Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports:

Nine progressive prosecutors from cities around the country are launching a coalition to assist in prosecuting federal law enforcement officers who violate state laws, one of the prosecutors, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, said on Tuesday.

The organization, which is called the Project for the Fight Against Federal Overreach, will also include Mary Moriarty, the elected prosecutor in Minneapolis. Its acronym, F.A.F.O., references a slang term for negative consequences, and its formation was spurred by “growing concerns about warrantless entries, unlawful detentions, and coercive enforcement tactics by federal agents,” according to a news release.

The handling of potentially criminal actions by federal agents has become a major issue in Minneapolis after two protesters, both U.S. citizens, were killed there this month by Department of Homeland Security officers.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation said it would not investigate the first killing, of Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three. She was killed in her S.U.V. on Jan. 7 as she appeared to be steering away from federal agents during a tense confrontation. Trump administration officials said that the officer who shot Ms. Good had been under attack and was acting in self-defense, and state investigators have been blocked from accessing evidence related to the episode.

After a second resident was killed — Alex Pretti, a Veteran Affairs nurse who was also 37 — federal officials initially appeared to use the same playbook. They blocked state investigators from the scene and declined to provide basic facts, like the identity of the agents involved. In both instances, bystander video contradicted key elements of the Trump administration’s account of what happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/27/us/prosecutors-charges-against-federal-agents.html

For a version which (I hope, although I don't know) is not paywalled, see here: https://archive.ph/20260127235817/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/27/us/prosecutors-charges-against-federal-agents.html

That is encouraging. The fatal shooting of Alex Pretti presents at least probable cause that at least one as-yet-unidentified ICE agent committed premeditated and intentional murder of the decedent, whom he had disarmed.

The shooting of Renee Good by Jonathan Ross presents probable cause for at least manslaughter in the first degree in violation of Minnesota statutes § 609.20(1). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.20

[bloocow2]

It's the lack of investigation that vexes me the most. If there's ANY doubt about what exactly happened in an incident, an investigation should be the default. Not something that has to be forced into being through political pressure.

Not even allowing one makes the whole thing look so, so sketchy. If you want people to trust law enforcement, maybe don't treat them as if they're above reproach? They're people, and people make dumb mistakes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, let’s have a thorough investigation starting with the criminal conspiracy that both of the dead perps were involved in. Let’s include the capability of the police officers. WHO WEREN’T DOING THEIR JOBS AND WHICH LED TO THIS HAPPENING…

Let’s also look into the bedlam that the federal officers were dealing with the chaotic confusion and deliberate disruptions.

And then let’s look at the statistics — let’s look at what happens to black men who violently resist arrest while armed . Care to speculate on how many of them walk away from that?

It’s like plain chicken with a freight train, the ultimate Darwin award

[Reallynotbob]

Dr. Ed 2: "The ICE agents cannot possibly be held accountable for shooting unarmed people because the agents had created a chaotic situation, and usually shoot black people, so..."

[MoreCurious]

"WHO WEREN’T DOING THEIR JOBS AND WHICH LED TO THIS HAPPENING…"

You might have a point. If the local and state police had preemptively arrested the ICE thugs before they could murder innocent citizens who were exercising their First Amendment rights, none of this would have happened.

[Krayt]

Not even allowing one makes the whole thing look so, so sketchy.

Thank you. Any incident which involves shooting a gun, to say nothing of injury or death, should be thoroughly investigated, to see if any changes to process or training or rules of engagement are warranted, to possibly change the outcomes, if nothing else.

"No need for investigation" is just childish effrontery, rhetoric.

[SRG2]

The natural deduction from the Feds' not holding an investigation and not giving Minnesota access to the evidence is that they themselves doubt the narrative they're putting forward.

There will, of course, always be those who approve of state-sanctioned killing if the deceased is the wrong sort - like concentration camp guards and Dr Ed. and so are quite content with the Feds' cover-up.

[Life of Brian]

The natural deduction from the Feds' not holding an investigation and not giving Minnesota access to the evidence is that they themselves doubt the narrative they're putting forward.

Or, they're capable of seeing past the end of their noses and understanding Minnesota authorities don't just want to have a fireside chat with biscuits and hot cocoa.

I trust that if you're at some point in your life targeted by an overzealous, hostile prosecutor who has a vested interest in charging you--particularly for behavior that probably isn't a crime--you'd take the advice hopefully provided to you by a competent attorney and not just fork over every scrap of evidence in your possession so as to help the prosecutor perfect their case against you.

[David Nieporent]

I trust that if you're at some point in your life targeted by an overzealous, hostile prosecutor who has a vested interest in charging you--particularly for behavior that probably isn't a crime--you'd take the advice hopefully provided to you by a competent attorney and not just fork over every scrap of evidence in your possession so as to help the prosecutor perfect their case against you.

I do not think any competent attorney would advise you to hide evidence. Shut up, yes. Hide evidence, no.

But also, you seem confused as to who the actors are. The case would be against the killer, not against the FBI.

[Life of Brian]

Shut up, yes. Hide evidence, no.

Bit of a false binary, yes? Not cheerfully opening your doors and letting prosecutors leaf through your files certainly isn't "hiding" them.

The case would be against the killer, not against the FBI.

Apparently I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to appreciate how you're too-clevering what I said about the INS as somehow relating to the FBI.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The advice I have always been given when testifying in court is to answer. The question asked, but don’t go any further than that.

[not guilty]

"I trust that if you're at some point in your life targeted by an overzealous, hostile prosecutor who has a vested interest in charging you--particularly for behavior that probably isn't a crime--you'd take the advice hopefully provided to you by a competent attorney and not just fork over every scrap of evidence in your possession so as to help the prosecutor perfect their case against you."

Life of Birdbrain, "the longstanding principle that 'the public . . . has a right to every man's evidence,' except for those persons protected by a constitutional, common law, or statutory privilege," Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972), applies fully to state court proceedings -- Branzburg itself arose out of Jefferson County and Franklin County grand jury subpoenas issued in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and another proceeding in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

If federal agents are subpoenaed by a grand jury in Hennepin County, Minnesota, they are obliged to appear, be sworn and answer questions as to any mater not privileged.

[Life of Brian]

Sorry, what is that you always say about if frogs had wings? The comment I replied to was addressing the administration's conduct right now, not in response to any of your future hypotheticals.

[SRG2]

"Or"?

[Life of Brian]

I'll grant that "and/or" is a possibility. You?

[Magister]

So this becomes "The natural deduction from the Feds' not holding an investigation and not giving Minnesota access to the evidence is that they themselves doubt the narrative they're putting forward" and/or they are afraid that Minnesota authorities will prosecute them if a true narrative is revealed. The latter is pretty much implied by the former, although they might fear other things like losing even more in public opinion or Congress reining them in.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What doctor had proposed was the DOJ inviting the governor of some non-controversial state such as Nebraska to send 5 to 7 people to join the investigation.

[not guilty]

The applicable Minnesota statute regarding use of deadly force by a peace officer is here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066

There can be no question that each fatal shooting constitutes "deadly force" per subdivision 1: "The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force.

Subdivision 2 provides:

Use of deadly force. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended. [Boldface added.]

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).

Disputes such as the instant killings are one reason that we build courthouses and empanel juries. Let's hope that twelve men and women of Hennepin County, good and true, will have an opportunity to sort out whether the prosecution can prove the criminal culpability of ICE agents beyond a reasonable doubt.

[LexAquilia]

Quick question.

It's been reported that Pretti tangled with ICE a week prior and broke a rib.
Does this suggest anything as to why he brought a weapon with two mags to the fateful encounter?

Like intent?

[Mr. Bumble]

Was he arrested during that incident?

[LexAquilia]

Detained and released. CNN reports he claimed he thought he was going to die.

[Michael P]

What a drama queen. But yes, that would explain (but not justify) why he packed heat when he went looking for a fight with them.

[Malika la Maize]

You can’t separate these American Renaissance comrades.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It also explains why the federal officers consider him a lethal threat.

[Ska]

What, were they new issue robocops with facial recognition software in their cyber-eyes that told them who he was?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You’ve never had to make high steaks decisions about people, have you?

[Ska]

I default to medium rare, and if they don't like it they can eat vegetables or cook it themselves.

That still doesn't explain how an officer (or similar agent) would know to and be capable of singling out a person in a mob right in front of them acting right now for a prebriefing on their personal history.

[Frank Drackman]

His Heart arrested

[Malika la Maize]

This is like what would happen when Frank’s mom saw the Atlanta Hawk’s B team.

[Mr. Bumble]

Give it a rest, fucktard.

[Bwaaah]

That *is* Malicia at rest.

"It's soooo draining to act decent."

[Malika la Maize]

Lex is on record here saying he saw him pull his gun on ICE. Guy lies, like all good fascists. Mikie Q holds his seat at their AR conferences.

[LexAquilia]

Sure thing, buddy. I'm lying about a report from CNN.

Why do I even respond to stupid grey boxes??

[Malika la Maize]

You lied, you know it, it’s on record here.

Lying fascist scum.

[LexAquilia]

LOL, now you know how to read minds and see what I saw when I watched a video clip.

Next time you read my mind can you find my guide on how to use toilet paper? That would be a useful outcome of your ESP.

[Malika la Maize]

Reading your mind is like a board book.

You got caught lying.

[not guilty]

It's been reported that Pretti tangled with ICE a week prior and broke a rib.
Does this suggest anything as to why he brought a weapon with two mags to the fateful encounter?

Is there any indication that that was known to, or in the alternative, mistakenly believed to be true by, the shooter(s)? (That is not a rhetorical question. I don't know whether the underlying assertion is or is not correct or was believed by the shooter(s) to be correct.) If so, and if the accused agent(s) adduced evidence of self-defense, it could be admissible (with a limiting instruction) on the issue of who was the initial aggressor.

Rule 404(a)(2) of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence provides:

(2) Character of victim. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/ev/id/404/

It would be tricky (but not impossible) for the accused to adduce evidence of his knowledge without testifying himself. For example, of someone told the accused shooter before the fatal incident that this decedent had sustained that injury, the accused could call the declarant to testify that he had relayed that information to the accused as bearing on the accused's state of mind at the time of the incident. Keep in mind that the hearsay declaration would not be admissible to show that the injury had in fact occurred, but only for the effect, if any, that the accused's receipt of the information would have had upon his state of mind. The jurors should be instructed to that effect.

[LexAquilia]

I wasnt thinking of ICE, I was thinking about Pretti's state of mind as to why he armed himself and then set about to confront ICE again, but this time armed with extra mags.

[not guilty]

"I wasnt [sic] thinking of ICE, I was thinking about Pretti's state of mind."

Which is not relevant to whether the shooter did or did not commit some degree of homicide.
.

[LexAquilia]

Do you think it's relevant to the question I asked? Prettis intent for being armed while obstructing LEO?

That was kinda why I asked the question I asked. I didn't ask the question you answered.

[Malika la Maize]

People have a right to legally carry a firearm even around the federal agents whose boots you so gladly lick.

[not guilty]

"Do you think it's relevant to the question I asked? Prettis [sic] intent for being armed while obstructing LEO?"

No, I don't think so at all. If anyone digs up Alex Pretti and charges him with "being armed while obstructing LEO", that may become relevant.

Good luck there with effecting service of the arrest warrant.

[not guilty]

I know LexAquila is fishy. I know he is in a barrel.

What do you mean, I shouldn't shoot him?

[LexAquilia]

Do you believe Pretti's previous incident, his being armed with plausible intent for revenge, his planning and premeditation to obstruct law enforcement, his obstructing law enforcement while armed has any relevance to the facts of this case?

Or it totally irrelevant? Draw on all of your experience as a lawyer and your understanding of law and tell me how a prosecutor might use these facts?

[not guilty]

Do you believe Pretti's previous incident, his being armed with plausible intent for revenge, his planning and premeditation to obstruct law enforcement, his obstructing law enforcement while armed has any relevance to the facts of this case?

Or it totally irrelevant? Draw on all of your experience as a lawyer and your understanding of law and tell me how a prosecutor might use these facts?

Don't be foolish. If the shooter(s) were accused of any degree of homicide, the prosecutor would not seek to use those facts. (For obvious reasons, Alex Pretti can no longer be tried -- it is impossible for the court to acquire personal jurisdiction of his corpse, and suppose he were found guilty -- what sentence would the judge impose?)

A defense lawyer might seek to use them. As to how the facts you posit may be admissible if offered by the defense, I have already outlined that.

Rule 404(a) of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence states in relevant part:

Rule 404.Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes
(a) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:

* * *

(2) Character of victim. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

Rule 401 defines "Relevant evidence" as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

If the accused shooter(s) were aware of Alex Pretti's prior encounter with ICE, and if the accused first raised an issue as to who was the first aggressor (either through cross-examination of the prosecution witness(es) or by introduction of defense proof), it would arguably be relevant and admissible on that limited issue, as bearing on the state of mind of the accused when the shots were fired. If the shooter(s) were aware of the prior incident, it would be irrelevant as to any issue.

Rule 403 provides that "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." If the trial court initially determined evidence of the prior incident to be relevant and admissible under Rules 401 and 404(a), the court would need to then make a determination as to whether admission thereof would run afoul of Rule 403.

Whether the evidence is admissible would be a preliminary question for the trial court under Rule 404(a), to be determined by the court outside the presence of the jury. Pre Rule 105, "When evidence which is admissible . . . or for one purpose but not . . . for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly."

The trial court would likely instruct the jurors that they could consider evidence of the prior incident only on the issue of whether the victim was the first aggressor, and not as to the character of the victim generally.

This is second or third year law school stuff. If practicing law were easy, top drawer lawyers would not get paid the big bucks.

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose the accused ICE LEOs who shot Pretti were in fact aware of who he was, and the prior provocation and incident. And the govt introduced that evidence w/o testimony from the ICE LEOs.

Don't they walk? There would be a reasonable fear for safety of self and fellow LEOs. I don't think there is an appellate court in the country that would fail to uphold the LEOs (the 8th circuit a possible exception, heh).

Also, wouldn't the ICE LEOs move to try the case in Fed court?

[not guilty]

Suppose the accused ICE LEOs who shot Pretti were in fact aware of who he was, and the prior provocation and incident. And the govt introduced that evidence w/o testimony from the ICE LEOs.

Don't they walk? There would be a reasonable fear for safety of self and fellow LEOs. I don't think there is an appellate court in the country that would fail to uphold the LEOs (the 8th circuit a possible exception, heh).

If your question is whether the trial court would enter a judgment of acquittal because the evidence is insufficient pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 26, subdivision 18, the answer is no. The case would be submitted to the jury, which is free to accept or reject any evidence propounded by either party, including crediting or discrediting any witness(es) called on behalf of either side. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/cr/id/26/#26.03

In the event of a conviction of first degree murder, the defendant would have an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Otherwise the appeal would be to the Court of Appeals. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/cr/id/29/#29.03 There is no appeal from a jury's acquittal.

Review on appeal is limited to making a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the conclusion which they did. State v. Martin, 293 N.W.2d 54, 55 (Minn.1980); State v. Harrison, 279 Minn. 310, 156 N.W.2d 763 (1968).

If the jury believes the evidence proffered by the state, especially as to questions of witness credibility or conflicts in the evidence, then S.O.L. does not stand only for statute of limitations.

[Jmaie]

"(For obvious reasons, Alex Pretti can no longer be tried -- it is impossible for the court to acquire personal jurisdiction of his corpse, and suppose he were found guilty -- what sentence would the judge impose?)"

He could declare Pretti's papacy to be invalid...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Violently resisting arrest while armed when a gunshot is heard by the arresting officers is textbook justification to fire.

The schmuck got what he deserved. I’m glad he got shot.

[not guilty]

"Violently resisting arrest while armed when a gunshot is heard by the arresting officers is textbook justification to fire."

What about no longer resisting arrest after having been pepper sprayed, beaten and disarmed?

[ThePublius]

"What about no longer resisting arrest after having been pepper sprayed, beaten and disarmed?"

Except that's not what happened. He only stopped resisting when he was shot dead.

[Sarcastr0]

ThePublius doesn't realize how much he tells on himself here, making the standard 'stops resisting' and not 'is a threat.'

What a police-state yearning fool he is.

[Michael P]

He only stopped resisting when he was shot dead.

Facts, schmacts. Can't they get credit for at least not citing the (fake) picture of the headless ICE agent helping to restrain Pretti?

[Baseballhead]

"Violently resisting arrest..."
Even DHS isn't trying to foist that lie on people anymore.

"I’m glad he got shot."
All lives matter.

[not guilty]

"What about no longer resisting arrest after having been pepper sprayed, beaten and disarmed?"

Except that's not what happened. He only stopped resisting when he was shot dead.

Resolving disputed questions of fact in criminal cases is one reason that we build courthouses and empanel juries, The Publius.

[ThePublius]

"Resolving disputed questions of fact in criminal cases is one reason that we build courthouses and empanel juries, The Publius."

Who are you going to believe, Sarcastr0 or your own eyes? Watch the friggin' vidoe, for Christ's sake.

[Sylvie1]

Obviously the ICE agent committed some form of homicide. A man died. The relevant question is whether the homicide was criminal, and if so, to what degree.

Likely qualified immunity applies, in any case. I'm not a fan, but there it is.

[not guilty]

Qualified immunity has nothing to do with criminal prosecutions, Sylvie!.

[Sarcastr0]

It's impressive, really - the GOP politicians are frantically covering their ass. Denying, blaming, endorsing investigations.

But the MAGA tools here are so compacted into ghoulish support that most have not moved a jot. And those that have are deflecting hard. Blaming training or Minnesota.

This blog has really seen a segment of the population radicalize since Covid.
It seems hopeful that for now this committed set is journeying into increasing irrelevancy, given public polling.

[Life of Brian]

This blog has really seen a segment of the population radicalize since Covid.

It definitely was a turning point in confirming that the frothing left not only wished us permanently out of power, but dead.

[loki13]

I admit, it is shocking how radicalized some of the commenters here have become (and I am not even including the bot in that). There are some that I remember, either somewhat fondly ... or at least as tolerable ... from "back in the day" (we've both been here a long time) that I've had to block because of their nonsense.

And yes, I think that what is happening in Minnesota, and more specifically the Pretti murder, is making that crystal clear. This is an event that ... for most people ... even those who drunk a lot of the Trump kool-aid ... was a watershed event. Because we saw an American citizen murdered. And there wasn't some terrible character flaw or criminal record that could be dug up (although the administration tried). There wasn't some plausible deniability because of a lack of video (we had all the video). And everyone saw exactly how the administration handles events- they stonewall, they lie, they slander the victim (terrorist, assassin, etc.), they manipulate crime scene evidence to create false narratives and break evidence chains (photos of a gun), the refuse to release the names of perpetrators and move them out of the jurisdiction, they prejudge results, and so on.

They demand that you believe them and not your eyes.

For most people, that was a bridge too far. And so there has been pushback- even from Trump supporters. Causing the administration to have to backtrack. They aren't calling Pretti a domestic terrorist or an assassin anymore. They are trying to find scapegoats for the worst lies (Bovino ... and maybe Noem).

And yet ... there are those who just want to believe. Need to believe.

As an aside, I think the one thing that I am seeing, anecdotally, is the radicalization of the left due to what has been happening. You know- that boogeyman that people here have complained about for twenty years that doesn't exist? Well, they might have wished it into reality. Hope I'm wrong, because radicalization isn't good.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've personally been something of a radical since I became politically aware back in the 70's. In terms of my political desires, anyway. Maybe I've grown more pragmatic about what is possible, and how direly important it is to keep things actually functioning while they're being changed, as I got older, and especially once I had a family of my own to worry about.

But I still think most of what the federal government is doing is constitutionally illegitimate; Usually way beyond the powers that were delegated it, often being used to constitutionally proscribed ends, as well.

Watching the government literally burn people alive back in the 90's, though? Don't tell me the boogeyman was born last week.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"I wasnt [sic] thinking of ICE, I was thinking about Pretti's state of mind."

"Which is not relevant to whether the shooter did or did not commit some degree of homicide."

You are correct its not legally relevant. However, the behavior of Pretti is directly relevant. The agent has to judge the threat based on the events happening at that time.

