 day deadline. The War Powers Resolution was adopted by Congress in the wake of unauthorized uses of American military forces in Southeast Asia by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon -- especially Nixon's widening the conflict into Cambodia. Trump's use of forces without Congressional authorization should be an impeachable offense, and it may well become so after the midterm elections this November.

Trump deserves to be impeached, convicted, removed from office and disqualified from holding and enjoying any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

[Kazinski]

The ball is in Congress's court.

While I did say, initially, that I would support Trump's impeachment, that was when initial reports indicated we had invaded, and intended to occupy Venezuela.

It turns out it was a brief incursion, not an invasion, and I will have to defer to Joe Biden on what the implications are:
"And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do," Biden added.

[Commenter_XY]

Does WPA even apply here? There ain't no US troops in hostilities. What is there to report, a troop needed a bunion fixed?

[not guilty]

XY, do you posit that it was not the United States Navy that sunk the Venezuelan boats beginning on September 2, 2025?

If not, why did Donald Trump file a 50 U.S.C. § 1543(a)(1) notification with Congressional leaders? It seems President Doofus is hoist with his own petard. W. Shakespeare, Hamlet act 3, scene 4.

[Josh R]

Leaving aside the law, what do you (and C_XY) think about the "we are the predator" policy as articulated by Trump and Miller? It comes down to we own the Western Hemisphere and can do whatever we want because the powerful rule the jungle.

[not guilty]

Is the Senate actually beginning to show some spine here? https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/08/senate-votes-to-restrict-trump-on-venezuela-00716127

Doofus Trump is none too pleased. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115860738010214901

[Michael P]

When NG assumes....

I see that he issued a non-denial yesterday in the matter of Monica McIver's assault upon a federal officer, and exhibited further ignorance both yesterday and below in the matter of Cea Weaver's attributions of white supremacy and racism. Sad.

[not guilty]

Michael P, if you wonder about what I am thinking, just ask me. Because you do a piss poor job of speculating.

[Michael P]

You don't think, you just ejaculate, in an odious manner, material that would be better kept to yourself.

Interdiction of pirates and smugglers is not within the ambit of the WPR's text; neither is civil coordination with the de facto authorities in a country. Your assumptions otherwise are unsupported and sustainable only by your usual invincible ignorance.

[not guilty]

Michael P, you wouldn't know statutory analysis if it bit you in the backside. What the Navy did to the boats in the Caribbean Sea was not merely "[i]nterdiction of pirates and smugglers." You lie when you claim that it was.

The full text of 50 U.S.C. § 1541 states:

(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

President Trump filed a 50 U.S.C. § 1543(a)(1) notification with Congressional leaders following the September 2 sinking of the boat and the murder of surviving crew members. That notification triggered the 60 day period to obtain Congressional authorization or to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces pursuant to § 1544.

It doesn't get any plainer than that.

[not guilty]

Listen to the MAGAt crickets chirping!

[Michael P]

Most of us have better things to do than educate the ineducable. For all your copypasta, you have been chronically wrong in your conclusions -- and the assertions you rely on.

[not guilty]

So you have time to insult me but no time to address the import of what the Congress has enacted, Michael P?

Why am I unsurprised?

[Bob from Ohio]

"I see that he issued a non-denial yesterday in the matter of Monica McIver's assault upon a federal officer"

He probably did not "opine" [most call this a "comment"] on the silly S & D defense but he said there was no crime and the case would be quickly dismissed or dropped.

I guess "Not Guilty" is Latin for "Consistently Wrong"

[not guilty]

The order that Bob from Ohio linked to dealt only with the issue of immunity under the Speech and Debate Clause. The District Court on November 13, 2025 had denied a defense motion to dismiss on other grounds, but had reserved the immunity issue. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.575004/gov.uscourts.njd.575004.45.0.pdf

My memory may be faulty, but I actually do not recall commenting at all on the charges against Rep. McIver. (I cannot say categorically that I did not.)

I do see some similarities to the charge against Sean C. Dunn, who was acquitted of assault with a deli weapon by a jury in the District of Columbia. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/us/politics/trump-sandwich-guy-verdict.html The facts recited in the McIver indictment make out a thin case for forcibly assaulting a federal officer. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.575004/gov.uscourts.njd.575004.12.0.pdf

A pattern jury instruction from another circuit as to 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) (assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees) provides:

A “forcible assault” is an intentional threat or attempt to cause serious bodily injury when the ability to do so is apparent and immediate. It includes any intentional display of force that would cause a reasonable person to expect immediate and serious bodily harm or death.

https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/FormCriminalPatternJuryInstructionsRevisedJUN2015.pdf

[not guilty]

"I see that he issued a non-denial yesterday in the matter of Monica McIver's assault upon a federal officer, and exhibited further ignorance both yesterday and below in the matter of Cea Weaver's attributions of white supremacy and racism. Sad."

Au contraire. Bob from Ohio lied by suggesting that I had opined that Rep. McIver is or entitled to Speech or Debate Clause immunity from prosecution. I have not done so.

And the attribution of white supremacy and racism regarding Cea Weaver was directed toward Ms. Weaver's mother by the despicable DDHarriman, who called the mother a "White Supremacist Grand Dragon" and then ran away like a scalded dog when I challenged him to furnish a factual basis for his claim.

[Bob from Ohio]

"suggesting"

I did no such thing. The article was posted because the judge said she "initiated contact" and because you commented, sorry "opined", that she had committed no crime.

You jumped on the S&D angle to shield you continuing failure to "opine" correctly.

The "opine" thing is legit funny, such undeserved arrogance.

[Riva]

You are a clown who does not understand the law any better the disgraced paper that championed the Russian collusion fraud. Every president has questioned the constitutionality of the WPR. And just so you know, because the NY Times doesn’t, whatever report made by President Trump, it was likely made “consistent with” not “pursuant to” the WPR. Like every other president. Because as noted, they all question the constitutionality of the WPR.

But I’m wasting my time. Never argue the law with a layman. Or the TDS deranged.

[ReaderY]

Under our Constitution, the President has no power whatsoever to initiate any hostilities. Congress, and only Congress, has that power. Even the power to repel invasions is solely Congress’, not the President’s. The President’s commander in chief power simply makes him general-in-chief. It is a general’s job to execute military actions when told to do so, not to have any say, except as an advisor, in whether they should be done or not. That’s for Congress to decide

The War Powers Act was an absurd and foolish giveaway of Cogress’ power to the President. Congress should repeal it and instead explicitly forbid the President from initiating any hostilities of any kind unless and until Congress directs him to, with an actual large-scale invasion of the US or a guarantee-treaty ally being the only permitted exception.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Under our Constitution, the President has no power whatsoever to initiate any hostilities"

Just not true.

[Riva]

A somewhat broad brush dismissal of the authority of the president. Define what you mean by “hostilities”

[ReaderY]

So there’s this piece of paper. And?

Unless either Congress is willing ro impeach Trump or someone has standing to sue him in court, a piece of paper is just that - a piece of paper. What’s on it might as well be written in Martian for all it matters.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY — Since this nation's partisanly corrupt Supreme Court bestowed king-like immunity on Trump, every Constitutional constraint short of impeachment has been nullified. That remains true whether or not the Court did that with intent, or understands it now as a matter of rueful reflection. Perhaps it took Trump to demonstrate to the Court the extent of their folly.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 15 minutes ago

ReaderY — Since this nation's partisanly corrupt Supreme Court bestowed king-like immunity on Trump,

SL - That is absolute BS - That is not even remotely close to the SC opinion. You and every leftists knows that a lie - yet you and other leftists keep repeating that lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

They operate on the principle that, if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. And, historically, it has worked out that way.

[Magister]

Only true if by "they" you mean right wingers, MAGA, Republicans. Clinton murdering people, death panels, WMD in Iraq, 2020 election was stolen, post birth abortions, disease carrying terrorist caravans approaching the US border, and probably a million others. When the lie is eventually revealed, it's dismissed as "old news!" because they've moved on to thousands more.

[bernard11]

Says the reflexive Trump defender.

[Joe_dallas]

Mgister & Benard - Are trying to justify SL blatant lie about the SC opinion?

[Magister]

That was not a lie (the Supreme Court granted Donald Trump more immunity than the King of England has), but I was clearly rebutting Brett Bellmore's lie.

[Joe_dallas]

That is an absolute lie.

neither did you rebut Brett's statement which is factually correct.

[Magister]

Joe_dallas on another rampage of "No no no" to rival a 2 year old.

[David Nieporent]

bookkeeper_joe has not read the opinion, is not smart enough to understand it, and doesn't have any legal experience to grasp how it actually works in practice.

[not guilty]

In yesterday's Open Thread, DDHarriman said of Cea Weaver, the Director of the New York City Mayor's Office to Protect Tenants:

Her mother is an [sic] White Supremacist Grand Dragon with their $1.6M family home in Nashville.

When I challenged him to provide supporting facts as to the White Supremacist Grand Dragon allegation, DDH responded with radio silence.

Celia Applegate is a professor of Germanic Studies at Vanderbilt University's Blair School of Music. https://as.vanderbilt.edu/history/bio/celia-applegate/ I seriously doubt that Vanderbilt's Board of Trust would employ a white supremacist grand dragon as a tenured professor.

The New York Post reports that Professor Applegate bought the Nashville property with her partner, David Blackbourn, (who is now a Professor of History Emeritus at both Vanderbilt and Harvard*) in July 2012 for $814,000. https://nypost.com/2026/01/06/us-news/mom-of-zohran-mamdani-aide-who-said-owning-a-home-fuels-white-supremacy-has-1-6m-house-in-tennessee/ Housing prices in Nashville have skyrocketed since then.

