Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Are some Republicans in the Senate showing a bit of spine? Politico reports:

The Senate on Thursday voted to advance legislation that would force President Donald Trump to seek congressional approval before taking any new military action in Venezuela, a stunning rebuke for the White House in the first big test of GOP unity since the U.S. capture of President Nicolás Maduro.

GOP Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri backed the measure to check Trump in a 52-47 vote. Paul, a co-sponsor of the resolution, and Murkowski have supported previous attempts to rein in Trump. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania also supported the measure despite previously signaling he might oppose it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/08/senate-votes-to-restrict-trump-on-venezuela-00716127?nid=0000015a-dd3e-d536-a37b-dd7fd8af0000&nname=playbook-pm&nrid=0000015e-159a-d499-a5de-959fa4640000

The Doofus-in-chief is not pleased. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115860738010214901

[Lee Moore]

What’s the thinking on the presentment clause for stuff like this?

[A Japanese Student]

It is a joint resolution. He can veto it; see also S.J.Res. 7 (116th Congress), S.J.Res. 68 (116th Congress)

[Roger S]

We already have a War Powers Act, that most Presidents ignore.

[Dr. Ed 2]

First, 52 votes is not 60. This ain’t gonna happen.

Second for those who actually believe in what the constitution says, the congressional power to declare war initially was to engage in war, and the constitutional convention decided to restrict it to only declaring law, essentially giving the president to declare everything less than a declared war.

Three, college is being really spineless here and her better tactic to win reelection would be to go after General Mills and graham cracker as being too far to the left for even Maine to elect. Not to mention the corruption there’s bubbling around both of them.

[ReaderY]

Not so. The Convention gave Congress power over everything military - jot just declaring formal war, but letters of marque and reprisal (informal war), repelling invasions, suppressing insurrections, everything. The Convention gave Congress authority over every way of initiating a military action known at the time. Just as freedom of the speech and the press apply to new forms of communication, not just voice and ink on paper, the totality of the powers clearly apply to all forms of initiating military conflict, including not known in the world 18th Century. All are given to Congress.

Congress decides when the military goes in. The President’s role is as an executive, to execute Congress’ directives. It is not his role and he has no power to make decisions about whether military force should be deployed. He just leads the deployment once the decision is made.,

When George Washington suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, he had to follow the Militia act of 1792, which required a Justice of the US Supreme Court to first certify that the rebellion was beyond the control of local authorities. The original Congress did not want a President making a decision like that himself.

[Riva]

How and why President Washington responded to a domestic disturbance at the beginning of our new constitutional republic does not limit presidential options to apprehend a wanted criminal in a South American narco terrorist state that threatened our national security.

[ReaderY]

When the military is involved, it sure does. When the Constitution gave all power over deciding whether to deploy the military to Congress, that means the President has to turn to Congress or do what Congress says if he wants to bring in American military forces.

Sure, he doesn’t have to do this if he uses regular law enforcement or hires special agents or something. But if he wants to employ the US military to make war - and capturing a foreign country’s leader is casus belli if there ever was one - then those decisions are Congress’ job, not his.

Before the Barbary Pirates declared war on the US, Jefferson had instructed the fleet squadron he sent over that even in the event Tripoli initiated war, they could only undertake defensive measures without explicit authorization from Congress. Congress subsequently authorized Jefferson to use military force against the Barbary pirates. And it was only after that that the marines entered the shores of Tripoli.

Capturing an enemy leader is not a defensive measure. As Jefferson said, it requires authorization from Congress.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Constitution gave all power over deciding whether to deploy the military to Congress"

You keep repeating this, its still not true.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it is actually true. Do you think the power to declare war was supposed to be an empty formality?

[Bob from Ohio]

War and "deploy" are not the same thing.

Do you think Congress pre-approved the Vera Cruz occupation or Pershing's Pancho Villa Expedition? Or the 20 year occupation of Nicaragua? Or the various Haiti occupations? Or LBJ's occupation of Dominican Republic in 1965? Or the invasion of Panama in 1989? Or the invasion of Granada?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Declarations of war have become much less important in international law over the past 250 years.

[Riva]

I’m not sure what constitution you’re consulting. My copy of the US Constitution doesn’t say all power over deciding whether to deploy the military belongs to Congress.

[A Japanese Student]

This is one of the fast-track legislations, where simple majority is sufficient for passage. (The President can of course veto it, but that makes the number funny.)

[Riva]

Not the way it works in this country. The senate still has to debate and pass the measure. The vote was only to advance it. And the House would have to pass it as well. It is no way near being presented for presidential signature. This is just theater.

[dwb68]

I don't think it makes a difference either way. When a politician acts like they belong to the other side of the aisle, voters often decide to buy the real thing. Why vote for a fake Democrat when I can get the real thing?

Incumbency though is a strong advantage.

The resolution isn't going anywhere in the house, so senators can vote however they want on principle, knowing there is no consequence. The very definition of virtue signalling.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump vetoes the bill, and then what? The bill is performative outrage, and achieves nothing. Especially since we aren't doing anything in VEN.

[OpinionsVary]

That might work for this particular bill but, looking forward, if there's a majority for this now there's presumably also a majority to put it in a future bill that Trump can't practically veto, like one of the major military appropriation bills. Trump could in theory veto even that but he's not going to defund the military over it.

Importantly, if there's a majority for this bill, there's even more likely to be a majority ban military action against Greenland. Some think Trump is just 'trolling' on that but I think people are underestimating how much damage this 'trolling' is doing to the NATO alliance even absence everything else. Shutting that down is clearly in the US's interest.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with your approach is that Trump might just shut down NATO out of spite.

[Frank Drackman]

(NATO) h'uh
Yeah!
(What is it good for?)
Absolutely (nothin) uh-huh, uh-huh
(NATO) h'uh
Yeah!
(What is it good for?)
Absolutely (nothin')
Say it again, y'all

[Bwaaah]

I didn't get going this morning until I read this...the second time...with feelin'.

H'UH

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "... Trump might just shut down NATO out of spite."

Or his dreamboat hunk, Putin, tells him to. Remember, whatever Trump says or does today, he's just one phone call from Vlady from reversing course at his sweetie's bequest. (Trump just melts at the sound of his voice)

[Sylvie1]

Senator Paul has voted against a lot of Trump-approved legislation; he has stones, integrity, and fiscal discipline. I hope to live to see the happy event his January 2029 inauguration would be.

[Frank Drackman]

He could walk on water and raise the dead and still lose with that hair style.

[Sylvie1]

I don't know, a lot of women I know, including a number inclined to vote Republican who have voted third-party the last three general elections, think the curls appealing.

You could be right, though. I said Al Gore would lose in 2020 when I heard Joe Lieberman speak, and knew the country wouldn't vote to put Droopy Dog a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

People vote and don't on account of very stupid impulse, all too often.

[Mr. Bumble]

"People vote and don't on account of very stupid impulse, all too often."
Which explains the general make-up of the Congress.

[SimonP]

If the Democrats put up another empty suit again, I might just vote for him. I would rather have an effective Republican president, restoring some semblance of order in the federal government, than a feckless Democratic president who hasn't the first clue about fixing anything that's broken.

[SRG2]

How dare the Senate act according to its constitutionally assigned role?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The burden isn't on Congress to block a unilateral act of war by the President. The burden is on the President to ask Congress for authority for military action (with exceptions, like when the Tripolitan pirate-state declared formal war on the U. S., thus creating a state of war without Congressional assistance).

[not guilty]

"The burden isn't on Congress to block a unilateral act of war by the President. The burden is on the President to ask Congress for authority for military action (with exceptions, like when the Tripolitan pirate-state declared formal war on the U. S., thus creating a state of war without Congressional assistance)."

That is correct, but the War Powers Resolution of 1973 authorizes Congress to act on its own as well, per 50 U.S.C. § 1544(c):

(c) Concurrent resolution for removal by President of United States Armed Forces
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's more than that. Theoretically, between 60 to 90 days after U. S. troops get into hostilities without Congressional authorization, the President has to stop fighting (unless Congress ratifies the hostilties).

[not guilty]

That is correct, and it is addressed in subsections (a) and (b) of § 1544. Subsection (c) appears to be designed for when the President fails to comply with subsection (b).

Of course the enforcement mechanisms are cutting off funding or impeachment and conviction, each of which requires more fortitude that Congress has shown so far.

[Don Nico]

It's about time

[Bob from Ohio]

I hope Mrs. Hawley was not counting too much on that 8th Circuit appointment.

[Life of Brian]

LOL. Wondered what the back story was there.

[Kazinski]

Atlanta Fed has come.out with its latest.4th quarter GDP forecast: 5.4% annualized growth in th 4th quarter.

https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

Here:s there blurb about the number:
"The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the fourth quarter of 2025 is 5.4 percent on January 8, up from 2.7 percent on January 5. After recent releases from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the US Census Bureau, and the Institute for Supply Management, the nowcast of fourth-quarter real personal consumption expenditures growth increased from 2.4 percent to 3.0 percent, while the nowcast of the contribution of net exports to fourth-quarter real GDP growth increased from -0.30 percentage points to 1.97 percentage points."

The latest.estimate from the BEA of 3rd qtr GDP was 4.3%, although that is not yet final.

[Lee Moore]

GDP is a very silly measure.

Mom goes out to work, hires a childminder, GDP soars by Mom’s pay and the childminder’s. Mom quits and looks after her own children, GDP plummets. See also eating at home rather than in restaurants, mowing your own lawn, cutting your kids hair, driving your own car rather than taking Ubers etc

Someone invents a better and cheaper mousetrap - GDP falls.

Government requires you to have your employees smartly dressed in blue uniforms- GDP is boosted.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Although in theory, the reason why mom hires a babysitter, which is what it is, is that she will have more money afterdeducting that from her earnings that she would’ve had before.

[Sylvie1]

Most of which extra, after the attendant work expenses (business clothing, often more meals eaten out or purchased and brought in, commuting costs, etc.) unless she's paying slave wages to illegal immigrants, often goes to increased income taxes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or the daycare is subsidized by other people.

[Joe_dallas]

Sylvie is correct - For two worker families , The effective tax rate (with the tax rate including the income tax, fica/medicare tax, state income tax, plus the additional work expenses, day care, etc) will range from 60% to as high as 90%.

While only counting the income tax and fica/medicare, the marginal tax rate may range for 23% up to 50%, all the additional costs result in net increase in take home pay of very small amounts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We are watching a second Berlin wall coming down.

48 years ago, and Islam fascist curtain went across what had been the semi civilized country of Iran. They then proceeded to massacre most of Gen X in a really stupid wall with Iraq, one where they were marching children across minefields to set off the minds, etc.

At this point, it looks like a critical mass has been reached. Trump‘s invasion of Venezuela probably gave the Iranians the courage to do this, and do not forget that Netanyahu has long wanted to see the Iranians free.

They are not gonna become Americans, they’re definitely not going tobecome Israelis — Iran is going to be another France, in all of its hair-pulling frustration. But France is not likely to incinerate the world, and a free Iran isn’t going to be the threat that it currently is.

[SRG2]

You're right to point out the limitations of GDP, but these are consistent limitations and hence even if the number itself isn't "right", it does indicate the general trend of the economy.

More to the point, as the regime has attempted to politicise all government statistics, can we be sure that the methodology is still being followed rigorously? Answer: no.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/federal-data-are-disappearing-as-statistical-agencies-face-budget

[Bwaaah]

The article gives no indication that there's been any change in statistical algorithms. So your doubts about the validity of the statistics seems to come down to a question of, "Did enough bodies participate in the calculation of the statistics?"

Implicit is your answer: "Any fewer bodies in the calculation of the statistics, as a result of a Republican administration's cuts, are unacceptable. And in response, I will try to propagate a myth that fewer bodies implies untrustworthy numbers."

[SRG2]

The article allows us to question whether all government statistics are affected, because we know for a fact that some are. It's a version of the clock striking thirteen.

[Michael P]

GDP is a limited measure. But it's consistent. Asserting that GDP is silly is the only silly thing here.

[Kazinski]

Mom goes to work, hires a child minder, money changes hands, nothing is produced, well depending on what the mom does.

But somehow both have money in their pockets and spend it on Lattes, new shoes, groceries, pay the bills, taxes maybe.

The money gets spread around and before you know it you have an economy.

[Lee Moore]

Let us suppose that Mom generates new production equivalent to her pay – say $100,000. And let us say that the childminder was previously producing nothing and now produces services to the value of her pay, say, $40,000. And let us suppose that the childminder’s production is equal to what Mom was producing before she got her new job.

GDP tells us that production has risen by $100,000 plus $40,000. But that is bogus. Production has risen by $140,000 and fallen by $40,000. Net it has risen by $100,000. GDP figures are not giving us a “limited” measure, they’re giving us an obviously wrong measure of production.

As a proxy for economic welfare it’s even more bogus. Because what else has changed in this little example ? We assume, for fun, that Mom’s labor as a paid worker and her previous labor as a childminder are equivalent in terms of the burden of her labor to her. But the childminder is now required to rise from her chair, travel across town, and labor for set hours. Whereas previously she had to do squat. We must assume that her leisure forsaken is worth less to her than her pay, else she wouldn’t take the childminding job, but it’s not worth nothing. Let’s say it’s worth $30,000 to her. So her “economic welfare” has only risen by $10,000, not by $40,000.

So GDP, as a proxy for economic welfare, is telling us that the economy is providing $140,000 more “economic welfare” than before. But it’s not. It’s providing $70,000 more. $100,000 more production and $30,000 loss of leisure. And that’s pretending that the childminder’s childminding is equivalent in value to Mom’s.

[Lee Moore]

I know an old lady who was fired as grandma by her daughter, because the daughter didn't like her childminding. So a paid childminder was hired instead. Yay ! GDP goes up !

[Commenter_XY]

Not to worry Kaz, the economic geniuses will be here shortly to tell us why GDP growth is bad. These are the same economic geniuses who confidently predicted Financial Armageddon just one year ago.

[Joe_dallas]

or when the stock market will recovery, best guess is never - hat tip to paul krugman

[Josh R]

GDP growth is good. But as noted from Kaz, most of the increase is due to a reduction in imports (caused by tariffs), which comes directly from the GDP formula (exports minus imports). So in the short term, you would expect such a result. In the long term, a combination of fluctuating exchange rates, consumer demand and domestic business profits can drag down GDP. The increase in the consumer spending portion is a good sign.

[David Nieporent]

But as noted from Kaz, most of the increase is due to a reduction in imports (caused by tariffs), which comes directly from the GDP formula (exports minus imports).

Again, that's not how it works. Reducing imports does not increase GDP (or vice versa). The "minus imports" in the formula are because they're otherwise counted twice, not because imports reduce GDP.

[Josh R]

How are they counted twice?

As Kaz pointed out, net exports went from contributing -0.3%-points to GDP to +1.97%-points, for an improvement of 2.27%-points to the GDP forecast. Did this forecast not account for the double counting properly?

[bernard11]

How are they counted twice?

To repeat what I posted a week or so ago:

A common way to calculate GDP is

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M) where:

C = household consumption

I = business investment

G = government expenditures (does not include transfer payments)

X = exports

M = imports

What DMN is pointing out is that C, I, and G include purchases of imports. That French cheese and Mexican fruit and whatnot you buy at the grocery go into C, and imported machinery and equipment goes into I, etc.

So C, I , and G imports, which of course are not US production. So you lump those imports together as M, and subtract them from the other items to get rid of the double-counting.

Think about it. If, all else equal, one less imported car were sold in the US, how could that increase US production?

[Josh R]

Perhaps it shouldn't, but this link which details Kaz's numbers gave these consecutive predictions for 4Q25 GDP:

Jan 7: C=1.81, I=1.17, G=0.24, X-M=-0.31 for a total of 2.9%
Jan 8: C=2.07, I=1.18, G=0.24, X-M=1.97 for a total of 5.4%

Pretty much, only X-M changed (and if you look further, it was only M). Did the Jan 7 forecast already take into account the decrease in C, I and G caused by the decrease in M? Or perhaps, the model will account for decreases in C, I and G as more data come in (the Jan 9 prediction had I dropping to 0.86%)?

It is noteworthy that the forecast warns "There are no subjective adjustments made to GDPNow—the estimate is based solely on the mathematical results of the model." That might be consistent with delayed data which will lower C, I and G.

[MarkJawz]

As long as GDP includes government spending, direct or indirect, and as long as the federal government is running yearly deficits in excess of $2 trillion, GDP will continue to grow. But it's all fake.

[Brett Bellmore]

That is my biggest complaint about how GDP is calculated. If the government taxed everybody to pay people to dig holes and refill them, it would add to the GDP. It's got nothing to do with whether the money is being moved around to productive ends.

[Magister]

The same is true of stupid fads like pet rocks that are not initiated by government. People buy pet rocks and GDP goes up; people elect politicians to institute hole digging programs and GDP goes up. Government of course implements programs as pointless as that only when it needs to do countercyclical spending in an economic downturn; "we are all Keynesians now".

[Brett Bellmore]

Government spending on stupid stuff hasn't been countercyclical for decades, if ever. Downturns are used as an excuse to mash the accelerator further down, but they don't let up and apply the brake when the economy rebounds.

[Sarcastr0]

GDP measures what it says it measures.