[not guilty]

Any prior hostile behavior of Mr. Pretti which was known to the shooter(s) may be relevant to the issue of who was the first aggressor, as I have acknowledged. Prior behavior which was not known to the accused is irrelevant. The purpose of Rule 404(a) is to preclude mere propensity evidence on the theory that someone who has acted badly once is more likely to have acted badly as to the issues on trial. Rule 404(a) applies to both the accused and the crime victim.

If you have contrary authority -- ipse dixit doesn't count -- bring it on.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - Dont misrepresent what I stated then claim I was wrong based on what I did not state.

The behavior of Pretti during the event is relevant. .

[not guilty]

No, the state of mind of the victim during the event is not relevant. His behavior is relevant.

My comment upthread which you quoted was a response to LexAquila's squawking:

I wasnt thinking of ICE, I was thinking about Pretti's state of mind as to why he armed himself and then set about to confront ICE again, but this time armed with extra mags.

The reason that Mr. Pretti armed himself is irrelevant unless it is probative of some fact at issue in the trial of his shooter(s). That is not the case, unless it was known to the accused, in which case it would be admissible only for the purpose of determining who was the initial aggressor.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 19 minutes ago

"No, the state of mind of the victim during the event is not relevant. His behavior is relevant."

Crap - That is twice you misrepresented what I stated! Ethic issue?
Joe_dallas 41 minutes ago
NG - Dont misrepresent what I stated then claim I was wrong based on what I did not state.

The behavior of Pretti during the event is relevant. .

[Joe_dallas]

CNN is reporting the Pretti broke a rib in the incident one week prior, though that is somewhat dubious since a broken rib takes 2-4 weeks to heal to a point that there is not a lot of pain. Most likely it was a bruised rib, but not broken.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cracked ribs are rather different from breaking other bones, in my personal experience. You can have a cracked rib, and it will be splinted by neighboring ribs, and while it will be painful to inhale deeply, or roll on your side, you're still going to be functional.

So, yeah, weeks getting back to normal, but you'll still be walking around.

[Joe_dallas]

correct - though he seemed to be more mobile ie walking around more actively than someone with a broken / cracked rib would suggest.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I had one rib that was broken, another that they thought might be broken, and a third that was bruised. Apparently, bones bruise.

Diagnosis is not always an exact science, and for a fellow medical professional, if he says his rib is broken and it’s inconclusive, well he probably can make the case that you should treat for broken rib.

[David Nieporent]

Does this suggest anything as to why he brought a weapon with two mags to the fateful encounter?

Like intent?

No.

[Joe_dallas]

Dubious conclusion that bringing a weapon and two mags of ammo would not be an indication of intent.

[David Nieporent]

As one of your fellow right wingers around here tried to school you yesterday, do you think putting on your seatbelt reflects an intent to crash your car?

[Joe_dallas]

None relevant comment with no application to your prior dubious conclusion.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. We can't know what Pretti was thinking, but going armed to confront federal officers seems like a dumb move. What legal purpose would he use a weapon for in these circumstances?

[David Nieporent]

We can't know what Pretti was thinking, but going armed to confront federal officers seems like a dumb move. What legal purpose would he use a weapon for in these circumstances?

Once again, what possible basis do you have for thinking he said to himself that morning, "I'm going out to fight some ICE agents; I'd better get my firearm first"? If he had some cash in his pocket, would you say, "He must have been planning to bribe the agents"? If it were instead keys, would you say, "He must have been planning to key their cars; why else would he have brought them"?

[Mr. Bumble]

You (as usual) mischaracterized everything I said.

[bernard11]

You mean you think people should not be allowed to carry a gun unless they can show a specific legal purpose?

And I'd say that not shooting at ICE agents when he could have is pretty good evidence that he didn't intend to massacre them.

[Mr. Bumble]

" What legal purpose would he use a weapon for in these circumstances?"

[David Nieporent]

Why do you keep asking this stupid question? The general legal purposes to use a weapon are sport, military service/law enforcement, or self-defense. But he didn't "use" his weapon; he merely possessed it. And the legal purpose for possessing a weapon is to have it in case one has occasion to use it.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Why do you keep asking this stupid question?"
Ummm ...

[Mr. Bumble]

...and now the stupid fuck is dead.
Oh well.

[santamonica811]

Bumble,
And how would you have reacted if liberals responded to Kirk's death with a casual, ". . . and now the stupid fuck is dead."?

Please do better. I have no doubt that you can be a kinder person, when you set your mind to it. 🙂

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did you really graduate from an accredited law school?
Did you really pass the bar exam?

This may have to go to SCOTUS because of schmucks like you, but there is something called federal supremacy. Minnesota law applies to police officers sworn under Minnesota law, Minnesota could require police officers to wear pink uniforms with purple polka dots and even that wouldn’t apply to federal officers.

[not guilty]

Did you really graduate from an accredited law school?
Did you really pass the bar exam?

I graduated from George C. Taylor College of Law at the University of Tennessee in 1987. I took the bar exam on July 31 and August 1, 1987, I I passed on the first try.

What about you, Dr. Ed 2?

[santamonica811]

Ed graduated (with high honors, mind you) from the vocational Janitorial Services programme at St Brutus's Secure Centre for Incurably Criminal Boys.

Thank you for asking.
-Santamonica (St. Brutus's Guidance Counselor, ret.)

[Commenter_XY]

Why wouldn't the ICE agents petition to remove the case to Federal court? Does Bivens then apply?

[not guilty]

"Why wouldn't the ICE agents petition to remove the case to Federal court? Does Bivens then apply?"

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), does not apply to criminal prosecutions. No how, no way.

It may be that a federal officer can remove a prosecution to federal district court, but it remains a criminal prosecution by state officials for violation of state law. The only practical difference is that prospective jurors may be selected from a broader geographic venire.

The agents would doubtless petition for removal to federal district court. Whether the case would remain there is a separate question. SCOTUS has opined:

"Under our federal system, it goes without saying that preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government. Because the regulation of crime is preeminently a matter for the States, we have identified a strong judicial policy against federal interference with state criminal proceedings.”

Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 138 (1989), quoting Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 243 (1981).

Just Security has a helpful primer on the removal of state criminal prosecutions to federal court, written when Mark Meadows and other defendants were attempting to move the Georgia RICO prosecution to federal court. https://www.justsecurity.org/87884/removal-of-criminal-cases-to-federal-court-two-dozen-faqs/#post-87884-footnote-14

If one or more shooters here are indicted in state court, they will no doubt remove the case to the federal court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The removal statutes provides that “[i]f the United States district court does not order the summary remand of [a criminal] prosecution, it shall order an evidentiary hearing to be held promptly and after such hearing shall make such disposition of the prosecution as justice shall require.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(5).

In order for removal under § 1442(a)(1) to be appropriate, a federal officer (or someone acting under him) must not only show that he is being prosecuted for the manner in which he carried out his federal duties, but must also demonstrate that there exists a colorable federal defense for the act. See, Mesa, supra, 489 U.S. at 139. The burden of persuasion by a preponderance of evidence is on the proponent of the removal. At the hearing(s), the defendant(s) and State will argue their position for why the case should be removed or remanded, respectively. As in the Meadows removal hearing on Aug. 28, 2023, the State can subpoena witnesses for the hearing, and the defendant has the right to present his/her witnesses. The three part Mesa test requires the state court defendant(s) to show that they:

(1) were an “officer, or any person acting under that officer, of the United States”
(2) are facing criminal charges “for or relating to any act under color of such office”; and
(3) have raised or will raise a “colorable federal defense.”

The agents will no doubt claim that they are entitled to "Supremacy Clause immunity" for their conduct. United States Courts of Appeals in the Second, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have held that a federal officer is not entitled to Supremacy Clause immunity unless, in the course of performing an act which he is authorized to do under federal law, the agent had an objectively reasonable and well-founded basis to believe that his actions were necessary to fulfill his duties. See, Wyoming v. Livingston, 443 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2006) and cases cited therein.

In United States ex rel. Drury v. Lewis, 200 U.S. 1 (1906), two service members were indicted for murder and manslaughter in the killing of a suspect whom they were attempting to arrest in order to turn him over to federal authorities. A factual dispute about whether the suspect was trying to escape arrest or instead had surrendered. That factual dispute precluded the federal courts from granting habeas corpus relief. SCOTUS there opined:

The pfederal] Circuit Court was not called on to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That was for the state court if it had jurisdiction, and this the state court had, even though it was petitioners' duty to pursue and arrest Crowley (assuming that he had stolen pieces of copper), if the question of Crowley being a fleeing felon was open to dispute on the evidence; that is, if that were the gist of the case, it was for the state court to pass upon it, and its doing so could not be collaterally attacked. The assertion that Crowley was resisting arrest and in flight when shot was matter of defense, and Ex parte Crouch, 112 U.S. 178, is in point.

200 U.S. at 8.

So it is here. Whether the ICE officers used unreasonable force in their fatal encounter with Mr. Pretti so as to commit murder or some other degree of homicide presents a jury question which may or may not be removable to federal court. If so, it is for jurors in federal court to determine according to Minnesota law.

[Commenter_XY]

This was a thoughtful reply and a complete response. Thank you!

I'll start with the linked article. My legal education continues.

[Michael P]

Of course, he left off the possibility that a prosecution would be dismissed before trial in federal court because the federal judge is more likely than a state judge to recognize that a shooting by a federal law enforcement officer is justified self-defense. The bias of state judges is one main reason that removal to a federal court is preferred.

[Brett Bellmore]

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

I'm not really a big fan of "remove and dismiss".

[not guilty]

"Of course, he left off the possibility that a prosecution would be dismissed before trial in federal court because the federal judge is more likely than a state judge to recognize that a shooting by a federal law enforcement officer is justified self-defense. The bias of state judges is one main reason that removal to a federal court is preferred."

Uh, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss a state criminal indictment prior to trial. Federal courts are of limited subject matter jurisdiction. Inferior United States federal courts —i.e., federal courts other than the Supreme Court — should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief. "The jurisdiction possessed by the district courts is strictly original." Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). SCOTUS has opined:

"Under our federal system, it goes without saying that preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government. Because the regulation of crime is preeminently a matter for the States, we have identified a strong judicial policy against federal interference with state criminal proceedings.”

Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 138 (1989), quoting Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 243 (1981).

Similarly, federal courts will not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions except under extraordinary circumstances where the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate in that there is a threat to the plaintiff's federally protected rights that cannot be eliminated by his defense against a single prosecution. "Since the beginning of this country's history, Congress has, subject to few exceptions, manifested a desire to permit state courts to try state cases free from interference by federal courts." Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

The Court in Younger opined:

"No citizen or member of the community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts. The imminence of such a prosecution, even though alleged to be unauthorized, and, hence, unlawful, is not, alone, ground for relief in equity which exerts its extraordinary powers only to prevent irreparable injury to the plaintiff who seeks its aid."

401 U.S. at 46, quoting >i>Beal v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Corp., 312 U.S. 45, 49 (1941).

[Bored Lawyer]

"Uh, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss a state criminal indictment prior to trial. Federal courts are of limited subject matter jurisdiction. "

Nope. If the case is removed under 28 USC 1442, the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the entire case, including the state's case in chief and any defenses the defendant might raise. 1442 is a jurisdictional statute. This is not appellate review of a state-court decision, it's original jurisdiction in the district court.

It's the same if someone removes a civil case to federal court because there is diversity jurisdiction. The claim is a state-law claim, but the federal court has jurisdiction to determine it.

[not guilty]

I realize that. But the federal judge would be applying Minnesota substantive law in ruling on any motion to dismiss. Whether the accused acted in self-defense is a quintessential jury question (provided that any view of the evidence could support a self-defense charge).

I was responding to Michael P, who squawked:

Of course, he left off the possibility that a prosecution would be dismissed before trial in federal court because the federal judge is more likely than a state judge to recognize that a shooting by a federal law enforcement officer is justified self-defense. The bias of state judges is one main reason that removal to a federal court is preferred.

Any alleged "bias of state judges" is not grounds for removal. Just as question of fact regarding whether a now deceased arrestee was escaping should preclude federal interference with a state prosecution, see, United States ex rel. Drury v. Lewis, 200 U.S. 1 (1906), a factual dispute about whether a deceased suspect was resisting arrest is not to be taken away from the jury. Juries routinely decide questions of reasonableness, both in federal and state courts, in both criminal and civil cases.

[Bored Lawyer]

I am also dubious that state-law standards on use of force by police officers apply. These are federal officers. True, they are limited by federal law and the US Constitution. But I don't think a state can be more restrictive than that, as such interferes with federal law enforcement.

[not guilty]

Bored Lawyer, what you "think" is deficient in two major regards: nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989), each arose out of actions by municipal police officers, but the Fourth Amendment applies equally to both federal and state officers.

[Bored Lawyer]

Nice non-sequitur. Federal law, including the Constitution, certainly constrains federal officers. I said as much. The question is whether state-law standards apply to federal officers. The cases you cite do not speak to that question.

[Bored Lawyer]

I should add that there is an interesting twist to section 1442. In relevant part it provides that certain people can remove cases to federal court, including:

The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act 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.

Do ICE agents act "for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue." Clearly not the latter.

Does immigration enforcement count as "punishment of criminals?" Maybe not.

[Life of Brian]

From a very quick sweep, in Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 US 232 (1981), SCOTUS matter-of-factly noted in passing: "Because the charge arose from an act committed while on duty for the INS, respondent, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1442 (a) (1), removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona."

[not guilty]

What criminal cases are potentially removable from state court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1442, subsections (a), (c) and (d), but the procedure for removal of criminal cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1455.

[Life of Brian]

.... and?

[John F. Carr]

I read that as providing several grounds for removal. One is "under color of such office". Another is "the collection of the revenue." Didn't the federal government once contract out revenue collection?

[Bored Lawyer]

There are. Statute is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442

Question is, what categories do ICE officers fit into?

As for revenuers, this gives some history, maybe more recent than you are alluding to:
https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-news/new-era-how-revenue-officers-went-cowboys-desk-jockeys/2023/09/25/7hcqg

Apparently a big part of the job was seizing property. Like a pink Cadillac in one story.

[not guilty]

"Under color of office" may get a federal officer charged with a state crime in the door of the federal courthouse, but the burden to keep it there rests upon the proponent of removal to keep it there by a preponderance of evidence at an evidentiary hearing (if the federal judge doesn't boot it summarily upon initial review of the removal papers.

Just Security has a good primer which was published while Mark Meadows and some other defendants in the Georgia RICO prosecution attempted to remove the matter to federal court. https://www.justsecurity.org/87884/removal-of-criminal-cases-to-federal-court-two-dozen-faqs/#post-87884-footnote-ref-16

[Life of Brian]

"Under color of office" may get a federal officer charged with a state crime in the door of the federal courthouse, but the burden to keep it there rests upon the proponent of removal to keep it there by a preponderance of evidence at an evidentiary hearing (if the federal judge doesn't boot it summarily upon initial review of the removal papers.

This is starting to feel like the next Section 3 wishcasting exercise. In what universe do you honestly think there's any colorable argument at all that dealing with a deadly force threat in the midst of restraining and detaining obstructing protestors during a lawful federal operation falls outside the agents' duties, much less one that could take it below a preponderance?

[Life of Brian]

Question is, what categories do ICE officers fit into?

With a hat tip to Mr. Carr's reading of "under color of such office," no category appears to be needed beyond that of federal officers, according to both Manypenny that I cited above, and Willingham v. Morgan, 395 US 402 (1989):

The federal officer removal statute is not "narrow" or "limited." Colorado v. Symes, 286 U. S. 510, 517 (1932). At the very least, it is broad enough to cover all cases where federal officers can raise a colorable defense arising out of their duty to enforce federal law. One of the primary purposes of the removal statute—as its history clearly demonstrates—was to have such defenses litigated in the federal courts. The position of the court below would have the anomalous result of allowing removal only when the officers had a clearly sustainable defense. The suit would be removed only to be dismissed. Congress certainly meant more than this when it chose the words "under color of . . . office." In fact, one of the most important reasons for removal is to have the validity of the defense of official immunity tried in a federal court. The officer need not win his case before he can have it removed. In cases like this one, Congress has decided that federal officers, and indeed the Federal Government itself, require the protection of a federal forum. This policy should not be frustrated by a narrow, grudging interpretation of § 1442 (a) (1).

[Life of Brian]

Make that Willingham v. Morgan, 395 US 402 (1969).

[Dr. Ed 2]

The thing that needs to be understood is that a Minnesota state court doesn’t have physical custody of someone in another state, and all they can do is petition the governor of said state to extradite.

It’s pretty much the same thing as an ICE detain request, except in this case for made to the states governor, who is perfectly free to ignore it. For example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts requested the State of Maryland to return one Willie Horton, who had escaped from a Massachusetts prison. That was 40 years ago and Maryland has basically told Massachusetts to go bleep itself.

So Minnesota can ask, say, Texas to expedite someone but if the governor doesn’t want to do it, it ain’t gonna happen. And I’m not sure what happens if he’s on a military base, or in a National Park.

[Frank Drackman]

You have Michael Byrd neglect syndrome.

[Malika la Maize]

This is what Frank’s mom experienced when her “special man friend” was late to the house.

[Frank Drackman]

Really? "Yo Mama" jokes at 5am?
I'll play
"Queenie's Mama so fat her boyfriend has to roll her around in flour to find her (redacted)!"

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sounds like a mess with all the flour. I just slap her on the thigh and ride the wave in.

[Brett Bellmore]

One of those "Hopefully both sides can lose" cases; The feds are absolutely being abusive at times, but the state got involved in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct enforcement of a federal law.

Realizing that latter could be proven is probably why Walz had his sudden change of heart about police protection for ICE.

Or maybe I wrong him, and he finally realized that the way to prevent more Goods and Prettis is to stop the attacks on ICE.

[Malika la Maize]

How are states being obstructive?

[Mr. Bumble]

Failing to honor ICE detainers? Failure to prevent "demonstrators" from physically interfering with federal agents enforcing immigration law?

[David Nieporent]

Neither of those are obstruction. (Well, the second one may be obstruction by the demonstrators, but not by the state.)

[Brett Bellmore]

State officials are admins for that Signal channel that's organizing the anti-ICE riots and other obstruction.

[Sarcastr0]

-Newsmax.

-Quoting fucking GATEWAY PUNDIT. Who I believe has taken some vow to never publish a true thing.

-Citing a random dude who claims "I have infiltrated organizational signal groups all around Minneapolis with the sole intention of tracking down federal agents and impeding/assaulting/and obstructing them. Each area of the city has a signal or several signals."

What a ridiculous source to believe.

[LexAquilia]

You cannot deny Signalgate.

You are trying.

But the cat is out of the bag.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course he can deny it. It's just that his denying it won't stop the FBI from investigating it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Stuff that your allies in the media don't want to report still happens, Sarcastr0. But the lamestream media isn't totally ignoring the story. And, the FBI is investigating.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, I wonder if one of the longer term consequences is the Fed Govt finding a way to decrypt signal chats. That concerns me.

We should welcome a thorough investigation; meaning lengthy and detailed. It cannot be rushed. It will take time.

Pretti was incredibly stupid bringing a loaded firearm (concealed or not) to an active crime scene where LEOs are performing their job duties. That is just Darwin Award level stupidity.

Still, the incident must be fully and thoroughly investigated. That will take time. Could be months (and months).

In the meantime, ICE operations to detain and deport criminal illegal aliens will not stop.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, I wonder if one of the longer term consequences is the Fed Govt finding a way to decrypt signal chats. That concerns me."

It somewhat concerns me, too. Not every secret conversation the government wants to read will be a genuine criminal conspiracy. The left is LARPing resistance to tyranny right now, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for tyranny to put in a real appearance eventually.

"We should welcome a thorough investigation; meaning lengthy and detailed. It cannot be rushed. It will take time."

Yes, and I'm hearing that the feds have backed down on their 'no investigation' stance, which is good. But I'm not sure I trust the feds to conduct a thorough and honest investigation any more than I do the MN government.

"In the meantime, ICE operations to detain and deport criminal illegal aliens will not stop."

Can't stop. If Trump backs down in response to the 'resistance' in MN, they'll take it national, and we can kiss having immigration laws, or indeed any laws the left dislikes, goodbye.

[hobie]

I don't mind at all the immigration roundup. It is a necessary thing. All they need to do moving forward is arrest, or stomp, or beat unconscious the protestors...anything other than shooting them to death.

[Brett Bellmore]

I note that this is really only going on in a few isolated "sanctuary" jurisdictions, where there's a combination of organized interference with ICE operations, and local police ordered to not do anything about it.