And in any event, what does the mother's status have to do with Cea Weaver? You can run, but you can't hide, DDH.
______________________________
* https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.vanderbilt.edu%2Fvu-cas%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F39%2F2025%2F07%2F28133150%2Fcv-1.doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

[Kazinski]

That was hyperbole of course, it was Cea Weaver her self that at least indirectly accuse her mother of White Supremacy.

"A tweet sent in 2017 described homeownership as "a weapon of white supremacy masquerading as 'wealth building public policy.'"

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/nyc-mayor-zohran-mamdani-defends-tenant-official-after-backlash-over-white-supremacy-posts

DDH took that a little too far since very few White Supremacists* reach Grand Dragon status.

My own neighborhood is full of White Supremacist Homeowners, many of them Black and Brown.

* Style book question: I know you aren't supposed to capitalize white when referring to white people, but should you capitalize White Supremacy"?

[not guilty]

As to the capitalization, I was copying and pasting from DDHarriman, who is fully capable of answering for himself.

[Michael P]

You played your usual sealion shtick against an allusion you didn't understand, and that ignorance was obvious to anyone who had been paying attention to news -- or the comments here -- about Ms Weaver. There's a lesson there, if one is willing to learn.

[not guilty]

Then perhaps you can explain how Professor Celia Applegate is a "White Supremacist Grand Dragon"?

Since DDHarriman is too cowardly to do so himself, have at it, Michael P.

[Kazinski]

By her own daughter's standards she is a white supremecist, and her daughter should know.

The Grand Dragon reference was clearly hyperbole, everyone knows a woman can't be a Grand Dragon.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you kidding me? We jokingly call Mrs. Drackman's mom the "Dragon Lady"
Not when she's around of course.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Ah, fond memories of "Terry and the Pirates".

[Michael P]

Kazinski already explained the label to you, and your response was to petulantly demand an answer from DDHarriman instead. I don't see any point in repeating the obvious and sufficient explanation that you rejected just because you're a bad person.

[not guilty]

No, Michael P, DDHarriman chose his own words. It is up to him to explain them, or in the alternative, admit that his is just making shit up. He made an extremely scurrilous assertion of fact -- not a simile or metaphor -- and he ran away when challenged to support it.

DDH's monkeys; DDH's circus. And he is quite the clown.

[Michael P]

You sure double down on being an idiot.

I would have said "acting like an idiot", but you go well beyond what can credibly be called an act.

Which organization(s) do you recognize as qualified to designate anyone as a "White Supremacist Grand Dragon"?

[SykesFive]

I thought it was clear he was saying that if owning a home is an act of white supremacy then owing a really expensive home makes you analogous to being a high-ranking officer in the Klan.

[Krayt]

McDonald's starts running new ads: Two snack wraps meal, just $8.

Thanks, two different parties spread out over 5 years.

1. Run up debt.
2. Inflate it away.
3. ???
4. Retire with a hundred million.
5. Tell Chef to make filet and we will lunch on the veranda.

[Bwaaah]

...and we'll all live off the fat of the land. (h/t Steinbeck)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Finally someone gets the Streisand effect.

[Frank Drackman]

Great Shooting by the ICE Agent, should get an immediate promotion to the Secret Service Presidential Detail.

[Brett Bellmore]

To clarify: Trump wants to buy Greenland, not invade it.

Rubio Tells Lawmakers Trump Wants to Buy Greenland

The thing is, as I noted yesterday, the population of Greenland is only about 55K. It would be quite affordable to offer to make every citizen of Greenland a millionaire as part of the deal.

And then we'd see if all that talk from Denmark about Greenland belonging to Greenlanders was just blowing smoke.

To be clear, I don't think we should buy or steal Greenland. I think we should be shedding excess territory, not adding it. But Greenland makes more sense as part of the US than the rest of our territories do, it has a per capita GDP comparable to an average US state.

So at least they have what it takes to be an equal part of the US.

[Absaroka]

"make every citizen of Greenland a millionaire as part of the deal."

As a fiscal conservative, paying $55B for bases that Denmark/Greenland will give us for free seems like a bad real estate deal.

"And then we'd see if all that talk from Denmark about Greenland belonging to Greenlanders was just blowing smoke."

How far does this logic - that residents or an area can be paid to switch countries, without the consent of their current country - go? For example, if I assemble enough millionaires that I can pay for the Hamptons or Jackson Hole, can they secede and become tax havens? Do the rest of we Americans get to vote on the deal, or just the people in Hamptons/Jackson Hole?

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing is, Denmark has already stated that they're entitled to eventual independence if they want it. So Denmark would be badly positioned to complain if the Greenlanders themselves voted to become part of the US.

Notice that I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying that it would probably be possible to pull off voluntarily, and Greenland would fit into the US better than our other territories do, it's economically on a par with us.

[dwb68]

Trouble is, I think Greenlanders might be catching TDS. Trump being too pushy about it tends to have a reactionary effect. Trump is very bad at good cop-bad cop. If he had made Denmark the bad cop ("Hey you are just pets of the crown") he might have had a better chance. Trump always makes himself bad cop.

Plus, there is the issue of the mineral rights. As I understand it the government owns them "for the benefit of the people." Very socialist, and that means a lot has to change in terms of private property rights to get them developed; changes which the majority of Greenlanders may oppose.

[Sarcastr0]

What a low bar you set for calling something TDS.

[Malika la Maize]

“ I think Greenlanders might be catching TDS. Trump being too pushy about it tends to have a reactionary effect. “

lol, truer words on TDS have perhaps never been written (albeit unwittingly).

[dwb68]

All my words are witting. Witty, too. People reacting emotionally, not logically, is the definition of TDS.

[Sarcastr0]

Well then the whole of humanity has TDS!

I take it you're one of those who feels they're the only rational one in any room.
No one is more emotionally motivated than those types.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you've got a point there. He's been very clumsy about the whole thing, if he'd meant to actually pull it off. I think maybe he didn't really, that it's just more static to help keep his foes in a tizzy.

[dwb68]

100% he wants to pull it off. He has been jonesing for Greenland for a long time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then he did a very bad job of approaching the sale.

[dwb68]

Trump, stumbling into the answer? Say it ain't so!

[Longtobefree]

Not that far - - - - -

Constitutional Basis:
Admissions Clause: Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 grants Congress authority to admit new states.
Conditions: No new state can be formed from an existing state's territory, nor from joining states, without consent from the legislatures of the states involved and Congress.

[apedad]

Aaaaaand if the current owners don't want to sell?!?

[Brett Bellmore]

Then no deal, obviously.

[Frank Drackman]

"Kelo" of course, I thought this was a Legal Blog

[Bwaaah]

Oh, Jeez. You have to summon Somin?

[Bored Lawyer]

The current owners own it as a legacy of colonialism. Which ran out decades ago.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Aaaaaand if the current owners don't want to sell?!?"

Make an offer they can't refuse.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Aaaaaand if the current owners don't want to sell?!?"

Apparently there are royal stables in Copenhagen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Polk’s War Part Deux.

[dwb68]

I don't understand why Denmark even wants to keep it. They subsidize it to the tune of 600 mil a year.

Personally, I think Cuba will become a US territory before the end of Trump's term. Interesting times. Republicans would support making it s state, too, because having experienced socialist failures, they would mostly vote republican

[Brett Bellmore]

Prestige, I think. It's the last remnant of their empire days.

[Absaroka]

"They subsidize it to the tune of 600 mil a year."

And that means we should buy it because...?

[Michael P]

Nobody is saying we should buy Greenland because it needs subsidies. The argument is that we need it for some national security reasons. Our national security budget is huge in comparison.

That doesn't mean that the cost-benefit trade makes sense, but it does mean that the cost is almost certainly affordable -- if there is sufficient benefit.

[Absaroka]

"The argument is that we need it for some national security reasons."

What national security use do you envision that Denmark won't allow - indeed, hasn't already allowed?

[apedad]

We ALREADY use (and have used for decades) Greenland for military purposes and don't need to own it.

I was in Sondrestrom twice in the early 80s building radar (no longer there).

The only purpose for owing Greenland is the minerals we could mine.

"Greenland, the largest island on Earth, possesses some of the richest stores of natural resources anywhere in the world.

These include critical raw materials – resources such as lithium and rare earth elements (REEs) that are essential for green technologies, but whose production and sustainability are highly sensitive – plus other valuable minerals and metals, and a huge volume of hydrocarbons including oil and gas.

Three of Greenland’s REE-bearing deposits, deep under the ice, may be among the world’s largest by volume, holding great potential for the manufacture of batteries and electrical components essential to the global energy transition."

Trump is not being honest.

https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-resources-a-geologist-explains-why-273022

[Brett Bellmore]

The truth is, while their minerals would be nice to have, we don't actually need them. We have plenty of rare earth deposits here in America. (Despite the name, they're not all that rare.)

The problem has been that environmentalists have made it essentially illegal to mine them in the US. If Greenland became part of the US?

It would be illegal to mine them there, too.

If we want to be self-sufficient in these things, we need environmental law reform, not more territory.

[bernard11]

The only purpose for owing Greenland is the minerals we could mine.

I don't understand this at all. Who, specifically, is the "we" in that sentence? US mining companies?

And what would they do with them? Sell them, I suppose. Just as the companies mining the minerals do now. SO why should the US taxpayer pay $50B so the mining companies can profit?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two words: Territorial Sea.

If we own Greenland, we can draw a 12 mile circle around it and then a 200 mile circle around it. Nobody else’s boats can be inside that 12 mile circle without our permission, we have every right to seize or sink them if they are. And we have a 200 mile exclusive economic zone as well.

These two things will stop a lot of things the Chinese and Russians want to do, things that are very much not in our best interest.

[SRG2]

To clarify: Trump wants to buy Greenland, not invade it.