Your issue isn't with GDP, it's what people use GDP as a proxy for.

Number go up is indeed a silly reductive view. Your issue should be with that, not GDP.

[Magister]

Countercyclical spending addressed the Great Recession and the COVID pandemic. Some of the countercyclical spending is automatic, like unemployment benefits and Medicaid, and that automatically goes down in better times. Federal Reserve policy has been explicitly countercyclical ("we are all Keynesians now") for a long time.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett only seems to see discretionary spending.

Monetary policy and mandatory spending don't count, so he yells about the debt and spending levels but doesn't really get at anything actually economically real.

[bernard11]

GDP does not include transfer payments - Social Security and the like.

And of course there's a lot of wasteful spending by individuals and businesses also that goes into GDP. There is no "actually useful" test, any more than there is consensus on what is or is not productive spending.

[Kazinski]

It will be interesting to see what is behind the numbers for such robust growth.

Certainly consumer spending is doing well, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it wasn't AI and Cloud companies moving fast to build new power plants and data centers now, and get them finished in the next 3 years while they face a friendly regulatory and federal permitting environment.

They want to make hay while the sun is shining,

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not only should the US acquire Greenland, by whatever means necessary, but we should put a really big nuclear reactor there, melt a circle in the ice pack, and use it as a training ground for a base on the moon.

Other than the snow, Greenland is almost as hostile to human life as the moon is. It’s almost as cold as the moon is at night, and while the year is breathable, it’s really too cold to be breathable.

Hence, using Greenland as a training base to develop moon, technologies would be ideal. And it’s generally conceited that a nuclear reactor on the moon is what we’re gonna have to do.

[OpinionsVary]

Per the Treaty of the Danish West Indies (where the US bought the Virgin Islands and is a senate ratified treaty), the US vouched the following:

"In the proceeding this day to the signature of the Convention repressing the cession of the Danish West-Indian Islands to the United States of America, the undersigned Secretary of State of the United States of America, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to declare that the Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interest to the whole of Greenland."

and

"Declaration - Danish authority in Greenland recognized"

Given Treaties are listed alongside the Constitution and the Laws of the United States as the "supreme Law of the Land” in the Constitution, why do you want to break the law of the land in this way? Shouldn't the US keep its ratified word?

[SRG2]

why do you want to break the law of the land in this way?

Because Dr Ed is an America Firster/White Nationalist who recognises no legitimate limits on what the US should be able to do.

He's also an ignorant fuckwit, as we see here: "It’s almost as cold as the moon is at night,"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sloppy writing, granted, but in terms of heat loss from a human body — a vacuum, which is essentially what you have on the moon, serves to insulate, e.g. a thermos bottle.

Hence, while the temperature of the moon at night will be colder than Greenland with a 50 kn wind, I don’t think a person standing on the moon will lose heat that much faster than a person standing in the 50 kn wind on Greenland.

[Frank Drackman]

At least the person standing in Greenland's blood won't be boiling.

[bernard11]

a vacuum, which is essentially what you have on the moon, serves to insulate, e.g. a thermos bottle.

Insulate from what?

[Absaroka]

Wherever it is must be pretty cold. I knew the lunar night was cold, but didn't know it was this cold:

"The temperature on the moon can reach a blistering 250° Fahrenheit (120° Celsius or 400 Kelvin) during lunar daytime at the moon's equator, and plummet to -208 degrees F (-130° C, 140 K) at night.

In certain spots near the moon's poles temperatures can drop even further, reaching - 424° F (- 253°C or 20 K) according to NASA.

One reason for these dramatic extremes is that the moon has no lunar atmosphere to insulate heat."

I genuflect, yet again, before the Apollo engineers.

[David Nieporent]

but in terms of heat loss from a human body — a vacuum, which is essentially what you have on the moon, serves to insulate, e.g. a thermos bottle.

A vacuum prevents convection/conduction, but does not insulate against radiation. A thermos's interior walls are designed to reflect the heat back, thus keeping the liquid inside warm. The moon is not designed the same way.

[Michael P]

So you're saying there is precedent for the US and Denmark to exchange dominion over islands for money via treaty?

Outdated and outmoded treaties are withdrawn, revised by other treaties, or expire from time to time. They're a way to document international agreements, not suicide pacts.

[OpinionsVary]

'by whatever means necessary' is a clear reference to Trump's threats of military measures, which is directly incompatible with the treaty the US agreed to. A treaty broken with violence or changed at gunpoint isn't a treaty being followed.

Now, is Trump going to keep the US's word like a man or is he going to change his pronouns to they/them?

[William of Brooklyn]

Ratified treaties, while in effect and if self-executing, have the same status as federal laws, *not* the Constitution. Other treaties require federal laws to be passed by Congress to become effective. And treaties can be abrogated by presidents (e.g., INF, ABM treaties, many others.)

But there is nothing in any treaty that says the US cannot choose to walk away from it, or renegotiate its terms.

[John 4]

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

[William of Brooklyn]

Properly read, that means the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties supersede State constitutions, and State Laws. It certainly does NOT mean that the Constitution is on the same footing as federal laws, or treaties. EVERYTHING is subordinate to the Constitution (thank God), or else it could be superseded by two thirds of the Senate agreeing to some treaty. So, again, the correct reading is that the Constitution is supreme, federal laws (in areas where Congress is allowed to legislate) come next, and treaties *while in effect* have the same status as federal laws (meaning that they supersede State authority in areas reserved to the federal government,) but do NOT necessarily require an Act of Congress for the federal government to abrogate, withdraw from, or in many cases even ignore.

[Bob from Ohio]

"will not object"

We did not object. Word kept.

[OpinionsVary]

If that's your concept of keeping your word, then I suggest you add they/them to your twitter profile now. Because real men know keeping your word actually means something.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its my concept of reading text.

It was a one time promise. Kept.

Men should always keep their word, countries only should sometimes.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out the Sharks with Laser Beams on their Heads.

[John F. Carr]

Northern Canada is as bad as Greenland.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s starting to come out that No-Good Nicole was a professional protester, and quite likely a paid one.

Let’s see an honest investigation into her finances, into her so-called wife’s finances, and exactly who those three children belong to. I think we all know who’s paying to raise them….

These are the true insurrectionist, and let’s start treating them like that. What I saw the other day was truly disgusting — an ice vehicle attempting to drive down the street while surrounded by jogger pouting on it. We need to include equip these vehicles with snow plows….

And forget all the talk about incels, the true problem in this country is unmarried white women with college degrees. These ladies could learn a lot from the brave women in Iran.

[Frank Drackman]

Hope her Car Insurance was paid up, she really plowed into those 2 parked cars.

[Lee Moore]

What I saw the other day was truly disgusting — an ice vehicle attempting to drive down the street while surrounded by jogger pouting on it.

Words fail me. I do find jogging pretty offensive all on its lonesome. But pouting too ? That's just inexcusable.

[Krayt]

I think that was a big attack wave in the famed Ostagar battle in Dragon Age Origins.

Arrows!
Dogs!
Pouters!
For Ferelden!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wrote “pounding” and didn’t realize that that Apple had changed it.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks, Emperor Nero. (I just did a "Nero" reference!)

[David Nieporent]

Autocorrect attempts to fix words that are spelled incorrectly. If you use a real word (like "pounding"), autocorrect would not have changed it.

[SRG2]

It’s starting to come out that No-Good Nicole was a professional protester, and quite likely a paid one.

It's already come out that Dr Ed approves of the killing of Americans who exercise their 1A rights in ways he dislikes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Like Ashley Babbitt was doing?

[Frank Drackman]

Well she was armed with a Banana.

[bernard11]

Breaking and entering is not protected by the First Amendment.

[Sylvie1]

Do we truly have a first amendment right to drive a vehicle at high speed directly at another individual, ICE, other LEO, or other? I admit it's been a minute since I brushed up on the text, and of course I don't know all the SCOTUS rulings, but I rather think we don't.

[Sarcastr0]

drive a vehicle at high speed directly at another individual
Not a thing that is relevant to this situation.

And, in general, don't jump in to defend Dr. Ed's comments. That's never a good idea. He is not well.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 38 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
drive a vehicle at high speed directly at another individual
Not a thing that is relevant to this situation."

You could watch the video before you make a statement that is flat out wrong - Never mind is head in the sand sarcastro

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Not a thing that is relevant to this situation."

Except that it's on video happening.

Maybe the ICE agents should have tackled the SUV, right Sarcastro?

[Kazinski]

To be fair, the vehicle was not going at high speed when it hit the officer, but it was accelerating rapidly because she floored it.

My estimate of traveling 9 ft from a standstill looks pretty good in the new video released today too.

That's 0-60 in about 6 seconds. So you could quibble and say it had accelerated to less than 10mph it the 3' it took to strike him, it took less than half a second, and by the end of the next half second she was dead, and the car was going at least 20mph, and was going at least 30 I would estimate by the time it struck the parked car 50-75' down the street.

Go ahead and quibble, the released video showing what happened from the officers point of view ends any serious debate about whether he was in any danger, he definitely was.

And by the way her partner was in danger too, she was reaching for the door handle on the passenger side to try to reenter the vehicle when she floored it.

[David Nieporent]

Go ahead and quibble, the released video showing what happened from the officers point of view ends any serious debate about whether he was in any danger, he definitely was.

He definitely was not, as evidenced by the fact that he was not even knocked down, let alone harmed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He wasn't harmed, so he wasn't in danger? That's not how risk works.

[Moderation4ever]

We do know that there are procedure's that prohibit shooting a fleeing suspect and that instruct LEOs not to put them selves in the path of vehicles. Also officers are expected to render aid immediately to injured people even if the officer themselves caused the injury. ICE's handling of this situation was bad. The response from the administration was worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Also officers are expected to render aid immediately to injured people even if the officer themselves caused the injury."

I think we should wait to see the autopsy results; You're not required to render aid to a corpse, and it IS possible for people to be obviously just dead.

[grb]

Here's hoping we see the autopsy results. Remember, that evidence will be held in lock-down by the same group of obstructionist liars currently ignoring written law on the Epstein files.

As for the autopsy, which bullet murdered Ms. Good? Was it the first shot, squeezed in the very corner of the windshield as the car passed well clear of the killer's body (per the video analysis of the NYT, WaPo, and anyone else who's cared to look)....

Or was it the more gangland-execution-style shots fired thru the driver's side open window?

[Joe_dallas]

Lying about what happened doesnt enhance your argument

[grb]

Uh huh. Your pretty statement doesn't change a single fact.

[Joe_dallas]

Your entire second sentence is a lie, and contradicted by the video evidence.

Likewise The NYT version of the event doesnt come close to matching the video

Other than that, your statement is fine.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he IS right, the hole in the windshield is only a couple inches from the edge.

I don't think that has any particular legal significance.

My only point here is that any duty to render aid would be negated if she was just obviously dead as a doornail. Corpses are not entitled to CPR or the immediate access of a doctor.

[Magister]

The significance of the bullet hole being at the edge of the windshield may be that, to hit a driver not at the edge of the car, the shot would be less likely to have come from in front of the car.

Apparently the Trump administration is moving to bury any such inconvenient questions by blocking Minnesota from the investigation.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fact that the state government of Minnesota is about as hostile to enforcement of immigration laws as it gets, and can't actually be trusted to conduct an honest investigation of an ICE agent, plays a bit of a role there.

Not that the feds are known for conducting honest investigations of their own, either.

This actually IS a legitimate case for removal to federal court, so long as they skip the "And then dismiss the charges" step.

[Joe_dallas]

mag - there was about 1.0-1.5 secs between the time the car initially was moving forward with the wheels turned to the left and subsequent the time going straight, and then moving to the right. So the shot hitting near the side of the front windshield remains consistent with the believe that the car was going straight at him.

Dont read too much in the shot hitting the side of windshield when the car was initially moving at the officer.

[Magister]

Brett, Minnesota didn't stop the federal government from investigating; two investigations would be better than one, especially when the only investigation is conducted by the Department of Justice which has repeatedly been slammed by courts for lying and for whom the killer works.

Joe_dallas, draw yourself a diagram with a line where a driver's head would be and where the bullet hole is, and see where that line ends up when it's past the front of the car. There seems to be agreement that that was the first bullet, and it certainly would undercut claims that the agent was in front of the car when he started shooting.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett Bellmore 1 hour ago
"No, he IS right, the hole in the windshield is only a couple inches from the edge."

Brett - thanks for the link - that is the first view of the windshield I have seen.
That is also consistent with the first video that shows the car initially moving forward to the left, then at the officer before finally moving to the right over a course of 1.0-1.5 seconds and the time it takes to get a shot off. Its very doubtful that the officer would have been able to view the car wheels turning to the right ,and anticipating the car eventually going to the right after the initial move forward to the left.

[Joe_dallas]

Here is another video which confirms the comments and analysis made by kaz , brett and others.

https://x.com/megbasham/status/2009502260603310146?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2009631213963649181%7Ctwgr%5Efdd4ecc4cbbb6d9aec4a3164d0675e79fdb96367%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F768075%2F

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I just saw that too. The officer that ended up shooting stepped from the passenger side across the front of the car while she was backing up. He had been settled in that spot directly in front of her for about a second before she shifted to drive and gunned it.

[Joe_dallas]

LoB - " before she shifted to drive and gunned it."

Gunned it, Stomped on it, goosed it, reved it, etc. - one of multitude of terms describing pressing down on the accelerator for the purpose of accelerating the speed of the vehicle quickly. As evidenced by the sudden and rapid movement of the vehicle

Lof B - gotta be careful - someone is going to dispute the obvious since you didnt actually see her foot press down on the accelerator.

[Life of Brian]

Lof B - gotta be careful - someone is going to dispute the obvious since you didnt actually see her foot press down on the accelerator.

Oh, I fully expect it. In between their exquisitely-tuned acts of playing dumb, lawyers are super-adept at clicking on and off like a switch the very notion of circumstantial evidence, much less their ability to fathom it in a specific case.

[David Nieporent]

"The obvious" is that the agent had no trouble avoiding the car, so obviously it was not going fast.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not even obvious that he avoided the car, let alone that he had no trouble avoiding the car.

[Joe_dallas]

Crazy Dave - "The obvious" is that the agent had no trouble avoiding the car, so obviously it was not going fast.

Doofus Dave - do you need link to any of the multiple video's? You should probably watch it before you make another of your utterly ill informed bs comments.

The only thing obvious is that you have no interest in being honest.

[Life of Brian]

"The obvious" is that the agent had no trouble avoiding the car

You mean he "had no trouble avoiding the car" after it had hit him and pushed him aside?

Like I said, playing dumb.

[Joe_dallas]

Life of Brian 1 minute ago
"Like I said, playing dumb."

Not playing dumb - just being his usual dishonest lying leftist.

[Magister]

I've been hit by a car as a pedestrian; it does not push you aside with you staying on your feet even at very slow speeds. Kinda defeats the whole high speed "floored it" acceleration story that was previously the rage.

[Joe_dallas]

Magister 27 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I've been hit by a car as a pedestrian; it does not push you aside with you staying on your feet even at very slow speeds. Kinda defeats the whole high speed "floored it" acceleration story that was previously the rage.

Magister - there are a bunch of video's

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"The obvious" is that the agent had no trouble avoiding the car, so obviously it was not going fast.

I just popped in to see if you were still the lying sack of shit you've always been. You never disappoint.

[Life of Brian]

I've been hit by a car as a pedestrian; it does not push you aside with you staying on your feet even at very slow speeds.

Argue with the now significantly enhanced video. Even CNN has thrown in the towel and admitted that "her vehicle made contact with him."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I've been hit by a car as a pedestrian

I too became an expert on something after any form of it happens to me one time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The law doesn't require detached reflection while being rammed by an SUV.

But in any event, if he reasonably believed that she was trying to run him over, it doesn't matter that he was clear of the front when he fired. That doesn't end the threat.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 3 hours ago
"The obvious" is that the agent had no trouble avoiding the car, so
obviously it was not going fast."

First point - the agent did in fact get hit by the vehicle which liar dave knows - but he bears his lies with pride.

Second point - "fast" / "speed " / "slow " is all relative based on the facts. Facts which dishonest daves likes to distort and then exploit those lies.

The speed of light can be considered slow when you are 2 or 3 light years away.

20 mph is slow when you are a mile away, yet exceedingly fast when you are only a foot or two away.

[David Nieporent]

But in any event, if he reasonably believed that she was trying to run him over, it doesn't matter that he was clear of the front when he fired. That doesn't end the threat.

Rather difficult to run over someone who is next to, as opposed to in front of (or behind), one's car.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not really. It just takes a few maneuvers.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 56 minutes ago
"Rather difficult to run over someone who is next to, as opposed to in front of (or behind), one's car."

DN - You have an extremely serious problem dealing with the truth!
He was in front of the vehicle (near center front) the she started to accelerate.

[Kazinski]

Here's an ex-stuntman take on being hit by a car going 3 mph:
"Im an ex-stuntman tim. I've been hit by literally hundreds of cars at 3mph. On one occasion I broke my back, both shoulders and collar bones, and mylultiple ribs, also blowing out 3 disc's in my nec/breaking one vertebrae. Sit this one out, you ignorant fuck."

https://x.com/i/status/2009719880564552060

I've been hit by a car going 3-5 mph too, in a crosswalk by the right corner of the bumper in the butt by a F-150 turning left, knocked me clear and down because I was moving away from the direction of the impact, wasn't hurt too bad but was sore for a few weeks.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I've been hit by a car as a pedestrian; it does not push you aside with you staying on your feet even at very slow speeds.