The ICE recently were expanded a lot, and it's no secret that a lot of the agents are poorly trained as yet. And they're under enormous stress on account of literally having a price on their heads, courtesy of the foreign cartels that were making money transporting illegal aliens, and want to get back to doing that.

Death threats against ICE agents are up enormously, they've been ambushed, shot at, rammed with cars. So they're more than a little on edge and inclined to over-react.

Ideally, they'd just go about their jobs, and local police would deal with protesters who overstep their bounds into criminal territory. When the local police are under orders to deny them that protection, you've got a recipe for things going wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Death threats against ICE agents are up enormously, they've been ambushed, shot at, rammed with cars. So they're more than a little on edge and inclined to over-react.

Yeah, you have the actors backwards in that sentence.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, you have the actors backwards in that sentence.

Just a friendly reminder that ICE had no reason to know or care who either Renee Good or Alex Pretti were until they consciously and deliberately waded into the middle of ICE operations to play vigilante.

[bernard11]

And they're under enormous stress on account of literally having a price on their heads, courtesy of the foreign cartels that were making money transporting illegal aliens,

Why do you continue to rely on claims by DHS?

As I said before, you damn well know they never stop lying, yet you believe them, because you have nothing else.

How many ICE agents have been killed by foreign cartels?

[David Nieporent]

Just a friendly reminder that ICE had no reason to know or care who either Renee Good or Alex Pretti were until they consciously and deliberately waded into the middle of ICE operations to play vigilante.

Renee Good was sitting in her car, not moving, not wading into the middle of anything. And she certainly didn't "play vigilante." Alex Pretti was trying to help a woman who had been assaulted, not playing vigilante. (Or are you still blindly accepting Noem's claim that he was there to assassinate agents?)

[Life of Brian]

Renee Good was sitting in her car, not moving

Why yes, just as Mario Andretti did during the entirety of every race. Good freaking grief.

Alex Pretti was trying to help a woman who had been assaulted, not playing vigilante.

Ah yes, the "Midwest gentlemen" five-fingered recasting. In the real world, he was obstructing ICE operations himself, and interfering with their attempts to address another obstructor.

[Absaroka]

"And they're under enormous stress on account of literally having a price on their heads"

Just to quantify the risk, how many have been killed so far?

An Indiana judge and wife were recently shot by some folks coming up for trial, showing a non-zero actual risk to the judiciary. Does this mean we should switch to a system of anonymous judges?

Here is an ATF agent shot a few months ago. Does this justify ATF enforcement by anonymous masked agents. Does the stress that shooting puts them all under justify any less professionalism by ATF agents?

Dunno if you have any cops as personal friends. They say it's weird when you are at the mall with the family and see a dude and think "I recognize him, and he recognizes me, but for the life I can't remember if he was a perp or victim". That just comes with the territory.

[Michael P]

Renee Good was sitting in her car, not moving, not wading into the middle of anything.

We've seen the videos. She was definitely moving her car, as well as within her car. Her passenger got out to record the confrontation from a different angle.

Why do you lie so much about such easily refuted things?

[David Nieporent]

She moved her car in reaction to them coming up to her and trying to grab her! Before that, she was just sitting there.

[Life of Brian]

Before that, she was just sitting there.

For how many seconds? Again, it's all on video.

[David Nieporent]

We have no idea. The longest videos I've seen are 3-4 minutes long, and she was of course already sitting there when those videos started. So several minutes minimum.

[Life of Brian]

The longest videos I've seen are 3-4 minutes long, and she was of course already sitting there when those videos started.

So you truly haven't seen the video where she started in the middle of the road, blocking both lanes, and then backed up next to the ICE agents' vehicle after it tried to go around her on the right, or are you just playing more word games?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'd guess that he hasn't seen it, because all these "timelines" and "analysis" have avoided anything like putting those few seconds in context.

That fuller video showing that she really is deliberately blocking traffic is really hard to find.

[David Nieporent]

So you truly haven't seen the video where she started in the middle of the road, blocking both lanes, and then backed up next to the ICE agents' vehicle after it tried to go around her on the right, or are you just playing more word games?

Whoosh!

You asked me "for how many seconds" she had been sitting there. She obviously didn't "start" in the middle of the road; her car didn't teleport into place. So she drove there. And I have not seen any video showing when she arrived — every video I've seen picks up a couple of minutes (at most) before the killing at most, so I don't know for how many seconds she was there before those videos begin.

Once those videos begin, she was sitting there not moving — and cars were able to freely get around her on both sides; she was not "blocking both lanes" —  until they came up to her and tried to grab her. That's when she backed up a few feet and then tried to drive away, and was shot. I have seen no video of her backing up before the agents approached her car.

(Your claim that the ICE agents "tried to go around her on the right" is wrong. Their car did not "try" to do so; it did go around her on the right. And then stopped after it was past her — I assume because they were trying to box her in.)

[David Nieporent]

No, I'd guess that he hasn't seen it, because all these "timelines" and "analysis" have avoided anything like putting those few seconds in context.

That fuller video showing that she really is deliberately blocking traffic is really hard to find.

It isn't; I saw it from Day 1. Indeed, it's the first one I saw. And it doesn't add any relevant "context." (I guess there was initially some speculation that she was just driving by, and it would refute that, if anyone were claiming that. But I don't think anyone — certainly not me — is. I agree that she deliberately stopped her car in the middle of the road. I just don't agree that it obstructed any ICE operation.)

[Life of Brian]

Whoosh!

Is that the sound of you yanking your hand out of the cookie jar?

It's a nice try, but you said "she was just sitting there." That's fundamentally incorrect, as shown in the posted video. She was "just sitting there" right next to the stuck ICE vehicle for 30 seconds or so, after having purposefully moved there from the middle of the road where she had been purposefully blocking traffic and thus forced the ICE vehicle to go around her.

I'm really not sure why you thought that haughtily acknowledging that you had indeed seen that video before your brazen misrepresentation of what it showed was going to make anything any better.

So I'll just go with banging on trash cans for a distraction.

[David Nieporent]

It's a nice try, but you said "she was just sitting there." That's fundamentally incorrect, as shown in the posted video. She was "just sitting there" right next to the stuck ICE vehicle for 30 seconds or so, after having purposefully moved there from the middle of the road where she had been purposefully blocking traffic and thus forced the ICE vehicle to go around her.

I don't even understand what you're trying to claim here.

1) There was no "stuck ICE vehicle" to begin with.
2) She had been sitting there for (at least) several minutes, not "for 30 seconds or so."
3) Once she stopped in the middle of the street, she stayed there until the ICE agents ran to her car and tried to drag her out; then she briefly put her car in reverse and backed up a couple of feet before putting the car in drive and trying to drive away, when she was immediately murdered.

[Life of Brian]

2) She had been sitting there for (at least) several minutes, not "for 30 seconds or so."
3) Once she stopped in the middle of the street, she stayed there until the ICE agents ran to her car and tried to drag her out; then she briefly put her car in reverse and backed up a couple of feet before putting the car in drive and trying to drive away, when she was immediately murdered.

Look, either you're just reciting your poor memory of the video and didn't watch it again today, or you're just saying stuff trying to run out today's clock. Watch the video one more time -- I promise it won't bite.

1. She was in the middle of the road for an indeterminate time. That's where she is the first time the video pans over to her, around 0:40.
2. Around 2:30, the ICE vehicle went around her on the right and came to a stop for reasons that we'll agree to disagree about.
3. When the camera next pans back around 3:07, she had backed up from the middle of the road, right next to the ICE vehicle. She's no longer straddling both lanes, and in fact the nose of the car is only about halfway into the right-hand lane.
4. This is now where the other videos start: her taunting the ICE officers, them walking around the vehicle and taking pictures.
5. NOW the ICE truck rolls up, she suddenly decides it's not fun any more, and at 3:31 backs up even further right before tangling with Ross.

Regardless of what inflammatory labels you might choose to hang on the various acts, if you can't agree on that basic sequence of events captured on that video in broad daylight, I really don't know what to say.

[not guilty]

"Pretti was incredibly stupid bringing a loaded firearm (concealed or not) to an active crime scene where LEOs are performing their job duties. That is just Darwin Award level stupidity."

I agree that resisting law enforcement is a monumentally stupid move, which is unlikely to end well for the putative resister. Comply with the cops' instructions, and let the courts sort out later whether the police action was inappropriate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4NUDqJ9Ulg (Chris Rock - How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police)

[hobie]

Noem [quoting Kyle Rittenhouse]: 'My pappy always told me: to avoid trouble for yourself, you should stay away from areas of trouble.'

[Commenter_XY]

Thank you NG. My Father put it succinctly: Sonny, don't fuck with the cops, save it for the judge.

[Bunny495]

Initially I questioned Trump's choice of boots on the ground when he put the Arctic Angles on alert instead of the Screaming Eagles since I have always had a soft spot for the 101st. It turns out the 11th views winter in the lower 48 as summer as well as top tier electronic battlefield intel collection capabilities. This is the blurb I got from AI about the 11th. Note they are a "testbed" for intel collection.

Electronic Battlefield Data Capabilities
The 11th Airborne has recently undergone a massive shift to become a "testbed" for the Army’s newest electronic and digital technologies. Their capability to collect and utilize electronic data is focused on three main pillars:

1. SIGINT & Spectrum Awareness
The division uses organic EW systems to "see" the invisible battlefield. In recent exercises (such as those at JPARC in late 2025), they demonstrated the ability to:

Detect RF Signatures: Identify and geolocate Radio Frequency emissions from drones, handheld radios, and cell phones.

Locate Command Links: Pinpoint the exact location of enemy (or target) operators by tracing the control signals used to fly Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).

Electronic Order of Battle (EOB): Map out the digital footprint of an area to understand the density and type of electronic devices in use.

2. High-Latitude & Arctic Data Challenges
Collecting data in Alaska has prepared the 11th for "degraded" environments, which translates well to urban or contested areas in the lower 48:

Starlink & Satellite Integration: Because standard geostationary satellites often fail at high latitudes, the division has pioneered the use of Starlink (Low Earth Orbit) and other "bespoke" mobile tactical internet kits to maintain a data stream where others lose signal.

Signature Management: They specialize in "Electromagnetic Discipline"—collecting data while minimizing their own electronic footprint to avoid being targeted by opposing SIGINT assets.

3. AI-Enhanced Intelligence
The division is actively integrating NIPRGPT (a specialized military AI) and other automated tools to process the massive amounts of data they collect.

Rapid Analysis: Instead of manual reporting, AI tools are used to ingest thousands of data points to generate "Actionable Intelligence" for commanders in minutes.

Tactical Assault Kit (TAK): Soldiers use tablet-based software that provides a "Common Operating Picture," allowing data collected by a single scout or drone to be instantly visible to the entire chain of command.

Cliff Notes version, don't tug on Superman's cape.

[John F. Carr]

Very likely they can analyze patterns of communication. The fact that a phone call was placed is routinely introduced as evidence. If some lady shoots an ICE agent and immediately sends a message to Tim Walz, there's reason to suspect she's saying "the deed is done" and not "great press conference yesterday." On its own that's not grounds to arrest Walz, much less convict him. Not even if the message is found and reads "as you wished, master." Maybe the killer was like John Hinckley trying to impress an uninvolved person. It's a lead for an investigator or a brick in the wall for a jury.

If they get their hands on a phone they get their hands on the chats on the phone. Deleted messages might not really be deleted.

[hobie]

Hah! I had to see for myself if Newsmax was using Gateway Pundit as a source. OMG, It's true. Newsmax also says:

'Some have speculated that an admin identified as "Flan" on Signal is Minnesota Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan, which would link the group chat to the state government.'

Whoooeee, they've blown the lid off this one!

[Sarcastr0]

Anything's possible, but citing Gateway Pundit for truth is a fail.

[not guilty]

One of those "Hopefully both sides can lose" cases; The feds are absolutely being abusive at times, but the state got involved in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct enforcement of a federal law.

Arrest that state, officer!! Brett Bellmore himself said so!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you don't want to take this seriously, I guess because you approve of the obstruction.

[not guilty]

No, Brett, I don't at all approve of the occupation of the church and disruption of the worship service.

[Sarcastr0]

Damn, you're still eager for a fight on this after you got <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2026/01/27/protest-worship-and-the-core-of-free-exercise/?comments=true#comment-11365734"bodied yesterday for jumping this up into 'the left will make your life a living hell...you don't get to have a life!!!!!!!!' melodrama?

In a time when the Trump admin is publicly posting comply or die, you're trying to point left 'cause of a protest.

You've got a weird need to be the noble oppressed side. But you've chosen to side with the authoritarian thugs in power so good luck with that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More like “arrest that governor“….

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anyone who doubts that we act confronted with an insurrection that the government needs to use deadly force to suppress need only read the above.

I would say take these persecutors out of the wood and shoot them, except that bullets do damage to trees

[Bob from Ohio]

"Nine progressive prosecutors from cities around the country are launching a coalition to assist in prosecuting federal law enforcement officers who violate state laws"

Why didn't Southern DAs think of this in 1964?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly, Bob, exactly….

[Magister]

Southerners did attempt that in the 1960s. But the civil rights movement was more popular than the current overreach by ICE, and the federal government proceeded more cautiously, unless you can point at federal agents killing pro-racism protesters then.

[bernard11]

I can think of two reasons:

1. Federal law enforcement wasn't breaking any laws, except possibly some unconstitutional ones.

2. The DA's were too busy dealing with massive arrests of demonstrators, and especially civil rights leaders. Good thing they got themselves a little extra time by letting Klansmen and others engaged in violence against the demonstrators go.

[BadLib]

The fatal shooting of Alex Pretti presents at least probable cause that at least one as-yet-unidentified ICE agent committed premeditated and intentional murder of the decedent, whom he had disarmed.

Videos clearly show the agent who disarmed Pretti leaving the pile-on with his back to the pile-on while holding Pretti's gun in his right hand and with his left hand closed and holding nothing that could be even as large as a snub-nose 38 as the first shot is heard.

The video I'm looking at appears to be taken from no further than across the street or about 50 feet away. Sound would travel this distance in roughly 40 msec so the speed of light vs. the speed of sound would not alter the analysis.

So, unless the agent that disarmed Pretti has a third arm behind his back or some other very unusual birth defect, it's hard to even get to "probable cause" for the assertion that the agent disarming Pretti shot him, let alone fired the deadly shot(s).

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think he could be holding a weapon that had an un commanded discharge. It wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened, remember the FBI guy who is breakdancing and watch his concealed weapon. We did a backflip in a bar? He had an accidental discharge when he picked the gun up by the trigger.

You’d absolutely know if you had uncommitted discharge with a weapon that you are holding, but if you have some physical strength, you might not drop it.

It’s also possible that random bystander fired an unrelated gun, it might not be possible to tell the difference.

[Life of Brian]

While NG's wording here was a bit clumsy, it does seem like the "cold-blooded murder" crowd has essentially settled into a hive mind theory to try to attribute knowledge of the gun's removal to the rest of the agents.

[neurodoc]

"The fatal shooting of Alex Pretti presents at least probable cause that at least one as-yet-unidentified ICE agent committed premeditated and intentional murder of the decedent, whom he had disarmed.

A "premeditated" act is perforce "intentional," isn't it?
And the ICE agent who emerged from that scrum holding ("brandishing"?) Pretti's gun wasn't a shooter, was he?

Finally, of what, if any, significance that Pretti was involved in a physical interaction with ICE agent's ~11 days before, kicking out the tail light of their car? (I think none, but it is a remarkable fact.)

[LexAquilia]

The affidavit the magistrate and district judge saw an account of the activists where they created a physical barrier between the congregants and the children, while they screamed at the children. One victim fell while fleeing and was injured. Others were physically obstructed from leaving. They physically cornered the pastor.

https://www.scribd.com/document/986502474/FBI-affidavit-in-suport-of-arrest-warrant

Page 18, #46

The Democrat magistrate ignored this. The Democrat district judge ignored this. The Democrat commenters here ignore this.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the affidavit, LexAquila.

A ctrl-F search for "Pretti" shows that the decedent's name appears nowhere therein. (That is not to say that the name has not beem redacted.)

What is your factual basis for asserting that Alex Pretti was injured in the manner that you describe?

Is there any evidence that the affiant, DHS agent Timothy Gerber, or any other person communicated such information to any shooter(s) of Alex Pretti?

[LexAquilia]

This is in reference to the Don Lemon church affair, not Pretti.

It wasn't a reply to your comment on Pretti.

[Brett Bellmore]

Man, you really don't want to confront what they were doing at that church, do you?

It's an open thread, and Lex's comment was at the top level, so HE gets to pick what he talks about, and it obviously wasn't Pretti.

[not guilty]

I have repeatedly addressed (on prior threads) what allegedly "they were doing at that church," Brett. Although I haven't done a deep dive into state law, it may well have violated various state laws prohibiting misdemeanors. Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.605, subdivision 1, subsection (b)(3) (criminal trespass), 509.72 (disorderly conduct), and possibly 609.28 (interference with religious observance) would appear to be relevant.

While my previous comments were made without benefit of the affidavit supporting the criminal complaint, nothing recited therein now changes my assessment of the legalities after having reviewed the factual averments. The affidavit does not support the pending federal charge of conspiracy against clearly established federal rights in violation of 18 § 241.

I don't support or defend what happened, It was a dick move, and was likely unpersuasive and counterproductive. What it was not was a federal crime.

[LexAquilia]

It's not a crime to agitate inside a worship service and physically block parents from accessing their children, or even from fleeing?

[not guilty]

LexAquila, what word or group of words in "it may well have violated various state laws prohibiting misdemeanors" do you fail to understand.

I am saying it is not a federal crime, (even though it is boneheaded,) and it most especially is not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

[Brett Bellmore]

And we're saying that it is, specifically the FACE act.

[LexAquilia]

""it may well have violated various state laws prohibiting misdemeanors"
I dont' give a shit about Democrat state laws.

The FBI doesn't pursue state charges. Why would that even be relevant?

[Frank Drackman]

You're right. Praying in front of an Aboratoreum is a Federal Crime.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I agree it was a dick move. But why isn't it a FACE Act violation?

FACE Act was used to prosecute protestors praying at abortion clinics; hell, The Cauliflower sent FBI and SWAT teams to apprehend them. Was praying aloud at an abortion clinic a dick move?

[jb]

This came up yesterday, but Mark Houck was acquitted. Not exactly good evidence that praying outside an abortion clinic was a violation of the act.

[Michael P]

What about Matthew Connolly? Paul Vaughn and his co-defendants? Eva Edl (88-year-old Holocaust survivor) and her co-defendants?

There are a lot of examples beyond Houck.

[jb]

Matthew Connolly - Charges dropped, but also wasn't praying outside the clinic.
Paul Vaughn - Charged with a misdemeanor violation of the FACE act and convicted despite claiming he wasn't obstructing the entrance. This is the only case I think bears any resemblance to XY's description, although the SWAT team didn't arrest him. His co-defendants did intentionally block the entrance to the clinic.
Eva Edl - Wasn't praying outside and wasn't arrested by the SWAT team.

[Commenter_XY]

He had a SWAT team show up on his doorstep for praying aloud at an abortion clinic. That is what happened, jb. And then he was tried and acquitted.

Let them be tried and acquitted.

[jb]

So is your theory that he was actually guilty, or that the federal government should bring cases against people just to teach them a lesson even if they're meritless?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the theory is that the church invaders weren't praying out in the parking lot.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird all this whattaboutism then, eh?

[not guilty]

Brett, the gravamen of 18 U.S.C. 248(a)(2) is acting "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, . . ." The words "by shouting down the preacher" nowhere appear in the statute.

[Brett Bellmore]

"(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; "

So threat of force is sufficient, as is intimidation and interference.

Some of the parishioners allege use of force and intimidation, it would be up to a court to sort out whether the allegations are true.

It's probably not a good idea to just assume that the protesters' version of events is the definitive account of what actually happened, when other people present dispute it.

[loki13]

Brett- as usual, you are the person who thinks that gullible isn't in the dictionary.

You are accepting, at face value, a statement (an affidavit) from DHS. If you've been following what I've posted for months now, you will realize that the DOJ has repeatedly brought meritless criminal prosecutions based on false factual allegations for three reasons-

1. To punish people that the administration has harmed in order to perpetuate a false narrative. This includes things like ramming victim's cars and shooting them and then arresting them by claiming that the victim rammed them, or just making stuff up and claiming the person is a pedophile or gang member, or whatever.