No. That's what Rubio said. That's not the same thing. Stephen Miller hasn't ruled out military force. Who should we believe?

[SykesFive]

One of the many problems is that Rubio may well say this but the rest of the Administration is just talking crazy. What Trump wants here is not really all that clear. He may well prefer to buy Greenland but what if that does not work out?

[ducksalad]

To clarify: Trump wants to buy Greenland, not invade it.

Incorrect given the public statements. You link to Rubio trying and failing to walk back, on his own initiative, what his boss and POTUS press secretary have doubled down on. Rubio has zero authority to overrule the president and any statement he makes that contradicts the president counts for nothing. On the other hand Leavitt - who unlike Rubio has the sole job of expressing the president's position in public statements - has doubled down on saying the military option is on the table. Trump himself has in the past expressly declined to rule it out.

Do you have any evidence that Trump has changed his opinion, other than the statements of an SoS who is contradicting his superiors?

[Josh R]

To clarify: Trump wants to buy Greenland, not invade it.

On the Sunday shows Rubio said taking out Maduro was not about oil. Trump contradicted him that evening on Air Force One. In short, Rubio's protestations can be ignored until Trump weighs in.

[SRG2]

It seems that Brett has done a runner from this convo.

[dwb68]

Does anyone realize that when you start a post and, three or four words in, you use an ad hominem attack like "Doofus," most everyone stops reading there? To persuade people, they first need to finish your brief.

[Sarcastr0]

If insults cause you to stop reading a comment on this site, I suppose that saves a lot of time.

Kind of amazing that's what you call out, though.

[not guilty]

Having a skin as thick as rhinoceros hide isn't necessary to comment on this blog, but it helps. If the lily livered can't handle some strong words, then as Mick Jagger (may have) said, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

[Michael P]

It is remarkable that "not guilty" uses such childish names to describe a president sitting down for an hours-long interview with hostile media. Joe Biden could not have managed even a fraction of that with a friendly interviewer. But then, "not guilty" has always been long on name-calling and short on reliable legal theories. I sometimes wonder if someone is trying to train a hallucination-prone LLM here.

[not guilty]

I write from a partisan point of view. I have never pretended to be anything other than a Yellow Dog Democrat.* When I ridicule Republicans, it is because I believe that they richly deserve it.

I realize that I am as subject as the next fellow to confirmation bias. That is why I am careful to support my comments with relevant legal authorities and original source materials where I can find them.

How many of my critics can say the same?
___________________________
* The phrase dates to 1928 and refers to those faithful Democrats swore that they would “vote for a yellow dog” before they’d vote for a Republican. https://politicaldictionary.com/words/yellow-dog-democrats/

I joke that someone once asked me if I would vote for a yellow dog if he ran as a Democrat, and I replied, probably not in a primary.

[dwb68]

Ridicule is cathartic, 100%. Nobody cares, though, except you and a few members of your tribe, and certainly no one reads any "supporting legal authorities" once you've tossed the first ad-hominem grenade. It's nothing but virtue signalling, the modern equivalent of racist words like spic and mic and polak and dyke to confirm to the audience what tribe you belong to. But you do you. Your tribe gets smaller every time you open your mouth.

[not guilty]

When a fellow commenter replies to the invective and ignores the substance, that is a sure sign that he has no substantive response. After all, a hit dog will holler. https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/a-hit-dog-will-holler/

This is one way I smoke out just how vapid my critics are. Rank intellectual cowards for the most part.

[Michael P]

Juvenile name-calling and pathetic double standards are Yellow Dog Democrat values. Got it.

And while I'm not sure whether a yellow dog is thought to be better or worse than a dog of a different color, the old Democrat practice of valuing creatures by surface color continues today.

[Malika la Maize]

Scientists studying the way ant colonies defend against disease have discovered a surprising strategy: Young ants who become terminally ill will send out an altruistic "kill me" signal for the worker ants who tend to them.

The findings, described in the journal Nature Communications, add to a growing understanding of the complex ways these highly social animals try to keep deadly epidemics in check.

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/07/nx-s1-5667062/ants-altruism-social-insects-epidemics-pandemics

Talk about the warmth of collectivism!

[Brett Bellmore]

You have to expect that sort of thing in "Eusocial" species, where most of the individuals have no personal reproductive capacity. The only way they can perpetuate their genes is to preserve the group, preserving their own lives has no evolutionary advantage at all.

The worker ant is effectively in the same position as a non-germ line cell in your body: A reproductive dead end that can only preserve its own genes by helping the collective reproduce.

[Krayt]

Altruism has been seen as a difficulty for evolution to explain, going all the way back to Darwin. I never understood why. While any given DNA instance wants to survive to reproduce, so to speak, you share 99.99999% with other members of your own species. If a shared gene says to self-terminate, or feed young, or feel a magnanimous feels to help an old person, that's that 99.99999% being successful.

It's the duty of every individual cluster of DNA to keep an eye on other clusters of DNA, who try to leverage these feels to gain power, and become shockingly successful with their new legions of worker ants and enforcers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it doesn't work that way.

Say everybody in the world has this "self-terminate under X circumstances" gene that's beneficial to the population at large. And you get a mutant copy that says, "No, don't self-terminate".

If that don't self-terminate gene is beneficial to the people who have it, (In terms of reproductive opportunities), the fact that it's disadvantageous to the population at large doesn't mean squat. It's going to become more common.

That's why when you see altruistic genes, they're generally genes that make you altruistic towards relatives, who have a good chance of having the gene, too. And the evolutionary advantage drops off really fast with dropping consanguinity. Because you have to help your brother have TWO kids, for it to count as much as you having one, because your specific genes are only 50% shared, even if 99% of them just happen to be identical genes that were derived from different people.

The reason you get this in animals like ants is because the worker ants are never going to reproduce, helping the colony as a whole is the only way they have of helping spread the genes they share with the queen and king ants. If a worker ant had some sort of mutation that let it reproduce at the expense of the hill, that would be highly favored.

Really, the only reason cancer isn't an evolutionary winner is that it's not in the germ line, and dies with the organism. If cancer were communicable, it would all be over.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I’m not mistaken, ants eat dead ants. I know that cockroaches do this, it’s why both poisons and boric acid are so effective and killing the whole bunch of them off. The poison in the dead roach gets eaten by the live ones who then die, and are eaten by more who then die. Boric acid causes indigestion and gas. As roaches have a hard external shell and can’t expand, they instead explode. Other roaches, then cart off the parts to the nest, where they are eaten by other roaches who also get indigestion and also explode. Etc..

Hence, if the dying ants had anything contagious, this strategy would kill the whole nest.

[Magister]

If an ant can signal to other ants "kill me", then it seems reasonable such a signal would also include "and do not treat my remains as food". (I'm planning on adding that to my will, just in case.)

[dwb68]

"That's why when you see altruistic genes, they're generally genes that make you altruistic towards relatives..."

ding ding ding, winner!!

"Really, the only reason cancer isn't an evolutionary winner is that it's not in the germ line, and dies with the organism. If cancer were communicable, it would all be over."

Possibly; Cancer could be an evolutionary winner if those genes lead to higher fertility earlier in life (i.e. you are really fertile until menopause and then get breast cancer; the male prostate just keeps growing forever unlike most organs). Some people think the early mutations that made humans fertile are also related to those that cause cancer. Impossible to prove, but certainly theoretically possible.

The other point about cancer is that genes are use-it-or-lose-it (which is why humans cannot make "essential" amino acids--it's not that we don't have the genes per se, we don't have *working copies* because there was no selective pressure to keep ones that work as we get them from diet, unless your a vegan lol and are careful). Genes that don't work is the natural state, since mutations build up.
Until recently, humans did not live much past 50, so there was never any selective pressure to pass on cancer-free genes. With people living longer and having babies later, now there is. But selective pressure wont manifest itself for maybe another 1000 years.

[hobie]

A prediction gambling platform called Polymarket took a $33,000 bet from a single person in mid December that the US would invade Venezuela. The winner took his/her $400,000 crypto winnings and vanished. Thoughts?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gn93292do

[Stephen Lathrop]

My thought? That is a bookmaking tactic so reckless that it could not happen except as a cover for corruption. The bookmaker has access to unlimited funds, and freedom to transfer them as ostensible winnings to an ostensible bettor, with all parties insiders in a scam funded somehow by the public.

[dwb68]

Ryan McBeth (security analyst) has a pretty good video of this on youtube. Conclusions: Someone in Venezuela made the bet, and a CIA handler is probably shitting their pants. I tend to think his take is the most...parsimonious.

There is also the theory that someone made a well-timed bet based on the Pentagon Pizza index.

Officially, US residents cannot bet on Polymarket, although there are ways around it.

[hobie]

Experts who have analyzed it say that the size, manner and timing suggest insider knowledge. I suppose it could be a Venezuelan. I understand the interim government just arrested a top general for aiding the US in its invasion. So plenty of CIA informants probably running around there.

[Drewski]

Ritchie Torres introduced a bill to ban prediction-market bets for feds with insider information. I think he believes it's up to the states to ban it for regular citizens, and he might be right.

That specific bet may or may not have been a federal officer with insider info. It's plausible. I think it's a good idea regardless. Of course, there's no chance MAGA would prosecute under this law unless they thought they could gin up fake charges against a Democrat (I doubt they would prosecute a Dem for the real thing, because their base reacts best when they're being deliberately, obviously unjust). But it's still a good idea for future reference.

[Bored Lawyer]

It could be anything from a good guess to insider information.

It was clear before the invasion that the Trump Administration was escalating hostilities against Venezuela. In hindsight, the invasion was a logical progression from what came before. So someone may have taken a flyer on a longshot. $ 33k is substantial, but not crazy.

Or, it could be someone with inside knowledge.