Argue with the now significantly enhanced video. Even CNN has thrown in the towel and admitted that "her vehicle made contact with him."

First of all, a statement made by someone interviewed by CNN does not necessarily represent the view of CNN, so your claim that CNN “admitted that...” is a bit of a stretch.

Having viewed the video myself, I would say that the agent appears to have placed his hands on the vehicle, but the video has enough detail to establish that definitively. The CNN interview with Frank Piazza you link to does nothing to change my view. Piazza was apparently put on air to discuss the audio; he is not asked how he determined that contact occurred or to characterize that contact. But even if we accept that contact definitely occurred, that doesn’t mean that the agent was “hit by a car,” which is the claim that Magister was disputing.

[Kazinski]

GRB, they have released the officer who shot her cell phone video camera footage.

And a couple of things are apparent:
- The two women are relishing the confrontation, she is smiling, her partner says at :34 "You want to come at us?"
- He was not standing in front of her car, he was walking around it. at :39 he comes around the corner of the passenger side.
- He had no idea she was going to gun it. When the video ticks to :40 over you see he is slightly to the left of the center of the front hood, maybe about 3-4' in front of the car, and too close to see which way the wheels are pointed.
- When :41 ticks over he has not been struck yet, and is right in front on the drivers side, right on the corner, still at least 2-3' from the car.
- Before the video ticks over to :42, he has been struck, fired 3 shots, and the Pilot is out of the view, and you can tell he is pointing cell phone cam to right where it was, because the light colored SUV that was parked slightly ahead and to the right is directly in center of the frame.

Watch the the officers video and you will see it won't matter which bullet killed her, there is irrefutable evidence there was no premeditation on the officers part, and absolutely no time to do anything but react.

Here is the Alphanews link to the video.

https://x.com/AlphaNews/status/2009679932289626385?s=20

[bernard11]

You're nuts.

That video shows absolutely nothing relevant. We see an officer walking towards the driver side of the SUV, and then the sky.

[TwelveInchPianist]

One thing I noticed is that in addition to emergency lights, the ICE vehicle has very loud sirens, both of which require her to clear the way. But she's very calmly ignoring them and speaking mockingly to the ICE officer that she subsequently rams.

This isn't a case of her panicking; it's a case of her deliberately driving her vehicle towards the officer.

[Kazinski]

By itself, perhaps not. But in context with the other videos it tells us a great deal.

First it tells us he was very close to the car and walking from the right side of the car to the left, he wasn't just standing there watching her and could observe her, the direction of her wheels, and her next move at his leisure.

Second it tells us her decision to suddenly take off was completely unexpected, you can see her partner has her hand on the door latch attempting to get back in the car before she gunned it.

Third it tells us that in less than 1 second the car went from him directly in front of the Pilot and the driver, exactly 1 second later the Pilot has moved completely out of his frame, and he has been struck, and fired 3 shots.

Honestly Bernard, freeze that video at :40, tell me what you see. He is standing directly in front of the Pilot looking right at him.

By the last frame of :41 she has gunned it and is completely out of the picture, even though he has spun to his left and the camera is pointed directly where her car was 1 second earlier, when she was still alive.

Here are 4 frames over 1 1/2 seconds with analysis from a semi-random Xer.
https://x.com/i/status/2009758040686256458

[Kazinski]

This part needs to be revised:
"Second it tells us her decision to suddenly take off was completely unexpected, you can see her partner has her hand on the door latch attempting to get back in the car until her partner shouted " Drive Baby Drive", right before she gunned it."

[Moderation4ever]

You are wrong. The LEO on the scene do not make the call on injured vs death. They are to render aid even if it is to a corpse.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've BEEN the first responder at a bad accident, and nobody expects you to give CPR to a body with the head hanging on by a strip of skin. It certainly IS possible for somebody to be so obviously dead you're not required to try.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Never make assumptions. Sure, the brain might be outside the body on the side of the road, but the victim might be a lawyer on his way to practice law, and if you give him CPR he'll be fine.

[bernard11]

If she was so obviously dead, why did the agent shoot again, through the driver-side window?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If she was so obviously dead, why did the agent shoot again, through the driver-side window?

Uh, the determination would have been made after that, not in the heat of the shooting.

[bernard11]

OK. But why the further shots at all?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Are you ADD or something? Try to focus on one issue at a time, like the one you responded to. In any event, multiple shots are standard procedure when it comes to use of deadly force to neutralize a threat.

[bernard11]

Once the agent was not in front of the car there was no threat.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Once the muzzle of the gun was no long pointing at the cop, there was no threat.

[David Nieporent]

A more accurate analogy would've been, "Once the subject has dropped the gun, there was no (immediate) threat to the cop." Of course, a subject could pick up the gun and shoot, just as this woman could've circled around and come back at him, but the time it would take to do that would give plenty of time for the cop (and all the others nearby) to react.

[TwelveInchPianist]

React how? If a guy shooting at a cop accidentally drops his gun, the cop has to wait for him to pick it back up?

If the guy shooting at the cop has two guns and drops one, does the cop have to wait for him to draw the second?

And in this case, she gunned her car at him and he jumped out of the way. He has to wait until she drops it in reverse and comes at his again?

I don't think so, and that's inconsistent with Plumhoff v. Rickard.

Just because the guy who shoots at you misses, it doesn't mean that the threat is over.

[Frank Drackman]

Ew! Ew! Ew! Mr Kott-Air!!!!!
Can I do my "CPR on an AIDS Patient" Joke??
"So how do you give CPR to an AIDS Patient??"
(makes "Chest Pumping" motion with foot, while pretending to give "rescue breaths" from 6 feet above Patient's mouth)
It's Physical Comedy, funnier if you can see it.

Frank

[Drewski]

It was not immediately obvious to a doctor on the scene, who asked permission to treat her.

[David Nieporent]

at high speed

MAGA feeling the need to lie about this is a better sign than anything else that they realize how indefensible their position is when the real facts are used.

[Joe_dallas]

Crazy dave over the last two days on this topic has shown he is allergic to Real facts

[Kazinski]

Watch the Officer's video Dave, then give us a review.

I honestly want to hear it. Especially how she could move her car completely out of the video frame in less than a second. My estimate of 9' from a standstill in 1 second, looks pretty good on this video too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe the deniers would be happier with "rapid acceleration", though I doubt it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

MAGA feeling the need to lie about this is a better sign than anything else that they realize how indefensible their position is when the real facts are used.

If you were any more full of shit you could fertilize every corn field in Iowa.

[not guilty]

Constant repetition of Big Lies is de rigueur for the MAGA cult. They are aping the mid-twentieth century figure whose collected speeches occupied Donald Trump's night stand:

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany [Ellipsis in original; footnote omitted.]

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Constant repetition of Big Lies is de rigueur for the MAGA cult.

What does that have to do with you and Nieporent's bullshit being exposed as...well...bullshit? I mean, other than being a 3rd grade level attempt at deflection.

[Joe_dallas]

Is there going to be a proliferation of dishonesty from the left again today such as this one

"David Nieporent 18 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
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"?"

Did our favorite leftist fail to notice that Renee Good's partner was outside the vehicle filming the event ?
Did our favorite leftist try to guess why her partner was filming an event?

WGME CBS 13 news The alleged wife of Renee Good, who was shot and killed by ICE in Minnesota, was filming the encounter from outside the vehicle when Good was fatally shot.

[Joe_dallas]

here is another report on the active involvement of Renee good in her quest to impede federal law enforcement

https://nypost.com/2026/01/08/us-news/renee-nicole-good-was-minneapolis-ice-watch-warrior-who-trained-to-resist-feds-before-shooting/

[David Nieporent]

Once again, bookkeeper_joe shows that — in addition to not understand the meaning of the word "leftist" — he doesn't understand what the word "undisputed" means. No matter how much purported evidence he marshals that (he thinks) supports his belief, that won't make the thing he believes "undisputed."

[Joe_dallas]

Is fun to watch your insane delusions

Your original comment was utterly stupid when you made it - based on publicly available information. With the additional publicly available information, your follow up comment is beyond utter stupidity.

Look up the word - undisputed in a dictionary other than the Alice in Wonderland dictionary that you have been using.

[Joe_dallas]

Dave -
He is another video which includes Renee good's partner (wife?) taunting the ICE agents.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/the-ice-agents-video.php

Do you really want to continue embarrassing yourself trying to claim that she didnot know it was ICE she was protesting.

Your insistence is now beyond rank stupidity.

[Kazinski]

Whether or not she was a professional protester, doesn't matter in terms of whether the killing was justified or not, but if she was a professional she should have been better trained.

[hobie]

I didn't see you at the impromptu protest last night in Cleveland, Ed. That's me in the black beanie.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/EogT1K7RQgzkz47z9
https://photos.app.goo.gl/6VRDwRBmoh3eEsCB8

[DDHarriman]

Party for Socialism and Liberation?

lol what the holy fuck

where's the purple hair, tranny 5 year old arm candy, and adult diaper fetish?

[hobie]

That's the signs they were handing out. What choice did I have?

[DDHarriman]

Did you collect your paycheck when you picked up your professionally produced sign?

Love it:
PSL describes itself as a revolutionary socialist party, as the party believes that only a revolution can end capitalism and establish socialism.

---

Attention every reader, especially you moderate Democratics:
Here we have a literal actual communist whose supporting a revolution to end our way of life.

These are the people you are aligning yourselves with. People who serve an ideology that has only resulted in mass murder, suffering and misery.

They made you so afraid of fake calamities like "White Supremacy" or "Global Warming" or "Handmaid's Tale Theocracy" that you backed away from the one thing that's improved the human condition more than any other thing in our history and fell into the bed of people who wish the single most hurtful and destructive belief system that humanity has ever witnessed.

It's remarkable how far people like hobie have fallen. Lost cause revolutionary.

[DDHarriman]

And like nearly all leftwing groups since USAID was dismantled, it's funded by a foreign billionaire. Of course it's a professional sign.

Look at how absolutely moronic and pathetic this is. hobie's it out here in service of foreign billionaires advocating for the destruction of your way of life.

What an absolute monster.

[hobie]

Get a grip, Harriman.

[DDHarriman]

You are doing the bidding of a foreign billionaire who is trying to instigate a revolution.

Next time you bitch about billionaires be to sure to add a postscript : "Disclaimer: I work for and promote the actions of select foreign billionaires -- it's all the others that are bad and shouldn't exist".

[Michael P]

I'm sorry, but not surprised, to hear that the leftist stooges manufacturing these protests either held a gun to hobie's head to force him to carry that sign or included it as part of his paid-protesting contract.

[Commenter_XY]

You could have left, rather than ally yourself with Statists.

[Frank Drackman]

More like it's the Black Beaner that's "In" you.

[hobie]

I'll try anything once.

[Moderation4ever]

Thank you for getting out and letting people know how you feel. The 1A is for all Americans not just the right wing.

[MarkJawz]

Without white liberal single women being allowed to vote, America would be a much better place.

[John F. Carr]

There's a genre of science fiction where a band of people is forced to live on its own without modern civilization, either after the apocalypse or (peaking 25 years ago) after some mysterious force has displaced them to a more primitive time. Some of these isolated groups promptly remade society to match the author's politics. One band's top priority was a right to gay marriage. Another band decreed that each family shall have one vote and if the husband and wife can't agree then they don't get to vote. (I want to say the examples are from SM Stirling and Niven and Pournelle, respectively, but I am not sure of that.)

[Magister]

A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller, The Postman by David Brin (I was disappointed that Il Postino was not a film adaptation), Lucifer's Hammer by Niven and Pournelle. I don't know about Stirling.

[windycityattorney]

Clearly the leader of ANTIFA - North America has now been eliminated.

I guess we can pull back the huge waste of taxpayer money going to ICE now and Kristi Noem can retire to her ranch of dead dog graves.

I don't think it would be out of the question for the shooter to receive a presidential medal of honor; perhaps a statute on the Mall (or Mt Rushmore?). "Nobody is braver than he; who shoots his countrymen in the face for not respecting govt authority." A true libertarian hero!

/s

[darkknight9]

Before it becomes the proverbial dead horse I just had a thought:

While I believe it to be a training issue for fed officers that they could learn from any uniformed officer as to where to position themselves for encounters with a vehicle, I also believe that those feds shouldn't test the waters of mistakes too often. The brass will stick up for you of course:

"Our officer followed his training, did exactly what he's been taught to do in that situation," Noem said.

I believe, given the reputation of her treatment of animals that cannot follow training, that you might want to avoid these most simple of mistakes from happening anymore. 🙂

[ReaderY]

But do they want that? Maybe they want to send a message that if you protest against this government, you’re likely to get shot.

I mean, they can’t violently suppress protests intentionally. But maybe they can accomplish the goal through a series of accidents.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they at least want to send a message that if you try to run over agents of this government, you will be shot.

As I remarked yesterday, Democrats have been pushing the idea that, because they're opposed to immigration law enforcement, immigration law enforcement is somehow illegitimate, not real law enforcement.

So the people tasked with enforcing these laws are not real law enforcement agents, legally entitled to do law enforcement things. They're just armed thugs, who should be treated like gang members.

And enough of the left's useful idiots have picked up on this propaganda line and internalized it, that ICE are running into a lot of people like Miss Good, who simply don't think they have to treat ICE like police officers enforcing the law. (Which is what they are.) Who will, self-righteously obstruct enforcement of immigration law, self-righteously violate lawful orders, and not be too concerned about risking injuring ICE officers along the way.

And then they get treated just like anybody obstructing any law enforcement officer will be routinely treated, and outrage follows because they're, in the heads of liberals anyway, not really law enforcement officers upholding the law.

But they are, and this is going to turn out badly for the left.

[Michael P]

That mindset is a big part of what qualified this attempted vehicular manslaughter as domestic terrorism -- it was a criminal act, dangerous to human life that, that was intended to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". Lots of people in the comments have made it clear that they thought the ICE agent should have stopped being a "thug" -- either through government policy change or by quitting -- either as a matter of first principles or after he was previously assaulted in the line of duty.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where I differ on that is that, while she was obstructing traffic to "influence the policy of a government", I don't believe the actions that got her shot had that objective. I don't think they were premeditated, she just wanted to leave rather than be arrested, and didn't think she had to treat the officers' orders as binding. And I don't think she was trying to run anybody over, she just wasn't making a point of NOT running anyone over. Which is why I'm careful to call it vehicular assault, not attempted vehicular homicide.

I'm not at all certain what the law on this is, but I don't personally think that if you commit an incidental crime in the context of of a political action it converts the political action into terrorism.

[hobie]

I'm just heartened to see you and MichaelP back the blue in a protest situation. What's next? MAGA supporting nation building? Yeah, right.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you're going to have laws, and they're going to be enforced, you're going to have to have police, and they're going to have to be allowed to do unpleasant things to people who don't think they have to obey those laws.

That's one of the reasons I think there should be fewer laws: Because I don't blind myself to the full implications of making something I dislike illegal.

So, here you have immigrations laws, traffic laws, and laws against obstructing police who are enforcing other laws.

Make the case for why these shouldn't be laws. Because the case for them being laws and the police not being allowed to enforce them isn't obvious.

[hobie]

Bro, I totally get that ICE is enforcing laws. And I actually support the endeavor. You're here illegally? Then you gotta go.

At the same time, these dingbats can heckle them all they want. And if some antisemitic, marxist, terrorist tranny is blocking the street, then you call trained local law enforcement to arrest them. That's what the police are for.

ICE - enforce immigration laws, don't enforce criminal statutes
Police - enforce criminal statutes, don't enforce immigration laws

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that the lady wasn't heckling them. If she'd been heckling them she'd have been fine.

She was deliberately obstructing traffic, in order to interfere with ICE operations.

And, legally, that's a federal crime that ICE can arrest you for. They don't have to delegate the arrest to local police, enabling the interference to go on an extra ten minutes or whatever. For that matter, they can arrest you for state crimes if they observe them personally.

And then she resisted arrest. Another crime, both state and federal.

And then as part of resisting arrest, she committed vehicular assault. Note, vehicular assault, just like regular assault, doesn't require that the car actually hit you.

What Counts as Felony Use of a Motor Vehicle in WI?

This lady didn't just commit one crime, at every point where she might have backed down, she doubled down and committed an even more serious crime.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : ".... allowed to do unpleasant things ...."

What a quaint way to put it! But back in the real world, everyday I see accounts and video of ICE unbridled unhinged thuggery. The same day Good was being pointlessly murdered, ICE was nearby terrorizing students and faculty at Roosevelt High School. They came on school property and began tackling people, handcuffed two staff members and released chemical weapons on bystanders.

“The guy, I’m telling him like, ‘Please step off the school grounds,’ and this dude comes up and bumps into me and then tells me that I pushed him, and he’s trying to push me, and he knocked me down,” a school official. “They don’t care. They’re just animals,” he added. “I’ve never seen people behave like this.”