2. To justify a bs arrest. They will claim that someone assaulted an officer when they detain and arrest an American citizen because they feel like it.

3. Or to meet elements of a crime that they can't otherwise meet.

This happens over and over and over again. The yokels like you believe the statements, and never stick around to see the cases get dismissed or the actual facts come out.

Heck, even though I spent a few months documenting some of the cases where the lies were repeatedly exposed (and the DOJ will routinely file things under seal hoping that the lies won't come out) ... I still see people ... I mean, look at XY ... continue to spread the same lies that courts have found to be false.

Heck, when the officials and agents actually have to testify under oath (see, e.g., Bovino) they either acknowledge their lies or the Court specifically makes a finding that they have lied. You may not realize this ... but for a court to find a LEO ... a senior LEO ... is lying in sworn testimony is a big deal. And yet... you continue to believe it.

TLDR; don't believe what they file to establish probable cause. If it happens to resemble the truth, that's just a happy accident.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am taking that affidavit as sufficient to initiate an investigation, and depending on what the investigation turns up, a prosecution. I'm NOT taking it as proof of what happened.

What I'm really taking issue with are the people claiming there's clearly no FACE act violation here, because... the protesters themselves haven't confessed to violating the act!

[not guilty]

NG, I agree it was a dick move. But why isn't it a FACE Act violation?

FACE Act was used to prosecute protestors praying at abortion clinics; hell, The Cauliflower sent FBI and SWAT teams to apprehend them. Was praying aloud at an abortion clinic a dick move?

Commenter_XY, "praying aloud at an abortion clinic," without more, does not violate the FACE Act, and the Act has not been used to prosecute protesters who did no more than that. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

I had (vainly) hoped that your people would be more skeptical of the putrid tactic of incessant repetition of the Big Lie. Do you recall who it was that wrote the following?

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

HINT: a collection of his speeches has adorned Donald Trump's nightstand, and his Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda was named Joseph Goebbels.

The relevant text of the FACE Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 248, states:

(a)Prohibited Activities. — Whoever —

(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;
(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or
(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship

commits a federal misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for the second or any subsequent offense.

The phrase, "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction" appears both in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2), and that phrase modifies everything that is written thereafter. The use or threat of force or physical obstruction is the sine qua non of the offense. It is no coincidence that those words are absent from subsection (a)(3) relative to damage to or destruction of property, which indicates that Congress chose its words deliberately.

[Commenter_XY]

Very well NG, what did Houck actually do to merit trial? He was acquitted.

I think menacing children in front of their parents in a church probably qualifies as threat of force by physical obstruction. Let's have that trial, and if the facts merit, acquit them.

But the trials have to happen.

[not guilty]

No one (to this point) has been charged with violating the FACE Act in regard to Cities Church in St. Paul.

I suspect that the thugs running DOJ wanted the in terrorem effect of a felony charge, rather than the misdemeanor that a first offense conviction under § 248(a)(2) would be.

The arrest triggers the 30 day clock for the filing of an indictment or information. Who knows whether the federal grand jury (I surmise that it will be in the St. Paul division) will indict or not. If the prosecution is seeking a felony indictment, that cannot be charged by information unless the accused agrees to waive indictment. The grand jurors would have the option of charging under § 248(a)(2) instead of, or in addition to § 241.

[Brett Bellmore]

Despite the claims of the state AG, it violates the FACE act, and so actually WAS a federal crime.

[LexAquilia]

and the claims of the Democrat magistrate, and the claims of the Democrat federal district judge.

Don't leave those off.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett declares them guilty already!

Wow, no need to spend time on a trial I guess.

Good thing, too, given the DoJ's track record these days.

[LexAquilia]

a trial? lol
a democrat activist on trial with a democrat prosecutor and a democrat judge and a democrat jury?

lol oh come on, no one believes a trial is going to happen in democrat country. trials only happen in democrat areas when it's against conservatives

[Brett Bellmore]

The act is a crime, the trial is to determine if they actually committed it.

Look, the state AG just totally got the FACE act wrong, claiming that it only applied to abortion clinics,:

"And the FACE Act, by the way, is designed to protect the rights of people seeking reproductive rights... so that people for a religious reason cannot just use religion to break into women's reproductive health centers," Ellison told Lemon.

"How they are stretching either of these laws to apply to people who protested in a church over the behavior of a religious leader is beyond me," Ellison added."

when the text is out there for anyone to read, and it clearly applies to both abortion clinics AND churches. Both parties' sacred places!

I really doubt that the AG has never read the FACE act, so it's hard to put that crazy claim in a good light.

[Sarcastr0]

One thing I've learned about federal criminal law is don't try and do it yourself.
Practitioners know how it goes. You and I do not.

Hence why the DoJ fail-squad keeps losing; they're amateurs playing in the pro-leagues. Also they're dishonest hacks, which cannot help.

I have no idea how this will turn out. I do know you're well ahead of you skis.

[LexAquilia]

You can't read the text for yourself and see that the FACES Act includes places of worship?

Also, the word on the street is it's all those legacy staffers that are intentionally sabotaging the cases, the Senate, of course is in on the gig and stonewalling his appointees. You know, just like La Resistance 1.0.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"One thing I've learned about federal criminal law is don't try and do it yourself."

When do you get out?

Ellison: (per Brett)

How they are stretching either of these laws to apply to people who protested in a church over the behavior of a religious leader is beyond me,

FACES Act:

Whomever...by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship,,,

So it's not beyond me.

[David Nieporent]

You've posted this (and lied about it) several times already. It says nothing about activists "creating a physical barrier between" anything or anyone. It says that the activists were on the stairs so the parents couldn't get down the stairs. And none of that has anything to do with the federal statutes in question anyway.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It says nothing about activists "creating a physical barrier between" anything or anyone. It says that the activists were on the stairs so the parents couldn't get down the stairs."

Uh...

[David Nieporent]

"Uh" is right. "Uh," walking down a narrow staircase or hallway or sidewalk with a few friends may prevent people from getting past you. No honest person would describe that as "creating a physical barrier."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why not? It is, in fact, creating a physical barrier. In your scenario, it is creating a physical barrier for an innocuous reason, but it still creates a barrier.

But the affidavit claims that parents were unable to reach their children in a downstairs area because the assholes were blocking the stairs and screaming in the faces of crying children.

"Creating a physical barrier between the congregants and children" is a perfectly accurate description of what the affidavit alleges.

[David Nieporent]

Why not? It is, in fact, creating a physical barrier. In your scenario, it is creating a physical barrier for an innocuous reason, but it still creates a barrier.

Because "creating a physical barrier" is an insinuation of a deliberate attempt to block people from getting by. (To be clear, maybe the church invaders were doing that — but that's not what the affidavit in question says!)

[TwelveInchPianist]

It says that the agitators were blocking the stairs such that parents were unable to get to their children. Do you think they were accidently blocking the stairs?

If they were just briefly using the stairs, as you suggest, that wouldn't prevent the parents from getting to the children.

[LexAquilia]

Just look at this incredible parse he's making.

They were just standing on the stairs rigidly yelling at the children, while those asshole parents couldn't wait their turns going down the stairs to get their kids.

What a bunch of asshole parents, DN says!! Those activists yelling at the children were just using the stairs, and the parents not be able to access their kids was totally an accident...

In a serious note, now you can understand why we will never be able to reconcile with these people. Next time that's going to be my kids. And people like DN will be defending and protecting the assailants. People like that magistrate and that judge will make sure these activists are empowered to continue terrorizing us because there is no accountability.

The left is now out openly saying the only reconciliation is when all of us are jailed. They can only say publicly they want to k*** president Trump, but secretly they want to kill us all.

[David Nieporent]

Those activists yelling at the children

Whereas, from the actual affidavit:

Victim 4 recalled one agitator was threatening, aggressive, and intimidating towards parishioners. Additionally, this agitator was screaming and getting in people’s faces, to include women and young children. This agitator continued to scream in the faces of young children while they were crying.

See how you're incapable of being honest?

[David Nieporent]

Do you think they were accidently blocking the stairs?

I don't know! The affidavit doesn't say! I don't think "accidentally" would be the right word for what I'm referring to, though; I'd say "incidentally" would be a better term. .

[TwelveInchPianist]

It says, "the agitators were blocking the stairs, and the parents were unable to get to their children."

Why would the protestors be incidentally going to the child care area? And if they were only incidentally blocking the stairs, why were the parents unable to get to their children?

Do you think "The protesters were blocking the entrance to the clinic, and women were unable to go inside to get abortions" would be insufficient?

And in any event, screaming in the faces of crying children is intimidation.

[David Nieporent]

Why would the protestors be incidentally going to the child care area?

Who said they were? It doesn't say where they were going; all it says is that they were on the stairs blocking the stairs.

And if they were only incidentally blocking the stairs, why were the parents unable to get to their children?

Because they were incidentally blocking the stairs. Is English your native language? Consider this hypothetical: there are 4 people ahead of you waiting to get onto a small elevator. The doors open, and some people want to get out, but they can't, because the people waiting to get on are blocking the door. They are not trying to trap the people in the elevator; no reasonable person would accuse them of "creating a physical barrier" to the people in the elevator. They are just in the way. What one might call "blocking" the door.

After some awkwardness, they move aside, some people in the elevator get out, the people ahead of you get on… and you can't get on because the elevator is full. They are not "creating a physical barrier" to keep you from getting down to the lobby. Yes, they are blocking you from getting on, but not as part of some active machination; they are just in your way.

[LexAquilia]

Watch Ohmsr give her alleged assaulter the "go ahead" nod.

https://x.com/i/status/2016369576888431039

Is this sort of hoax fraud and a crime?

Its faker than a government school diploma and gayer than a government school preK teacher.

[Mr. Bumble]

Juicy Smollett wanna be?

[Frank Drackman]

Illhand's used to getting
sprayed in the face.

[Moderation4ever]

Conspiracy theories have no limits. I have heard from many that the Butler, PA assassination attempt was staged. I consider that BS as I also consider BS the suggestion that the attack on Rep. Ohmar was a fake.

[David Nieporent]

What I don't understand is why, when you post obvious lies (also, "Pretti had a gun in his hand") you post the videos that prove you're lying. Does it just make you amused even more about your trolling?

[LexAquilia]

You don't see the nod? lmao

[Life of Brian]

Of course he does. His careful wording and misdirection in the first post, and silence now, positively screams that he can't deny seeing her nod right before the magically-in-the-front-row "attacker" jumped up. It wasn't exactly subtle.

[David Nieporent]

You don't see the nod? lmao

Nice goalpost moving, but you said a "'go ahead' nod," not a "nod." Did I see her head move down briefly? Yes. Several times in the short video. None of them were a covert signal for a false flag attack.

[Life of Brian]

Did I see her head move down briefly? Yes. Several times in the short video.

More careful wording. I know you know the difference between a nod and random head motions while addressing a crowd, and you're still (correctly) not denying she nodded right at that point.

None of them were a covert signal for a false flag attack.

Really got your Somalian mind meld skills tuned up today, huh? We're not worthy.

[David Nieporent]

Careful wording is a good thing. It helps prevent completely false statements.

[LexAquilia]

So you see the glance at the attacker and the nod, but your quibble is my characterization. lol

Pedantry is for Pedos, they always say.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in redistricting news;
A judge in Virginia has held the the Democrat redistricting plan violates the Virginia constitution.

[rswallen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2026/01/27/virginia-redistricting-court-ruling/
This?

[Mr. Bumble]

Paywalled.

[Mr. Bumble]

This:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/01/27/breaking-court-blocks-virginia-democrat-redistricting-plan/

[Malika la Maize]

HOF voters beclown themselves to not include Belichek in first round of voting.

[Commenter_XY]

The only thing I could see is the cheating over the years; signal-gate, deflate-gate, etc. That actually matters (cheating).

He will be voted in next year (one hopes); he absolutely deserves to be in HOF. Six SB appearances? Two more SBs as defensive coordinator? He will get in.

[loki13]

Agree. The HOF needs to reform its procedures ... or the voters ... after this fiasco.

If Belichick is not a first ballot hall of fame coach, something is very wrong.

...I say this not because he is without sin, but because he won six Super Bowls as a Head Coach, two Super Bowls as the DC for the Parcells Giants, and is generally considered one of the finest football minds from the 1980s-2020s.

That said ... sheesh, maybe he should listen to Steely Dan's Hey Nineteen.

[santamonica811]

I think we have to assume it's 100% because he was a repeat cheater. Some voters just won't overlook that. (If I were on the Baseball HOF voting panel, I'd never vote in Pete Rose, nor anyone who was a member of the cheating Houston Astros during the year that they cheated the Yankees out of the American League title, and cheated the Dodgers out of the World Series championship. I totally get that some sportswriters have a different criterion or criteria, and that's fine. But I'd be perfectly comfortable with my "No fucking way in hell!" position as well.)

[Frank Drackman]

Wonder if the subject of Tampon-Tim's future Pardon came up?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Illian Omar’s purported attack stinks to high heaven, and I will call it when it is right now: FALSE FLAG and a hoax!

First and foremost, why do we not know the name of the person who did it? Why have we not heard his bio? What are they hiding?

Second, that has got to be the lamest attack on someone I’ve ever seen. And squirt someone with a syringe? Really?

Third, do you really honestly believe that she would have had someone sitting in the front row that handmaid vetted that her people didn’t know? Really now…. No

No, this is something that was done by a supporter. Maybe coordinated with her people maybe not but this is the type of thing that’s done to get her sympathy particularly when she’s a target of legitimate criminal prosecution.

[hobie]

This not just a hoax, it's the hoaxiest hoax that ever hoaxed.

[LexAquilia]

lol now come on. We all know what the real hoxiest hoax ever hoaxed was.

Right, comrade brother? 😉

[David Nieporent]

First and foremost, why do we not know the name of the person who did it? Why have we not heard his bio? What are they hiding?

The thing about Dr. Ed is that he is ignorant, stupid, and crazy. His name is Anthony James Kazmierczak. (The attacker's name, not Dr. Ed's.)

[LexAquilia]

Hey did you see all the social media posts with all his gender fucked up kids?

Totes conservative!!

[David Nieporent]

No, and I'm sure you didn't either. Also not sure what his kids have to do with whether he's conservative.

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/C_3C_3/status/2016483367231832079/photo/1

I am beginning to think your online persona is just a clever take of DeNial.

Since that's your goto.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anyone notice how Governor Tampon started singing a very different song as soon as the signal scandal broke?

I’m not gonna quote the federal conspiracy laws, but I know that such things exist, and when the conspiracy results in death, the consequences of being involved can be serious.

[not guilty]

"I’m not gonna quote the federal conspiracy laws, but I know that such things exist, and when the conspiracy results in death, the consequences of being involved can be serious."

Dr. Ed 2, is that because I pinned your ears back yesterday with questions that you dared not answer?

A conspiracy is a partnership in crime. It has ingredients, as well as implications, distinct from the completion of the unlawful project. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 664 (1946). Mere knowledge of an illegal act or association with an individual engaged in illegal conduct is not enough to prove a person has joined a conspiracy. United States v. Raymond, 793 F.2d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 1986). The defendants need not have knowledge of every detail or part of a conspiracy as long as the evidence overall shows that the defendants agreed to the essential nature of the conspiracy. Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557 (1947).

"A conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive criminal offense." Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997). Agreement among the coconspirators to commit an unlawful act is the essence of the crime. Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777 (1975).

What federal statute criminalizes the agreement(s) that you posit? What is the objective of the conspiracy? What federal statute(s), if any, criminalize the target offense?

Who are the conspirators? When did the conspiracy begin? Did any other conspirator(s) subsequently join the conspiracy? If so, when? What are the manner and means by which the conspiratorial objective was to be accomplished?

If you are referring to 18 U.S.C. § 241, How did death result from the acts committed in violation of that section? Who died? What was the manner and cause of death? Who inflicted the fatal injury?

[Michael P]

As I told you yesterday, there are a lot of federal statutes that this conspiracy evidently intended to violate. And I pointed out that your harassing questions about exact membership, timeline, and so on are irrelevant to the question of whether it's a conspiracy. You ran off rather than respond, because you recognized that you were owned.

[Sarcastr0]

evidently!

[Michael P]

^- Muted trolls need not bother trying to defend the indefensible.

[not guilty]

"As I told you yesterday, there are a lot of federal statutes that this conspiracy evidently intended to violate. And I pointed out that your harassing questions about exact membership, timeline, and so on are irrelevant to the question of whether it's a conspiracy. You ran off rather than respond, because you recognized that you were owned."

Michael P, a criminal prosecution requires, you know, at least one criminal defendant. In order to have a conspiracy, you need to have at least two conspirators (although not all need be accused in one proceeding). You assiduously avoided identifying who you posit are the conspirators and what conduct evinces any conspiratorial agreement between or among them.

Proverbs 26:4-5 (RSV) states:

4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Unless and until you can identify alleged conspirators, discussion of the hypothetical conduct of phantoms is a fool's errand.

[Michael P]

There are hundreds of members of these chats, and dozens of coordinators or moderators. Whether the dispatcher using the name "Anita Smithson" is the same person as the DFL candidate for state senate, or whether the moderator using the name "Flan" is lieutenant governor Peggy Flanagan, is not material to the question of whether there is a conspiracy here -- only to the question of how high it goes, and whether the entire state government is participating in the insurrection.

[Frank Drackman]

One of the many things I love about "45/47/(48?)"
First Politician that I recall saying "Bullshit" and the "F-word"(and it's brother in arms, the "Mother-F-word") in Pubic, and not like Romeney or Jeb(!) would have, fake and to get a Soundbite(remember Sleepy Joe's "Off Mike" comment that Obamacare was a "Big Fucking Deal!"(typical Joe, got the last word wrong) Just off the cuff and natural like he's Biff from Accounting complaining about the $50 he lost on the Jets.
Now it doesn't even get a notice when Amy Klobuchar, Gavin New-Scum, Ill-hand Omar drops an F-Bomb,
Heck, Morning Schmoe Scarborough Fair drops some many F-words I thought I'd tuned into BET by accident.
My favorite one, some Rally in 2016, local Repubiclown Chairman trying to get in the way of the Camera
He wasn't even "45" yet, just a Billionaire trying to get some publicity,
"This fucking guy.............."

Frank

[LexAquilia]

First Democrat AGs ran on getting Donald Trump, then proceeded to try and get him.

Now Democrat AGs are running on k***ing Donald Trump.

Do you think the VA assembly will pass laws that make that legal? Like all these other radical laws they're passing?

[Commenter_XY]

Re: Assault on Rep Omar

This is utter madness. There is no justification - none.

Whether one likes her politics or not, she is an elected member of the House. If you want her gone, vote her out. What's the statute for assault against a sitting congresswoman, and what length of prison time? This perp should go to prison.

[Frank Drackman]

You do know it was staged?

[Commenter_XY]

I don't know that. I do know it is madness, staged or not.

What separates us from most of the rest of the world is our tradition of peaceful civic engagement. We do not, as a rule, assault our elected representatives.

Do you really want to live in a country where assault (and assassination) of elected representatives for base political motives becomes commonplace? If that is what you are good with, move to China or Russia.

[Frank Drackman]

HEY! I'm the one who's got Dibs on "Amurica Love it or Leave it"
Been using it since 1972, Trademarked even.
You'll be getting billed appropriately.
But Yes,
it is madness that a Somali Citizen-Ham-Ass Supporter was erected to Congress , even more madness that the House, which like a Fraternity has final say on who gets in, lets a Somali Citizen-Ham-Ass Supporter serve,
and with that ridiculous Turban, you could hide Manny, Moe, and Jack from Pep Guys under that thing.
Oh yeah, where was your outrage on July 13, 2024?

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Frank, I know that Omar is a callous homewrecker. Anyone with functioning synapses can see she is corrupt AF. Her politics are abhorrent. She got elected. The solution is to vote her out.

The solution is not assault or assassination. You know that, and I know that.

[Frank Drackman]

Who said it was? But if you can't tell that "assault" was more staged than a Broadway Play, as that great Social Philosopher Ron White says
"You can't fix Stupid"

Frank "Commenter_XY is so Stupid, he bought a shirt that said "I'm with Me!!"

[Commenter_XY]

Frank, someone has to prove it in a court of law (that it was staged). I doubt that happens.

