Stephen Miller (for one of many) tweeted:
A would-be assassin tried to murder federal law enforcement and the official Democrat account sides with the terrorists.
General Tony Thomas responded with a high resolution image of the first shot taken, from the rear, execution style:https://x.com/TonyT2Thomas/status/2015629593265250810
I hope the US population can reign in Hegseth, Miller, Bondi, et al clown car.
It's obvious to all across the globe what's going here.
For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_A._Thomas can be compared to the bio of the day drinking weekend warrior currently heading the US DoD.
However, these guys aren’t Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, etc. on their rise to power. The guy at the top is starting as a struggling octogenarian who even in his prime had an entire professional career based not on hard work but tax evasion and barratry. Most of his top delegates were selected for their social media profiles, not competency, and even within the right a lot of people disliked them personally even if they’re willing to overlook that for power. His supporters are quite loyal but are also being hit by a lot of his policies in ways which are hard to ignore.
That makes me think there are a range of scenarios where this does matter, as we can see right now. Cops tend to support Republicans but a number of them are stepping up to say this is outside of their professional standards. A lot of “law and order” suburban voters are seeing these videos not just as something they don’t approve of–especially the “he had a legal gun so we had to execute him” defense–but also recognizing that the administration completely lied about that and we know only because of the kind of evidence at risk here.
The Roberts court has taken significant moves to empower Trump, but it seems like they’re hedging their bets in key areas: note how the shield against prosecution was conditional leaving them an easy way to find the opposite in any future case, and how much of their support has been shadow docket moves designed to delay without setting a permanent precedent. I think they’re recognizing the fragility of the current administration and leaving a backup plan for the autogolpe failing.
Things like this force the administration’s supporters to be more open about what they’re doing, in ways which risk losing their less die-hard supporters. Blowing off a court order forces SCOTUS to either rule against the administration or go on the record inventing a new way the executive branch is above the law. I think they know that’s risky at a time when a majority of the country is starting to realize exactly what’s at stake.
I'm still so confused how the issue became "her emails" when they were basically turned over, dealt with. Where-as oops, the Bush White House "lost" literally millions of emails & allowed people to delete whatever they wanted. This is the sort of hiding in the shadows evil shit that I wish Obama had tried to bring to light, tried to prosecute some people for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
Marimar Martinez is trying to make public the records of what ICE did after they tried to kill her & accused her of being a terrorist. That would be interesting to see. Liars liars everywhere, no respect for society. https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2026/01/26/marimar-...
This is all assuming Robert's plan was ultimately to give this admin enough rope to hang themselves with; and holding onto the "official duties" definition hitherto deliberately left undefined to act as the trap spring.
I wouldn't put money on that though. This SCOTUS other decisions have me thinking their a little more cushy with the Cheeto than not.
this should just be a formality. However if someone is trying to cover sonething up they can't say it wasn't because they throw everything away.
It'd be better if the courts could actually deal with the case now instead of in 1-5 years, but alas.
Not for government agencies. Data retention generally goes much longer than that, usually measured in years or decades, not days or weeks.
Documents are kept longer. But a court needs to think about the shortest possible retention time that any agency might have for any kind of evidence.
> This chart includes categories for how long video is kept if it does not contain evidence of a crime [emphasis added]
So yes, some things are short (I did write "usually" for a reason), but even your link doesn't claim that video of a killing would be deleted in 90 days. It's evidence, 90 days would be ridiculously short for retaining evidence.
Even for people who don't think the ICE agents committed a crime, the ICE agents and DHS have claimed that this was the outcome from actions by a "domestic terrorist" which certainly makes it evidence of a crime from their own perspective.
> Judge grants order barring feds from altering or destroying evidence in Pretti shooting
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good#Inv...
There are borderline zero viable platforms for political discourse. Do not try to censor discourse here.
Topics != community. But that's obvious - there's no reason to ignore that fact unless you're trying to insult somebody for petty reasons.
(I'm not at the moment, which is unusual)
This is a civil discussion, no flamewar, and yet it still gets flagged.