Without more info., it's only speculation.

[David Nieporent]

I think $33k is kinda crazy. If you don't have that kind of freely disposable income around, it's insane. If you're wealthy enough that $33k doesn't matter, then why do you need to win $400k? (That's not to say that a degenerate gambler wouldn't do it; they're not known for rational decisions.)

[Bored Lawyer]

Take a trip to Atlantic City or Las Vegas. $ 33k is small potatoes.

Years ago our firm represented a casino, owned by a certain real-estate magnate whose name rhymes with Chump. A bank clerk at Citi Bank had for several years been embezzling funds, all in the range of $ 30k to $ 50k every couple of weeks. She would then take the bus down to Atlantic City to gamble. This went on for several years. Most of it was cash; about 10% were checks. In total, she embezzled about $ 5 Million. Eventually, a state inspector caught her because one of the checks was funny (same signature for the bank and for the endorsement.)

She spent several years in Club Fed. Claimed all the money was gone. So the bank sued the casino to try to get the money back. They failed as to the cash. They had some wacky theory under the UCC for the checks, so we ended up settling.

Gamblers do wacky things. $ 33k is well within the range of normal for some gamblers.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, I literally said "they're not known for rational decisions." I didn't say that someone wouldn't do it. I just said it was crazy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As far as I can tell, Polymarket doesn't ban trading with insider information. And in a prediction market you might want people using insider information, it makes the market more accurate.

[jpsextonesq]

A short prediction on SCOTUS’ Second Amendment docket

I believe the Court is likely to take a “what” case this Term (i.e., a case addressing bans on particular classes of arms), most likely using Duncan v. Bonta and possibly Viramontes v. Cook County as lead vehicles, with Gator’s Custom Guns and NAGR v. Lamont more likely relegated to GVR roles. To that end, I think the most likely scenario is that Duncan and (possibly) Viramontes will be granted at tomorrow’s conference.

That prediction rests on a few converging factors.
First, the broader trilogy context matters. The Court has already granted Wolford (the “where” question) and Hemani (the “who” question). Leaving the “what” unresolved would create an awkward doctrinal asymmetry, particularly given the Court’s evident frustration with lower-court applications of Bruen. Historically, when the Court has sought to stabilize constitutional doctrine (e.g., in First and Fourth Amendment law), it has often addressed related dimensions in a coordinated way within a single Term.

Second, the relist pattern is telling, even if not dispositive. Duncan, Viramontes, and Gator’s Custom Guns have now been relisted three times, a posture that empirically corresponds to a meaningful (often cited around ~36%) likelihood of a grant. At a minimum, repeated relists suggest sustained interest rather than drift.

Third, the chambers most interested in the issue had an opportunity to assess Lamont over the holiday break. Connecticut’s response was filed on 12/18, giving the Court time to evaluate whether Lamont’s benefits (i.e., its ability to address the interaction between Bruen and the Winter preliminary-injunction framework) outweighed its drawbacks. While Lamont does offer a potential vehicle for clarifying how Winter’s “equities” and “public interest” considerations should not be used to circumvent Bruen, it arises from a PI posture and lacks the kind of fully developed merits record the Court usually prefers for major constitutional rulings.

That consideration likely explains why Duncan and Viramontes remain attractive. Together, they allow the Court to address both halves of the “what” question (LCM bans and AWBs) on full records, without procedural complications. It further helps that Paul Clement would be lead counsel in Duncan, providing assurance to the Court that the issues will be presented impeccably. This approach also aligns with the signaling from Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent in Snope, which Justice Alito joined, suggesting that the Court views the percolation period as complete and anticipates near-term intervention on the AWB issue.

Fourth, calendar math matters. To have a case argued in April 2026 (the final argument sitting) and decided by June, cert generally needs to be granted by mid-January. Waiting until the 1/23 conference (when Lamont will be ready for consideration) would either require expedited briefing or risk pushing argument into the next Term. That would be an awkward sequencing given that Wolford and Hemani are already moving forward. Given the overlap in Bruen analysis at issue in Wolford, Hemani, Duncan, Viramontes, etc., the Court would be more likely to hold the “what” cases and GVR them following opinions in Wolford and Hemani. But Duncan has already been GVR’d once, and the Court would be missing an important opportunity to address the “what” context at the same time as the “who” and “where.”

Finally, from an institutional perspective, a comprehensive approach makes the most sense. Lower courts have engaged in what can fairly be described as doctrinal “legal origami” in applying Bruen. Resolving the “who,” “where,” and “what” questions in a set of internally consistent opinions this Term would provide the clearest guidance going forward and reduce the need for repeated 2A interventions in the near future.

For those reasons, my best guess is a grant in Duncan, possibly joined by Viramontes, with the remaining cases held for GVR once the Court clarifies the governing framework. I say possibly joined by Viramontes because there is an argument to be made that the Court may prefer to grant Duncan alone on the theory that it can use the LCM issue, which affords an ideal platform to clarify Bruen’s treatment of “arms,” “common use,” and the conjunctive “dangerous and unusual” test, to box in the lower courts in a comparatively less combustible context. That would leave the lower courts to address the AWB issue in the first instance with little wiggle room to find new ways to uphold the bans. That said, because I believe that the Court has diminished confidence in the lower courts to apply its Second Amendment precedent faithfully on such an emotionally charged issue and that it would prefer a holistic approach that provides the type of comprehensive guidance that will decrease the need for revisiting these issues in the near future, I think the most likely path forward involves granting cert. in Duncan and Viramontes. We should know if I am correct as early as tomorrow evening or Monday morning.

[dwb68]

Maybe. They could also be holding cases for Lopez, to be argued Jan 20th. The held a lot of cases before Bruen and then remanded the cases to the lower court "in light of Bruen." I am not getting my hopes up that they will take a mag ban or scary black rifle case.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only thing promising about it is that the mag bans and "assault weapon" bans are outliers, and while the Court doesn't seem to have any objection to 2nd amendment violations in the abstract, they are willing to police outliers, allowing only consensus infringements.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Since the Trump Administration can't do wrong, we have defenses regarding the killing of Renee Nicole Good.

Others are very concerned, angry (a lot of "fucks" used), about what happened.* What happened is not a one-off; both the event and the Administration's reactions (lies and demonization of the victim). Chris Geidner covers this:

https://substack.com/inbox/post/183869600

He cites an opinion by Judge Sara Ellis (link to court opinion available in his discussion), which spans over 200 pages, providing factual evidence that suggests the near inevitability of both.

For instance, Judge Ellis noted throughout the opinion how often federal immigration agents were drawing guns in Illinois and ultimately concluded that “agents have used excessive force … without justification, often without warning, and even at those who had begun to comply with agents’ orders.“

The judge also, early on, highlights the "they lie" principle:

The Court next addresses the credibility of the parties’ evidence and witnesses. After reviewing all the evidence submitted to the Court and listening to the testimony elicited at the preliminary injunction hearing, during depositions, and in other court proceedings, the Court finds Defendants’ evidence simply not credible.

Again, showing this is not a one-off, the judge cites another opinion involving recent events:

“troubling trend of Defendants’ declarants equating protests with riots and a lack of appreciation for the wide spectrum that exists between citizens who are observing, questioning, and criticizing their government, and those who are obstructing, assaulting, or doing violence”

Query if the slain white American citizen here is a "Heritage American." Anyway, Minority Leader Jeffries had the right tone:

She’s a stone-cold liar. We’ve got to make sure that the rogue ICE agent who pulled the trigger resulting in the death of an American citizen is criminally investigated to the full extent of the law.

The rot goes to the top, but it's standard to go after the "king's" ministers in these cases as weaker links.

BTW, Venezuela was also referenced in the thread. Let's not forget about that, including the estimated 80 people who died.

==

Note: One person, very upset in the last thread, repeatedly accused critics of "TDS" and thought the cited judge went too far in wanting daily briefings (after evidence of being lied to) by a top federal official. This was deemed some ridiculous overreach.

[hobie]

I've sometimes said here that I think the J6 crowd just moved straight into ICE law enforcement: They're constantly deploying chemical sprays and zip ties on unarmed citizens; beating are common; of the hundreds of photos of groups of ICE, I haven't seen a single agent that wasn't white and rednecky; and they've also routinely attacking local law enforcement.

It doesn't help that the uniforms they've been issued are brownish in color.

[not guilty]

Garry Trudeau had some trenchant commentary last month:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/doonesbury/strip/archive/2025/12/07

[John 4]

The Gestapo apologia here is something, isn’t it?

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason you're seeing that shooting defended is that most of us know you're not supposed to gun it when there's somebody right in front of your car.

So even if we wish she hadn't been shot, we don't have a lot of sympathy for how she was behaving when she got shot.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit there is nothing at all like 'gunning it' in any of the videos.

we don't have a lot of sympathy for how she was behaving

*how you've imagined up that she was behaving*

Gestapo apologia indeed.

[John 4]

Technically she did gun it after they blew her head off. That’s good enough for a patriot!

[Brett Bellmore]

You've already established from earlier remarks that you're either watching an alternate universe's videos, or just so delusional you can't see what's right in front of your face.

She started the car moving despite being surrounded by cops, backed up a little, and then accelerated forward despite there being a cop in front of her car.

[John 4]

“You've already established from earlier remarks that you're either watching an alternate universe's videos, or just so delusional you can't see what's right in front of your face.”

Ironic.

You’ve lost it, Brett. And I’m not just talking about your libertarian bona fides. There nothing you won’t justify for this administration.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How has Brett lost it?

Sarcastro claimed that he didn't see in the video that she put the car into motion in a situation where doing so would not be legal on account of it endangering lives.

But all non-delusional people who watch the video can see exactly that.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ... we don't have a lot of sympathy for how she was behaving..."