Hey now, I resemble that comment! = "Commenter_XY is so Stupid, he bought a shirt that said "I'm with Me!!" 😛

[Brett Bellmore]

"We do not, as a rule, assault our elected representatives."

That hasn't been reliably true for years now, as Rand Paul's ribs would inform you.

Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders

[Commenter_XY]

It is 1856-59 all over again. The issues have changed; humans have not.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, Commenter, and Brett all "regretfully" bringing up the Civil War.

It's not a wish, it's a prediction!!

[Commenter_XY]

It is not a prediction. It is here. It has been a long time in coming.

When I think about 'Bowling Alone' (Putnam), 'Coming Apart' (Murray), 'Capital in the 21st century' (Picketty) along with others, and the societal implications from their works, lead me to the conclusion that America is now on the precipice. Why?

Our Republic suffered a major shock: Pandemic, and attendant societal fallout
Antisemitism has skyrocketed. It is the canary.
Political violence has become normalized.
Both parties seek structural changes by extra-constitutional means: Team D - Electoral college, SCOTUS; Team D, R - Redistricting, Surveillance state
Money ceased to be the tool of men; men are now the tools of men (h/t to Ayn Rand); mass migration, biased courts of law, etc.

It isn't a fantasy. We are on the edge now, Sarcastr0. Don't be willfully blind to our history. What we have today rhymes with 1856-59. The ideological, constitutional, and political battle lines are being drawn in response to events. There is no denying that is happening. It is a poisonous, combustible civic environment.

I would love to tell you there is a way to step back from this madness. There is not. People are people, and people do irrational things, it is our nature.

My only other observation is it is sometimes the unexpected (and seemingly unrelated) incident that is the match to ignite conflict. Who is the John Brown of today, and for what ideological cause?

[Sarcastr0]

Whataboutism on parade.

Not even good whattaboutism, given that wasn't political and this very much seems like it was.

[Michael P]

Maybe he meant that the rule is to assault other people's elected officials, like Steve Scalise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And that Omar is one of the perps.

[LexAquilia]

THIS IS ICE COUNTRY!!!

lol

[LexAquilia]

Ohmar proved her Somali IQ.

There she was doused in a smelly, unknown substance by an attacker from a syringe, but instead of getting that looked into or checked for safety, she kept her speech.

That's a 68 IQ move. OR, she knew it was orange marmalade all along.

[Moderation4ever]

Or maybe she is a lot tougher than you image. This is a woman who lived in a refugee camp before coming to the US, becoming a citizen and getting elected to Congress.

[LexAquilia]

Oh come on. Do you think that's security protocol? To get doused with an unknown smelly substance from a syringe from an unknown assailant screaming "we will get you, next time" and never bother to see what it is?

I am not a Somali, okay. Treat me like I have a White man's IQ.

[David Nieporent]

Teddy Roosevelt was shot, and he finished his speech before getting medical treatment. How dumb was that?

[LexAquilia]

That's a totally relevant whatabout and completely defeats my argument!

When politicians in 2026 get attacked they should be like Teddy!!

Great work, Big Brained Dave!

Ohmar didn't fake anything, she's just Somali Roosevelt!!!

[loki13]

XY,

I know I've been hard on you lately, but I wanted to say that I saw this and I appreciate this.

Violence is out of bonds. Always.

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/bitchuneedsoap/status/2016282085938323514

A deep dive into the leftwing paramilitary op funded by the CCP.

Using their own materials.

That's probably the best thing to come out of the recent revolutionary jumps in AI coding. All these midwit dipshits standing up sites and apps with massive security flaws.

[jb]

Another day, and yet more evidence of Signal chats being used to observe ICE abuses.

[LexAquilia]

don't forget used to coordinate obstructing lawful ICE activity.

Don't forget that part. Just because they publicly self-identify as innocent observers, what we see in reality on the ground and in their documents is a coordinated effort to obstruct.

But, don't worry. Your mindmasters have banned you from knowing this. So you can just pretend these are good Samaritans just monitoring and recording ICE. No one else will pretend that, but you can continue to.

[jb]

"don't forget used to coordinate obstructing lawful ICE activity."

I'm not forgetting that, I'm waiting for any evidence of it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Everybody parks their car sideways across a road to simply observe things, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Neither ICE nor traffic was obstructed, as you've been told countless times now.

Your selective amnesia really kicks in when you want to justify something that the facts make hard to defend.

[LexAquilia]

There are videos and signal logs that say you are not correct.

Are you lying for malicious reasons, or just ignorant and not waiting on all the facts like you always counsel us to do before speaking out?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Neither ICE nor traffic was obstructed,"

You think parking sideways in the middle of the road doesn't obstruct traffic just because there's room for some cars to go around? I'd like to see someone defend a citation that way.

You guys wouldn't say anything that dumb if you weren't required to by your political narrative.

[David Nieporent]

I think that if traffic can get by then it is not obstructed.

[Absaroka]

Meh. If you park in one lane of a 6 lane interstate, you're going to get ticketed for obstructing traffic. If ICE had called the local PD and they ticketed Good, there would be no injustice. That's how it's supposed to work.

[Sarcastr0]

You're answering a different question.

ICE was not obstructed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course assumes the local PD would have responded.

[Absaroka]

"nor traffic"

[Sarcastr0]

That's a different legal definition of obstruction. Traffic could get by, as could ICE.

No obstruction of law enforcement.
Was it against traffic laws? Sure. But that's not the question here.

[Absaroka]

Well, some guy upthread posted "Neither ICE nor traffic was obstructed". Don't move his goalposts 🙂

[David Nieporent]

Meh. If you park in one lane of a 6 lane interstate, you're going to get ticketed for obstructing traffic. If ICE had called the local PD and they ticketed Good, there would be no injustice. That's how it's supposed to work.

Yes, I agree that you will be cited for that, as a violation of state vehicle and traffic law. But just because the root word "obstruct" appears in the traffic laws and in the penal code (for "obstruction of justice") does not mean that the two are similar.

[Absaroka]

"But just because the root word "obstruct" appears in the traffic laws and in the penal code (for "obstruction of justice") does not mean that the two are similar."

I'm in violent agreement.

[Sarcastr0]

I explained that you have switched definitions of obstruct. And I provided both definitions.

This isn’t the own you think it is.

[LexAquilia]

There are videos and signal records of Pretti coordinating and then blockading the road on that fateful day.

Did you think he was just there to protest? There was no protest. They were trying to block ICE vehicles.

[David Nieporent]

There are, of course, not any such videos/records.

[LexAquilia]

Yes there is.

[MoreCurious]

And for his next act, the Legal Eagle will happily share the videos and records with us. Any minute now.

[jb]

Please point us to evidence of the Signal logs you speak of. I'll take one that specifically talks about obstructing rather than observing ICE, but bonus points if you actually do have one that shows Pretti coordinating a blockade.

There is, of course, some video of Pretti crossing the road and waving a car past before he does so. Apparently you live sufficiently far in the boonies that you don't understand how to interact with cars as a pedestrian.

[Estragon]

“funded by the CCP”

Once again, there is a curious blindness here about what motivates people and gives them a sense of community. As I observed the other day, it’s almost as if conservatives can’t convince of politics without money. Is it projection of just a complete failure of imagination?

For a long time I figured this stuff was just voltage throwing off volts, but I have seen it so widely from so many people other than this anonymous persona.

[Estragon]

“convince” should read “conceive” obviously.

[LexAquilia]

It's a simple fact that there is a Hong Kong billionaire with ties to the CCP funding much of this. These aren't organic or spontaneous protests. They are coordinated, people are receiving training, they have schedules, and support from government officials. They're able to verify license plates within minutes to start tracking people.

It's not organic. It's not spontaneous. Is it okay for the CCP to fund unrest in our borders?

[Estragon]

Maybe it would be an interesting exercise for you to try and imagine what other motivations could be at play here. Discard— for a moment— the idea that protestors receive money from shadowy Chinese sources. What other motivations do you think they could have? Just theoretically. Try throwing out some wild guesses. LOB thinks it’s because they’re all petulant children. Any other guesses? Just spitballing.

[LexAquilia]

The fact that the violence is centered on 9 counties, and not where most ICE activity is should kinda suggest something to you. Right?

There are movement leftists here pursing broader goals. There are some people here - tag-alongs, true believers, retards, regular folks caught up in the moment. But the organization, the tactics, the paramilitary style operations, the training, the coordination -- but only in a few targeted spots, would suggest something nefarious and not organic.

There are obvious signs of organization, coordination, professionalism, and leadership. Those structures don't materialize organically.
---
There are surely some protests around the country that are spontaneous and organic.

ICE Watch isn't that.

[Estragon]

Ok that is not really an answer. You really can’t think of anything? What motivates people— other than shady Chinese money?

[LexAquilia]

What the fuck?

Did you not see:

"There are movement leftists here pursing broader goals. There are some people here - tag-alongs, true believers, retards, regular folks caught up in the moment."

???

Do you think all the people share the same single motive? Are you for real?

If you have an alternative explanation, it needs to account for all of the things we see with our eyes.

[Estragon]

Look I can’t make you think any harder about this than you want to. I can’t force you to develop a sense of empathy, or at least the ability to put yourself in another’s shoes to try and figure out their motivations. I but I suggest you may be missing a piece of the puzzle here. I’d quote Eco again, but what’s the point?

[Estragon]

I mean, you see it reflected in things you have just posted. Your enemies are simultaneously so strong (“paramilitary style operations, the training, the coordination”) and yet so weak (“tag-alongs… retards”). This shifting rhetorical focus leaves you unable to objectively assess your opponent’s strengths and motivations. People being paid by CCP is the only thing you can come up with.

[LexAquilia]

I don't get this at all.

It can be true that there are people paid via CCP dollars. Shit, hobie posted a picture of himself holding up a sign that was printed with CCP dollars. Pretti quick his nursing job months ago, he was getting support from somewhere. Who supported him?

it can also be true, that some people are there for other reasons. It could be true that ideologues are doing this because of ideology, while also being supported by the CCP because their interests align.

There can be multiple different reasons. How is that such a oddball take?

[Estragon]

“I don't get this at all.”

Yes, that’s apparent.

[David Nieporent]

Pretti quick his nursing job months ago,

He did not. Why do you lie and lie and lie and lie? What do you get out of it? Hint: 4chan is not a source of news.

[Magister]

LexAquilia is repeating debunked lies. Pretti was employed as a registered nurse in the intensive care unit at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System. He did not quit; he was not fired. The truth is so bad for MAGA cultists that they have to latch onto lies.

[LexAquilia]

Ok so he didn't quit. The information highway flows fast.

The fact that 8 of you chumps chimed in shows you heard it too. I just hadn't gotten the correction yet.

That does not change my point, to all you pedantic pants pissers.

Estragon believes every single human out there protesting and chasing ICE has the same singular motive. And he's suggesting it's noble and deserves empathy and if he just keeps asking obtuse and weird question I'll discover this singular motive shared by all of the people, and thus see how noble it is and have empathy!

Estragon, I will never discover your point. I know how humans act, and I know that all of these people are motivated by different, personal reasons -- some maybe shared, others not. I wish you knew anything about humans. Do you not have Theory of Mind?

What a fucking dipshit.

[Estragon]

Oh these climbdowns are always so tasty

[LexAquilia]

"Climb down" must mean "double down"

Why do you think all these people have the same motive?

[Estragon]

“pedantic pants pissers”

That’s the climbdown! LOL!

“every single human out there protesting and chasing ICE has the same singular motive”

Oh my Lordy you just keep telling on yourself, don’t you?

[LexAquilia]

How about you stop being obtuse and just make your point?

This is your failure to communicate, not my failure to see some very specific inference you're hoping I'll stumble upon.

[Estragon]

I think I’ve spent enough time on you today.

[LexAquilia]

I wish you spent your free time reading a book.

[Estragon]

I’m almost done with a memoir by a guy named Sebastian Haffner. What are you reading?

[Estragon]

And just to drive the point home— I did not actually select that book because I’m on CCP payroll. Maybe you can guess another reason…?

[jb]

"The fact that the violence is centered on 9 counties, and not where most ICE activity is should kinda suggest something to you. Right?"

The Trump administration describes Operation Metro Surge as the "largest immigration operation ever carried out". The fact that they're only managing to find an immigrant to deport per person-month there probably tells you about the relative number of undocumented immigrants in Texas versus Minnesota rather than the intensity of activity in various places.

[LexAquilia]

Now explain the other 8 counties.

lmao good grief, do you ever get tired of stepping on that rake?

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear, Voltage! is once again just laundering random MAGA twitter shit. The "nine counties" thing comes from some random Twitter account who claims that he analyzed unspecified public databases and media accounts, without any basis for thinking either of these things are accurate or comprehensive,

[Frank Drackman]

Love Closed Captions, all morning it's been about the "Alex Brady" shooting
"Alex Brady"??? was he Peter's Evil Twin in that one episode.....
No, that was just a guy who looked like Peter.
How about that annoying kid with the bowl haircut and John Lennon Glasses?
No, that was "Cousin Oliver" (before "Jumping the Shark" there was the "Cousin Oliver" to know when a Series had ummm Jumped the Shark)
Tom Brady's brother??
So turn up the Volume,
It's just this Loser in Minn-a-Soda, I don't think think even Grimsrud would dullen the blades of the Wood Chipper with his corpse.

Frank

[LexAquilia]

How do we know the Ohmar attack was staged? (besides all the other obvious clues)

The attacker got charged with a misdemeanor.

- intimidation of a public official
- terroristic threats "we'll get you next time" (why not this time?, b/c it was a hoax, imho)
- a syringe containing an unknown substance is a potential deadly instrument

----

Apparently, that's a misdemeanor to the Democrat prosecutors.

[Krayt]

These are the same people who tried to use an international treaty on chemical warfare against an in love woman who put an irritant on her rival's steering wheel.

Bloviating up charges when motivated is what they do. Oh, wait, we have dozens of more recent examples the past ten years.

"How partisan!" ...to call out partisanship?

Also, see the deadly danger of terroristically throwing a sandwich.

[LexAquilia]

I think you missed my point.

Do you think what the attacker did was a misdemeanor like he's currently being charged?

Or do you think what he did is more a felony given the other factors I provided?

Did Ilhan Ohmar's attacker commit a felony or a misdemeanor in your opinion.

[David Nieporent]

These are the same people who tried to use an international treaty on chemical warfare against an in love woman who put an irritant on her rival's steering wheel.

I don't even have to know who you refer to when you say "these" to know that they aren't the same people.

[Armchair]

How to prevent violent protests...have local police involved.

Northwest of Minneapolis, in the suburb of Maple Grove protestors got violent, attacking federal agents. But here local law enforcement was effective, promptly subduing and arresting those violent protestors who were breaking the law.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/compare-and-contrast-5.php

However, when local law enforcement is told not to enforce the law against protestors who are violent against federal agents, it puts the federal agents in a self-defense situation, as they are outnumbered and not equipped to deal with violent protestors.

[Brett Bellmore]

Exactly. I think ICE training is probably deficient, thanks to the large expansion they underwent recently, but it's the failure of local law enforcement to protect them from mobs that's creating the occasion for these incidents.

And they're on edge all the time, because they have bounties on their heads. That's the primary reason for the frankly problematic masking and lack of ID: Getting doxed is a death threat if you're in ICE.

[Michael P]

It's not only the ICE officers themselves who are threatened with death, either -- terrorists threaten to target their families as well. And leftist commenters here still demand that the government assist that terrorism.

[David Nieporent]

It's not only the ICE officers themselves who are threatened with death, either -- terrorists threaten to target their families as well.

Also never happened.

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "Also never happened."

You look counter-stupid when you make a statement that you can't possibly know to be true.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Getting doxed is a death threat if you're in ICE.

And yet recording in detail law enforcement operations is a cvil liberty. Maybe you ought to reflect on what those facts taken together tell you about the practicality of federalized policing in communities with large majorities who oppose it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I think we need to reach an accommodation that deals with both ends of this. I've suggested that the agents be required to wear badges that are anonymized in some fashion, so that one agent can be told from another for purposes of legal investigations, while not enabling doxing.

" the practicality of federalized policing in communities with large majorities who oppose it."

You mean like escorting children through school house doors? Federal law enforcement that's locally opposed is not a problem that sprang into existence when Trump took office.

[David Nieporent]

because they have bounties on their heads

They do not.

[grb]

Brett sure does like his pet lies.....

[David Nieporent]

This isn't Brett's lie, to be sure. It's DHS's. It's Brett pretending to believe them that's at issue. Not only does DHS provide no facts, but the claim is inherently incredible. For one thing, what purpose would a Mexican cartel have for doing this? What profit would there be for drug dealers to kill a random immigration official? This isn't Mexico; killing a cop is not going to intimidate the US government into ending the war on drugs. (And certainly not a cop who isn't even involved in the war on drugs!) And if they were going to try to deter drug enforcement, then wouldn't they have to make the bounty offer public?

[bernard11]

I think ICE training is probably deficient,

And, as I've asked several times, who is responsible for that? Who sent undertrained, unvetted, thugs out with guns and masks to harass people, and told them they were immune from prosecution?

Hint: It wasn't the Minneapolis Police Dept.

Further question: Would it be appropriate to fire the responsible parties for their incompetence?

[jb]

Minneapolis PD have arrested people at many protests. Maybe read some news other than propaganda blogs?

[Mr. Bumble]

So help us out and link a story or two.

[jb]

I'm not sure why I need to do this again every time it comes up, or why you aren't capable of using Google yourself, but here you go:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgpnwnqygro
https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-pd-arrest-anti-ice-vandal-who-targeted-lake-street-businesses

I linked to another incident elsewhere in this thread.

[Mr. Bumble]

Both stories are over two weeks old and don't necessarily reflect current conditions.
As for including links, think of it as common courtesy.

[jb]

LOL, this is a fun game. Down below The Publius says my links are too new and they just started arresting people; here you're saying that they're too old and they must have stopped in the meantime.

[Commenter_XY]

In other news....A Schumer Shutdown is in the works. A Schumer Shutdown II is a futile effort, the product of an entrenched DC politician.

Does DHS funding ultimately get passed w/o significant policy changes? Yes or No.

Answer: Yes.

Why? Because ICE operations to apprehend criminal illegal aliens will not stop. Schumer and fellow travelers want that to stop and will shut down the Fed Govt to achieve their objective. It won't stop; it will fail to achieve the objective.

[Armchair]

The shutdown idea is particularly dumb, on multiple fronts.

1. ICE are considered essential employees. They'll continue to do their jobs, even if DHS doesn't have funds. Just like TSA and Customs will continue to do their jobs.

2. On top of that...ICE got a boatload of funding as part of the one beautiful bill act. (tens of billions of dollars). As a result, ICE will remain funded, even if the rest of DHS (and the government) isn't funded.

3. What "won't" potentially be funded is the judiciary. So, there's plenty of funding for ICE. Plenty of funding to keep people detained. But no funding for the actual courts...so their cases won't be able to be heard. Which...if you support the immigrants...is particularly dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair will one day learn about symbolism, and it's use in politics.

[Armchair]

"Symbolism".... Idiocy.

Actively hurting the community you claim to be helping because you need to "symbolize" that you're helping?

Sickening.

[Sarcastr0]

Pearls status: clutched.

[Bwaaah]

You are a symbolic bastion of leftist idiocy, and it is indeed enduring.

Armchair clutches no pearls. I don't cry. And you oppress like a girl.

[Sarcastr0]

Schumer Shutdown
Trying....so...hard!

ICE shot 2 people and the federal government is covering it up.

I sure don't want a shutdown for professional reasons, but the go-to play of blaming the Dems is gonna be a hard lift.

[Commenter_XY]

Senator Schumer is the one making public statements. I take him at his word.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who cares.

Still no Obamacare subsidies after the last shutdown, No DHS restrictions from this I'd bet. Too far away from November to have any impact, not that historically shutdowns matter.

[loki13]

Three things-

1. You take Schumer at his word? Oh, you sweet summer child! I fully expect Schumer to cave in for a deal that involves a promise that the Democrats will get a committee to discuss the possibility of ten pinto beans.

2. That said, I fully support shutting down the government unless there are meaningful restrictions on DHS (ICE). SERIOUSLY MEANINGFUL.

3. However, because of the Ginormous Debt Expanding Bill passed last year, ICE is sitting on a giant Trump Slush Fund, which means that even if the government is shut down, ICE will still be murderin' and beatin' American citizens for quite a while.