Because they're putting on a show. Kick ass and bust heads is the message that's coming down from above. Real law enforcement knows professionalism is in their ultimate interest. But that can't get in the way of entertainment, can it? From Trump, to Noem, to Bovino, the message they hear is put on a spectacle and jack-up the numbers anyway possible.

Because its just another stunt in the end. That doesn't mean it can have real horrible consequences. Eliminating foreign aid was useless, cruel, ugly, and detrimental to U.S. interests. It has led to the needless deaths of thousands of people. But it was only a stunt, based on the fact the average Trump supporter assumed the aid number was many, many times higher.

Governance by cartoon stunts all Trump does or looks to do. He personally believes in nothing except enriching himself thru corruption and appeasing his bottomless vanity. And he doesn't have the discipline or intelligence to pursue any long-term policy objectives even if he had any. So it's all cartoon theatrics like, "get out there in the streets and kick ass".

So it's all for your viewing pleasure, Brett, as you sit in your boxers sipping a brewski in the TV's blue glow. Good's murder, Greenland, today's tariff lunacy, and tomorrow's next bit of the Constitution fed through the shredder. It's all for you to hoot and cheer, like a spectator at a pro-wrestling match. I'm guessing that makes you feel like a very, very, special consumer.....

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, enforcing the law involves police doing nasty stuff, which is why I think there should be a lot fewer laws. But not zero laws.

I realize you're going to pejoratively describe those actions in the case of ICE, because you don't like the laws they're enforcing. Not impressed one bit, I'm not persuaded that ICE are any worse on that score than other police.

Oh, and that would be Mountain Dew themed jammies and my homebrew pear cider.

[Drewski]

Nobody's trying to persuade you. You're too deep in the cult. What you see is people mocking you.

[SimonP]

Goober, I would invite you to take a break from carrying water for the fascists and ask yourself a simple question: "How many people should be dying as a result of legitimate law enforcement activities?"

Here in New York, we have a problem with inmates dying in prison. How many people should be dying in our prisons? The answer is not, "Well, so-and-so should have followed correctional officer's commands, and so-and-so should have advocated more forcefully for adequate medical care, and so-and-so had a pre-existing condition, and so-and-so was in prison for child rape so who cares," and so on. The answer is none.

You can say, "People should not be willfully obstructing law enforcement activity." True. You can say, "Officers need to be able to use lethal force in order to prevent serious physical harm to themselves or others." Also true.

But our immigration officers are conducting themselves in a way that intentionally panics the public and escalates into violence. What we saw in that video should not have happened. I don't know why the woman had her vehicle situated the way it was. But there was no reason for multiple officers to approach her vehicle from every direction. There was no reason for one officer to approach her vehicle and attempt to physically pull her from the driver's seat. There was no reason for the other officer to walk around the front of the car and draw his weapon. The video shows a wholesale lack of professionalism that resulted in this woman's death, because she reacted to the situation that law enforcement in a way that any of us easily could have - with panic, fear, and an instant decision.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"with panic, fear, and an instant decision."

The wife didn't sound panicked or fearful when she yelled, "drive, baby, drive!"

It's looking more and more like these are organized folks trying to obstruct ICE.

[SimonP]

Does legitimate, professional law enforcement invite obstruction?

We've seen what they're doing. They're not just deporting criminal immigrants with outstanding deportation orders. They're rounding up anyone they "suspect" of being undocumented. They're obscuring their identities and their affiliation. They're conducting "sweeps" without probable cause and engaging in activities that are clearly intended to cause people to fear for their safety, regardless of their immigration status.

Put yourself in these victims' position. Imagine you're just driving somewhere, minding your own business. An ICE officer flags you, directs you to stop. You comply. They ask you whether you're a citizen. Despite knowing your rights, you go ahead and say, yes. They demand proof. Again, you comply by offering your driver's license. They say that they think it's fake.

In that moment, what are you saying? What are you doing?

Now imagine that you see that happening to someone else. What do you say? What do you do?

Are you a brave patriot? Or are you a pathetic bootlicker?

[Michael P]

Even if you think the act of fleeing arrest should be severed from her other actions that day, she was effectively trying to change the policies that ICE agents should arrest people interfering with their duties, and that people should not be able to evade arrest.

I don't think severing the specific trigger works, though. Even ignoring the various legal precepts that discourage that kind of parsing, it would be like the Unabomber arguing that each specific mail bomb was targeting some supposedly legitimate beef with the individual target, and only the overall campaign could be called domestic terrorism .. and then the overall campaign is protected by the First Amendment as abstract advocacy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, the larger issue is that the radical left does not consider its opponents to be human beings, to be entitled to the protections accorded human beings.

They’re actually quite fascist in this.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a permission structure to execute lawful protestors.

[Frank Drackman]

The "Permission Structure" (You Poindexters and your words, I remember the Dean at my Med School called Cars "Parking Units") is the Immigration Laws passed by the Senate/House and signed and enforced by POTUS's, including Barry Hussein O, and Parkinsonian Joe.
Try running one of them over with your car and see what happens.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

You have weird ideas about what constitutes lawful protest. Obstructing traffic on a public street, driving off in the middle of an arrest, putting your vehicle into forward motion with a pedestrian directly in front of you... Calling something a "protest" does not entitle you to violate multiple laws of general application, and claim to be acting lawfully.

No, this is NOT a permission structure to execute lawful protesters. It's a warning to unlawful protesters that their crimes won't be ignored or excused.

[Sarcastr0]

Here's the test - if ICE shootings of protestors become suddenly a lot mor common, and someone wanted to absolve ICE of blame for those shootings, your post above would serve to do so.
Independent of the facts of the shooting, beyond it being of a protestor and by ICE.

That's what telepathy will give you - a fact-free rationale for whatever you want.

[Brett Bellmore]

If ICE shootings of criminals calling themselves "protesters" suddenly become a lot more common as a result of people calling themselves "protesters" committing crimes against ICE agents becoming more common, I'm not going to like that, but I'm not going to blame ICE. I'm going to blame the criminals calling themselves "protesters".

Again, calling yourself a "protester" doesn't immunize you against any crimes you commit while "protesting".

[Joe_dallas]

Delusions from Sarcastro
Brett and other have repeatedly explained the crimes committed by Good, yet you still persist in your inane comments.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because he takes the same position, essentially: Laws he finds inconvenient or objectionable can't legitimately be enforced.

So if his fellow Democrats start attacking ICE officers and get shot, the obvious response is for ICE officers to stop provoking them by enforcing the law. That his fellow Democrats should instead stop attacking ICE officers just doesn't register with him.

[windycityattorney]

Good was doing a simple 3 point turn at low speed. Any competent adult or child of average intelligence could have avoided contact with her vehicle if they wished to do so.

Here is the larger point: Sending 2000 border patrol agents into neighborhoods is completely unnecessary to enforce immigration laws. ICE as the data clearly demonstrates by now...is not targeting the 'worst of the worst.' They are targeting construction workers, tamale ladies, daycare workers, people going about their daily lives, etc... And they are doing 95% of this without a warrant for anybody. They are hunting. They intentionally try to intimidate anybody they come in contact with and are generally speaking, acting like complete assholes.

Of course they are going to spark a negative reaction; it's intentional. AND THEY DESERVE IT. 20-30 masked dudes in full tac gear carrying rifles walking down the street my kids walk down to go to school? You bet your ass I don't want them there as nobody needs them there and nobody who lives there asked them to be there. I am in the midwest. I am not on the border. I am not in Afghanistan post 9/11. They are making neighborhoods a third world shit hole - as the saying goes.

People feel attacked by out of state paid mercenaries in their own neighborhoods and when they say something; they are attacked by the government who hails these shit bag mercenaries as heroes. Its completely dystopian. But were the land of the free? PAPERS PLEASE and if you don't comply fast enough take a can of mace to the face.

Its absolutely disgusting. Protests are going to get more violent and ICE agents are going to be hurt and some will be killed. Because that is what happens when you send heavily armed mercenaries into places they are unwanted. The radical left is at fault the govt cries... why is the govt working so hard to turn people into radicals??

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sending 2000 border patrol agents into neighborhoods is completely unnecessary to enforce immigration laws."

If they could count on the local police they wouldn't need to send in 2000 agents. But if they want to get a tamale lady, they run the risk of having to deal with local mobs without local support. And local mobs shouldn't have veto power over immigration law.

[DDHarriman]

Oh no. This is a very serious determination coming from a very serious and trusted voice.

Internet denzians, pay heed to the call from the Great Sarcastr0, Govie Extraordinaire, and self-censor yourselves.

DO IT NOW! IT'S IMPERATIVE!

[Joe_dallas]

Lawful protesters still have to obey the law.

Intentionally block traffic and impeding legal federal law enforcement is not following the law.

Contrary to one of your fellow leftists, Yes she did know it was ICE she was actively interfering. As reported the a CBS affiliate, her partner was outside the vehicle filming the event. (Unknown at this time if the video shown on fox (linked by Kaz yesterday) is the one from her partner.

[Kazinski]

Couldn't be the one from her partner, her partner is moving around in the foreground in the white knit cap in the fox9 video.

[bernard11]

I think they at least want to send a message that if you try to run over agents of this government, you will be shot.

I think they are saying that if we claim you are trying to run over agents we will shoot you. And even if you didn't run anyone over we will shoot you later anyway. These guys are thugs, Brett.

[Commenter_XY]

ReaderY, if you try to run over an LEO, you're gonna get shot. Are you serious; message?

The message is: Do not, do not, do not fuck with LEOs executing their job duties. That could be lethal.

[hobie]

ICE officer who fatally shot Minnesota woman was dragged by car during June immigration arrest

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-officer-fatally-shot-minnesota-woman-was-dragged-car-june-immigrat-rcna252992

The man can't seem to stop bashing car windows

[Michael P]

He was in front of her car, which is why it hit him. He didn't bash her window, you shameless liar.

You're upset that your allies can't stop committing felonies as part of a seditious conspiracy to impede immigration law. That doesn't excuse your behavior here.

[Brett Bellmore]

He "bashed the window" in the car dragging case. From Hobbie's link:

"Officers pulled over Muñoz-Guatemala and demanded he put his car in “park,” according to the documents. When he refused, the complaint said, officers ordered him to lower his window all the way and open the door. Muñoz-Guatemala continued to refuse their orders, prompting Ross to break the driver’s side rear window of the man’s car, according to the complaint.

Ross then reached into the car through the broken window and attempted to unlock the driver’s side door, the documents state.

"According to court documents, while Ross’s arm was inside the man’s car, Muñoz-Guatemala put the car in drive and attempted to drive away, dragging Ross along with the vehicle."

It was a perfectly legal window bashing, note.

[Michael P]

"can't stop [doing X]" implies someone did X more than once. hobie hasn't offered anything to suggest that this officer did, much less that it's relevant to the officer being struck by a vehicle more recently.

[Kazinski]

Yes, that is pretty standard for ICE to break the window when they won't open it, or exit the vehicle.

Seems to me if they are prepared to break the window, they should have a device to puncture the front tire first, and make it less likely they will attempt a gettaway. And by device I don't mean shoot the tire, that sounds dangerous.

It shouldn't be hard to come up with something like a bangstick.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's pretty much standard for law enforcement, period. You can't just turtle up in your car and expect to be left alone.

[ReaderY]

Could Minnesota indict the ICE officer who shot the driver? If it did, the trial would likely have to take place in a federal court. But would the officer have immunity?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember Ruby, Ridge, and the FBI sniper who shot a pregnant woman breast-feeding a baby?

I forget which state that was, if the state wanted to prosecute the FBI guy and couldn’t. I think the same thing would apply here wouldn’t it?

[Michael P]

Per Wikipedia: "In 1997, a Boundary County [Idaho] prosecutor indicted Horiuchi for the manslaughter of Vicki [Weaver], but the county's new prosecutor controversially closed the case, claiming he would be unlikely to secure a conviction."

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - if MN state authorities tried to prosecute the case, it would most likely get moved to federal court. Then assuming that the feds would try to prosecute (extremely unlikely ), the defendent would have a much larger jury pool that isnt so insanely woke. Even if it stayed in state court, the level of wokeness that dominates MSP has subsided considerably since george floyd.

bottom line, attempt to prosecute will be futile.

[ReaderY]

But you’re saying it could, and whether to convict or not would be up to the federal jury. How the jury might decide things is a separate question.

[Kazinski]

But in light of the shooting officer's handheld video being released, I would seriously doubt if even Keith Ellison, or any other local prosecutor would attempt to bring a case.

There simply isn't one.

[Zarniwoop]

To make a decent analysis, first you have to get the procedure correct. Which you don't.

Removal to Federal court does not mean US DOJ/the Feds take over management of the prosecution itself, i.e. decide whether or not to prosecute.

The murder charge would remain a MN state charge, prosecuted by MN officials. It's just that the venue would be a Federal courtroom with a Federal judge and, as you note, a larger jury pool.

[John F. Carr]

If the prosecution is moved to federal court the state prosecutor is still the prosecutor. The purpose of the move is to have a friendly judge who might rule that the officer was just doing his job and can't be charged. See the recent decision out of the Ninth Circuit where a federal agent ran over a bicyclist because he didn't want to fall behind. Just doing his job, the courts ruled.

[darkknight9]

Indictments might be easy to secure. Cases and prosecutions not so much.

However,

This year is an election year for the Minnesota Attorney General. The current one Keith Ellison last ran for the head of the DNC before becoming the state's AG. If anyone were to benefit from optics showing the state going after one of President Trump's Icee officers it might be him.

Either way, any move to attempt to hold Agent Ross responsible is going to be hindered by immunities, policies, and outside of public thought all of the opinions of the different judges involved. IANAL but I'd be shocked it got anywhere.

[apedad]

Fortunately, recent federal grand juries have increasingly rejected federal indictments.

"This grand jury's rejection of the Justice Department's request for an indictment was one of at least four such instances in the past week (Sept. 2025) in which a grand jury denied an indictment in the District of Columbia.

'Not only have I never heard of this happening, I've never heard of a prosecutor who's heard of this happening,' said former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who served in the U.S. Attorney's Office for in D.C. until January 2025.

'This is not the fault of career prosecutors, but rather the office's failure—again and again—to secure indictments suggests that the administration has absolutely destroyed its credibility with jurors,' Ballou told CBS News."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/d-c-grand-jury-reject-justice-dept-indictment-requests/

[darkknight9]

Too true. The feds have had an awful track record as of late.

But this would be a state seeking an indictment for state level courts. I don't know where to look to see exact stats for the state, but I haven't heard of nor read news in the past few years that suggests that indictments for crimes committed in MN has failed in some way... I could be wrong though!

[Brett Bellmore]

The usual procedure would be that the state indicts, then the federal government gets the trial moved to federal court."

" 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) allows for removal of a civil or criminal case against the United States, a federal agency, or a person holding federal office, if the case relates to acts taken "under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue." The phrase "under color of ... office" means that the defendant was acting within the scope of their official duties or with actual or apparent legal authority related to their office. Section 1442(a)(1) also allows for removal of cases against a person acting under the direction of a federal official if the directing official was acting pursuant to their official authority."

Thus far so good, but the next usual step is for the feds to ask the judge to dismiss the case, as happened with Horiuchi. At which point the state could in principle take up the prosecution again, but subject to the federal government just removing the case again, rinse and repeat as necessary.

"For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:"

I am NOT fond of that usual procedure.

[darkknight9]

Which is why I think any case wouldn't get very far. Ellison might have minor success as he's been good about keeping a few cases from going to federal court, but none of those involved fed agents doing anything.

[ReaderY]

On what grounds would you see the case being dismissed? Immunity, or lack of evidence? Or what?

While the District Court found that Horiuchi had immunity, the 9th Circuit reversed on that point. A new state prosecutor then decided, on his own, not to pursue the case further. That’s hardly endless back-and-forth.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably on the basis of unqualified immunity. It did happen during a legitimate law enforcement action, and whether to shoot was a judgement call, and the courts are absurdly reluctant to second guess police judgement calls, especially judgement calls made in a fraction of a second. This would be squarely in that precedent.

You and I have both seen cops get unqualified immunity for obviously less justified crap. Basically on the level of "Sure, it's established that you can't break the suspect's knees with a baseball bat, but it was a maple bat in this case, how was he to know that was true for aluminum baseball bats, too?"

It wasn't endless back and forth BECAUSE the new state prosecutor decided not to pursue the case further. The fact that it would have been removed to federal court again probably played a role in that decision.

[Drewski]

Ah, yes, that criminal qualified immunity you made up in your head just now. That's definitely how it would go down.

[Joe_dallas]

Drewski - are you and Dishonest Dave having a contest for the stupidest legal analysis or analysis of the facts?

[apedad]

'Does not contain any evidence': Appeals court blocks Trump admin program 'that benefits drug manufacturers' at the expense of low-income and rural hospitals

In a case brought by the American Hospital Association and several regional hospitals against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a unanimous panel on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found a pilot drug rebate program likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute governing agency actions.

The appellate court's seven-page ruling maintains the status quo as a district court previously issued an injunction against the pilot program.

Last summer, HHS announced it was changing the contours of the 340B program, which for decades has offered an "upfront discount" to patients at rural and low-income hospitals.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/does-not-contain-any-evidence-appeals-court-blocks-trump-admin-program-that-benefits-drug-manufacturers-at-the-expense-of-low-income-and-rural-hospitals/

I actually got to side with the Trump Administration on this one.