Sure, "we" don't. But what about normal people? They see a middle aged white woman needlessly murdered by poorly trained thugs who felt insulted. You're talking like this was some young black man bleeding out on the street before his corpse was dragged off by four limbs like some sack of potatoes. But that wasn't the case here, was it?

[Brett Bellmore]

What we see is a middle aged white woman deciding to drive off while cops were surrounding her car. (And reportedly telling her to get out so that they could arrest her.)

We're not going to ignore that they WERE cops, and that you're not allowed to run people over to escape cops.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's hilarious about this is that the same people defending actions are hostile to motorist immunity laws that let you get away with it if you run somebody over when a criminal mob surrounds your car.

Illegal mobs are more privileged in their minds than cops doing their jobs.

[Magister]

Such laws, introduced in response to right wingers wanting to run over protesters*, mostly amounted to little more than requiring prosecutors to prove it was willful and defendants to have reason to believe they were in danger.

* Most extreme example of this right wing tendency is Dr. Ed 2 and snowplows, who was doubtless very disappointed.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link to the Substack post, JoeFromtheBronx.

As Shakespeare's Antonio said to Sebastian in The Tempest, "Whereof what's past is prologue; what to come, In yours and my discharge". Of course, that was in the lead up to an attempt at regicide.

[Bob from Ohio]

I see no AutoZones or bowling allies got burnt last night/

White leftists just don't know how to protest like the brothers [h/t hobie] I guess

[hobie]

Neegroes generally do not organize and protest. They don't care nearly enough about politics in that way. You wanna know who's fucking around in Seattle, MInneapolis or J6? Whitey.

J6 - Whities
ICE - Whities
Nicole Good/Ashli Babbitt - Whities
Kyle Rittenhouse and victim rioters - Whities
All recent political assassinations and victims - Whities

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s college, educated, unmarried, quite women who are the problem. Unmarried as a defined as not married to a biological male.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 segues into his usual misogyny, apparently finding only Renee Good to be a problem out of the examples listed.

[dwb68]

Intervention in Venezuela has been a very long time coming. Having Russia, China, and Iran on our doorstep was never sustainable.

I don't really think Democrats are playing this well**. Rubio can explain this directly in Spanish, in a way liberal white tear-jerking progressives can't.

**complaining about the fact that it's risky is not enough. Sticking your head in the sand and doing nothing is as risky down the road as doing something. They need to do more, like come up with a better plan than choking the oil. Right now, all the progressives seem to be doing is defending communism.

[hobie]

No wonder you hayseeds and Donny support Russia. Let's fix your statement:

"Intervention in Ukraine has been a very long time coming. Having Europe, and NATO on our doorstep was never sustainable."

[Krayt]

Occam's Razor: The most parsimonious explanation is a desire to soft-talk how nasty Russia is, to ultimately ease sanctions on the oligarchs.

Republicans, traditionally war hawks (and more than a few Democrats during the cold war) aren't gonna suddenly change their stripes and look fondly on a dictator rolling tanks through Europe, using the exact same reason Hitler did: protecting our abused ethnic nationals there.

Unless, of course, domestic politics is so nasty, everything around the world must be brought into service to it, so if the winner has a pecadillo, in for a penny, in for a ruble. Which is about the same monetary value.

[dwb68]

"Intervention in Ukraine has been a very long time coming..."

I would agree with that. Europe should take care of Europe. They have twice the people we have and are directly affected.

[hobie]

Besides, we've had Russia 80 miles from Key West for 70 years and I doubt that's ever affected the cost of eggs or bump stocks. Yet some florist in Caracas secretly bailing weed in the shack out back has you hayseeds quaking in your overalls.

[Zarniwoop]

admittedly silly pet peeve, but I've now seen it more than once recently and I just can't even!

It's "baling weed" like "baling hay", from "bale" as in "hay bale".

Not "bailing" as in "getting the water out of your go-fast boat that's just been hit by a Hellfire missile", from "bail" as in "bailing water".

Hope this helps 🙂

[hobie]

It does help. I have a very good vocabulary and I'm always mortified to find out when I've been saying something wrong. But I must learn...so thanks.

[David Nieporent]

Intervention in Venezuela has been a very long time coming. Having Russia, China, and Iran on our doorstep was never sustainable.Se

I'm not sure which is sillier: the argument based on… what, having read too many Tom Clancy novels?, or the claim that Venezuela is "on our doorstep."

[hobie]

The minute we attack Greenland or Canada, the NATO alliance collapses. All treaties are will be null. Russia invades the Baltics and Poland with the surety that any outside resistance would be a coalition of the willing...if any.

[grb]

Here's my question : Would Congress impeach for a Greenland invasion? House vote & Senate conviction. Would the GOP put the country & world first, not their bootlicking service to a mentally-ill buffoon.....

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Would Congress impeach for a Greenland invasion?"

I tend to think that they would.

[Brett Bellmore]

I should hope so.

[ducksalad]

Don't you two mean "impeached in the House, acquitted in the Senate"?

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't speak for 12", but, no, if Trump invades Greenland without first getting a declaration of war from Congress, I think he should be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate.

[ducksalad]

OK, but 12" said would, not should.

By my count it would take 21 Republican defectors. (44 Democrats excluding Fetterman, who just said he supports acquiring Greenland, plus 2 "Independents", plus 21 Republicans to get to 67).

Who are those 21?

Paul, Murkowski, Collins, Lummis, Thune, Tillis, Moran, Kennedy, McConnell, and Curtis are willing to openly oppose Trump on the issue. Note that opposing is not the same as voting to impeach: many of these senators are on record criticizing the president's actions w.r.t. the 2020 election but nevertheless voted against impeaching him on the same topic.

So I count a *maximum* of 10, minus those who at the critical moment will say it the invasion is indeed so very awful but they can't vote to impeach because precedent/reasonable doubt/doesn't rise to the level/what's a high crime anyway/yada yada yada.

We could perhaps throw in some other senators who are outright snakes and would switch if they smell blood in the water. But there's a chicken and egg problem there.

[Absaroka]

"Fetterman, who just said he supports acquiring Greenland"

My googling has him supporting buying it, not invading. Ditto for Rand Paul.

And I'm OK with that - if Denmark said 'Geez, we're tired of supporting Greenland and would love to sell it for $1', and the people in Greenland voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining the US, then great. That's like buying Alaska or the Louisiana Purchase, but better, because the current residents support it.

But that is massively different from 'We want it. Sell it to us or else'.

[ducksalad]

I'm giving Paul a pass because he said: ""I will do everything in my power to stop any kind of military takeover in Greenland". Also, he said he was not opposed to buying it, without coercion, which is not the same as saying he wants it or we need to have it.

Fetterman? He said "ideally" we buy it, which to me indicates (a) he is open to other methods, and (b) he wants it to happen. He did say he would not "support" the use of military force, but that could just mean not voting for it, or voting for it with some pious shows of reluctance. Once the deed is done, his words indicate to me he will confirm it no matter how it was accomplished, because he wants to have it.

In general, it's clear to me that Paul's objection to unauthorized use of force is stronger than any desire to acquire Greenland. Fetterman, on the other hand, said the Venezuela operation was a "good thing".

[Absaroka]

If you have a link to his full statement, I'd be grateful. I was going off the first link I found which is headlined "John Fetterman Says He’s Open To US Buying Greenland, But Not Sending Troops There". The actual quotes are kind of chopped up, but seem to follow the headline.

[ducksalad]

After some more googling I'll let you have Fetterman. There's more here:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5677098-fetterman-greenland-purchase-proposal/

In this article he does seem to say repeatedly not by force. And I also found that today he voted for the Trump-limiting War Powers Resolution.

So....20 Republican defectors needed and you're casting some shade on the one (Paul) that I thought would be the most likely defector.

However, I note that two more Republicans voted for the War Powers Resolution - Hawley and Young. I found that out from this wonderfully informative Truth Social Post saying they should never be elected to office again:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115860738010214901

And Hawley said specifically he voted for it in response to the Greenland smack talk. I always thought of Hawley as completely worthless but maybe he's only mostly worthless.

[DDHarriman]

Good.

NATO is filled with countries who no longer share our values and have been undermining our sovereignty for a generation.

[not guilty]

Undermining our sovereignty?? How so? How is the U.S. any less sovereign than a generation ago?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, DDH.

[Zarniwoop]

The thing that I keep wondering about w.r.t. Venezuela is Trump's assertion(s) that we (the U.S.) are going to take Venezuelan oil, sell it, and that he (Trump) will control the proceeds for the benefit of the Venezuelan people.

I would think and hope that Congress would have problems with the Executive branch using the military to create their own slush fund, that is not subject to Congressional appropriation, for financing foreign affairs and regime change.

But I'm not optimistic that Congress will grow a spine, even when it comes to an obvious core "power of the purse" issue.

[Zarniwoop]

"I am pleased to announce that the Interim Authorities in Venezuela will be turning over between 30 and 50 MILLION Barrels of High Quality, Sanctioned Oil, to the United States of America. This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States! I have asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute this plan, immediately. It will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Trump Jan 6, 2026

[ducksalad]

What will need to be watched is the exact path the money takes.

One suspects the plan will be to have the money nominally in a Venezuelan government account and nominally disbursed by some Venezuelan government official.

Trump will continue to say he is controlling it and making all the decisions, with no qualifiers or nuance. That may or may not actually be the case, but he will claim it.

His handlers and lawyers will defend the arrangement. They will also be arguing that it is a foreign policy matter, the money is outside the US and the courts have no jurisdiction.

The end result will be an established precedent that presidents can keep large discretionary funds in foreign accounts and Congress can go pound sand.