[Commenter_XY]

LMAO = You take Schumer at his word? Oh, you sweet summer child!

[Armchair]

Let's propose a scenario. A organization.....decides that they would like certain US drug laws to be repealed. They are aware a group of other people are breaking these drug laws and actively selling them on the streets and importing them.

In order to help that group of drug dealers, the organization sets up a system where they monitor the DEA, tracking its vehicles, warning the drug dealers before the DEA approaches, and seek to actively protest whenever the DEA is attempting to make an arrest, thus impeding their ability to make arrests.

This organization...are their actions breaking the law? Should they be charged?

[Brett Bellmore]

Or consider the same in regards to gun laws. Gun control laws are widely understood to not just be bad, but unconstitutional. Imagine if gun owners started taking the same stance in regards to gun laws as open borders advocates are taking with respect to immigration laws.

Really, the viability of government in a free society is critically dependent on almost everybody consenting to be governed, even if they don't like the details of the law. That's what makes it possible to have a civil society with the rule of law.

Once the idea that you're entitled to resist enforcement of laws you disapprove of starts to put down roots, a society becomes ungovernable by means compatible with the sort of liberties we're used to.

Governments don't typically respond to such a situation by giving up, governments inclined to do that get displaced. They respond by cracking down and becoming illiberal.

By deciding that they get to actively resist enforcement of democratically legitimate laws, the left are seriously risking genuinely causing the US to become a police state. And, looking at revolutionary theory, maybe that's not unintentional.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett yesterday: "Don't carry if you'll piss off law enforcement. You might die, and then I'll have to say it was a 'bad shoot' and move on to some church protest"
Brett today: "Gun control laws are widely understood to not just be bad, but unconstitutional.

With this pre-Civil Rights era nugget: "Once the idea that you're entitled to resist enforcement of laws you disapprove of starts to put down roots, a society becomes ungovernable"
MLK: Anarchist.

And given the gun laws tend to be municipal, the parallel to immigration sucks anyhow.
Congrats on outflanking Armchair and making an even lamer hypo than he did. Hard to do!

[ThePublius]

"And given the gun laws tend to be municipal, the parallel to immigration sucks anyhow."

Gun laws tend not to be municipal, due to state preemption.

"Most cities and towns cannot make their own gun laws due to state "preemption" laws. Over 40 [ed.: actually 43] states prohibit local governments from passing ordinances stricter than state laws. Only a few states, such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Connecticut, allow for more local regulation."

[John F. Carr]

The only local regulation I know of in Massachusetts is restrictions on firing guns in some cities. When licensing was discretionary there was a lot of variation in policies for granting licenses.

[ducksalad]

Really, the viability of government in a free society is critically dependent on almost everybody consenting to be governed, even if they don't like the details of the law. That's what makes it possible to have a civil society with the rule of law.

Very true. The other side of that is that wise governments should avoid doing things that are going to generate large scale lack of consent by otherwise governable people. And that doesn't just mean the laws themselves, it also applies to how those laws are enforced.

Escalate to gain total compliance by any means necessary is not the only possible policy, nor is it a matter of principle.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. But there's a fundamental conflict between democracy and that rule, and where to draw the line is pretty fraught, especially when you have the possibility of intransigent groups on both sides.

In the case of immigration law enforcement, the very fact that the more activist opposition to it is largely limited to just a few "sanctuary" jurisdictions, and enforcement in principle is widely popular, tells me that the federal government should not refrain.

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair: "Let's propose a scenario."

This man just loves to JAQ it.

[ducksalad]

To answer your scenario about drugs and the DEA: almost your exact scenario already happened in the 1920s, the drug was ethanol, the DEA was called the Bureau of Prohibition back then.

Are their actions breaking the law? Probably yes.
Should they be charged? No, the oppressive and unpopular laws should be scaled back.

Prohibition -> widespread disobedience and organized resistance -> Repeal and replace with less restrictive laws.

Marijuana Bans -> widespread disobedience and organized resistance -> Combination of repealing laws and chilling out on enforcement

Immigration Bans -> you see the pattern.

Thank you for the excellent analogy.

[Absaroka]

Dateline 28Jan2030: Unrest continues in Dallas as ATF agents continue to enforce NFA laws. After the Newsom administration ruled that 3D printable full auto switches make all striker fired pistols 'readily convertible to full auto' and many owners refused to comply by registering their now-machineguns and paying the $4805 fee ($200 in 1934 adjusted for inflation), despite opening the registry for previously acquired pistols.

The campaign of massive resistance left AG Ocasio-Cortez to reassign 12000 ICE agents to the ATF, saying "We will not allow criminals to flaunt the law by possessing these weapons of mass destruction". Using software from Palantir to cross reference recent purchases of magazines or other accessories for the now banned weapons, agents have gone door to door, writing administrative warrants as they go to authorize breaking down doors in early morning raids across Dallas. On scene commander Jeff Sortino reacted to Dallas declaring itself a 2A Sanctuary city and forbidding local police from assisting the ATF in enforcing the law by instructing agents "We won't tolerate resistance ... if anyone interferes with you in any way use overwhelming force ... you have complete immunity".

After agents shot 34 year old Hector Gonzalez for videotaping a raid, unrest spread. President Newsom alerted the 82nd Airborne and the 3d Armored Regiment from Ft Shane Ortega near Killeen for peacekeeping and enforcement duties in Dallas.

[Moderation4ever]

I read to day in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, that police in Peshtigo, WI detained and arrested a man carry a gun and two knifes. The Peshtigo police did this all without firing a single shot. Perhaps ICE agents could get some training from the Peshtigo police who seem to know how to better handle these situations.

[Armchair]

Of course, that's not really ICE's job detaining and arresting local armed citizens. That's the job of the local Minneapolis cops.

They've been ordered by the local authorities not to intervene.

It's like if there's a fire, but the local authorities tell the fire department "don't do anything". So the local cops have to take it up. They're not really trained for it.

The real problem here is with the local authorities telling the organization whose job it is not to intervene.

[jb]

They've been ordered by the local authorities not to intervene.

That would be surprising to hear for the protestors that they are arresting.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-ice-agitators-arrested-outside-minnesota-hotel-police-declare-unlawful-assembly-no-longer-peaceful

https://www.fox9.com/news/ice-out-protests-mn-jan-23-2026

[ThePublius]

This is new. The police only started to act when Walz softened, in the wake of the Signalgate saga and POTUS's call.

[jb]

It's not new. I linked to other incidents elsewhere in this open thread, but they arrested 30 people in one of the big protests two weeks ago.

[Armchair]

MINNEAPOLIS — The head of a major Twin Cities police union slammed local officials for blocking cooperation between local cops and ICE and Border Patrol agents – saying if they had been involved, “there would be no loss of life.”

It comes as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz agreed to have his top cop work with President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan after he rushed to Minneapolis Monday — after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was sidelined.

St. Paul Police Federation President Mark Ross blamed state and local officials for the anti-ICE protest violence — saying that if highly trained cops were allowed to work with the feds, it likely would have prevented the killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

“Since the Republican National Convention was held in St. Paul back in 2008, Minnesota law enforcement has undergone extensive training in mobile field force configurations and crowd management for major events. And because of that, I think we’re in the best position to deal with that,” Ross said.

“Unfortunately, our local politicians would not allow us to do that,” he added.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/28/us-news/police-union-head-slams-minn-as-gov-walz-agrees-to-have-top-cop-work-with-border-czar/

[Sarcastr0]

Uh, you know much about police unions, and their politics?

This is not news.

[Armchair]

Why don't you go back to just signaling your support, while your actions accomplish the exact opposite.

[Sarcastr0]

I believe in federalism. MN gets to make it's own choices.

You don't really have any beliefs other than supporting Trump and hating liberals to the point you seem to root for their execution.

You give the distinct impression that you'd be satisfied if something bad happened to one or more of the liberals you post replies to on this here website.
I hope that's just Internet bravado.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I believe in federalism. MN gets to make it's own choices."

MN is certainly allowed to decline to support the feds and force them to go it alone, decline to protect them from rioters, provide crowd control, etc.

But sometimes choices have bad consequences.

[jb]

I think it is uncontroversial to say that in some Minnesota counties that the police have been instructed not to actually assist ICE in performing their duties of finding and detaining immigrants, and that differs from what happens in places like Texas or Florida (or even other counties in Minnesota).

Apparently it's also not controversial to say at this point that local police are better trained and less likely to gun down citizens than ICE agents, which is saying something because most local police departments do not set a high bar in either area.

But none of this is not the same thing as saying that the police in those counties have been instructed to ignore violence against ICE in particular or protests against federal policy in general, and there's ample evidence of police arresting people or getting between protestors and ICE when needed.

Lastly: it's probably correct that there would be less violence overall if there was better cooperation between ICE and local police departments. I don't think that needs to imply that local politicians need to just kowtow to the feds and ICE's wild abuse of the Constitution at present. There's probably some middle ground where some attempt is made to agree on overall approach to policing, which would make it more likely to see such cooperation happen in places where there tends to be political opposition to this administration.

[Armchair]

Since the Republican National Convention was held in St. Paul back in 2008, Minnesota law enforcement has undergone extensive training in mobile field force configurations and crowd management for major events. And because of that, I think we’re in the best position to deal with that,” Ross said.

“Unfortunately, our local politicians would not allow us to do that,” he added.

[ThePublius]

Oh, like those two situations were exactly equivalent. What a stupid comment.

[Michael P]

It's not surprising that you leave out that he did not attempt to resist the arrest. Or that he was arrested at a controlled scene, not one where law enforcement were trying to do their job and he was trying to interfere with that. Or that police still responded violently when he eventually attacked them after his arrest.

[Commenter_XY]

The Donald is in pursuit of a deal....but what is the deal to be had with Iran?

An 'armada' is now in place in the ME region. Presumably the 'armada' is there to give POTUS Trump more options in addressing Iran. MSM speculation is POTUS Trump wants Iran to agree to give up nukes, permanently and verifiably.

Is the complete destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure a vital US national interest?

[Sarcastr0]

Some don't learn from 20 years of ME neocon adventures.

[LexAquilia]

It's not from lack of learning.

It's ZOG.

[Bob from Ohio]

"neocon"

Yup, Donald Trump, well known neocon.

[ducksalad]

It's a reasonable label for Marco Rubio.

Trump isn't a neocon, he's a senile man most heavily influenced by the last brownnoser he talked to, which could happen to be Rubio.

[Krayt]

Is the complete destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure a vital US national interest?

Non-proliferation to dictatorships is always in the US' interest, however practical or impractical. Nuclear war, or a smuggled device, though, are also impractical.

This is separate from how to go about it.

[ducksalad]

MSM speculation is POTUS Trump wants Iran to agree to give up nukes, permanently and verifiably.

There is no possible level of verifiability that will satisfy people who want regime change for other reasons.

Even if the rule was zero centrifuges, zero nuclear power, zero medical reactors, the neocons would instantly switch their accusation to chemical and biological weapons, which can't ever be verified. The supply cabinet for a swimming pool is chemical weapons. A castor bean plant on someone's porch is chemical weapons. The culture lab in any hospital is biological weapons.

[loki13]

Huh. I remember that Trump was supposed to be the candidate who kept us out of foreign affairs.

And yet ... it seems like he has been the most active President in involving us and entangling us in multiple foreign adventures? And no one is really commenting on that?

[ducksalad]

There are plenty of comments. Even had a top ten player in the MAGA movement, Empty Gee, resign over it.

By the way, anyone heard from Tulsi lately?

[loki13]

Fair. I guess I painted with too broad a brush. I suppose I should have made the point that I didn't understand how this wasn't a bigger story with his supporters- but yes, there are always some people with principles.

And the last time I heard from Tulsi, it was when she had the Stepford Wife look and reversed what she testified about to the Senate a couple of months before because ... um, Trump wanted her to.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Is the complete destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure a vital US national interest?"

I probably shouldn't, but a reminder: After the last round of bombings, XY was here confidently braying Iran's nuclear program was completely destroyed. I said it wasn't; the essential components of the regime's atomic weapons program remained and the setback was closer to months than years.

Now we apparently need another distraction (those Epstein files still being unreleased). So here's what will happen : At the end of a new round of bombs, XY will be overwhelmed with mindless joy at his orange-popsicle-tinted god "completely destroying" Iran's nuclear capacity. I'll say it wasn't. Sometimes later, the whole dance will repeat.

[John F. Carr]

Press reports say Lindsey Halligan is no longer with the Justice Department in any capacity. Unlike Alina Habba she is not staying around as chief whip. I hear the end of Billy Joel's "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant"

Brenda and Eddie had it already by the summer of '75
From the high to the low to the end of the show to the rest of their lives

Or, in a slightly older reference, did she say to Donald Trump: "Where shall I go? What shall I do?"

Peak Billy Joel is closer to Gone With the Wind than it is to the present day. Time flies.

[Krayt]

Star Wars was way closer to WWII (and the serials George so loved) than to today. Almost twice as close now that I think about it.

[loki13]

I have to admit, I will miss the sheer lunacy of her misadventures.

...I doubt she wrote it ... but the response to the Court about why she kept signing as the USA ... that was something! It should be taught in law schools.

"How not to address the court."

[hobie]

"Gov. Mike DeWine said Ohio officials are preparing for a potential surge in immigration enforcement when thousands of Haitians in Springfield lose their legal status overnight.

On Feb. 3, more than 500,000 Haitians nationwide are expected to lose temporary protected status, which allows immigrants from dangerous countries to stay in the United States. Springfield is home to an estimated 15,000 Haitians − about one-fourth of its population − and another 30,000 live in central Ohio."

Just to remind the hayseeds that there are other black immigrant populations you are supposed to fixate on, but may have forgotten about. Good old Springfield, OH again.

[Mr. Bumble]

How come they didn't return home to Haiti when Bill and Hillary fixed it?
Also, please define temporary.

[ThePublius]

How can TPS be for 12 or 13 years? What's the point of that?

"Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a U.S. government program that allows nationals from designated countries facing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or extraordinary, temporary conditions to live and work in the U.S. legally. Recipients receive protection from deportation and work authorization (EAD) for 6 to 18 months, with potential extensions. It is not a pathway to permanent residency."

It would seem 12 to 13 years is pretty much permanent residence, which TPS is not supposed to be.

And it's not about skin color, hobie. You are the biggest racist here.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, you forget....hobie (Arthur?) claims to have some N card based on his past behavior.

[jb]

I thought it was cute when Trump was simultaneously ending TPS for Venezuelans because supposedly everything was okay there now, and kidnapping Maduro because he led an oppressive regime.

[Frank Drackman]

Cats & Dogs in Columbus overjoyed

[hobie]

"Outrage is growing in Italy over the deployment ICE agents to assist US security operations at the Winter Olympics next month. https://cnn.it/45ypFaR"

Didn't the Soviets send their SS boys along with any delegation to make sure no one defected? I honestly cannot think of any reason why an irregular, domestic militia like ICE would be used for international security. Don't we have the Marines and the Secret Service for that?

[Krayt]

The Olympics usually comes with a contract to lay off hassling the athletes. It's not really that different from the Constitution forbidding Squeedunk City from pulling over a rep on the way to a vote.

I would think they and all support and Olympic personnel have nothing to fear.

[OpinionsVary]

I mean you'd think that, but we did just have a case of ICE trying to enter the Ecuadorian Consulate in pursuit of two people who entered inside. Granted, I think this is more down to poor training than the Trump administration pushing new political ground (if only because I'd expect far more regime friendly media crews on standby if they really were going to raid a consulate) but I'm not sure Italy will care too much over the details.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/ice-agent-blocked-ecuador-consulate-minneapolis-trump-immigration-rcna256284

[Bob from Ohio]

Why does Ecuador have a consulate in Minnesota?

[grb]

Why do you care?

[John F. Carr]

Don't you think it's an odd place to find a concentration of citizens of Ecuador? I understand why there's a consulate in Boston. Lots of people from Latin America in eastern Massachusetts.

[Sarcastr0]

Ya never know with cities, so I looked it up.

https://www.mncompass.org/topics/demographics/cultural-communities/ecuadorian

Total Ecuadorian population 18,271

The real answer might start from when that cohort showed up, and when they were deciding to open new consulates. But it does seem like right now they have enough to make it a plausible location.

[jb]

To perform consular functions like issuing visas, helping Ecuadorian citizens with passports, and encouraging trade relations.

Here's the other places in the US there are Ecuadorian consulates, in case you're curious about that too: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Haven, New Orleans, New York City, Newark, Phoenix, and San Francisco.

[Bob from Ohio]

"helping Ecuadorian citizens"

Oh, why is that important to the US?

Close them all, Ecuadorian citizens can go to its DC embassy if they need a new passport. Or go home for one and never return.

[Magister]

Encouraging trade relations and providing visas for US citizens visiting Ecuador seem like they might have value for the US, if not importance.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Encouraging trade relations ... US citizens visiting Ecuador "

I think we have sufficient cocaine supplies already.

[bernard11]

Ecuador is where you connect to flights to the Galapagos Islands. Lots of people are interested in going there.

[jb]

You connect to the Galapagos Islands in Ecuador because they are part of Ecuador.

Bob is hilarious, though--out doing the thing MAGA does when this administration does something wrong. Instead of holding the administration accountable for its mistakes, let's try to punish the victims some more: first Abrego Garcia, then Becca Good, and now the Ecuadorian government I guess. What's the possible motivation for the US to shut down all the Ecuadorian consulates other than ICE embarrassing itself yesterday?

[Bob from Ohio]

"administration accountable for its mistakes"

One ICE guy opened a door and left when told he had to do so. Not a very big mistake. No need to care.

I am surprised they haves many consulates here. A way to smuggle drugs in diplomatic pouches I suppose.

[David Nieporent]

One ICE guy opened a door and left when told he had to do so. Not a very big mistake. No need to care.

He in fact threatened them when they told him he had to leave. That's what the big deal was.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Ecuador is one of the largest banana exporters in the world.

[Commenter_XY]

Along with shrimp and balsa wood.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think a consulate in Minnesota would likely have much to do with promoting trade. In general, that would probably be from the DC embassy or one of the major consulates (NY, LA, etc.), unless there were some specific local industry that a country was interested in. But, if there's a significant local population that travels to and from the country, they would have a consulate there to facilitate that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Close them all, Ecuadorian citizens can go to its DC embassy if they need a new passport. Or go home for one and never return."

You know this means that Ecuador will expel its US missions in response and thus leave Americans in Ecuador in a bind. Why would you want to do that to Americans?

And if the United States is going to take the position of GTFO to foreign citizens and diplomatic missions generally...they'll do the same to us, severely curtailing Americans' ability to travel and conduct business abroad. Which would be incredibly harmful to millions of individual Americans and the country overall.

[Bob from Ohio]

The US has no separate consulate in Ecuador except for the one attached to our embassy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Man, not only is this a nitpick rather than a refutation, your nitpick isn't even true.

https://ec.usembassy.gov/

https://ec.usembassy.gov/consulate/#location

[David Nieporent]

Oh, why is that important to the US?

This is just Bob vice signaling.

[John F. Carr]

According to the article I read yesterday, the division sending a team to the Olympics is not the same division that is sending thugs to Minnesota.

[Ska]

It sounds more like a handful of politicians are making some noise.

From the Italians (you know, regular people residing in Italy) I've spoken to, and it's not that many but it's more than a few, they're not exactly thrilled with what immigration has brought to their cities, and they're not shy about telling people.

[Estragon]

“Everything I’ve done, I’ve done at the direction of the president and Stephen,”

It is just as I predicted yesterday.

And so begins Kristi’s decades long scramble to avoid accountability. First comes the political accountability. Legal, personal and societal comes later. I hope she really enjoys the next 10-20 years. How confident in the reciprocal loyalty of his superiors do you think Greg Bovino feels as he wakes up back in El Centro today? Steven Miller is already here, he just doesn’t realize it.

[Bob from Ohio]

The post VP life of Dick Cheney shows that your revenge fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

[Estragon]

I think there are a lot of reasons things will be different for Ms Noem, and I could point to a few of them, but what would be the point? Time will tell.

[ducksalad]

Note that GWB didn't throw Cheney under the bus and make him the scapegoat for Iraq or Abu Ghraib. GWB in general wasn't much into doing that to subordinates.