Why are we subsidizing 'rural and low-income hospitals' who mainly support mouthbreathers, WHEN THE MOUTHBREATHERS DON'T WANT GUBMENT INTERFERENCE ANYWAY!!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump's (flawed to begin with) emulation of conservatism is increasingly falling apart. It's part a desperation to score durable wins in a rapidly diminishing window of opportunity, part that he is no longer personally subject to the voters and so has less need to look "conservative" to his former voting base.

I was actually somewhat concerned this might happen if he got another term. Not concerned enough to vote for Kamala Harris, of course, but it had me worried: You never find out what a politician REALLY wants to do until they're a lame duck.

[SimonP]

Yeah, all you cared about was the trans shit. As long as Trump got that done, as far as you're concerned, you'd write him a blank check.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not fair, I cared about the immigration and 2nd amendment stuff, too.

[SimonP]

I'd wager that, if Trump were exactly like Kamala on the Second Amendment and immigration, but still anti-trans, you'd vote for him.

And if Trump were exactly like Kamala on trans stuff, but like he was on immigration and Second Amendment, you'd have had a hard time bringing yourself to vote for him.

And if he were exactly like Kamala on all three, you'd probably not vote.

So yeah, trans shit is all you care about. If you could get it up any more, I could guess what your porn searches look like.

[David Nieporent]

Just because you make your views on LGBTQ things the center of your identity doesn't mean everyone else does. Brett has pretty bog-standard conservative views on that topic, but he has pretty bog-standard conservative views on almost all topics, and he's really hardcore on the 2A. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that "trans shit is all he cares about."

[SimonP]

The Goober is more than welcome to address my counterfactuals.

And you're more than welcome to fuck yourself, Chip.

[DDHarriman]

Correct. The people who want GUBMENT INTERFERENCE are low IQ POCs from here and abroad and their Democrat masters who throw millions at each of them so long as they stay on the plantation and facilitate their vote fraud and kickback some vig.

Since they WANT GUBMENT INTERFERENCE, they earned it!

[Michael P]

The last two days, "not guilty" posted harassing messages demanding that another commenter provide a specific basis for calling a particular person a "White Supremacist Grand Dragon". "not guilty" repeatedly asserted this label was, in substance, "an extremely scurrilous assertion of fact" -- and rejected the (correct) explanations of third parties that it was an invented hyperbolic label whose basis was fully explained in the original comment.

Yesterday, "not guilty" ran away rather than identify who he thought was qualified to designate someone a "White Supremacist Grand Dragon".

I repeat the invitation here for "not guilty" to elaborate on why he thinks the epithet is "an extremely scurrilous assertion of fact". Or in the alternative to "admit that [he] is just making shit up". (All quotes from "not guilty".)

[Frank Drackman]

Barry Hussein Osama spoke at the funeral of a DemoKKKrat US Senator who was an "Exalted Cyclops"

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Bigotry in pretend condemnation of the KKK (but really the Democrats, of course) another in a line of a lack of self-awareness in the Frankie character played here.

[Frank Drackman]

Find me a Repubiclown who was an "Exalted Cyclops" and I'll condemn them.
But I come from a fambily of Under-achievers, there was my Great Great Grandfather Emil Drackman, he fought the Mexicans at Palo Alto, the Seminoles in Florida, and the Yankees at Shiloh.
He couldn't get along with anyone!!!!
Emil couldn't even do well in the Klan, best he made was "Barely Meets Standards Cyclops"

Frank

[not guilty]

I repeat the invitation here for "not guilty" to elaborate on why he thinks the epithet is "an extremely scurrilous assertion of fact". Or in the alternative to "admit that [he] is just making shit up". (All quotes from "not guilty".)

At the risk of casting pearls before swine, Mathew 7:6, I'll take the bait.

Whether someone is a Grand Dragon, that is, holding a position of leadership in the Ku Klux Klan or a similar organization, is capable of being proven true or false; ergo, it is a matter of fact. The adjective "scurrilous" means expressing unfair or false criticism that is likely to damage someone's reputation. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scurrilous

Labeling someone a "white supremacist" in online debate is usually a matter of opinion. Professor Volokh has written that such is opinion and thus not actionable defamation, unless defendant "implies undisclosed facts by insinuating that the plaintiff" engaged in specific racist acts or made (undisclosed) racist statements. https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/22/calling-someone-white-supremacist-in-online-debate-is-opinion/

That exception applies here. By juxtaposing "white supremacist" and "Grand Dragon", DDHarriman here insinuated that Professor Celia Applegate not only holds racist views, but holds office in a particularly vile domestic terrorist organization.

In that I don't travel in KKK circles, I don't claim to know who is qualified to designate someone a "White Supremacist Grand Dragon", and I don't care to speculate. Perhaps that question should be put to DDH who made the assertion.

[not guilty]

I know that Michael P and DDHarriman are fishy, and I know that they are in a barrel, but does that mean I shouldn't shoot them?

[Life of Brian]

Whether someone is a Grand Dragon, that is, holding a position of leadership in the Ku Klux Klan or a similar organization, is capable of being proven true or false; ergo, it is a matter of fact.

As you love to instruct us, ipse dixit doesn't make it so.

First off, in order to get this to hold together at all you had to define "Grand Dragon" as a leader "in the Ku Klux Klan or a similar organization." Thing is, though, once you leave the literal bounds of the KKK, you have to do some fancy footwork indeed to try to rationalize why the person would have to be a prominent leader in "a similar organization" as opposed to simply a prominent leader.

Even were we to set that aside for the sake of argument, it seems like you skipped over the threshold question of whether there actually are any "Grand Dragon" positions in the KKK or your ethereal "similar organizations" these days. I don't see any sign that there are, but feel free to fill me in if you know of any.

Given that, it's not at all clear how in the eyes of a reasonable person this particular epithet would be an actionable statement of fact as opposed to a generalized slur (such as "Nazi" -- which certainly is capable of being proven true or false, but which we relegated to opinion status some time ago).

[not guilty]

Common parlance. Learn about it, Life of Birdbrain.

[Michael P]

ipse dixit doesn't make it so.

[Michael P]

(I will also point out that if a term is in "common parlance", that very much tends to undercut it as a badge of either office or membership in any particular kind of organization.)

[Life of Brian]

Man. You opted to throw something over your shoulder for cover as you retreated with tucked tail rather than just pretending you didn't see my post, and that was the best you could come up with? You're slipping, friend.

[Commenter_XY]

Common parlance? What is that, NG?

[Michael P]

That's a lot of words for an admission to "just making shit up" -- but that admission is all it boils down to.

Notably, as I very specifically cited in the comment above, the epithet was "an invented hyperbolic label whose basis was fully explained in the original comment." All the pertinent facts, and the standard of judgment, were fully disclosed. The only undisclosed defamatory facts were those imagined by "not guilty".

[not guilty]

Notably, as I very specifically cited in the comment above, the epithet was "an invented hyperbolic label whose basis was fully explained in the original comment." All the pertinent facts, and the standard of judgment, were fully disclosed. The only undisclosed defamatory facts were those imagined by "not guilty".

Michael P, you lie. "Grand Dragon" is not "an invented hyperbolic label." Its meaning is well known. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grand%20dragon According to Wikipedia, it dates back to the earliest days of the KKK:

In both prescripts there were four levels or "departments" of organization, above the basic level:

Empire – constituting the whole area of the Klan's activities. This was led by the imperial wizard and his staff of ten Genii, as well as a grand schubladen (treasurer) and grand scribe, whose duty was to keep lists of the subordinate officers. The genii, imperial exchequer and Scribe were appointed by the imperial wizard.
Realms – while the role of realms was laid out in the first prescript, they were only identified as states in the second prescript. Realms were ruled by a grand dragon who was assisted by eight squires, as well as a grand exchequer and a grand scribe, whose duties were identical to those of the above officers on the imperial level. All officers were appointed by the grand dragon.
Dominions – identified in the second prescript as "coterminous with such counties as the grand dragons of the several Realms shall assign" and "not exceed three in number for each congressional district". The dominion was headed by a grand titan who was assisted by six furies, a grand exchequer and a grand scribe, all of whom were appointed by the grand titan.
Provinces – the second prescript identified a province as equivalent to a county. It was supervised by a grand giant, who was assisted by four goblins, a grand exchequer, and a grand scribe, all of whom were appointed by the grand giant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_titles_and_vocabulary [boldface in original; footnotes omitted] That article also observes:

Since the dissolution of Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc. in 1944, there have been many Klan groups. Details of the nomenclature have varied, somewhat, among the different groups, but some terms have had more currency than others. Over time, the term klavern replaced klan for local groups. Imperial Wizard and Grand Dragon have still been generally used for the leader of a Klan organization and for state (realm) leaders. Exceptions included cases of one state Klans, such as the Association of Georgia Klans, whose leader, Samuel Green, kept the title Grand Dragon until shortly before his death.

[boldface in original; footnotes omitted]

I note that you cannot have divined your fatuous "invented hyperbolic label whose basis was fully explained in the original comment" characterization from the author of the subject comment, who has responded to my call for supporting facts with radio silence.

I suspect that is because I fact checked him/her pretty specifically:

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

It's time for you to heed the First Rule of Holes, Michael P: STOP DIGGING!!

[DDHarriman]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Put your helmet on and try and follow along.

Cea believes home ownership is White Supremacy.
Ceas mom is a homeowner.

Therefore one can conclude that Cea would believe her mom is a White Supremacist by owning a home.

Part deux (that's "two" for you continental's):

Ceas mom has a very nice amount of home ownership much more than average.

If owning a home makes you a White Supremacist, in Ceas eyes, then owning a very expensive home makes you a Super White Supremacist -- aka Grand Dragon.

Tada!
QED
And Bobs your uncle!

How on Earth could you not reason that out for yourself?

[David Nieporent]

Cea believes home ownership is White Supremacy.

She does not. You aren't smart enough to understand her argument (which itself isn't a very smart one). She thinks that the concept of private homeownership is related to white supremacy, not that anyone who owns a home is a white supremacist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What she said was, "Private property including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy..."

If someone is wielding a weapon of white supremacy, that kind of suggests that they are a white supremacist.

[DDHarriman]

No you don't understand their parse.

If us Black Hearts own a home we are White Supremacists.

Not them, the Gold Hearts.

[not guilty]

"If someone is wielding a weapon of white supremacy, that kind of suggests that they are a white supremacist."

If someone wields a sword, does that kind of suggest that he is a Civil War era infantryman?

[DDHarriman]

If wielding a sword is a definition of it then yes.

Cea defined it. I applied it.

[not guilty]

"How on Earth could you not reason that out for yourself?"

I'm sorry, DDH. Poe's Law can be a bitch, as your blather illustrates.

[DDHarriman]

Why don't you just apologize and take the L?

[Life of Brian]

I suspect the rather long recent streak of Ls is a good part of the reason he's digging in and picking sillier and sillier hills to die on. In poker it's known as being on tilt.

[Armchair]

California billionaires fleeing the state... Looks like CA's proposed billionaire tax is having effects...just not the ones it wants.

"Google co-founder Larry Page appears to be distancing himself from California, as public filings reviewed by Fox News Digital from the California Secretary of State’s office show several business entities linked to Page were moved out of the state in December, ahead of the Jan. 1, 2026, residency date tied to the proposed tax. Those filings indicate his family office, Koop LLC, and his influenza research fund, Flu Lab LLC, no longer list California, while a flying-car venture, One Aero, now lists its primary address in Florida.

Oracle founder Larry Ellison has taken steps that signal a potential pullback from California, though details of a reported $45 million off-market sale of his San Francisco home have not been independently confirmed by major outlets. The New York Post reported the sale and said it would mark the city’s largest real estate transaction of 2025.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/billionaires-make-strategic-moves-california-ahead-proposed-wealth-tax

[SimonP]

Yes, this definitely signals a failure of California tax policy, as opposed to suggesting that the tech sector is cuddling up to a developing kleptocratic regime centered on Mar-a-Lago.

[DDHarriman]

Their next step is gonna be to stop allowing them to leave

[Malika la Maize]

The number of part-time workers who say they would prefer full-time positions jumped sharply in November to an eight-year high.

Meanwhile, those with multiple jobs — 5.7 percent of the workforce — is at its highest level in more than 25 years, according to monthly figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In all, a record 9.3 million Americans worked more than one job in November, a 10 percent increase from a year earlier.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/01/08/multiple-part-time-jobs-economy/

[Malika la Maize]

Remember folks, Miami wasn’t good enough to get into the CFP, lol. Also, just like last year, it’s a SEC free final coming up.

[Frank Drackman]

Was pulling for the Cane's myself, those Ole Miss fans are the biggest Insufferable Pricks in a Sport full of Insufferable Prick Fanbases. Their team is called the "Rebels" but do you ever hear about "Rebel Nation"?? and whatever happened to their Mascot "Colonel Reb"??
And don't even get me started on "Hotty Toddy"
Last time they won the SEC JFK's body was still warm...
Was in Eugene back in the Fall, the Duck fans are just so NICE, they didn't see my Auburn hat and make the mocking cruel (unfortunately true) comments they could have, weren't even still pissed about losing to us for the 2010 BCS. And their Duck Mascot is a happy Duck, like Donald, not the Evil Howard the Duck the Cane's have.
Indiana I don't know as much about, except you can't buy Cold Beer in the Convenience Stores, so I'm supposed to drive and drink Warm Beer??? Works great, I'll just get a cup of Ice and a fifth of Crown.
That whole "SEC! SEC!" has always been Bullshit, except for Ohio State and maybe Notre Dame, I always hope the SEC team loses. I'm an Auburn fan, we hate everyone.

Frank

[John 4]

Trump, when asked why he wanted the U.S. to control Greenland, said: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

The U.S. president also told the Times he did not feel answerable to international law and was constrained only by his own conscience. “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” he said.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-interview-us-greenland-grab-nato-preservation-choice/

Cool, cool. Totally normal stuff.

[apedad]

Justice Alito Sits Out Ruling in Case That Could Impact His Finances

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself in a Big Oil case going back to the Biden administration, with reasons unspecified but likely tied to stock held in multiple energy companies.

Alito, according to sources, owns stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66—both mentioned in myriad suits.

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-alito-oil-scotus-recusal-1910746

It's refreshing to see justices hold themselves accountable when required.

Last May, five justices recused themselves from an appeal, leaving the court without a quorum, and therefore kept the lower court ruling in place.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Alito regularly recuses from cases though unlike Kagan and Jackson (and sometimes Sotomayor) the policy is not to say why.

He recuses more than others generally because his investments cause conflicts. A lot of press cited Thomas having ethical issues for financial reasons.

Alito had a few problems but overall this is standard for him.

[John F. Carr]

He doesn't explain in the official reporter, but in this case we do have an explanation.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We often have "sources" that provide a likely explanation. Fix the Court is a good source for providing them. I think it is helpful for the justices themselves to note the reason for recusal.

[John F. Carr]

There is an official explanation giving the reason. The clerk sent a letter to counsel:

I am writing to inform the parties that Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case because of a financial interest in ConocoPhillips, the parent corporation for Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company. Justice Alito initially decided not to recuse because on June 2, 2025 Burlington was dismissed as a petitioner in this Court under Rule 46.1 after Burlington advised the Court by letter that it was “withdrawing” from the petition and that “neither Burlington Resources nor ConocoPhillips will be a party to (or have any other involvement in) the above-referenced case.” Later briefing, however, noted that Burlington remained a party in the district court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-813/391167/20260108162001341_Letter%20from%20Clerk%20in%20No.%2024-813.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

Justice Alito is an honest man. Thank God.

[Malika la Maize]

Alisa Efimova and Misha Mitrofanov might be the best pairs ice skating team in the United States. In the third year of a partnership that started as a hasty tryout and has turned into a marriage, they are halfway to a second straight U.S. title and one of the two pairs spots that the United States will have at next month’s Milan Cortina Olympics.

Their presence in Milan could help the United States win gold in the team competition, given that they seem almost certain to be chosen for the American team when it is named Sunday morning.

Except for one problem: Efimova is not a U.S. citizen and will have to be one by Sunday if she and Mitrofanov hope to go to Italy.

Doug Zeghibe, executive director and CEO of the Skating Club of Boston, is doing everything he can to make a miracle happen. Efimova and Mitrofanov are members of the club and, for months, Zeghibe has been calling immigration lawyers and lobbying senators from Massachusetts and Texas (where Mitrofanov is from) to find a way to get Efimova citizenship.

In October, with time running short, he went straight to the White House, writing a two-page appeal to President Donald Trump. In the letter, he told Trump how much Efimova, who has been in the United States since 2023, loves the country and desperately wants to be a citizen. He said she is proud of what she has done as a skater with Mitrofanov and can help the U.S. team in Milan.

When Zeghibe didn’t hear back, he called a White House contact in December. The person asked him to email directly and reported back that the letter had been placed on Trump’s desk.

Zeghibe also has asked senators from Massachusetts and Texas to sponsor a bill this week that would give her citizenship

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/2026/01/07/us-figure-skating-championships/

[Bob from Ohio]

"letter had been placed on Trump’s desk"

Then Miller took it off.