Which would enable lots of other stuff. For example, Trump may lose on the tariff issue at the SC, and he is getting (a little) heat for a tax paid by Americans. Great! He can relax tariffs and replace them with outright bans on trade, to be lifted conditionally if the foreign traders deposit money in an account in their own countries, and agree to let Trump decide how it is spent.

[Zarniwoop]

And on a lighter note:

https://theonion.com/melting-ice-caps-expose-hundreds-of-secret-arctic-lairs-1819571016/

[John F. Carr]

I just heard an interview with an Venezuelan journalist on NPR. He said the US didn't arrest enough people to make a difference. Maduro was the figurehead. The real power remains. Police have been stopping people in public, demanding to see phones, and taking away people whose phones show social media posts in support of Maduro's ouster. The journalist approved of the oil deal, thinking the revenue will improve the lives of Venezuelans.

Occupying Venezuela was never a realistic option. We can hope for a less socialist dictatorship.

[Zarniwoop]

I heard that too, and thought that the word "figurehead" wasn't quite correct. Maduro seems to have actually (and firmly) been charge, not mere a prop for a shadowy-someone-else.

But 100% agreed that in terms of succession within the existing power structure, the people in charge are likely no different from a scenario in which Maduro had a heart attack.

[ducksalad]

Predictions:

1. The new president will cooperate with the US on the oil and splitting up the proceeds. She will also arrange for new elections.

2. If she remains cooperative, she will be allowed to "win" the election over Machado. Trump, Rubio, and Leavitt will say they believe the election was legitimate, and that the turnaround in Venezuelan public opinion was entirely due to Trump's magnificent and unprecedented success in bring prosperity to both Venezuela and the US.

3. Internally, things will continue to be oppressive, albeit with a slightly higher standard of living. Like East Germany compared to points further east prior to 1990.

The truth is, the US has generally preferred compliant dictators over democratically elected leaders with even a mild independent streak. That goes for both Republicans and Democrats. Carter may have been an exception, but look what it got him.

[John F. Carr]

The line I was looking for finally surfaced from my memory:

"a kinder and gentler machine gun hand" (Neil Young, "Rockin' in the Free World")

[Kazinski]

Of course occupying Venezuela is a last resort, and perhaps even behind walking away.

But occupation is the only way to get the immediate change the journalist wants.

That is why the US controlling the oil revenue is critical, it will be doled out based on compliance toward free elections and institutions.

And not everyone is as pessimistic as the journalist, Bloomberg is reporting the Venezuelan Stock market is up 124% since Maduro was snatched.

[Zarniwoop]

wrong spot

[SRG2]

Having seen videos, my conclusion is this: the ICE agent who killed Good stepped into the path of the SUV as it turned and moved away while Good was merely trying to drive away from the two ICE agents on her side.

I will bet that if someone is trying to grab you from outside your car, when you try to drive away, you're not looking ahead, you're still looking at the person trying to grab you, and you're not paying attention to the direction the car is now headed, so if someone steps in front of the car, you won't immediately notice them. Good was shot before she had time to notice.

[ThePublius]

She should have stopped and got out of the car when the agent ordered her to stop and get out of the car. Trying to flee in these circumstances escalated the situation. It's on her.

[DDHarriman]

She blocked the road on purpose to block ICE activity.

When the agent stepped into the path, the SUV was NOT MOVING.

"was merely trying to drive away from the two ICE agents on her side."

Funny way to characterize the action. She was trying to flee a crime that she committed.

[myself]

Assuming your characterization was true, which is very uncertain at this point.

Fleeing a minor crime is not a reason to get shot.

[Kazinski]

She was shot when the ICE agent was still in her direct path, and she was accelerating.

The bullet hole was in her front windshield. The three shots were in about 1/4 second.

[BrotherMovesOn]

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxlHtNIoEr8SbONCcdqD2xIprJKtndnrva?si=HhYXYOvwXwI9jRux

[David Nieporent]

She blocked the road on purpose to block ICE activity.

Setting aside that you have no way to know this, how could it "block ICE activity"? She wasn’t blocking the road at all. Right before she was attacked by ICE, she waved a car around her, and it had no trouble getting past.

[DDHarriman]

>she waved a car around her, and it had no trouble getting past.

Maybe they weren't trying to run over an ICE agent?

[Brett Bellmore]

None of which matters because she should not have been doing anything but cooperating with the agents, and she absolutely shouldn't have been trying to drive away.

[SRG2]

Do you agree that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable?

[Brett Bellmore]

You lost me at "whatever the circumstances". Obviously there are circumstances that justify the use of deadly force even if somebody isn't an escaping felon. If a felon is escaping under such circumstances, their status as an escaping felon hardly immunizes them against being shot.

You're trying to elide the specific circumstances here, which were vehicular assault. She'd almost certainly be just fine today if she hadn't tried to drive off, and in a manner that was at the very least indifferent to whether somebody got hurt in the process.

[Kazinski]

She was going towards the officer not away.

[myself]

The agents screaming at her with faces covered and guns drawn?

You don't think she might have panicked just a little bit?

[Michael P]

She was there to -- depending on which version of her story you hear -- observe, protest or interfere with ICE agents doing their jobs. Regardless of which version you heard, she knew who they were, what they were doing in the area, and why they were trying to arrest her. The only reason to panic was out of a realization that her poor choices were about to catch up to her.

[ducksalad]

her poor choices were about to catch up to her.

What do you think was about to happen to her?

[Michael P]

I think she was about to get arrested for interfering with federal law enforcement agents in the course of their duties.

[myself]

And you wonder why people call you a fascist.

Sorry if that offends you, I guess I'm a bit traditional in that I feel an instinctive need to defend women from being brutally murdered.

And I'm glad I don't have to control my emotions to the extent that would be required if I was in the same room as one of the sociopaths dancing on her grave.

[Michael P]

And you wonder why people call you a fascist.

I don't wonder. It's the same reason they call people they don't like racists, and sexists, and whatever else: they don't have facts or arguments on their side to pound, so they merely pound the table.

[myself]

Well the facts are so clearly and obviously against you that the only possible conclusion I can come up with is a mixture of malice and sociopathy.

But sure, go ahead and keep claiming that 1+1=3 and a woman who was clearly terrified and fleeing for her life deserved to be shot dead by an ICE agent who was in absolutely no danger.

[Michael P]

Yawn. You cite none of your claimed facts because you cannot. At keast you admit to malice and sociopathy.

[Magister]

Michael P pounds the table. There are at least four facts asserted in the comment replied to (clearly terrified, fleeing for her life, shot dead by an ICE agent, who was in absolutely no danger).

[Michael P]

Three of those (clearly terrified, fleeing for her life, and the ICE agent supposedly being in no danger) are straight up fiction.

The fourth (deserved to be shot dead) was a conclusion of judgment that you misrepresented.

You're both aa dumb as posts.

[Magister]

Resorting to Joe_dallas level contradicting. Pound that table harder, Michael P.

[grb]

Who could have guessed this was coming?

"Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans said in a statement that after the agency consulted with the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, the U.S. attorney’s office and the FBI following the Wednesday shooting of 37-year-old mother of three Renee Nicole Macklin Good, “it was decided that the BCA Force Investigations Unit would conduct a joint investigation with the FBI” and that the “BCA responded promptly to the scene and began coordinating investigative work in good faith.

He said the FBI informed the BCA later Wednesday that the U.S. attorney’s office had changed the plan. “The investigation would now be led solely by the FBI, and the BCA would no longer have access to the case materials, scene evidence or investigative interviews necessary to complete a thorough and independent investigation,” Evans wrote.

The more people who watch the videos, the more Trump will try to lock this investigation down to control and suppress the evidence. That's what any criminal would do in Trump's position.

[hobie]

Shades of Epstein?

[DDHarriman]

Now why on Earth would the FBI not want to share investigative duties with the same hyper-partisan investigative geniuses on the George Floyd fiasco?

[windycityattorney]

Eat shit Harriman. A MN resident was shot and killed on a MN street. Of course, MN state authorities have jurisdiction and have a right to investigate. The fact that the feds promised a joint investigation and then backtracked and are now refusing to cooperate is extremely suspicious in light of all the comments made by Trump, Vance, Noem and anybody else in that collective hive of stupidity and propaganda.

Their goal is to obstruct. And knowing this administration, it could be for something as stupid as 'not wanting to have to admit someone made a mistake.' Whether that is Noem calling the victim a domestic terrorist or Trump's dumbass saying "it's a miracle the agent survived." They will cover it up and hope we forget they ever said such stupid comments. But since they are stupid, all those comments are on the internet and the internet never forgets.

The MN Atty Gen should charge one of the DHS/ICE employees with obstruction, destruction of evidence or similar crimes. Perhaps that famous midget pig fucker Greg Bovino. He already lied under oath repeatedly in his Chicago fed deposition and won't be charged there because the DOJ is corrupt. But MN can do us a solid here.

[apedad]

'Not subject to being ignored': Trump-appointed judge says Lindsey Halligan has some explaining to do because she keeps identifying herself as 'U.S. Attorney' in court filings

A federal judge in Virginia would like the Trump administration to explain itself for its choice of prosecutor in an ongoing criminal case.

The three-page order directing a government filing is the latest chapter in the ongoing dispute over whether Halligan has any prosecutorial power whatsoever. Novak seems to think she does not.

"This matter comes before the Court on its own initiative," the order reads. "The Court has reviewed the Indictment in this matter, which was returned by the grand jury on December 2, 2025, and observes that Ms. Halligan identified herself therein as the United States Attorney for this District. Ms. Halligan did so despite a binding Court Order entered by Senior United States District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie on November 24, 2025, in which Judge Currie found that the 'appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated [federal law] and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.'"