And it's true that DJT hasn't thrown Noem under the bus....yet. Trump has no loyalty to his subordinates. He's even having some from his past administration prosecuted.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dick got sidelined and ignored, could not even get Scooter Libby a pardon.

You can't fire a VP like a cabinet drone.

[John F. Carr]

I hear the song "(Everything I Do) I Do It for You" by Bryan Adams.

[Estragon]

Here’s the latest. Kinda fun.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBYfPqpjhw

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There is a Fox News article entitled:

"Federal judge threatening ICE director with contempt donated to group helping illegal immigrants"

Ed Whelan explained on Twitter that

A judge may contribute financially to legal service associations that provide counsel for the poor. A judge need not recuse merely because lawyers who accept appointments by such associations are also counsel of record in cases before that judge.

A federal appellate judge informs me that's the official advice to federal judges (set forth in a nonpublic Compendium of Selected Opinions, § 4.2-3(g)).

Harmeet K. Dhillon [head of DOJ Civil Rights] responded on her personal account:

Ed, do you have any clients? Do you actually practice law— in COURT? Serious question, related to this post.

"Ed" replied:

Do you know what a non sequitur is? I can't conceive how your question has any bearing on the official ethics advice that I quoted.

To answer your question: I have spent the last two decades promoting originalism and textualism, working to transform the courts, and promoting conservative legal causes.

Which led to:

I majored in Ancient Greek and Latin at Dartmouth. Your pretentiousness merely underscores your utter lack of street cred.

Ed replied:

Are you drunk?

Open Thread worthy.

[Estragon]

“Ancient Greek and Latin at Dartmouth”

Ugh. I was unaware of this part of the resume.

[Ridgeway]

She was the Editor in Chief of the Review

[Estragon]

Further ugh. I really don’t want to go down this rabbit hole today.

….

“The column also characterized conservatives at Dartmouth as being "deported in cattle cars in the night"”

Oh, FFS.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I have spent the last two decades promoting originalism and textualism, working to transform the courts, and promoting conservative legal causes."

Lots of words to answer "No" to her question.

He forgot Zillow research.

[Sarcastr0]

If you have such contempt for the discipline of conservative legal academia, why are you on this blog?

[Bob from Ohio]

To bother you?

Ed works at a "think tank" not in "academia". I do have scorn for such tanks, on all sides.

[John F. Carr]

"I majored in Ancient Greek and Latin at Dartmouth."

She is qualified for a top job in the 19th century.

[Estragon]

Maybe an archeologist?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

New Tomb Raider?

[John F. Carr]

The picture of Ed Whelan on Wikipedia does not say "street cred" to me.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He's comfortable with the streets as shown by his use of Zillow and Google Maps.

[Ridgeway]

However, when he was shown to be wrong, he apologized profusely and shame-facedly. Something that is unheard of in the MAGA movement (and on much of the Left as well).

[LawTalkingGuy]

Rare Josh Barro W when he replied; "At Harvard we called them concentrations."

[Ridgeway]

So we know he's smart and excellent at masturbation

[grb]

Trump, describing a day in the life of Trump:

“I just left a great group of people from Iowa, and half of them were crying as they talked to me,” Trump said at an event in Clive, Iowa. “I don’t think they’re crying because I’m doing a bad job. You know, in theory, you cry if you do a bad, they were crying because I’ve done a good job. They said, ‘Sir, you’ve brought our country back,’” he recalled. “Crying, crying.”

“One woman was fantastic,” he said. “She grabbed me, and she put her head right there, and her tears are pouring all over my beautiful suit. I figured, I get it, and I checked it out, and there was a lot of makeup all over. I said, ‘What the hell am I gonna do? Get myself in trouble!’

“She was crying, and I said, ‘Don’t cry. Be happy. Be happy,’” he said.

Most of the cultists here – ThePublius, Ed, Kazinski, Brett, Bumble, Bwaaah, etc – will probably weep with ecstasy when reading this inspirational tale. Many will drop to their knees in joyous thanks to their orange-popsicle-tinted god, that he brings such joy to the world!

[hobie]

My favorite was the photo from last year at a Turning Point where Trump was seated and all his disciples stood around him with bowed heads laying their hands on his body like he was a Buddha.

A couple of months ago I stated here that Trump met all the biblical criteria of the antichrist except one: He must proclaim himself as God. But I'm wondering, is the hayseeds' golden calf idolatry of him as God count? A sort of proclamation by proxy?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GanzcliWgAAy3-8?format=jpg&name=medium

[grb]

My thinking? If Joseph Smith can create a religion, why not the Trump Cult? I see one major distinction between traditional faiths and the new Trump one:

Most religions promise their adherents eternal life in paradise. But in the Church of Trump, He ascends up into the sky while the faithful (known collectively as the Brotherhood of Losers & Suckers) stay behind. But they worship Him all the more for visiting his Holy Contempt upon their heads.

[loki13]

Trump Cult- Now accepting donations in BitCoin and/or to an account in Qatar!

[Bunny495]

Just a random thought that seems to have slipped under the radar even after I have posted it more than once. I am convinced Trump told Waltz to take this and shove it where the sun don't shine to convince Waltz to call Frey and get the local LEOs to arrest the morons trashing hotels where ICE was staying. Say what you want about 4A stuff but suddenly there seems to be some justification for the military budget. The Arctic Angles are the ones on alert to be the boots on the ground if Trump goes the insurrection route.

Electronic Battlefield Data Capabilities
The 11th Airborne has recently undergone a massive shift to become a "testbed" for the Army’s newest electronic and digital technologies. Their capability to collect and utilize electronic data is focused on three main pillars:

1. SIGINT & Spectrum Awareness
The division uses organic EW systems to "see" the invisible battlefield. In recent exercises (such as those at JPARC in late 2025), they demonstrated the ability to:

Detect RF Signatures: Identify and geolocate Radio Frequency emissions from drones, handheld radios, and cell phones.

Locate Command Links: Pinpoint the exact location of enemy (or target) operators by tracing the control signals used to fly Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).

Electronic Order of Battle (EOB): Map out the digital footprint of an area to understand the density and type of electronic devices in use.

2. High-Latitude & Arctic Data Challenges
Collecting data in Alaska has prepared the 11th for "degraded" environments, which translates well to urban or contested areas in the lower 48:

Starlink & Satellite Integration: Because standard geostationary satellites often fail at high latitudes, the division has pioneered the use of Starlink (Low Earth Orbit) and other "bespoke" mobile tactical internet kits to maintain a data stream where others lose signal.

Signature Management: They specialize in "Electromagnetic Discipline"—collecting data while minimizing their own electronic footprint to avoid being targeted by opposing SIGINT assets.

3. AI-Enhanced Intelligence
The division is actively integrating NIPRGPT (a specialized military AI) and other automated tools to process the massive amounts of data they collect.

Rapid Analysis: Instead of manual reporting, AI tools are used to ingest thousands of data points to generate "Actionable Intelligence" for commanders in minutes.

Tactical Assault Kit (TAK): Soldiers use tablet-based software that provides a "Common Operating Picture," allowing data collected by a single scout or drone to be instantly visible to the entire chain of command.

[grb]

All the electronic gobbledygook in the world isn't going to make protesting a crime. You've been told this before. The fascist state you long for still isn't here.

You seem to think a lot of things that are goofy, if not comically absurd. A military invasion of Minnesota might send you to heights of near-masturbatory joy, but will only deepen the contempt normal Americans have for Trump's immigration policy. And to remind you : They compose a sizable majority of voters.

You also seem to think we're on the verge of discovering the Anti-ICE protests are organized and funded. But you're kinda late to the game there. A week or two ago, a writer for the National Review sat in on a training secession for ICE observers. They were happy to let him attend. See, we don't yet live in a tinpot dictator's country, all of Trump's efforts notwithstanding. The fascist state you long for hasn't yet appeared.

[Bunny495]

Once again you fail to pass the reading comprehension test. What you term "electronic gobbledygook" looks to be a game changer in terms of 4A. No question battlefield rules differ from normal search laws. I am not sure what laws apply to insurrection imposition but know enough to realize both Lincoln and FDR ignored a lot. I would not put it past Trump to deploy some of that "electronic gobbledygook" legal or not.

I have never claimed "legal observers" violated any law. While there is circumstantial evidence of significant coordination in efforts to hinder ICE operations in what at times seem dangerously close to obstruction I am not sure it crosses the line.

What this hindering does is create what Graham calls a hostile environment that raises the bar to any punishment of questionable action by ICE agents. Combined with the failure of state and local LEOs to not only assist ICE but actively ignore street crime strengthens the case for declaring an insurrection. For some time I have taken the position that Trump would never declare insurrection due to no real justification. Recent events have forced me to question my position. "Protestors" have trashed hotels where ICE was housed. The latest incident did result in arrests but only after an hour delay before local LEOs arrived. Frey has prohibited ICE from parking on city owned property and only recently has the police standdown to respond to ICE incidents even been softened.

Point is while none of this is against the law it does create a hostile environment which at some point does justify Trump putting boots on the ground; and the Arctic Angles are scary boots.

[Estragon]

“Arctic Angles”

Watch out they’re extremely obtuse!

Anyways, like I said the other day, this fantasizing inherently contains a lot of assumptions about what people might be willing to do to their fellow citizens that could warrant some more critical examination.

When I say “people” obviously I mean most people. Denizens here excepted.

[John F. Carr]

The Department of Justice sued Minnesota over affirmative action programs for state employment, claiming they violate Title VII. They probably do but precedent says good sex discrimination is allowed. Good racial discrimination was allowed until Students for Fair Admissions. The new case is an attempt to overturn Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County 480 U.S. 616 (1987). While the rationale of the cases allowing sex discrimination has been undermined, lower courts are bound to follow a Supreme Court case directly on point. (See also the Ten Commandments cases in the Fifth Circuit.) They can attempt to draw factual distinctions if they are so inclined.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime

The administration wants to get the case to the Supreme Court while it is still in power. "Because this case is of general public importance, as certified by the Attorney General of the United States, see Ex. A, Plaintiff United States of America respectfully invokes its right under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(b) to expedited proceedings before a three-judge district court." An incoming Democratic administration in 2029 would dismiss the case with prejudice.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm not mad. Don't say I'm mad.

In response, Trump accused Omar of staging the attack herself. When asked about the incident on ABC News on Wednesday, the [he] said: “I don’t think about her. I think she’s a fraud.”

(Claims she probably staged it.)

https://www.nydailynews.com/2026/01/28/ilhan-omar-town-hall-attack-trump-suggests-staged/

(He previously called her 'garbage' along with other such language.)

Rep. Nancy Mace separately noted that she strongly disagrees with Rep. Omar's rhetoric but is appalled by the attack.

"I am deeply disturbed to learn that Rep. Ilhan Omar was attacked at a town hall today" Mace said. "Regardless of how vehemently I disagree with her rhetoric - and I do - no elected official should face physical attacks. This is not who we are."

https://abc7.com/post/ilhan-omar-attacked-man-sprays-unknown-substance-during-minneapolis-town-hall/18488447/

Mace is known for some distasteful "rhetoric," but here was able to respond (unlike some) as a respectable human being.

NBC earlier reported:

Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., said he was “punched in the face” on Friday while at the Sundance Film Festival by a man who allegedly told him President Donald Trump was going to deport him.

The man was arrested and booked into the Summit County Jail on two counts each of simple assault and aggravated burglary.

[Bunny495]

As more details emerge about Pretti emerge it is hard to deny he is guilty of criminal stupidity. Forget the fact that he is guilty of the state law for failing to carry ID and his carry permit with going strapped (only a 25 dollar fine). The SIG he was carrying is a piece of shit and there is no way to sugarcoat it. The design keeps the striker under constant spring pressure resulting in random discharges. So much so that SIG has lost over 100 court cases due to unintended discharges that have injured peeps. I know for a fact that if Pretti showed up at my local NRA range the RSO would kick his sorry ass out for having an unsafe weapon. To make matters worse he had a red dot on the weapon that was carried in what seems to be a cheap neoprene pouch in the small of his back. I run an EOTec on my race guns and if anyone so much as touched the red dot I would slap them to sleep and slap them for going to sleep. No way the red dot held zero in that setup.

And lets quit the shit about his "fractured" rib. Medical records confirm treatment for it a week before he was shot including getting drugs for the pain. Every time I have had medical treatment and got pain killers there was a warning on the bottle about driving, operating heavy equipment, with the implication of impaired judgement. Wonder what his tox screen will show.

Bottom line is it looks for all intents and purposes Pretti violated a minor state law with a "fractured" rib probably under the influence of pain killing drugs in brutal cold weather strapped with a shit eating gun that would not be allowed on any legit range. FAFO

[Brett Bellmore]

And now we know how he got the broken rib.

Guy had anger control issues.

[Absaroka]

That looks bad.

I see numerous reports the video is from BBC, but my google-fu hasn't been able to find it on bbc.com. If anyone sees that, please post a link. It looks authentic, but with AI these days...

[TwelveInchPianist]

The video is from something called The NewsMovement, which I've never of. They claim that the BBC analyzed their footage. I'd peg it as an unreliable source for the time being.

But if true it destroys the peaceful protestor/observer narrative.

[Absaroka]

CNN is reporting:

"New video has emerged showing a physical clash between Alex Pretti and federal agents over a week before he was fatally shot by Customs and Border Protection agents. A representative for Pretti’s family confirmed to CNN that the man in a video posted Wednesday is Pretti."

That behavior is completely unacceptable. It is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". That 'peaceably' matters.

(and TBC, this is immaterial to whether the shooting days later was justified

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Would you continue to count it immaterial if ICE agents present during the first encounter turned up among Pretti's killers?

[Life of Brian]

Wow, and at the end the CNN anchor says they're not even sure if that's the video of the earlier encounter they had previously reported where he broke a rib. So that might be a third one.

[Magister]

It might also be a hundredth video! Who knows? Gotta find something new to distract from the last humiliating fail.

[David Nieporent]

1) Maybe that guy is Alex Pretti, but there's no evidence of it except a claim by some random twitter account that nobody has ever heard of that (a) it "looks like" him and (b) that the BBC did facial recognition for them and said it was him with 97% certainty. I can't find anything on the BBC's site confirming that. (And, while facial recognition isn't complete bullshit like "gait analysis," I doubt it works the way this account pretends. I'm not sure what "97% certainty" actually means, and I doubt it can be achieved without actually seeing the person's face head on.)

2) Nothing in that video seems to show anything that would've gotten him a broken rib.

3) Not sure how "He kicked a taillight a couple of weeks ago" changes the fact that he was murdered, anyway.

[Michael P]

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/breaking-bbc-confirms-authenticity-of-viral-video-appearing-to-show-alex-pretti-kicking-agents-car-11-days-before-shooting/

The BBC confirmed the authenticity of the video in their 10 p.m. GMT news broadcast. Reporter Ros Atkins said the man in the video “has the same coat, facial hair and gait as Alex Pretti and a facial recognition tool suggests a 97% match. We see him shouting abuse at the agents.” Separately, a spokesperson for the BBC confirmed to Mediaite that they reviewed the footage and verified its team did use facial recognition technology on the video.

[....]

CNN, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and other outlets have also now confirmed with the Pretti family that the man in the video is Alex Pretti.

(with hyperlinks to the CNN and Star-Tribune stories)

... but this DaMN denialist is here to spam malicious delusional lies.

[David Nieporent]

Please explain which statement in my comment is a "lie." Unlike some here, who make up shit about people giving a "go ahead nod" to someone despite the fact that there's obviously no go ahead nod, I said, "Maybe that guy is Alex Pretti."

[Mr. Bumble]

Because being David Notsoimportant means never having to admit you're wrong.
Just a gentle ICU nurse peacefully protesting.

[Sarcastr0]

What is with the pivot to 'give ICE some grace, they are just a smol bean trying their best in the face of terrible liberal conditions!'

Like, who is that for?

[Bunny495]

"smol bean"

You made that word up.

[LexAquilia]

He's just copying and pasting from his bluesky feed or Signal chat.

[Frank Drackman]

Totally Serious Legal Question here....
Would Representative Omar have been justified in shooting her attacker dead in his tracks? That Syringe could have been filled with Anthrax, Plague, HIV, or worst of all, Mayonnaise.
Seriously, even Peanut Oil can be fatal to those with a Peanut Allergy.
I'm pretty sure Omar said she had a CCW at some point, another reason that "Attack" looked staged as shit.

Frank

[grb]

Frank Drackman : ".... or worst of all, Mayonnaise."

At last, common ground with Frank! When I become dictator, I'll bring my people universal happiness & plenty - but only on the second day. The first day I'll ban mayonnaise. You have to have priorities.

All ICE thugs will be retrained and repurposed to mayonnaise collection.
(I simply do not like that condiment).

[ducksalad]

I hear the Iranians have cranked up their mayonnaise production in hardened underground facilities. Sucks to be you.

[grb]

Damn your eyes! (I'll be having nightmares all night)

[Kazinski]

Yes, she would have been justified in shooting him, or her security.

As for staged, there are a lot of idiots out there. I would really need to see some evidence it was staged. I can't see any possible motivation for the idiot to cooperate in staging the attack, he is going to jail for a long long time.

[LexAquilia]

lol no he isn't.

They charged him with a misdemeanor.

[ducksalad]

I was impressed with the way she kind of went after the guy instead of cowering back.

First thought - don't like her politics but she's got admirable nerves.
Second thought - or may it's fake.
Considered opinion - she'd noticed him before and already had him (correctly) pegged as unstable but essentially harmless. It's a skill people who live in urban areas eventually learn.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Considered opinion - she'd noticed him before and already had him (correctly) pegged as unstable but essentially harmless. It's a skill people who live in urban areas eventually learn.

I suppose people who live in rural areas also pick up that skill.

[Frank Drackman]

You obviously are not aware of this Invention called "Money" and with this Invention you can pay people to do things.

[John 4]

You can pay Frau Drackman for just about anything, I’ve heard!

[LexAquilia]

Two days ago the DOJ opened an investigation into Omar.
One day ago Omar gets "attacked".
Zero days ago, Omar's multimillionaire dollar winery vanishes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I think so.

[Sarcastr0]

Heritage going all in on misogyny.

"The Unhinged Rage of White Liberal Women, Explained"

Perhaps noted feminist Naomi Wolf hit the mark with her theory that the lashing out stems from sexual frustration, that the aggression toward ICE officers is a physical release. Yes, it’s clear from their unhinged antics why most of those women wouldn’t be getting any action. Hunter Biden would turn down those women even if they were wearing parkas packed with cocaine.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/01/27/white-liberal-women-on-the-warpath-guys-we-missed-the-warning-signs

There's no other way to put this - the mean girl energy of this is incredible and ironic.

[loki13]

I've taken to calling this (h/t Community) ... The Dumbest Timeline.

But ... I mean ... just try to sit back for a second and get a moment of equanimity, Sarcastro. And think about ... all of this.

Seriously. WTAF. How the hell did we get here? I mean, I've been here. I've seen it all happen. And yet ... If you told me in, I dunno, 2012, or even 2018 (yeah, even during the first Trump term) ... that we'd be here?

I would not believe you.

All of this ... I just don't understand how cruelty and hate and casual and public displays of bigotry became acceptable, or that people would be fine with a government that lies and extorts and publicly trolls and shitposts. Like ... what?

It is all so bizarre and dispiriting. I honestly thought we (the American polity) was better than that. I mean ... maybe we are. The people in Minnesota are showing compassion and neighborliness and virtue ... but it's such a toxic atmosphere.

Eh, just putting that out there.

[Sarcastr0]

Not to take away from the agency and evil of the actors here, but it is an old problem.
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal supporter; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question incapacity to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting a justifiable means of self-defense.
...
[U]ntil even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations sought not the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition to overthrow them; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime.”

-Thucydides, A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War

Our middlewits, drunk on passion and resentment, gained hold of power. We seem to have buyer's remorse. But it's too easy to destroy things.
It's too late to save us as a sustainable global force, IMO. But maybe not too late to rebuild into some kind of nation again, albeit one that's a lot humbler and a lot less trusted.

I've thought about moving. Plenty of science elsewhere. But I want to be part of building whatever new thing replaces what we wrecked in terms of federal science.

[grb]

loki13 : "... or that people would be fine with a government that lies and extorts and publicly trolls and shitposts."