[Moderation4ever]

In the 2016 election we were told that Hillary Clinton was a warmongering neocon. That same label was applied to Nicky Halley in the 2024 primaries. What we see is that for all the talk of peace and non involvement Donald Trump is the real war mongering neocon. To top everything off he now talking of a 50% bump in defense spending. Trump is a con man and far too many have fallen for the con.

[Frank Drackman]

Trump's "Wah" was more of a "Police Action" or could even be considered an "Environmental Cleanup" (much better to pump that dirty Venezuelan Oil out of the ground where it can be disposed of responsibly, as fuel for Powerplants, Cars, Planes)
I agree the 50% Defense increase is stupid, but it's what'll be needed if Lindsay Buckingham-Nicks-Graham's Wet Dream of WW3 happens, replacing those Aircraft Carriers/F35s/ is going to be Expensive.
The Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines?? not as much, dead Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines don't cost much. (maybe the SGLI, which they pay for anyway, the US Flag (made in Vietnam, Ironic)

Frank

[apedad]

At his inaugural ball in January, (Trump) declared, “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end — and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

Since taking office on Jan. 20, 2025, Trump has overseen at least 626 air strikes, according to data compiled by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project that was shared with Military Times.

By comparison, his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, launched a total of 555 strikes in his entire four-year term.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2025/12/31/a-year-of-strikes-us-military-operations-surge-under-trump/

When Trump says something, place your bet on the exact opposite.

[Frank Drackman]

How many "Abby Gates" has Trump presided over?

[John F. Carr]

Blowing stuff up from a distance is different from occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for years.

[dwb68]

Well, here we go.

Q1 2026, bank layoffs will begin third week in Jan and go through March in stages.

If you are not in Charlotte or Dallas, you should be.

Hard to say how CEOs will navigate the pressure. Theyd prefer to do it quietly, so they can make everybody happy. Big banks though want a piece of the Fannie Freddie IPO, and they really cant be seen enabling Mandami. Plus, banks with lower costs rule the roost and NYC and San Fran are absurdly high cost places to hire people. All it will take is one well placed video and they are all announcing their exit.

[Squire Al]

Trump claims, in his own voice, that his only limit in action is his own morality. This would be bad enough from any President but considering what we have already seen with regards to his sense of morality, this can only be seen as obscene. So much for limited government.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000010632450/trump-international-law-greenland.html

[John F. Carr]

Reminds me of Louis XIV.

[Commenter_XY]

The Sun King?

[John F. Carr]

That one. L'état, c'est moi.

[Moderation4ever]

For the second time in a few week I have read in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, that a local restaurant is closing with the reason given that young people are not drinking as much as they used to. Wisconsin's population is primarily from western Europe where social drinking came with the immigrants. As a young man working as a cook in a restaurant kitchen, I was told that people could always find a dollar in their pocket for a drink. Now the culture appears to be changing. This is of course for the good but I do feel like a dinosaur.

[Malika la Maize]

Just a Dry January thing or beyond that?

[darkknight9]

Beyond. Madison is a college town sure, but places that have exorbitant prices that can't fit in the budgets of either students or workin Joes aren't going to last long. The places that are losing first are ones with fine wine, high priced small portioned food and are primarily not places where you would go to hang out and have a beer. If you don't have the money to go out much, you wont.

Wisconsin's drinking culture (look up one of those US maps divided into counties and ranked for booze consumption from white/next to none and dark blue/Wisconsin) will always be drink often, drink cheaply, and continue to possess one of the lightest punishments available for OWI/DUI in the nation. Your local urban bar(s) will suffer too as youth drink less and less and us old timers die off, but in rural areas the watering holes for farmers and their families should stay strong for a long time.

Cheap drink, cheap greasy food, and your neighbors will live on. Unaffordable places that cant draw them in like they used to are in trouble. Just my $0.02

[Zarniwoop]

As a resident of Madisonland WI ... I'm not gonna say you're wrong.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe the fact that even Oklahoma has legal recreational Marriage-a-Juan-a has something to do with it???

[Moderation4ever]

I think access to other recreational drugs has taken its toll on drinking. I would also suggest that current social mixing habits reduce drinking. Boys don't meet girls in bars anymore. I spend most of my twenties going out to bars with groups of friends.

[dwb68]

Restaurants have a very high failure rate. You practically have to reinvent yourself and change the menu every two years.

The funny thing about restaurant failures is that no one ever blames the menu, the prices, the bad service, or the poor quality food. It's the customer's fault for not eating what we damn well serve them!

We eat out a lot less because the cost has become ridiculous. Nothing to do with alcohol (well: the cost of a beer/wine at a restaurant is triply ridiculous now so when we do eat out, we don't drink much if at all).

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, our general experience has been that it's cheaper to just buy the ingredients and cook it ourselves. Restaurant food we reserve for very special occasions, and when that's not practical. (Like stopping to eat on a long walk.)

[Frank Drackman]

You mean it's cheaper to buy your own food at the Grocery Store and cook it yourself?!?!? Thanks Dave Ramsey!!!!!!

[Zarniwoop]

Which restaurant; East side or West side?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Comparing video presentations from different sources, it becomes apparent that there is variation in both the visual quality and the timing from frame to frame among them. I am not trying to make any particular point with this comment, except to say that whichever video you choose to trust may show notably different frame density and timing than some of the others.

That can affect perception of how long intervals between parts of the incident took, and thus how fast things happened. The video I have thus far found to contain the most visual information in terms of frames per second—and which thus seems to best resolve people's locations and movements—can be found at today's Guardian website. To see it best, be sure to enlarge to full frame view, and click at short intervals along the timeline to see how many different frames are shown during each second.

[hobie]

As far as I can tell, it is only within the comfy MAGA sphere that anyone believes this was an antisemitic, marxist, terrorist tranny attack on an ICE agent. Everyone else in the world sees a murder. Midterms baby!

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see anybody saying antisemitic or tranny, and very few saying Marxist.

She was just an idiot who didn't think she had to allow herself to be arrested just because she was committing a crime. The police aren't ALLOWED to enforce laws she disapproves of, apparently.

I'd much rather she'd "found out" in a courtroom, rather than been shot, frankly.

[Sarcastr0]

The police aren't ALLOWED to enforce laws she disapproves of, apparently

Telepathy will get you everywhere you want.

This speculation of the motives of the victim has no factual value, other than telling everyone something you want is for there to be no fault for shooting liberals for protesting.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're always calling simple observation and deduction "telepathy".

She resisted arrest after obstructing ICE enforcement of immigration laws. Did she do that because she approves of immigration laws?

But you're right about one thing: Her motives don't matter, it's her actions that were crimes, not her reasons for committing those crimes. You only need to look at motives if you want fewer people to commit crimes and get shot in the proccess.

I guess you don't want that?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "She resisted arrest after obstructing ICE enforcement of immigration laws."

1. Let's say she did. Fine. There are laws and penalties for that.

2. Meanwhile, the ICE officer committed murder, shooting her three times (assumption; the killing was at point-blank range) when he was clear of the car and in no danger with all shots.

Somehow, Brett, you see the first as the greater crime. Newsflash : It isn't.

[Michael P]

Repeating many-times-debunked lies does not change the truth, grb.

[Joe_dallas]

"2. Meanwhile, the ICE officer committed murder, shooting her three times (assumption; the killing was at point-blank range) when he was clear of the car and in no danger with all shots"

The video does not show that

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — The video does show:

1. The shooter was not, "run over," by the car.

2. That the shooting victim did not intend to run the shooter over, or to harm him in any way. She lived long enough to prove that beyond any doubt.

3. That the shooter had plenty of time, had he chosen to do it, to avoid being in danger for even an instant, simply by moving 8–10 feet to the side when the car was first put in motion in reverse. Indeed, the shooter had time enough to get out of the way more than twice that distance, and to put himself in a spot behind the driver which the car could not possibly reach even if the driver intended to aim it at him, which she obviously did not.

Note also, LEOs have legal obligations to deescalate potentially violent situations.

4. This LEO chose instead to escalate the violence. He strove systematically from his first moment on the scene to get into a position maximally advantageous to make a killing shot at short range.

Had this been a black civilian thug, Joe_dallas, and had the shooting victim been someone you cared about, you would have no trouble at all conceding 1–4 above. Indeed, you would be insisting on the shooter's conviction for murder in the first degree.

Everyone reading these comments knows that. Your advocacy is a demand that LEOs enforcing laws you approve be arbitrarily empowered to use summary execution as an enforcement tool.

Bellmore and others are also advocating that. Everyone who will not concede a duty by a LEO in a situation like this one to deescalate violence is advocating that.

The President of the United States is advocating that, while coercing cowardly senior members of his administration to chorus that advocacy in unison. None who do that is fit to serve ever again in any office of the United States.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, there are laws and penalties for that.

I said above that, at every decision point, she doubled down on committing crimes instead of stopping. She could in principle have resisted arrest by rolling up her window, she chose to do it by committing vehicular assault, giving the agent an at least colorable excuse to shoot her.

I'd much rather he hadn't have shot. I wouldn't have shot in his place. I think the first shot might be defensible, the rest of them not. I'd like to see him face a jury of his peers over it.

I'm not sure what more you'd want me to say? Pretend that she didn't contribute mightily to what happened by continually escalating? Nope, not going to do that.

[Sarcastr0]

You are so committed to condemning this woman.

And you will tell yourself whatever story lets you decide she deserved being killed.

This whole thing has been an exercise in revealing the various ways MAGA will work to dehumanize when it’s a white lady.

[Commenter_XY]

There is such a thing as human agency. Who egged her (Good) on (and admitted it)? Yeah, her partner. Is that human agency too?

This isn't telepathy, Man of Science. It is reality. The video does not lie.

It is a tremendously terrible, no good, stupendously shitty, really horrendous idea for 'Jane Q Citizen' to knowingly obstruct, impede and then threaten the life of LEOs in performing their job duties. That is a bad choice that has real consequences. I fervently hope others are dissuaded from making a similar fateful (and fatal) choice, after seeing what can happen. I do not want to see any more people die from doing stupid things like this. And they will if the line repeatedly crossed.

This AWFL knowingly crossed the line, and paid for her bad choices with her life. Her child is now an orphan. That is the tragedy. What do you tell a 6-year old child? Mommy isn't coming home, ever again. Daddy is gone too. You are alone.

Yeah, Man of Science, it is pretty terrible. Nobody is dehumanizing anything.

[David Nieporent]

What do you tell a 6-year old child?

That Donald Trump is a murderer.

[Sarcastr0]

You really do love to get graphic when it comes to imagining misery.

[Kazinski]

"What do you tell a 6-year old child?"

Good question for the surviving mother, who shouted at her partner "Drive Baby Drive", when the officer was directly in front of the Pilot, and one second before the dead mother floored it, and got shot.

That was about seconds after the Partner said to the officer "You want to come at us? You want to come at us?". They were trying to provoke a confrontation.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/2009695703870886027?s=20

[Josh R]

Yes, she was provoking a confrontation. Professionals don't take the bait. They don't throw gasoline on the fire.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes, she was provoking a confrontation."

By trying to kill someone.

[Josh R]

What bullshit. She was trying to drive away.

Plus, the provoker was her wife, not the driver.

[Sarcastr0]

Over and over again, when pushed on the facts, the defenders of the ICE guy have retreated from she 'stomped on the pedal' or 'floored it' and end up at 'she didn't comply.'

That's the bare bones issue - She didn't comply.

So she was killed. As is proper for those who don't comply with the regime.

That's where it ends with these people. The ones who pretend to care about facts.

The ones too dumb to keep track of facts are still yelling how everyone else is now prove wrong thanks to the new super clear pixelated video shared on @UntoldNews.com or some such.

[Kazinski]

Right, but that doesn't mean they just walk away either.

If she and her partner allowed them they would have made a peaceable arrest, and let them get the video of that for their trophy post.

[Josh R]

I didn't say they should have walked away.

What they shouldn't have done is yelled out to the driver to get out the car while one of the officers grabbed the door handle.

What they should have done, already having written down the license plate number, is to tell the driver she must stop blocking the street and if she refuses to do so, she will be placed under arrest. If she does not comply and attempts to flee after an escalation, get out of the way and let her go knowing she can be arrested later.

[ThePublius]

"This speculation of the motives of the victim...."

Victim? The victim here was the ICE officer she tried to run down. She was the perpetrator.

[grb]

Only the most dishonest or stupidly gullible deadenders are still claiming "she tried to run down". Hell, a majority of the rightwingers in this forum have abandoned that lie as being against the evidence.

Which of the two categories do we put you in, ThePublius?

[Life of Brian]

Hell, a majority of the rightwingers in this forum have abandoned that lie as being against the evidence.

To the extent that was even remotely correct 9 hours ago, it sure did age like fine milk.

[Joe_dallas]

The leftists here should really look at the video in much greater detail.

Her car was parked perpendicular on the street. She was attempting to flee by driving to the right. To accomplish that the following actions were taken
1 - because a person was standing in front of the car, she had to back up.
2 - in the process of backing up, she had the front wheels turned to the left.
3 - when she started to drive forward, the wheels were still turned to the left
4 - within approx 1/2 sec, the wheels were pointed straight forward at the individual as she was accelerating.
5 - approx 1/2 after that the wheels were starting to point right.
6 - somewhere between points 4 & 5 is when the first shots were fired.

Thus the officer had every reason to believe the driver was attempting assault with the vehicle.

[hobie]

It's thrilling to watch the MAGA mind process information in real time.

[Joe_dallas]

It would be more thrilling if you actually watched the video and commented accurately and with some level intelligence on the facts on this topic or any other topic. But , that has never happened nor will it happen.

[Kazinski]

Its your turn Hobie. Why don't you tell us what you see in the 3 seconds from :39 to :42 of the officers video, and exactly what info he had that she wasn't trying to run him down, until she is already past him at :42?

The only thing he saw was her directly in front of him, looking right at him, and the only thing he probably heard was the partner yelling Drive Baby Drive, and the engine being gunned.

[Moderation4ever]

This was not police. Police, especially in large metro areas, are trained to handle situations like this. This is Trump's rouge secret police.

[Bob from Ohio]

They are federal law enforcement officers.

They are not "rogue", they are enforcing federal law according to the law and their instructions.

Good comment otherwise!

[Kazinski]

They aren't 'reds' either.

[Malika la Maize]

Need to top up your prescription for asthma medication? If you’re in Utah, you can do it in minutes from your web browser for a $4 fee — without talking to a doctor.

Utah residents can now use an artificial intelligence chatbot to renew some commonly used prescription drugs under a first-in-the-nation pilot program. Regulators say the experiment could inform the future of AI-driven health care in the state.

The AI service, Doctronic, can process 30-, 60- or 90-day renewals for certain medications that have already been prescribed by a licensed provider, according to the Utah Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy. The service will not issue new prescriptions or handle refills for controlled or addictive substances.

The program’s goal is to help free up doctors to focus on patient care and make medicine more accessible and affordable, the AI policy office said.

Several AI companies have made forays into providing health care advice, but the Utah pilot marks the first time a state regulator has empowered a chatbot to handle prescriptions — a role long reserved for licensed health care providers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/01/08/ai-prescription-drugs-utah/

[OpinionsVary]

What use does the AI bring to this? It's just renewing prescriptions that have already been prescribed. That should be more than dooable with a bog standing website with some business logic on the back end. In fact, that back end must presumably already exist since the AI will be calling some kind of API.

[Malika la Maize]

Usually you have to call the doctor back to get it renewed when it runs out. I guess the AI figured which ones are routine ongoing prescriptions and if you saw the prescriber within a time window where automatic refill makes sense, leaving the docs office to focus on other things.

[OpinionsVary]

Okay sure. But none of that has to have an AI or is really improved by AI. You have a list of medications that can be autorenewed (which someone must have since they've given it to the AI), you have a record of the original prescription (again, must exist since the AI is using it) and you have an API somewhere that the AI sends a POST message to actually do the renewal (again, must exists since the AI needs to talk to the outside world to actualize the renewal). That adds up to a website with a form, where you enter your patient id, select your prescription and hit renew. I've never had to do it myself (no on any regular meds) but I'm sure I've seen this option already in my telemedicine subscription.

What does the AI add to the business logic here? The website is just as doctor-free as the AI version and will cost far less to build and run.

[John F. Carr]

My last pharmacy autorenewed prescriptions without asking me. I had to block one of their phone numbers because it kept calling me to ask me to enroll in autorenewal. Finally their computer enrolled me anyway.

[Ska]

This served as a reminder to text yes to Duane Reade to refill my prescription. Which then prompts me to ask: 1) is this a rarity in most states or is Utah the rarity that doesn't allow this? and 2) is asthma medication special in a way that other meds aren't?

[apedad]

Republican piles on Kristi Noem by blocking all DHS nominees amid ICE shooting

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he had placed a hold on all Department of Homeland Security nominees after Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly declined to testify before the Senate.

"I'd simply like the Homeland Security Secretary to respond to what are now two requests by the chairman to come before the committee," Tillis told Semafor correspondent Burgess Everett, "and that's the reason why I placed the blanket hold before the shooting yesterday on anything related to Homeland Security until such time as she does that."

https://www.rawstory.com/thom-tillis-kristi-noem/

Stupid Senate Democrats just blocking Trum . . . what?

This is a leading Republican Senator?

