reporter: do you plan to apologize to the family of alex pretti?  vance: for what?

mig:  it's way too soon to tell.  they still have not released all of the un-redacted files.  many of the redactions are (obviously, provably, uncontroversially) illegal, in contrary to law.  ~a paul:  where do i see it?  ~a a:  have we gotten anything of real substance out of these files? - mig a:  has all these epstein files dumps been worth the squeeze?  There sees to have been a lot of collateral damage, including for people who had just passing mention in the files.  There looks to be no evidence to implicate anybody else (no matter who much wishcasting khanna and massie might want there to be). - mig a: There's a pretty good meme going around X where they subtitle his performance with an economic argument against the Jones Act. -Paul "Bad Bunny traveled 124 yards with the football during his halftime show, beating the Patriots 79 total rushing yards in the game."  ~a a: I noticed it awhile ago but didn't want to give you the satisfaction of commenting on it. -Paul a: Tell me that Trump hasn't read the Constitution (that he swore to uphold) without telling me he hasn't read it. -- Xpovos xpovos:  I wanted to see how long it would take for someone to say something.  i removed the tilting text.  ~a mig:  "President Donald Trump ... suggestion that Republicans 'nationalize' elections as he continued to make false claims of widespread voter fraud and refused to accept his 2020 defeat".  ~a The tilted comments are doing my head in. -- Xpovos a: White House officials can claim whatever they want but presumably there will be a more in-depth investigation. Still, the law tends to side with law enforcement so I wouldn't be surprised if the agent was exonerated. -Paul a:  are we talking about the save act or something else?  I don’t know what “federalizing” or “nationalizing” elections means? - mig should the us government federalize elections?  i assume in this case, the federal executive would be in charge of all elections, including the midterms and local elections?  ~a what is going on in the comment threads of this video  ~a attempted tyranny?  ~a a:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/20/fox-news-reporter-targeted-us-government wasn’t for a lack of trying - mig mig:  i don't remember hearing about the biden or obama administration arresting anyone in fox news, or in oan, or in newsmax.  i think if they had done that, people would be rightfully losing their shit.  ~a mig:  isn't arresting someone in the press who hasn't broken the law actually illegal though?  who broke the law here?  isn't it insanely concerning given the circumstances?  is this tyranny?  ~a a:  absent any new information, arresting lemon seems wrong and a pointless exercise.  As much as he is a fucking race baiting clown, that isn’t illegal. - mig arresting people for doing reporting that you don't like seems like a problem.  i hate newsmax and oan, obviously, but arresting newsmax and oan reporters for reporting on a nonviolent (or even more-so a violent) protest seems crazy to me.  ~a mig:  a judge already barred the justice department from arresting lemon, so i'm not sure how we got here?  ~a mig:  i don't have a fun lyric, but we've reached the point where we're arresting the press now.  lemon was arrested in los angeles for reporting on that protest in minneapolis.  i guess the administration didn't like his reporting.  as much as you think the protest was dumb (i'm very on the fence about that protest, the more i learn about it the more i think it was legal/fine, but still fairly borderline) he was press!  is this ok?  ~a mig:  i do love me some beetles.  til about item veto, wow.  i'm very glad the president doesn't have item veto, that seems super shady and generally isn't how contracts work at all.    i guess contracts and laws are obviously different.  ~a https://wjla.com/news/local/virginia-democrats-introduce-flood-of-new-tax-proposals-despite-running-on-affordability-money-employer-property-dog-walking-groomin If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat, If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat, If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet. - mig seems pretty shady to have the dni looking into election fraud.  potentially laws are being broken, i assume, but it seems laws and thee etc.  if there is election fraud here, it's in the making, not being investigated and these midterms results will be the most suspect of our lifetimes.  ~a "Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, and FBI Deputy Director Andrew Bailey at the scene...The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which she leads, has no law enforcement powers and was created to focus on foreign threats, not domestic matters."  (paywall washingtonpost).  ummm, what?  ~a a:  ive been looking at this more closely and It looks to me this didn’t look justified. - mig mig:  is it still way too early?  paul:  regarding new information, today the investigation to the pretti shooting was deemed justified (wh officials, according to washingtonpost)  ~a a: "why do you say this" Again, with the caveat I haven't been following this nearly as closely as most, but from what I heard his "crime" was filming ICE and trying to help somebody up who they pushed down? Doesn't even seem like he was obstructing or anything. -Paul paul:  "odd that the two notable ICE shootings that have made major media attention have been of protesters and not of illegal immigrants or the theoretical targets of the enforcement"  why.  ~a paul:  "he probably didn't even deserve arresting or detaining"  why do you say this?  "people on the left now clamoring about 2nd amendment rights"  i won't speak for others, but just say that some of them might be clamoring about 2nd amendment rights because of the obvious hypocrisy and double standard.  it's the black panthers, and gun control, all over again.  ~a a: It is a little... odd that the two notable ICE shootings that have made major media attention have been of protesters and not of illegal immigrants or the theoretical targets of the enforcement. -Paul a: I'm glad to see lots of libertarian types I follow accurately pointing out that mere possession of a gun isn't sufficient for a death sentence. -Paul a: It's amusing to see people on the left now clamoring about 2nd amendment rights and people on the right being all like "if you have a gun around the cops expect to be shot!". Darkly amusing, that is. -Paul a: So even more innocent than Renee Good. Oddly enough, though, his possession of a firearm make it feel more like the Rittenhouse comparison than before. -Paul a: Alex Pretti is the shooting yesterday? Same caveat that things can change as more evidence comes out, but on the surface seems pretty similar in all respects: Only thing is he probably didn't even deserve arresting or detaining. -Paul mig:  he was not armed when he was shot.  and you know that.  ~a there’s at least some agreement that this person was indeed armed which is a bit of a red flag but not enough details are clear for me just yet. - mig a:  way too early and not enough information for me to hold an opinion one way or another at this time. - mig paul:  ok, thank you.  mig/paul:  any thoughts on alex pretti and masked ice agent in dark-green jacket and blue jeans?  ~a a: Agreed on pretty much all points. I haven't been following the situation too closely, but from what I can tell he should not have been in front of the car and I haven't heard any good reason why medical assistance was prevented. -Paul paul:  regarding that last one, "New Evidence Reveals Renee Good Was Still Alive When ICE Blocked Medic" sourced from new york times (lots of other articles are republishing this).  ~a paul:  why did one officer reach into her driver's side door when the other was standing in front of it?  why did they both instruct her to move along, but also instruct her to stop?  why didn't they allow medical professionals to assist her after she was shot?  ~a paul:  gotcha, ok.  i'll fully concede that good should not have used her car in a protest.  that's super dumb:  i usually even leave my bike behind if there are a lot of people!  but past that, why did ross walk in front of her car when it was in drive, even if that is against their rules?  why was ross assigned to make these stops right after (six months after) having an issue following these same rules?  (i can link this if you want)  ~a a: And it's hard to tell just how much worse his actions here are vs Biden. Optically it looks a lot worse and I'm sure it is worse in many ways, but how much worse is hard to tell. -Paul a: But... I'll be honest, it's a little hard to get good unbiased information about stuff. The reaction to Trump's immigration actions in his first term (by the left and the media) seemed a bit out of step with how much it differed from what Obama did. -Paul a: I don't have enough information to say for sure. Knowing Trump, he likely sent ICE there because he saw that report about Somali fraud (which is exactly the kind of anecdotal reason that doesn't make sense). -Paul mig:  what happened exactly?  there is one sentence there.  they had a protest that went into a church?  and "disrupted service"?    could they have been less specific?  i clicked on the "disrupted" (cnn to cnn) link, and there were a few more details thankfully.  it does seem like a dumb plan, i'll admit.  but even that link didn't have too many details on what "disrupted" means.  ~a paul:  "What specifically?"  should he have been stationed in minnesota of all places?  does it make sense to crack down on immigration offenses in a city and state that have very small numbers of illegal immigrants and small amount illegal immigration?  if it doesn't make sense, what was the purpose of his assignment?  ~a https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/minnesota-ice-agents-minneapolis-protests-01-19-26?post-id=cmklsjs6w0000356pmnv0hg1m trying to figure out why anyone thought this was a good idea? - mig a: Happy to share my thoughts. What specifically? On his guilt / innocence? I feel like juries often give leeway to law enforcement so my guess is he wouldn't have been found guilty. -Paul a:  if you are in front of a car and that car starts to accelerate, I do believe its is reasonable to believe your life is in peril.  Pointing to the fact he was hit is evidence he was in fact in front of the vehicle (before more video emerged whether he actually was in front of the car was being disputed). - mig mig:  "there’s no requirement that you actually suffer grievous injury for your life to be in peril" was his life in peril?  barnes v felix went to the supreme court in . . . 2025 . . . and pretty clearly suggests we need to look at the details that you consider irrelevant.  ~a