In these comments, you see plenty of people fine with a government that commits cold-blooded murder "justified" by transparent lying. Despite all video evidence, you see people willing to follow the dictates of the State in Orwell's 1984 :

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

You see a government that doesn't even pretend to investigate its own militarized abuse that includes even murder. A government that arrogantly announces no investigation will be allowed. Yet their supporters just cheer as another legal or constitutional bulwark is shattered.

One thing is certain. It's become common for partisans of Left and Right to argue the other side will eventually destroy this country's democratic government. That debate is now settled. It's not just that the Right accepts Trump's constructional vandalism & shredding of all governing standards and norms. It's that they've cheered every step - illegal, unethical, immoral - their junior Mussolini has taken. Wildly applauded like some tweeny girl her boy-band idol.

The Right will be the side that ultimately betrays democracy. The lure of fascism is just too seductive to them.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you're talking about cold blooded murder, I assume you mean Ruby Ridge and Waco.

[ThePublius]

This is what we are dealing with from the left:

"A Democrat candidate in Ohio fantasized on social media about executing President Donald Trump.

Ohio attorney general candidate Elliot Forhan appears to think that his authority and right, should he win his election, would be to kill Trump. And yes, he did repeatedly say that he wanted to “kill Donald Trump.”

You can watch the video yourself if you wish below. The lefty lunatic began, “Hi, this is Elliot Forhan, candidate for Ohio attorney general. I want to tell you what I mean when I say that I am going to kill Donald Trump.”

He continued smugly, “I mean, I’m going to obtain a conviction rendered by a jury of his peers at a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence, presented at a trial conducted in accordance with the requirements of due process, resulting in a sentence, duly executed, of capital punishment. That is what I mean when I say I am going to kill Donald Trump.” Forhan’s campaign slogan appears to be “tax the rich,” based on his website. Or kill the rich, as the case may be."

https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2026/01/28/dem-candidate-threatens-to-execute-trump-n4948835

[Sarcastr0]

This is the kind of nutpicking we're dealing with on the right.

You're so eager to believe you have an opposition that wants to kill you...ever wonder why your media so reliably digs that up and you gobble it down?

[ThePublius]

Is it not true?

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t know, because I don’t care about some deep cut candidate for state office.

You wouldn’t care either except you have been told to, and you are very good at getting super passionate on command.

[ThePublius]

Oh, fuck you, Sarcastr0. You never reply with substance, just attacks on the people who post things you don't like. You are really shitting up this blog.

[jb]

Candidate for office in Ohio threatens Trump with the same thing he threatened a bunch of Democrats with. Already forgotten about this post, I guess?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582703277798715

[ThePublius]

What's the context for Trump's tweet?

[Sarcastr0]

Haha what a double standard from TP!

[ThePublius]

How is asking a question double standards?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, when you selectively ask it.

Have some shame, dude

[jb]

The context was part of his rant about the Democrats who made the video reminding people that they don't need to follow illegal orders.

(By the way, this would have taken three seconds to figure out through Google.)

[ThePublius]

So, in case you were thinking that Omar's spraying attack wasn't staged....

Substance Sprayed On Ilhan Omar Believed To Be Apple Cider Vinegar, Report Says

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2026/01/28/substance-sprayed-on-ilhan-omar-believed-to-be-apple-cider-vinegar-report-says/

Oh, yea, and her and her husband's winery has apparently disappeared. I should put a bounty on a bottle of wine from that supposed winery.

[Ska]

Right, but was it Dr. Bragg's, or some cheap off the shelf Key Food shit?

[Mr. Bumble]

Even David Copperfield couldn't do that. (make a winery disappear)

[grb]

ThePublius : ".... Omar's spraying attack .... (gibberish)"

Timeout, please.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the person confident of some dumbass and witless conspiracy theory that "explained" the Brown and MIT murders? Didn't you pick some poor innocent guy and insist he was the murderer? That dark forces were covering-up his involvement?

You expressed a bit of remorse after that fiasco - which was understandable given how foolish you looked. Why do you want to go thru all that again? Do you enjoy looking like an idiot? Don't you care?

[ThePublius]

What does that have to do with what we're discussing now??? Talk about whataboutism.

[grb]

Hey - I asked you on a basis of common courtesy to stop accusing someone of multiple murders without the slightest evidence. I suggested it wasn't the proper thing to do - even before the subsequent arrest proved how wrong you were. And so now I'm asking you nicely again. Put down the tin foil. There's no need to wrap it tightly around your head.

Try. Actually. Thinking.

Attempt to work out how implausible your theory is, with the attacking loon dragged off by police. Me? I don't understand the appeal of 99.9999 & 9/10ths of conspiracy theories, but something this lame is particularly baffling.

[Sarcastr0]

See also: those who claim Trump faked his shooting. That's you. Right now.

It's all pew pew good guys and bad guys with you, eh?

If you can't deal with your side having violent yahoos, and the other side having some dudes who are cool when under threat, you're too fragile for this world.

[ThePublius]

Watch the video. She looks right at the guy, nods her head, and he, on cue, gets up and sprays her with apple cider vinegar from a syringe. Staged, no doubt. Another Jusse Smollet incident.

[Life of Brian]

And she, supposedly not knowing what "e get sour smell wey resemble chemical product" (awesome site, btw -- who knew?) was actually sprayed on her, just resumed her speech as if nothing had happened, refusing repeated urging to go get checked.

Not even Omar is that dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

lol ok man.
You also think the Haitians eat pets.

You are a huge idiot, is the thing.

Goes along with being a fragile child.

[ThePublius]

Can you ever address the issue at hand rather than attacking the reporter? No, I guess. You're just a dick.

[Mr. Bumble]

"You're just a dick."
A douche!
"someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way."

[grb]

ThePublius : "Can you ever address the issue at hand...."

Alrighty - Let's see how you fare by that standard: Since the initial reporting on Omar's assailant is out, meet Anthony J. Kazmierczak. For years, he's posted enraged comments online against the Democrats. He recently told a neighbor that he might be arrested at an event featuring the congresswoman.

His mother, Merrikay Olson Baxendale, said her son grew up in a mostly conservative family. She defended him as a sensitive man who had depression and Parkinson’s disease.

He's twice-married and his second ex, Patrice Benoit, said that she had not spoken with him since 2017 but was “heartbroken” after learning about the attack. She said she wished “peace, strength and healing” for Ms. Omar, as well as for Mr. Kazmierczak’s family.

On Facebook, Mr. Kazmierczak has shown support for President Trump; Turning Point USA, the group founded by Charlie Kirk; and other conservative figures, as well as Israel and Ukraine. He also backed Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted after shooting three people who chased him during a protest over a police shooting in Wisconsin in 2020. In other posts, Mr. Kazmierczak called former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “spineless” in his dealings with Russia and Ukraine, defended police officers accused of crimes and was critical of policies requiring Covid vaccinations.

His nonpolitical posts were largely about his dog, motorcycles or his children — and, in one case, a trip to Chicago.

So, ThePublius, are you ready to admit you're wrong yet? Please address the issue at hand.

[Sarcastr0]

TP, you post terrible terrible things and then get whiney when I say they are terrible and you're bad for posting them.

It's pathetic.

[Life of Brian]

So sign you up for Ilhan "oh, I don't give a shit what unknown chemical this nut job just sprayed on me -- I'm a STRONG WOMAN and will just keep on talking without even trying to wash it off or anything else anyone would normally do in a potential poison control situation" Omar, huh?

Your selective credulity is legendary.

[grb]

Uh huh. This bit of tin-foil-hat rubbish is already headed for the garbage can. Omar's assailant was a lifelong rightwing crank and hardcore Trump supporter. His last two profile pictures for his Facebook account weren't Kazmierczak's photo, but Donald Trump's. On X, he followed multiple right-wing accounts including Libs of TikTok, Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, and Tim Pool. The English newspaper, The Independent, interviewed Kazmierczak's brother, who said this:

"He is a “piece of s**t” with lifelong anger issues who has been fixated on the Somali-born lawmaker – and the Somali diaspora in general – for years, his younger brother told The Independent."

“I’m not surprised this happened,” Anthony James Kazmierczak’s brother said Wednesday morning in a phone interview from his home in North Carolina. “Not at all. Unfortunately, he and my mother are both right-wing extremists.”

“I believe in helping people,” Kazmierczak’s brother, 52, went on. “He believes in blaming people. He has had a hatred of the Somali community for probably 20 years,” the brother continued. “There’s a reason I don’t talk to him… He’s got a lot of anger, I have no idea where it comes from. He’s always been that way. In and out of treatment since he was a kid.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ilhan-omar-attack-anthony-kazmierczak-brother-b2909613.html

So let's be clear, Life of Brian: You just stepped in it - Big Time. Humiliation seldom gets more humiliating than the spectacle you've made of yourself here. You're not just a gullible, credulous, lackbrain fool, but a gullible, credulous, lackbrain fool that just made a massive show of how shit-for-brains stupid he is.

Congrats. In the rightwing world where lies and ignorance are de rigueur, you must be treasured.....

[Life of Brian]

Huh. If only anything you said had the slightest bearing on anything I said.

It's almost like you realized there's absolutely nothing you could say to smooth over this smoldering crater of a discontinuity they forgot to smooth over in their WWE-style choreography, so instead you just started screeching and flinging feces like a chimpanzee.

[grb]

Give it up, loser. You're only looking more & more buffoonish.

[David Nieporent]

Watch the video. She did not look right at the guy and nod her head. Some of you people are malicious liars, and some of you people are delusional liars, and some of you people are malicious delusional liars.

[Life of Brian]

JFC, it's even worse than I thought. Full video here.

For the first 4 minutes of her speech, clear blue sky -- nothing.

At 4:04, a photographer walks over just to the right of where Kazmierczak is sitting, kneels down, points the camera at Omar, clicks a couple of shots, and then just sits there with the camera trained on her and her finger on the button.

At 4:10, Omar says: "And DHS Secretary Kristi Noem must resign, or face impeachment." Camera remains locked on her face.

At 4:15, right after she says "impeachment," she looks up in Kazmierczak's direction and nods. Camera still locked,

Half a second later, Kazmierczak comes boiling out of his chair and douses her. Camera still locked.

At 6:12 -- one minute and 57 seconds after receiving a faceful of something she supposedly doesn't know what it might be and despite repeated entreaties to stop and get checked and comments about how bad it smells, she is back in the saddle bitching about Noem again. Photographer suddenly loses interest and literally walks through the audience toward the exit at 6:17.

Please stop pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

[grb]

Aside from "nods" that exist only in their maggoty brains, our flailing rightwingers seem to be grasping after one last straw - even as all reporting, every fact, and plain simple reality tightens like a noose around them:

That last straw? The fact that Omar isn't a whiny snowflake timorous little mouse like they are. It's kinda pathetic, but that's what they turn to as each new news account shows them up as imbeciles.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, you people are delusional liars. She is continually, in those first four minutes, looking up and down at her remarks and the crowd. There is no different head movement before she is attacked than at any other time. And no, she was not looking at him; she was looking out at the crowd. Have you never given a speech before?

And, as grb posted and has been known since this morning (when Dr Ed was still inventing a crazy conspiracy based on the fact that the attacker's name was secret even though it wasn't), the attacker is a right wing anti-Omar loon.

I have no idea what your point about the photographer is; you appear to be trying to make it seem as if the photographer knew the attack was coming and it was staged for him. But that's even more bizarre than the rest, because what would they want with a photograph rather than a video?

Also, Donald Trump was shot in Pennsylvania, and yet rather than getting hustled away to safety behind the Secret Service, he jumped up and pumped his fist in the air. Do you think this proves he knew the shooting was fake and that he was in no danger?

[Life of Brian]

So, "nuh uh," and "oh, look, a righty -- we promise this time for reals!" Compelling.

Also, Donald Trump was shot in Pennsylvania, and yet rather than getting hustled away to safety behind the Secret Service, he jumped up and pumped his fist in the air.

Yeah, that's the sadly hilarious thing about this. She so badly wanted to ape that "FIGHT!" moment she couldn't see straight, and just couldn't be bothered to realize there's a fundamental difference between a bullet fragment that's not exactly going to do a round-trip and come back at you again, and supposed potential poison that she doesn't even bother to try to identify or ameliorate.

He pumped his fist in the air, and then left the stage and got treatment. She did nothing -- nothing -- and stood there and finished her entire speech.

Phony frigging baloney.

[David Nieporent]

That's your excuse? That, having been shot once, Trump's thought was, "Well, I know that bullets don't turn around, so obviously I'm not in danger of being shot again by… a second bullet"?

[Life of Brian]

Excuse? I was explaining why your whaddabout has no legs. She was clearly too chickenshit to stage an actual shooting so basically substituted a squirt gun, but really didn't think through the fact that she was the only one that knew the payload was apple cider vinegar and not something actually dangerous to her or the crowd.

[David Nieporent]

It was not a "whatabout," because my point wasn't to call out your hypocrisy. It was to point out that, "The victim of the attack didn't panic, so that proves the attack was fake" is a terrible argument. (Unless of course you think the Trump shooting was fake, I guess.)

[Life of Brian]

The victim of the attack didn't panic

Huh? Taking calm, rational steps to assure both your safety and that of the audience and your staff against some supposedly unknown substance that was just squirted on you and in the air isn't panicking -- it's basic adult responsibility.

I think you know this and really don't have a cogent answer, so you're left with attacking straw men instead.

[grb]

Hilarious. Trying to salvage something out of his humiliation, LOB bounces around like a pinball, one loser deadend argument after another. But here's your problem, clown:

Omar's attacker was one of you: A mentally-ill rightwing freak. That's what he's been his entire wastrel life. Now, it's not my responsibility to rescue you out of the massive hole you've dug for yourself but - hey - I'm willing to help:

Try saying Kazmierczak isn't the real Kazmierczak, who's been kidnapped by space aliens and taken to a distant galaxy. Instead, the attacker was a Lizard Person wearing a rubber mask.

Ludicrous? To be sure. But much less so than the halfwit nonsense you're peddling - so very much an improvement. Besides, all you rightwingers prefer lies to truth anyway. You're addicted to lies. I bet if a loser like Life of Brian doesn't get his full daily fix of lies, his eyes go glassy, the sweat breaks out, & his skin blanches like a crack user forced to go cold turkey.

Rightwingers can't exist without lies......

[Bunny495]

Just checked on security for members of Congress. Only the chosen few get any real security. Omar did have it under Biden/autopen but Trump put a stop to that. She did have some private security as well as the local PD, not to mention her supporters. I have to say if something like this happened at a Trump rally his supporters would have torn the attacker from limb to limb.

What does not pass the nine year old test is Omar continuing speaking for 25 minutes after the attack. The standard procedure is get the target out of Dodge, and no backtalk from the target.

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit will reconsider en banc its decision to allow the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department to fire an officer who made statements critical of George Floyd back in 2020. Specifically, the officer commented on a Democrat-sponsored police reform bill, "This is what it's come to . . . 'honoring' a career criminal, a thief and druggie . . . the future of this country is bleak at best." The post was not public and quickly deleted. But it was screenshotted. Somebody forwarded the post to the NAACP who passed it along to city.

The parties are directed to brief whether commenting on issues of public concern "in a mocking, derogatory, and disparaging manner" is less favored under the Pickering test. If the panel got it wrong, what test should be used?

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1279O-01A.pdf

Panel decision, now withdrawn:
https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1279P-01A.pdf

[ThePublius]

"New video shows Alex Pretti violently attacking federal officers and destroying federal law enforcement vehicles. His firearm is fully visible in the footage.

This video PROVES that Alex Pretti was not an ‘innocent bystander’ or ‘legal observer’

He was a violent agitator and psychopath hellbent on attacking federal law enforcement.

Another left wing hoax destroyed"

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/2016624513178374485

[Sarcastr0]

11 days earlier?

You are bloodthirsty as fuck if you think this justifies anything about the day he was shot.

Childlike word of good guys and bad guys means you get to cheer when the bad guys are killed.

But you are a grown up, so you just seem to be partisan to the point it’s made you a psycho.

Quit it.

[LexAquilia]

lol, now that is a glorious finger-wag. You actually demanded he change his behavior lol, who the fuck do you think you are?

[jb]

So you're saying the ICE guys remember him kicking their truck the week before and that's why they shot him?

I'm not sure why you would think that would make it look better for the ICE guys.

FWIW, I've said before that I thought it was more likely than not that he was there as part of a protest. I don't think that materially changes anything that happens to him on the day he got shot.

[David Nieporent]

Literally none of that is true:

1) there's no solid evidence it's Pretti;
2) the person in the video destroyed a taillight; he did not attack anybody; and
3) it has nothing to do with the events on the day Pretti was murdered, and thus could not "prove" anything about what happened that day. (Which, by the way, is on video, so I'm not even sure why anyone is trying to prove anything about Pretti.)

I have no idea why the words "innocent bystander" and "legal observer" are in quotes in the tweet (I put them in quotes because I'm quoting the paid Russian troll Benny Johnson. But who's Johnson quoting?) The idea appears to be to make up some vague, bizarre strawman, claim that this has been disproved (or "destroyed," because online trolls can't talk like normal people), and thus insinuate that the only other possibility is that Pretti therefore deserved to be killed.

[Bunny495]

" there's no solid evidence it's Pretti;"

BBC which posted the video used facial recognition and got a 97% match, whatever that means. Several others have reached the same conclusion. It also matches the story that Pretti had a "fractured" rib from an encounter with ICE agents.

"the person in the video destroyed a taillight; he did not attack anybody"

The person in the video spit on/in the direction of what appeared to be an ICE agent. Definitely assault, maybe battery as well.

Once again you seem to be putting words in people's mouths. Saying Pretti was "not an ‘innocent bystander’ or ‘legal observer’" and adding "He was a violent agitator and psychopath hellbent on attacking federal law enforcement." may not be nice but what you infer may not be what TP was insinuating.

As an aside I have noticed an increasing tendency for peeps on both sides to choose hills to die on that they back off from later.

[Sarcastr0]

I think the people that joined ICE are terrible men who did a terrible thing.

I hope they all get fired, and ICE disbanded.
I hope they all get unmasked, and shunned until they show they understand and repent of what they did and what they were.
I hope they suffer professional consequences, until they again show contrision.

I do not, however, hope they get shot.
And should one of them get shot and killed I will not rush to believe the inevitable Internet nonsense peddlers offering a way I can tell myself their death was warranted, and good.

[LexAquilia]

Your over the top melodrama is pretty faggy.

Are you one of those AWFL's on tiktok doing those blank stare videos?

[John F. Carr]

In other First Circuit news, the court upheld a man's conviction for possessing a firearm after a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence. The case is close enough to Rahimi, the restraining order case, even though it is easily distinguishable if a court wants to distinguish it.

US v. Minor, https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1651P-01A.pdf

What makes this case unusual is it is the defendant's third trip to the First Circuit in the same criminal case. In 2009 he was charged with state law domestic assault. In order to preserve his right to have a gun he pleaded guilty to simple assault instead. Gotcha! Unlike other criminal history enhancements based on state convictions, the gun possession prohibition is not based on the elements of the crime. It is based on the facts of the crime. He knew he had a conviction for simple assault. He knew the victim was his wife. So he knew he was possessing a gun after having been convicted of domestic assault. He didn't know he was breaking the law but that doesn't matter.

This appeal follows the third guilty verdict. The first two were vacated because of bad instructions on mental state.

[LexAquilia]

I can't wait for tomorrow's open thread to see all the pants pissing over that FBI raid of Fulton County Election offices.

[LexAquilia]

ICE Watch!!!! Put out an all hands.

That's weird.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Rick Hasen on the Fulton FBI Follies:

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=154020

One way of looking at this search warrant is that Trump has put the might of the federal government behind his consistently disproved voter fraud claims about voting in Georgia. That race was recounted and thoroughly investigated. There was no evidence of widespread fraud, and there was certainly no evidence calling Joe Biden’s victory in the state in 2020 into question.

But that would be the rosy picture of what’s going on.

Another person wondered how they received authorization. In 2026:

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=154013

One person years back referenced an old absurdist play about people suddenly turning into rhinos. Instead of worrying about turning into rhinos, they latched onto minutiae like debating the size of the tail of a rhino running down the street.

Just a passing thought.

[grb]

In a court order Wednesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz listed 96 instances in 74 cases in which ICE had violated court orders this month.

"This list should give pause to anyone -- no matter his or her political beliefs -- who cares about the rule of law," Schiltz said in the court order. "ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."