NVM

[DDHarriman]

No one outside of some stupid tiny liberal bubble, believes Federal lifer Republicans are MAGA or even serving the interests of America.

No one believes that. Why act surprised? The Republicans in Congress, most of them - in fact, coordinate and act to undermine Trump and any pro-American policies but manage the appearances so it likes like they tried to support but just couldn't!!!

Look at the vote for extend these absurd, failed policy covering, big Insurance profiting, Obamacare subsidies.

It's all kabuki theater in service of personal greed or sickening and immoral foreign or failed ideologies such as collectivism, or power "By Any Means Necessary" (aka cheat in elections, lie about facts, kill Whites)

[Frank Drackman]

Watching that Ellen Degenerate "Wrinkle Fighting System" Info-Commercial (Love how she says calculating shipping costs is too difficult so she'll ship it free)
Ellen looks as hideous as ever but her Wifey-Wife Portia de Rossi? Almost enough to make me turn Lesbo.

Frank "Portia, can you do something about THESE wrinkles??"

[hobie]

Good thing we got Loving v Virginia, Frankie. Giving our Jews the opportunity to miscegenate with lesbians.

[Frank Drackman]

Can I just miscegenate until I need Glasses?

[dwb68]

If I decide to self-identify as a woman, will a lipstick lesbian date me? Wouldnt it be uninclusive of her not to?

[John F. Carr]

I have seen a few court cases where a male college student presenting as a woman successfully used accusations of discrimination to get into a girl's pants. When she had regrets she filed a complaint.

[DDHarriman]

Wanna start your day with a smile?

BREAKING - A black man in Seattle is going viral after taking his skateboard to the face of a leftist who was harassing a street preacher and threatening his life simply for praying for him.

“Shut the fck up and mind yo business. He asked you several times to leave him alone.”

https://x.com/Rightanglenews/status/2009381152755253304

People are getting sick of the hobies and Sarcastr0's of the world.

[dwb68]

Blind side attack with a skateboard? Assault and battery with a camera rolling is never a good idea. Good chance this guy ends up in jail.

[Brett Bellmore]

Darned near certain. You can't clobber someone just for being obnoxious.

[John 4]

Is it possible the person brushed against the perpetrator, requiring a split-second, violent reaction?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not based on the video, no.

[darkknight9]

You can't clobber someone just for being obnoxious.

Heavenly god I wish! 🙂

[DDHarriman]

A POC? In jail? lmao

Not to worry. Some Democrat judge will let him off into the streets with a wrist slap.

[Frank Drackman]

It's in their nature to react violently, all those years in the Jungle. Whites are much more civilized, we'll just steal the desiccant packs out of their clothes, in 5 years they'll be ruined!!!!!

[DDHarriman]

If a suspected bank robber takes a shot at a police officer when exiting the bank, misses, and then runs in the opposite direction, is that bank robber still a threat to the life or safety of the officer?

One answer makes you a moron.

(h/t https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/2009299398174327001?s=20)

[not guilty]

Under that hypothetical scenario, the fleeing, armed suspect poses an immediate threat to the life or safety of anyone present, including the police officer. The use of deadly force would be objectively reasonable.

Why do you ask?

[DDHarriman]

In 1900 Whites were 33% of the world population
Today we are 7%.

Children ages between 1-10 it's 3%.

We are being genocided.

[MarkJawz]

It's funny how leftists are all about diversity except for maintaining white diversity.

[darkknight9]

Paraphrasing with deference to Titus: Sometimes I like my women with a shot of mocha.
Gotta go with what looks good. 🙂
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

[Moderation4ever]

Thanks for the stupidest thing I have read today. First race is merely a social concept. The fact is that people you would consider white today, the Irish or mixed blood people, would not have been considered white in 1900's. I cannot think of a whiter group than the polish people and yet the Nazi's thought them inferior. Finally it is worth remembering that we are all African at our DNA core. I care about people not races.

[DDHarriman]

>First race is merely a social concept.

Do you tell that to blacks and Jews too, or only Whites, Moshe?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959437X24001291

Do you trust the science or do you trust The Narrative?

[Frank Drackman]

Don't you hate it when you go in a nice Restaurant and there's a bunch of Social Concepts making lots of noise??

[DDHarriman]

lol, that's my boy! Carry on, Christian Brother.

[hobie]

Look at you two commiserating. Natural enemies finding true love on the VC.

[Frank Drackman]

You're just pissy I stole one of your "Social Concepts" Jokes

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It would be good if people saw race as irrelevant and simply didn't care.

Plenty of people manage to hold that attitude.

Some people...don't. To them, race isn't a social construct but a vital fact of life affecting whom they associate with, whom they hire...and whom they kill.

And if you constantly pump out propaganda against a minority race - e.g., the Jews and Blacks, but now it seems the Whites - then you encourage the latter kind of people and not the former.

So, although Whites becoming more of a minority has no intrinsic signifiance, it will have real-world significance when it emboldens the wrong kind of people.

Let's just put it this way...in the old days a White person in the U. S. had to put on a Black disguise to find out what it was like to be discriminated against.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

Could it be that soon, no disguise will be necessary and the mere fact of being White will be cause for discrimination?

I personally have no idea - but I know this much...it's not unthinkable, given all the "unthinkable" things which have happened in the last 100 years.

[Commenter_XY]

What are you talking about? Race is genetic, observed behavior is the social concept.

[Moderation4ever]

No race is not genetic it is social. Your DNA does not define your race, your race is defined by observable secondary characteristics and your heritage. People from Spain are white, while people of Spanish decent in other parts of the world are Hispanics. Thomas Jefferson's children were considered black even thou then were 3/4s white and from all accounts many looked white. As I noted, the Irish did not come to America as whites, but rather became white from living in America. Race is all social constructs.

[ducksalad]

We are being genocided.

So sorry. Maybe it's time to consider creating a small reservation where your culture can be preserved and future anthropologists can study you. We could let you keep Iceland, maybe, if you agree to stay on the rez and not make trouble.

If you mean Anglos specifically it's probably too late, like the Pamlico or other tribes. No uncorrupted communities left. Perhaps we could do a museum with some artifacts. Do you have a sepia headshot we could put on an interpretive display panel? "DD Harriman, last known person to call himself an Anglo-Saxon, although scholars have not been able to verify his claims."

[DDHarriman]

lol you can't even acknowledge White. How much do you have to hate a people to not even acknowledge their existence.

[ducksalad]

I'm not into this politically correct thing of slavishly obeying every time an ethnic group changes their mind on what they want to be called. Around here the terms are "Black", "Hispanic", and "Anglo". They were good enough when I grew up and were not considered intentionally offensive, and they're good enough now.

Your outrage is even more phony than the people who object to Black or Hispanic. And that makes you real damn phony.

[hobie]

We are being genocided.

More like Darwinated. Sad.

[not guilty]

Genocided?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Roger S]

Genocide has been given an expanded definition.

[not guilty]

Not only an exaggerated meaning, but it has become a verb rather than (or as well as) a noun? The Humpty Dumpty theory of anthropology?? I don't think so.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
 “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
 “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass (1871).

To the contrary, genocide means "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide See also:

In contemporary international law the crime of genocide is part of the broader category of “crimes against humanity,” which were defined by the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nürnberg Charter). The charter granted the tribunal jurisdiction to indict and try the leaders of the Nazi regime for inhumane acts committed against civilians, as well as for acts of persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds; in so doing, it also contributed to the international criminalization of other forms of abusive conduct. The momentum created by the Nürnberg trials and the ensuing revelations of Nazi atrocities led to the passage by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly of Resolution 96-I (December 1946), which made the crime of genocide punishable under international law, and of Resolution 260-III (December 1948), which approved the text of the first UN human rights treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, also called the Genocide Convention. The convention, which entered into force in 1951, has been ratified by more than 130 countries. Although the United States played a major role in drafting the convention and was an original signatory, the U.S. Senate did not ratify it until 1988.

Article 2 of the convention defines genocide as

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/genocide

Some words should not be trivialized by expanding the meaning beyond their origins -- for example, the Holocaust, lynching, treason. Genocide is one such word IMO.

[MarkJawz]

"Still, that outcome is not a guarantee, said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and a scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

“Courts have sometimes been willing to set aside qualified immunity in cases where facts are particularly egregious and they certainly are extremely egregious here,” he said, referring to Wednesday’s shooting."

Somin is an idiot.

[ReaderY]

In the Militia Act of 1792, Congress required the President to get the permission of a Supreme Court Justice before calling out the militia to suppress an insurrection. The President had to prove (and had the burden of proof) that the rebellion could not be contained by the local authorities.

George Washington followed the Act and did this before calling out the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

Would suggest two things. First, this idea that the President has some sort of inherent authority to order the armed forces to go places and take action has no warrant in either Constitutional twzr or our founding history. Rather, the Constitution entrusted those decisions to Congress. And Congress, in delegating its power, specifically didn’t want the President to have thaf power for himself.

Second, ai suggest we go back to a regime closer to the one of the Founders. No President should be trusted to decide whether or not to send American forces into a combat or occupation posture by himself. Because Article III’s standing requirements have been interpreted in a way that may preclude involving the judiciary as was done in the original Militia Act, I think Congress should secide for itself for each and every such decision.

Such a law could exempt certain clear and specific cases, such as a large-scale invasion of the US or a guarantee-treaty ally. It could provide for the President to summon Congress if it is out of session, for special fast-track rules limiting debate and getting to a final vote quickly, and for meeting virtually for this purpose with all members having secure communications handy at all times to avoid wasting time getting members of Congress to Washington.

But Congress should retake its authority. And it should never give it away again. The First Congress was right. Even George Washington couldn’t be trusted. And Mr. Trump, whatever one thinks of him, is no George Washington.

[darkknight9]

I am no rose colored glasses wearing person so I would highly doubt that congress could work towards taking it back but I do have a genuine question:

How would they go about doing it? What mechanisms are in our laws now to facilitate taking the power back?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the obvious one would be the impeachment power. And, yes, if Trump invades Greenland I'll be cheering for him to be impeached. He routinely violates the Constitution, but that can be said of any President in my life. Invading Greenland would be violating it "outside normal parameters".

[Moderation4ever]

I would add that impeachment power is broader than the President. Congress could impeach the SOD then refuse to confirm a new Secretary until a candidate acceptable to both Congress and the President is chosen. A candidate for SOD that will follow the President but be responsive to Congress's concerns.

[Bob from Ohio]

So he appoints an acting secretary.

[ducksalad]

You are right. If the president is the problem, the impeachment has to be the president.

[ReaderY]

Congress would need to pass a new law. Currently, Congress would have to override a veto. If Congress becomes fed up enough, it’s conceivable.

But another scenario woild resemble what happened after Watergate. A new President comes in who is somewhat contrite, agrees the President’s powers had become two expansive, and is willing to sign on to at least some retrenchment.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think we're anywhere near a bipartisan consensus that Presidential power needs to be rolled back even if it's a President of your own party.

Remember this blog, all serious about Presidential power? Publishing regular essays on the importance of the rule of law by serious people?

Ensuring the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”

Yeah, they shut down as soon as Biden took office. Who could have seen that coming?

[ducksalad]

I don't think we're anywhere near a bipartisan consensus that Presidential power needs to be rolled back even if it's a President of your own party.

If things get bad enough, quick enough, there may be a unique once-in-a-century opportunity in January 2027: one party with two thirds of both houses (perhaps counting some crossovers, which we now have) and the other party holding both president and vice-president.

The problem is that the Democrats, rather than claw back powers, would likely prefer to do a double impeachment and leave the powers in place. But if they need crossovers like Massie, Paul, Murkowski, etc maybe a claw back could be part of the deal.

[Bob from Ohio]

"January 2027: one party with two thirds of both houses (perhaps counting some crossovers, which we now have)"

Democrats will not have "two thirds of both houses" or either house in January 2027 or any time in the foreseeable future.

Keep hope alive!

[ducksalad]

Already said yesterday the most likely outcome is impeached in the House (>1/2) and acquitted in the Senate (<2/3)

And the reason I agree with you is that Republicans are showing healthy signs of disconnecting themselves from Trump, with the specific motivation of avoiding a catastrophic loss.

But who knows. It's not inconceivable that Miller decides to do all the things Trump threatens in his ramblings - troops in Venezuela and Greenland, bombing campaign in Mexico, strike on Iran so major that Iran feels they have to do non-symbolic retaliation. They've already squandered enough support that they'll likely lose the House and Miller at least has a keep-digging personality.

[Bob from Ohio]

The political sorting among the states and gerrymandering means a limit on losses.

No party is getting to 2/3 in either house in our lifetimes

[ducksalad]

Why, you planning to shuffle off soon? In my lifetime Texas (and most of the South) went from clean-sweep Democrat to clean-sweep Republican.

The last big realignment was triggered by a schism in the Democrats. Now the Republicans are showing healthy signs of a schism. Trump now condemns Republican congressmen by name about as much as he does Democrats, and the people he's condemning aren't unknown lightweights. They are people with their own followings.

[Magister]

Very likely to take the House this fall, where only a majority is needed for impeachment. The Senate will again be an issue; there would need to be a lot of crossovers to reach 67 (whether to impeach or override a veto). If they could get that in the Senate, there would probably be enough crossovers in the House to override a veto. Crossovers depend on whether Trump or blue waves scare Republicans more, as they are largely driven by cowardice.

[not guilty]

"Congress would need to pass a new law. Currently, Congress would have to override a veto. If Congress becomes fed up enough, it’s conceivable."

I don't think it would require a new law. Congress merely needs to find the cojones to enforce the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Consider the text of 50 U.S.C. § 1541:

(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.

Existing law provides the tools. What is lacking is Congressional fortitude to use them, up to and including removal from office via impeachment.

[ducksalad]

It's so hard because of one fundamental flaw in the original structure, and one policy mistake at the state level in the very early 1800s with unintended consequences.

The fundamental flaw was setting up a system in which Congress can give up power by a simple majority vote but only get it back by a two-thirds vote. And in practice it's only a one-third vote in one house to give up power, because the president can simply grab power in open violation of the law and one-third of the Senate can protect him.

The policy error was states holding popular votes for president instead of appointing electors. In the long run that may have been as grave a mistake as ratifying the 17th amendment.

[Frank Drackman]

Only thing I like about this Minneapolis Mayor is his Nose, makes mine not seem as noticeable.

[hobie]

UhOh...NPR is reporting that Nicole Good was a "devoted Christian who took part in youth mission trips to Northern Ireland", and that she was only in the neighborhood to drop off her child.

This shiny new MAGA kill may not work out so well. Could it be she was just a mom that got trapped and panicked?

[DDHarriman]

When you find out their framing is not true, because it absolutely isn't, will you continue to subscribe to NPR?

She was a lesbian in a gay relationship and trained agitator by an organization who is funded by the same foreign billionaire that gives you your revolutionary marching orders.

[hobie]

https://kvia.com/cnn-national/2026/01/08/what-we-know-about-the-woman-killed-in-the-minneapolis-ice-shooting/

[DDHarriman]

Interesting. Why do you think they didn't talk about her lesbian girlfriend filming the blockade or her being a member of ICE Watch that was chasing and blocking ICE vehicles all day?

Why do they frame her presence at that location as:
'Good’s ex-husband said she had just dropped off her 6-year-old son at school when she encountered the ICE agents, The Associated Press reported.'

When it's irrefutable she was there to protest and had been disrupting ICE efforts earlier in the day?

[Brett Bellmore]

Renee Nicole Good was Minneapolis ‘ICE Watch’ ‘warrior’ who trained to resist feds before shooting

[Frank Drackman]

8 Abortotoreums in the MSP area, how about some concern for the hundreds of unborn Nicole Goods who'll be murdered today??

Frank

[hobie]

Dear AI, how many abortion clinics are in Israel?

"Israel has numerous locations for legal abortions, with over 40 termination committees operating out of public and private hospitals for initial approvals, plus about 13 specialized sites for later-term procedures, though numbers fluctuate as many clinics handle initial screenings and the procedures themselves. These services are largely funded by the government, but require review by committees that assess specific criteria, making access dependent on health funds and location, with many illegal clinics existing alongside legal ones. "

Remember, Frankie. Opposing the policies/practices of Israel is antisemitism.

[DDHarriman]

For a revolutionary socialist you sure like to sticking it to the Jews.

That's kind of weird since you're clothed in Jew beliefs.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

UhOh...NPR is reporting that Nicole Good was a "devoted Christian who took part in youth mission trips to Northern Ireland", and that she was only in the neighborhood to drop off her child.

That clearly explains why her wife was walking around outside of the car taunting the ICE agents at the time.

[Sarcastr0]

Taunting? Well, that's a killin' crime in the mind of bootlickers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yet another angle on the car

The cop who shot her was walking across the front of the car from the left side when she started moving, and was squarely in her way when she started forward.

[hobie]

You keep trying to square that peg, Brett.

[Sarcastr0]

I know you want to believe, but perhaps a Daily Wire lady's grainy twitter embed both doesn't actually show what you claim [he was not in her way by the time she started moving], and may not be credible.

You can wait for actual reporting before you just share stuff, even if you really love what it claims to say.

[ducksalad]

Sad state of affairs but we can no longer trust any video that comes out more than about 48 hours after the event. That's enough time to create a convincing deepfake. And the 48 hour window will get shorter every year.