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/not-subject-to-being-ignored-trump-appointed-judge-says-lindsey-halligan-has-some-explaining-to-do-because-she-keeps-identifying-herself-as-u-s-attorney-in-court-filings/

Judge David J. Novak was appointed by Trump.

[DDHarriman]

>Judge David J. Novak was appointed by Trump.

Can you explain the subtext as to why this line is so important to your argument?

[John 4]

Oh, I can help. Dipshit MAGAts will call the judge names and cast aspersions as to their motives if it’s not a Trump appointee.

You’re welcome, hillbilly.

[DDHarriman]

Why do you think "MAGAts" believe a Trump appointee status is important and a cause of motives?

[John F. Carr]

I question whether there was disobedience to a binding court order. Any order to stop acting as Acting US Attorney may have been beyond the scope of what was referred to Judge Currie to decide. Procedurally, she was deciding a motion to dismiss an indictment. The validity of Halligan's appointment was a subsidiary factual question.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.213.0_2.pdf

[Zarniwoop]

I think you're correct that her signature does not violate a direct order.

But that's not the same thing as making a misrepresentation to the court to the effect that she "is" the U.S. Attorney. The "order" part refers to Judge Currie's "Opinion and Order"; Judge Novak gets more specific in the order under discussion:

For these reasons, the Court hereby DIRECTS Ms. Halligan to file, within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order, a pleading explaining the basis for Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding Judge Currie’s contrary ruling. She shall also set forth the reasons why this Court should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as United States Attorney from the indictment in this matter. Ms. Halligan shall further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement. See Va. R. of Prof Conduct 3.3(a) (2025) ...

(emphasis added) What's her basis for believing that she is, in the wake of the Judge Currie's ruling that she's not?

If I sign a paper with "Zarniwoop, U.S. Atty for W.D.WI" I wouldn't violate a court order either, but I'd surely be making a misrepresentation to the court ... and I would not be shocked if the State Bar got involved.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What's her basis for believing that she is"

Its on appeal? One district judge can't bind another? District judge orders are law of the case but non precedential?

[Zarniwoop]

and she can make those same weak-sauce arguments to Judge Novak, explaining why she's continuing to sign docs with the title "U.S. Attorney" when a court has ruled that she's not a lawfully-appointed U.S. Attorney.

Think they'll be more persuasive than her track record so far might indicate?

[Bwaaah]

Example of media hubris...its inflated sense of superior authority:

"Videos Contradict Trump Administration Account of Ice Shooting in Minneapolis."

Implicit is their belief that they are addressing a substantial contingent of people who have delegated arbitration of truth to the Trump administration. That's how condescending (and shallow) the intellectual left is...it presumes people who defend their political opposition are self-subordinated "bootlickers," and the rest depend on the Times to interpret even simple evidence that every interested person interprets for himself.

Perfect for those of you who either don't have eyes, or who feed on those "[Blah][Blah]...What You Need to Know" articles.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the problem with this shooting is the media telling people DHS lied.

Disaffected liberal sure smells like MAGA.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: ..the problem with this shooting..."

My comment isn't even about the shooting.

Everything isn't about YOU, or YOUR THINGS, Sarc.

Of the shooting: that's just about to be another unfortunate but insignificant moment in history, if you don't count the number of hens clucking in the hen house. (Which just makes it another relatively insignificant day like most of them.)

[Kazinski]

The NY times subhead is a lie:
"Videos Contradict Trump Administration Account of ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
An analysis of footage from three camera angles show that the vehicle appears to be turning away from a federal officer as he opened fire."

Click through to the link and look at the still.

She appears to be stopped front wheels appear to be pointing straight ahead.

The officer appears to be 3-5' directly in front of her SUV.

When she starts driving at the officer her wheels are still pointed forward, .

In the next half second 3 things happen, and its difficult to discern the order they happen, she hits the officer, he shoots her dead, she cranks the wheel to the right.

Its all right there. Go ahead parse what happens in that half second and blame the officer.

[ducksalad]

Implicit is their belief that they are addressing a substantial contingent of people who have delegated arbitration of truth to the Trump administration. That's how condescending (and shallow) the intellectual left is...it presumes people who defend their political opposition are self-subordinated "bootlickers," and the rest depend on the Times to interpret even simple evidence that every interested person interprets for himself.

There is a substantial contingent of people who have delegated arbitration of truth to the Trump administration. Some of them comment here. They are, in fact, correctly described as bootlickers.

However, there is an element of media hubris here: the media believe the bootlickers are reachable. They aren't.

[grb]

Here's the problem with your little rant:

1. People are watching the videos
2. They see exactly what the NYT is reporting.
3. They see a pointless unjustified killing by poorly-trained thugs.
4. And they hear everything said by Trump, Noem, and Vance as crude lying.
5. But bootlickers (like yourself) are still on duty here excusing those lies.

[Bob from Ohio]

Solution to Greenland problem?

https://x.com/cinecitta2030/status/2009046059092427050

[grb]

All my kudos to Bob:

Faced with a "Greenland problem" that exists only in the addled half-wit mind of a mentally-ill buffoon (and his lickspittle courtiers), Bob comes up with a jokey "solution" equal to this jokey "problem".

Do you have any more solutions to Trump's phantasmagorical "problems" where that came from?

[Swede425]

LOL!
"THAT'S NOT FUNNY!" she exclaimed.

[Bob from Ohio]

The next lib here to develop a sense of humor will be the first one.

[Magister]

If both Denmark and Princess Isabella were OK with the US taking Greenland, such a marriage and dowry would be completely unnecessary. (Princess Isabella, and the Denmark monarchy, does not seem to have any authority to overrule Denmark's opposition, so her consent is only relevant to whether this would be another Trump ignoring a women's non-consent.) (Also, she's 18, so too old by the Trump-Epstein standard.)

[Bob from Ohio]

The next lib here to develop a sense of humor will be the first one.

[Magister]

Bob from Ohio only finds cruelty funny, but still thinks he is qualified to lecture other people about humor.

[ducksalad]

There are a lot of conflicting narratives about the ICE shooting.

One side has already put themselves on the record calling the dead person a "domestic terrorist", falsely saying an officer was "ran over" and then claiming "it is hard to believe he is alive".

So the one thing I know with certainty is that one side is a bunch of liars, or people who make common cause with liars. Every single statement they make is to be evaluated with a presumption they are lying. They will be no awarded no credit for honesty if they tactically happen to say something that turns out to be true.

[John 4]

According to Brett Bellmore, anyone who thinks this person wasn’t a deadly threat to the officers is actually delusional.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh? No, I think she was a deadly threat to one of the officers for about a quarter second, which is probably enough for him to get away with shooting her.

I've also said this was a matter for a jury of his peers to decide. Overlooking that part, are we?

[John 4]

Ctrl-F “delusional”

[Michael P]

Brett charitably called Gaslight0 delusional, yes. I think the history and pattern of behavior favors the explanation that Gaslight0 is willfully lying and trying to manipulate us into doubting our own sanity and judgement, accepting his false narrative in place of what is easily observed.

[Magister]

Someone did not search for "delusional".
Brett Bellmore:

You've already established from earlier remarks that you're either watching an alternate universe's videos, or just so delusional you can't see what's right in front of your face.

[Michael P]

The comment you quote was responding to Gaslight0. As I said. Did you read what you just linked to?

That "you" was second person singular and specific, as further indicated by the "earlier remarks" (from yesterday's Open Thread) that Brett alluded to.

[Magister]

So somebody else could not see what Brett Bellmore believed he was seeing without being delusional? LOL.

[Michael P]

Brett walked through it in lots of detail, citing specifics to support his interpretation.

Gaslight0 just did his usual denialist bit in those "earlier remarks" and pretended he couldn't see what was in the videos. As usual, he skipped trying to back up his theory with facts.

Brett proposed the alternative you quoted, but was too generous to suggest a third possibility: that Gaslight0 was continuing to earn his name.

[Magister]

Still don't see that the delusional part was limited to SarcastrO. But it wouldn't be the first time today you assert the privilege to declare what statements by other people mean.

[Michael P]

It's not the first time today that some Kremlinbot shows they need more advanced English lessons.

Look at the other place Brett called Gaslight0 delusional in this Open Thread. It's pretty clearly a specific epithet.

[Magister]

So other people could fail to see what SarcastrO did not see without being delusional? Why couldn't SarcastrO fail to see it for the same non-delusional reason? Your argument is incoherent but I suppose having said something stupid you have to keep digging.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ....which is probably enough for him to get away with shooting her."

A little more to the point here, rather than your gaslighting on "vehicular assault" and "gunning the engine" above. The killer thought he had an adequate excuse to "get away with shooting her", so fired away. Maybe he missed that day in LEO training when young recruits are told plausible deniability doesn't excuse murder, even given a much better excuse than the officer had here.

It will be instructive to see which of his bullets accomplished the objective - the one just slipped into the bare corner of the windshield, or when he blazed away from the side. Given Trump now has the entire investigation on lockdown and all evidence under his control, who knows when we'll get trustworthy factual information on the crime?

[Swede425]

LOL!
Way to head it off at the pass, Tex!
You've got this all figured out. Because you know the shooting will be justified.
But now, because Trump is keeping the evidence under his pillow at night, WELL OF COURSE this murdering thug will get away with killing this precious angel!
You gaslighting POS.

[Swede425]

Cry more.
A couple of Drama Queens, trying to burnish their LOOK AT ME, I CARE! credentials for other retards (such as yourself), lost the plot, fucked up royally, and one of them died by their own stupidity.
And you don't like it.
Too bad. The real tragedy? None of you will have learned a lesson from this other than a wrong one.
Stupid liberal white woman died stupidly. And it was her own stupid fault. Well, her and her wife, who apparently at least recognizes it wasn't one of their better ideas.
Too late, natch.