[Ska]

Honestly it shouldn't take anyone with media training more than two hours to do it. Two days is very charitable.

I've seen what two of my friends can do with AI in a matter of minutes. Now, sure, still images in minutes is doable. Moving images are more complicated - but not that much more complicated.

[ducksalad]

I'm figuring on a really good deepfake they'd want to do stuff like reverse plant the file on the device that supposedly took the video, fake the ISP logs showing the video uploading, etc.

But maybe you're right. Get the video out quick to capitalize on the outrage cycle and establish the narrative, faking the digital trail just needs to happen before the serious investigation starts.

[Sarcastr0]

I wouldn't say *any* video. If you can trace it back to an actual report, citing an actual photographer, you're in pretty good hands. Though not infallable.
And things are going to get worse with institutions getting fooled before they get better.

This twitter embed just says 'CNN' inline. Which is frankly more suspicious than if it cited nothing at all.

[ducksalad]

Pretty good hands though not infallible sounds like the right level of skepticism. For now.

Sometime in the future there'll be major event with very high stakes - say a high-level assassination or terrorist attack - and we'll see two mutually contradictory videos, sworn to by two (claimed) first-person photographers, each of whom who presents a phone with the "original" video and all the digital signatures in order.

At which point we'll realize the videos aren't any more reliable than the competing hand-written wills in a bad Victorian novel.

[OpinionsVary]

Attempts to sanewash Trumps Greenland drive away from military force have sometimes pointed to other paths - like paying the Greenlanders to agree. With the agreement of Denmark and an appropriate appropriation from Congress to fund things, that would at least be something like legal. There aren't a lot of them, after all. There are signs Trump may be looking to try this.

>While the exact dollar figure and logistics of any payment are unclear, U.S. officials, including White House aides, have discussed figures ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person, said two of the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-administration-mulls-payments-sway-greenlanders-join-us-2026-01-08/

But that's a damn low ball. $10,000 to $100,000? Greenland hates Trumps guts. No way they'd agree for that kind of money. I doubt they'd agree even for payouts in the $1,000,000 range but certainly not for $10,000 pocket change.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Greenland hates Trumps guts."
Really. Aside from being grammatically incorrect if in fact you meant to say Greenlanders when did you become knowledgeable of the feelings of 55,000 people.

[OpinionsVary]

Are you really that blind to world opinion? You might not care about it but you can't really be that ignorant. I struggle to understand how you can be. Isn't the suppose hatred of the USA (sneering freedom hating euros etc) a big part of Trump rhetoric? And Greenland is pretty much culturally euro. Most don't want to be part of Denmark in the long term but they certainly don't want to join the USA either. And that's before you even touch on the personal unpopularity of someone who keeps threatening to invade you.

Yes yes, I'm sure you can find a scattering Greenlanders who like Trump but come on. There's a reason only 6% of Greenlanders were in favour of becoming part of the US when it was polled last year.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Greenland is pretty much culturally euro. "

They are 90% non-European natives.

Show your work.

[Mr. Bumble]

His screen name verifies the adage;
Opinions are like ass holes. Everyone has one and it stinks.

[not guilty]

And neither one's opinion nor one's asshole should be offered casually.

I appreciate the irony of "Mr. Bumble" commenting on someone else's screen name. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bumble

[Mr. Bumble]

"And neither one's opinion nor one's asshole should be offered casually."
Good advice, you should take it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But he really loves sharing them with the world, and he sometimes makes valuable contributions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I appreciate the irony of 'Mr. Bumble' commenting on someone else's screen name."

"Mr. Bumble" is the best screen name for a law blog ever.

[Frank Drackman]

My Dad used joke that Greenland was the second coldest Airport he'd flown into.
OK, punchline is that Minot North Dakota was colder. How cold was it??? (HT E. McMahon)
"The Flashers would only describe their Genitals"
"I saw a Peeping Tom with an Ice Scraper"
"I saw a Dog stuck to a Fire Hydrant"
actually, not funny, it would get cold enough the Jet Fuel would turn to a jell.

Frank

[ducksalad]

Hey Bumble, would you give up US citizenship and become a citizen of Greenland for $10K? You could still live here, just with a different citizenship.

Might be worth a one-time payment to get you to stop voting and to have option to deport you if you act out.

[Zarniwoop]

I know it would take a lot more than $10K to bribe me to start taking U.S. medical insurance if I were enjoying Danish health care.

[John F. Carr]

According to Wikipedia Greenland's per capita GDP is typical European but disposable income is very low because of dependence on imports.

[Frank Drackman]

Fox News has got to get better with their acronyms
"Suspects Shot in Portland TdA members"
They're members of the Tetanus Gang????
Pretty Tough Hombres, the people who cross them never talk again, it's like they get "Lock Jaw"
But seriously folks, ICE shot 2 Illegal Alien Gang Members?? Isn't that what they're supposed to to???

Frank

[Michael P]

https://www.ft.com/content/f256cc27-b80f-4fce-88cf-e80cb2451ef5

In June, the UAE higher education ministry published a list of global universities for which scholarships would be approved and qualifications certified, as part of reforms that limited funding to the best-performing institutions.

The list included universities in countries including the US, Australia, Israel and France, but not the UK, which is home to many of the world’s top academic institutions.

The exclusion of British universities is linked to anxiety in the UAE over what it sees as the risk of Islamist radicalisation on UK campuses, according to three people familiar with the matter.

That's a pretty terrible reflection on the state on the UK today. The UAE will pay for its citizens to study in Israel, but the UK is too radicalized.

[Frank Drackman]

Am I the only one who remembers the woman who went to Prison for praying in front of an Abortotoreum??
OK, she wasn't shot to death, on the other hand she wasn't trying to kill Law Enforcement Officers.

Frank

[not guilty]

Details, Frank?

I suspect strongly that the offending conduct involved more than merely praying. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/10/23/tennessee-woman-convicted-blocking-abortion-clinic-fact-check/75781759007/

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, like how in "Alice's Restaurant" (really casting Pearls before Swine here) Arlo Guthrie wasn't just charged with littering, but "and creating a nuisance" (which apparently really impressed all of the Father Rapers on the Group W Bench)

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

U.S. forces seize 5th oil tanker linked to Venezuela
Updated on: January 9, 2026 / 10:33 AM EST / CBS News

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-forces-oil-tanker-seizure-linked-venezuela/

[apedad]

So what's the legal rationale for seizing the tanker now?

[Bob from Ohio]

"U.S. government records show that the Olina was sanctioned for moving Russian oil under its prior name, Minerva M, and flagged in Panama, the Associated Press reported."

You could just read the linked article, lazybones

[John F. Carr]

It is a stateless vessel. Any country is entitled to board it for inspection. Kristi Noem says it is "another ‘ghost fleet’ tanker ship suspected of carrying embargoed oil". I have not seen any reporting on whether there is a warrant for the tanker's arrest.

https://apnews.com/article/sanctioned-oil-tanker-intercepted-c3b6e0cee49af87f78a22425f505249d

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Here is one discussion on the legal issues regarding the ICE shooting in Minneapolis.

https://verdict.justia.com/2026/01/09/the-legality-of-deadly-force-three-critical-questions-about-the-ice-shooting-in-minneapolis

There is good evidence that it is a bad shoot but the legality is on some level not the biggest problem. It is the recklessness.

I cited court opinions last time regarding the recklessness of the operations. The net result of that as someone will tell you when you do anything recklessly is that something bad is going to happen. Maybe not at first. But it is going to happen.

Something preventable. For instance, recently someone cited a lower court ruling regarding an agent not being found liable for killing a bike rider. The legal opinion might have been correct. It still was a tragic and probably avoidable loss of life.

Happily, the latest shooting in Portland was not lethal. Early official reports were the couple were "allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang." There is good reason not to trust official reports. Regardless, shooting at cars is bad there too.

There was a claim the couple "weaponized" the vehicle. Again as we saw before there is reason to doubt that. It is as or more likely driver was trying to get away.

I assume some won't mind giving the death penalty to "alleged" members of the latest designated monsters of the moment but as a general policy that is liable to cause problems. Mistakes will be made. Totally innocent people will get hurt or worse.

(To be clear, I don't think innocence is necessary here. Governmental use of force generally should be sparse.)

And, yes, the usual suspects will find a way to defend it though some of them might bit a bit "concerned" early on.

[Estragon]

The President indicated on Fox News that it would be a “great honor” to accept the Nobel Peace Prize from Maria Corina Machado, which was dedicated by her to him when she accepted the award some weeks ago. He added “ “I’ve stopped eight wars […] I think it’s been a major embarrassment to Norway. Now, I don’t know what Norway has to do with it but that’s where the committee is located, a lot of Norwegian people.”

Obviously the physical medal will be handed over by Ms. Machado, undoubtedly to be displayed in the Oval Office. But I am wondering… will Ms Machado also be expected to turn over the approximately $1.17 million dollar cash prize as well? Would Don be keeping that himself or…?

[Voize of Reazon]

Isn't it nine wars, now that he stopped attacking Venezuela?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Isn't it ten? There's the inevitable war against Cuba that he stopped with his mind.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And he surrendered to the Taliban in February 2020…strength through weakness!!

[Josh R]

If I were Machado, I would give him the prize (*) in exchange for Trump either installing her as president or calling for early elections. The problem then for President Machado is she will have nothing else to give Trump when he demands she give the oil to the USA for a song.

(*) Officially, only Machado won the prize, and it would all but guarantee Trump will piss of the Nobel committee even more.

[Zarniwoop]

Don't you mean Machado should give the Nobel Peace Prize medal to "Trump's Presidential Library" (wink, wink)?

I agree it's probably a good strategy for Machado, though. The Don is a sucker for flattery, and then he'd be able to claim "I have a Nobel Peace Prize" when he's BSing the rubes.

[Josh R]

And maybe when Colombian president Petro meets with Trump he can give Trump a ton of blow that the two of them and ex-Honduran president Hernandez can share.

[dwb68]

Minneapolis classes closed, with some switching to remote learning.

We saw how well this went over for the teachers union during covid.

Is there something in the water in Minneapolis that causes this level of hysteria?

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, there probably are a lot of students trapped in that new "Autonomous zone", with no way to attend school.

Seriously, setting up an autonomous zone? Those idiots really DO want to give Trump a legally valid excuse to invoke the insurrection act.

[dwb68]

" residents of Minnesota have declared themselves an autonomous zone, therefore we are cutting off all aid, revoking their travel visas to the continental United States, and deporting all Minnesotians back to Minnesota. "
If they want to be a landlocked country in the middle of nowhere,
i say we give them what they want, good and hard.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not all of Minnesota, just several blocks some activists decided to warlord it over. The people who actually live there are barred from driving home.

[Frank Drackman]

Minnesota borders on Lake Superior, not exactly "Landlocked"

[Bob from Ohio]

POLITICOEurope@POLITICOEurope
6h
BREAKING: France will delay this year’s Group of 7 summit to avoid a conflict with the mixed martial arts event planned at the White House on Donald Trump’s birthday.

[Michael P]

Please tell me it will feature gorillas fighting. ("it" could be either the G7 summit or Trump's birthday.)

[Michael P]

https://x.com/AlphaNews/status/2009679932289626385 doesn't show enough to conclusively prove that Good tried to run over the ICE agent recording it, but it does disprove pretty much all of the leftist takes on the shooting.

[David Nieporent]

That is definitely a video. I have no idea what you think it disproves or how it does that.

[Michael P]

It would be nice if you had an idea once in a while, instead of content-free denialism, but we stopped expecting so much from you.

Among other false narratives, it was recorded by the agent about whom hobie said: "The man can't seem to stop bashing car windows". There is no window-bashing at all.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I have no idea...

That much is true.

[John F. Carr]

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts ruled today that a gun license can not be denied on the grounds that another member of the applicant's household is dangerous and should not have access to guns.

A woman was denied a license on the grounds that her husband was dangerous. His license had been revoked for cause. Under the old version of the licensing law, as construed just last year, a police chief could consider the applicant's household. The law was amended after Bruen to reduce the police chief's discretion. Under the new law only misbehavior of the applicant should be considered. As far as the record shows the wife is a suitable person to carry a gun.

We're just getting around to the impact of Bruen on gun licensing because it takes three years to go from application to denial to District Court review to Superior Court review to Appeals Court review.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/guinane-v-chief-of-police-of-manchester-by-the-sea-ac-p24p1442/download

Guinane v. Chief of Police of Manchester-by-the-Sea, 24-P-1442,

[Michael P]

A sad reminder that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Raleigh teacher killed by intruder while on phone with 911; suspect charged

https://abc11.com/post/raleigh-woman-killed-home-break-suspect-charged/18347971/

[John 4]

https://www.advocate.com/news/ice-agent-shooter-video-minneapolis

ICE agent shooter’s own cellphone video undercuts Trump administration's account of Minneapolis killing

“F*cking bitch,” Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who killed Renee Good, says in the video.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Uh...the only thing that undercuts is the whole, "She was an innocent bystander who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was just trying to get away while trying to avoid hitting anyone" narrative...you moron.

“F*cking bitch,” Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who killed Renee Good, says in the video.

Yeah, after she hit him with her car. I'd likely be using some colorful language after that as well.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, her killer calling her a bitch only provides more evidence how guilty the dead lady is.

How do people write this stuff and not realize how they sound?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"“F*cking bitch,” Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who killed Renee Good, says in the video."

Yeah, ramming people with your car tends to piss them off.

[DDHarriman]

What narratives that you previously believed were disproven by that footage?

Anything? Or were they only confirmed?

[John 4]

“I have just viewed the clip of the event which took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is a horrible thing to watch. The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense. Based on the attached clip, it is hard to believe he is alive, but is now recovering in the hospital.”

[DDHarriman]

I don't get your subtext. Would you mind sharing it?

Is that your quote somewhere I may have missed?

If that is your statement, mea culpa. I missed it and consider my question moot.

If that's not then I don't get it.

[Josh R]

It's a Trump Truth Social post.

[DDHarriman]

What was his point?

Any idea? I am genuinely lost.

[Josh R]

What part of "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer" do you not understand. That's a narrative the videos dispel.

[Life of Brian]

I suspect it's one of those "ha -- he wasn't really run OVER" deals -- finding one detail to pick at in a desperate attempt to miss the big picture.

[A Japanese Student]

Yomiuri Newspaper reports Japan's PM considering dissolving the House of Representatives this month. It might look stupid to do so during the budget season (Japanese fiscal year starts in April), but there's a good reason for her to risk the gamble: She is very popular.

It's very likely LDP will retake the majority. CDP, the left-wing opposition, would be devastated, while centrist and center-right parties like Ishin and DPFP are likely to get a boost as well.

[ducksalad]

Today's Greenland statement from the president:

President Donald Trump said Friday his administration will take action on Greenland “whether they like it or not,” further escalating his rhetoric as he pushes to acquire the Danish territory for the U.S.

“I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/09/trump-greenland-military-denmark-nato.html

[SRG2]

Thus disproving the claims of the cultists here who denied that Trump had any such intention.

[John 4]

Hey, Brett Bellmore. Impeach now?

[ducksalad]

Yesterday's Mexico statement from the president:

President Donald Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday night that the United States is “going to start now hitting land” in its fight against drug cartels—framing the move as a response to what he claimed is cartel control of Mexico and a U.S. death toll in the “250,000–300,000” range every year.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-us-will-start-hitting-land-targeting-cartels-running-mexico-11333304

[John 4]

Oops, someone beat me to it.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and as day follows night:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15449503/ice-shooting-minneapolis-renee-nicole-good-gofundme.html

[Stephen Lathrop]

There is a new video just released by the White House showing circumstances of the Minnesota ICE shooting. It is published on the Guardian's web site. It shows close-up footage of the shooting victim, apparently taken by ICE officers, just prior to her killing. She is seen conversing in an apparently relaxed attitude. There is a dog in the back of her car.

It is unbelievable to me that the Trump administration does not understand that what the video shows is shocking ruthlessness on display while an innocent victim is murdered. Except for concentration camp images, I have never in my life seen comparably appalling images. Appalling in this instance because they so obviously demonstrate the non-aggressive intent of the victim, being expressed directly to her murderers just before they kill her.

If the Congress can stomach what this release shows about the Trump administration, and not impeach and throw them all from office, then every incumbent in Congress who refuses must be voted out.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We are so tribal that Republicans will believe whatever the right wing echo chamber feeds them. Remember Republican voters only turned against Cheney when he endorsed Kamala and that was long after it was obvious to all fair minded people that the GWOT was an unmitigated disaster that made America weaker. And to this day Republicans whine about the Perot and the 1992 election even though Bush is a known groper of minor girls and Clinton was an outstanding president that oversaw the last strong economy!

[DDHarriman]

Did you see the part of the video where she hit that officer with her car?

[Frank Drackman]

PMS-NOW! warned me the Video from Minneapolis might be "Disturbing"
It certainly was!
Subjecting a poor Dog to those 2 Bee-otches, I hope he/she finds a good home.

Frank

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Did you see the part of the video where she hit that officer with her car?"

No. Was it on the news?

[Frank Drackman]

Am I the only one who thought Good's "Wife" was a young Anthony Soprano Junior???

Frank