[Drewski]

Indeed. And while in this forum the Usual Suspects are of course working full-time blasting thousands of words of propaganda, I have yet to meet anyone in real life who isn't horrified. Even my conservative coworkers who support mass deportation think it's a bad shoot.

[Estragon]

The number of fascist boomers who apparently have enough free time and money to come around here and spend hours earning their Tricia Laughlin junior ranger badges by justifying what we all saw with our own eyes might go a long way towards explaining how we arrived to this place as a country.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Item: In a rare show of defiance against President Trump, House Republicans planned to vote Thursday to override two recent presidential vetoes. The votes would resurrect a pipeline to bring clean water to Colorado’s eastern plains and bring back legislation giving a Native American tribe some control over a piece of the Everglades. Both measures passed unanimously in the House and Senate. [NYT]

Mildly surprised. I assume, though perhaps it isn't 100%, that if the House overrides, the Senate will too.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm always suspicious when any measure passes unanimously. Let's start with the "alligator Alcatraz" bill, HR 504:

As I thought. No roll call vote either chamber.

Now, HR131:

Yup, voice vote in both chambers.

Let's be clear: There's no indication everybody in Congress supports either of these measures. All we really know from the record is that the Congressional leadership wanted them passed.

Generally this sort of action happens when the leadership calls for action on a measure while a quorum is absence, with the voice vote concealing the absence of a quorum from the record. By holding the fake "vote" while the chamber is practically empty, they can make sure that nobody opposed is actually present to demand a roll call vote.

[Magister]

I kinda understand why SarcastrO says Brett thinks everybody he disagrees with is acting in bad faith. 'Cause he does that. A lot. Somehow not a single member of Congress who was present was opposed enough to demand a roll call vote; it doesn't mean anything suspicious happened. If these sneaked through without much support, then the veto override will show the lack of support; it may fail just because Republicans don't want to be seen crossing Donald Trump even if the bills were quite popular when originally passed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Magister, both the House and the Senate have, on occasion, conducted votes on contentious items with as few as 4 people on the floor. You used to be able to see them do it on CSPAN until Congress ordered CSPAN to stop panning their camera across an empty chamber during such votes.

Yes, it's relatively easy to make sure nobody is present who will object, if you're going to hold a vote with hardly anybody present.

They vote using electronic clickers, there's no reason every solitary vote can't be a roll call vote, except that they'd have to stop violating the quorum clause.

[Magister]

The leadership would control what comes up for approval in such sessions, and would not allow bills that they don't want to come up. So your discovery of bad faith is that the Republican leadership wanted something that the Republican caucus was sufficiently opposed to that they would have defeated it. Only your beloved Donald Trump could save the country from this unpopular bill! Those who actually opposed the bill can demand a roll call vote on the veto override if any of that were the case.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"She described herself on social media as a “poet and writer and wife and mom”, with a 15-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son from her first marriage, and a six-year-old son from her second."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/minnesota-ice-shooting-nicole-macklin-good

I first just heard about her youngest, whose father sadly died a few years ago, even though he was only in his mid-thirties. This comment is thus from her first husband:

He said she was not an activist, and had not taken part in any kind of protest that he was aware of. He said she was a devoted Christian who took part in youth mission trips to Northern Ireland when she was younger. She loved to sing, participating in a chorus in high school and studying vocal performance in college, he said.

[John 4]

But then she did the unthinkable and tried to drive around the Gestapo, forcing an innocent, masked agent to have to execute her.

Everyone needs to be on their best behavior!

[Bored Lawyer]

Here's a blast from the past:

Former OJ Simpson attorney files million-dollar lawsuit against estate in unpaid legal fees
https://thegrio.com/2026/01/07/ex-attorney-sues-oj-simpson-estate-1-million-dollars/

This lawyer is about to learn a legal maxim:

If the legal bill does not fit, you won't get a whit.

[grb]

Why does the legal profession attract such rhythm-smiths? I'm beginning to understand why Shakespeare wanted to kill all the lawyers. He was worried about the competition.

(Note : In truth, I'm aware the context of the Shakespeare quote suggests the complete opposite of its bare facile reading)

[Bored Lawyer]

Why does the legal profession attract such rhythm-smiths?

Because if you can't do the rhyme, you can't bill the time.

[windycityattorney]

A+ response. Bravo.

[grb]

Bored Lawyer : "Because if you can't do the rhyme, you can't bill the time."

(Channeling Vizzini from the Princess Bride) : No more rhymes now! I mean it!

[Zarniwoop]

the best set of responses this day week year. Schnapps all around.

[Magister]

Lawyers could decline future celebrity deadbeats charged with murder as clients by saying "Don't do the kill if you won't pay the bill."

[Bored Lawyer]

LOL

[DDHarriman]

lol awesome

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has a reminder that a diagnosis of mental illness is not a "get out of jail free" card. Defendant lured his ex-girlfriend to his garage, killed her, and disposed of her body in a marsh. His expert witness blamed prodromal schizophrenia, depression, CTE, and marijuana. The jury convicted him. Years later he asked for a new trial on the grounds that he had a new diagnosis of full-blown schizophrenia (prodromal is a precursor phase). That was not enough to cast doubt on the verdict. The claim that he killed his ex in a brief psychotic episode was contradicted by his planning, disposal of the body, and calm demeanor before the murder.

There's a section of the opinion about malingering. People who act crazy often don't do it right.

The murder was in 2011 and the defendant was arrested within two days. As often happens in first degree murder cases, the SJC waited for a motion for a new trial to be denied before considering the merits of the direct appeal. After 2 years in pretrial custody and 13 years in the appeals process, defendant is eligible for parole this year. The wheels of justice turn slowly.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/01/08/metro/sjc-upholds-wayland-mans-murder-conviction/
Commonwealth v. Fujita, SCJ-11514, https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-fujita-sjc-n11514/download

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I read of a case where a person who had been committed to a psychiatric hospital asked for release because the voices in his head had stopped telling him to do evil things, and were now telling him to do good things instead.

[John F. Carr]

If you believe the patient, it's a decent reason to release him. The doctors do have to ask if the voices will go back to urging evil.

[Magister]

"If you have belief, you must grant relief."
Come on, you have to be a rhyming lawyer if you want the big bucks.

[John F. Carr]

While the voices are talking the patient's not walking.

[John F. Carr]

Wrap your ex in a rope, acquittal's a "nope".

(The Massachusetts defendant strangled his ex before he sliced her neck.)

[Magister]

Awesome!

[Zarniwoop]

And timely with the Halligan discussion above, US Atty for NDNY also ruled to be serving unlawfully; subpoenas about Letitia James and the NRA quashed:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.149556/gov.uscourts.nynd.149556.50.0.pdf

"Mr. Sarcone’s service was and is unlawful because it bypassed the statutory requirements that govern who may exercise the powers of a U.S. Attorney. U.S. Attorneys must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. When a vacancy arises, federal law provides limited alternatives to fill the position temporarily. None authorized Mr. Sarcone to serve as Acting U.S. Attorney on August 5, 2025, when he relied on the authority of the office to request the subpoenas."

"When the Executive branch of government skirts restraints put in place by Congress and then uses that power to subject political adversaries to criminal investigations, it acts without lawful authority. Subpoenas issued under that authority are invalid. The subpoenas are quashed, and Mr. Sarcone is disqualified from further participation in the underlying investigation."

[Life of Brian]

Yesterday HHS and FDA launched https://realfood.gov/, encouraging us to replace processed food in our diets with "whole, nutrient-dense, and naturally occurring" foods, and minimizing starches in favor of meat, dairy, fruits, and vegetables.

Hopefully something we can all (mostly) agree on, even if it vaguely channels Eric Cartman.

[John F. Carr]

The Trump administration suffered a minor defeat yesterday when the First Circuit refused to reinstate last year's changes to drug pricing for "safety-net" hospitals. The changes would require hospitals to pay full price then get rebates. Under prior rules the hospitals paid discounted prices. The government did not consider the reliance interests of hospitals before changing the rules. The government offered an explanation after the fact, which is insufficient under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The District Court issued yet another injunction about monetary payments. Unlike the usual injunctions this one doesn't cost the government any money. Hospital plaintiffs pay a different amount to drug makers. The drug makers are not parties to the case.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-2236O-01A.pdf

Formally this is an order denying a stay and not a final ruling on the merits.

Plaintiffs say many hospitals "operate with less than eleven days' worth of cash on hand." So they are one glitch away from missing payroll. During the 2008 financial meltdown it was reported that many companies in good financial condition relied on short term loans to make payroll. They did not have enough cash equivalent on hand to pay for a couple weeks expenses.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Oh well. The veto override votes failed.

House Republicans find it hard to even do token things against Trump.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"US Border agents shoot, wound two people in Portland, city officials say"

U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents shot two people in Portland on Thursday afternoon, according to the FBI, Portland police and city officials.

https://katu.com/news/local/ice-shoots-two-people-in-portlandoregon

Federal agents shot and wounded two people in outer East Portland on Thursday afternoon, Portland police confirmed. The couple, a man and a woman, were found by police near Northeast 146th Avenue and Burnside Street, and were transported to local hospitals.

https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2026/01/08/federal-agents-wound-two-people-in-portland-shooting/

Articles I see have limited details.

[CountmontyC]

Guess what? The driver of the vehicle was a Tren de Aragua gang member who tried to run over the ICE agents.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-shot-federal-agents-portland-sources/story?id=129038573

[David Nieporent]

Guess what? It's not true. How do I know? Because DHS said it was. (Sort of; actually you embellished the story. The story says that DHS said that they were "allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang." "Affiliated with" is weasel words for "we don't have any idea whether they're members, but they're six degrees of Kevin Bacon from people we know are members, and they all look alike to us anyway.")