Multiple people shot at an ICE facility in Dallas, shooter reportedly dead, officials say
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Multiple people were shot at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Dallas, Texas, the morning of Sept. 24, officials said.
"Details are still emerging but we can confirm there were multiple injuries and fatalities," Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said.
At least three people were injured but their conditions were unknown, Tod Lyons, the acting director of ICE, told CNN .
A shooter died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, Noem said.
"While we don’t know motive yet, we know that our ICE law enforcement is facing unprecedented violence against them. It must stop," she said.
The shooting happened at the ICE field office in Dallas, located at 8101 North Stemmons Freeway, reports said. Traffic cameras from the Texas Department of Transportation near the facility showed a heavy law enforcement presence as of about 7:35 a.m. local time.
Tags
Who is online
116 visitors
The violent left is at it again. They have gone beyond hate and want to kill ICE agents and the rest of us too.
This is a developing story.
All the while shrieking that it's the right.
The guy was trying to kill immigrants Vic. Get a grip.
DALLAS - A sniper died from a self-inflicted gunshot early Wednesday morning after he shot three ICE detainees at a Dallas ICE facility from a rooftop, according to law enforcement.
Officials confirmed two of the ICE detainees have died. The third was rushed to a hospital in critical condition.
Police sources say the sniper, identified as a white male, was armed with a rifle on a roof. He shot himself as agents approached him.
The investigation is ongoing.
Live Updates:
9 a.m.
2 ICE detainees were confirmed dead, 1 hospitalized and the suspect is deceased, according to FBI sources.
LIVE UPDATES | Dallas ICE Shooting: 2 dead, 1 injured; shooter deceased | FOX 4 Dallas-Fort Worth
I jumped the gun?
Thanks for the correction.
trying to kill immigrants
Are you sure about this? The man was shooting at an ICE vehicle "van". Did he actually know there were immigrants in that van? That's a quite an assumption that you want to kill immigrants, therefore the shooter siding with ICE agents, while targeting a van that could've been full of ICE agents.
Of course they are sure. Look how accurate they were with Russia Collusion and Biden's competency.
Was he?
Leave it to the nutters to beat a dead horse.
And don't forget Hunter Biden's laptop or Michael Brown.
Just pointing out the lefts "success" rate.
Or George Floyd, which takes us to the violence of the left.
Says the person whose side screeches J6 and Charlottesville at every chance because that is all they have.....and nobody cares.
The guy was a lousy shot and missed?
Meanwhile Noem is teaching us how to shoot our pets.
And yet again, a tragedy shamelessly exploited for partisan gain. Even before the dust has settled.
The left does that all the time.
"Never let a tragedy go to waste"
~Rahm Emanuel
As usual, instead of dealing with a wrong we see posts arguing that 'but they do it too'.
It is wrong regardless of who does it. You get that?
An FBI person says ICE was the target. Unfortunately with a conspiracy nut liar in charge of the FBI it calls everything they say into question. Thats what happens when you put liars in charge.
In the last 10 days, we’ve had Kirk assassineted, an abc affiliate shot up to protest Kimmel being suspended, a bomb placed under a Fox News van, shot up a wedding yelling free Palestine and today we apparently have another attempt to murder ICE agents.
All by leftwingers. When, in you mind, is it okay to point that out?
The first problem is exploiting tragedy for pathetic partisan advantage.
The second problem, in every case, is trying to paint 'the Left' as comprised of these extremists. That 'the Left' ideology is what causes these nutcases to shoot people.
Political violence is news. Trying to make the motives of these murderers off limits to protect a political party is truly pathetic.
That 'the Left' ideology is what causes these nutcases to shoot people.
Are they stoics? Monarchists? Revanchist Cathars? Is it just some crazy coincidence that all these violent perpetrators focus on the issues that Progressives are publicly obsessing about?
Whatever happened to stochastic terrorism, so beloved of the left when they used it to attack Republicans?
Of course. And those who exploit the violence for political advantage are compounding the problem.
So you say the motive is unknown.
Fair enough.
That was not the point I made. This is the point I made:
My point is that the left has gone beyond their hate. They have turned to violence and assassination. They believe they can get away with it.
Pretending that it is anything but what it is only makes it worse.
The reality is that our nation is very divisive right now.
That stated, I find it incredible when a Trump supporter complains about 'the other side' engaging in hatred while categorically accepting and condoning the almost daily hateful speech and acts from Trump using the power and influence of the presidency.
The level of hypocrisy there is staggering.
Trump speaks of Charlie Kirk not being a hater, but that is not true of Trump: "I hate my opponent".
This is the sitting president. Consider the influence of this office. This abysmal character is wholly unfit for the office.
There aren't two sides. The left has embraced violence.
The last three shootings:
An 8-year-old and ten-year-old were murdered and many wounded in an attack on a church.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The attempted murder of ICE agents which left a migrant dead.
A radicalized leftist was responsible for all three incidents.
Funny, your posts always seem to recognize 'the Left' and 'the Right'; Ds and Rs, progressives and conservatives.
And we see Trump clearly identifying the 'us' vs. the 'them' and declaring that he hates 'them'.
If true, we are still talking about three individuals, each of which arguably has mental problems, and all of which acted on their own. And I am sure you believe that Trump's divisive rhetoric and divisive actions have nothing whatsoever to do with the divisive tone in our nation.
You have that wrong. I recognize MAGA, Conservatives, independents and even some democrats as mainstream traditional America.
I have only one bitch: the radical left.
Let's not forget shooting up the ABC affiliate and planting a bomb under a Fox News van. So much left wing violence the last few weeks its hard to keep up with.
Very good Sean.
I'll separate those from the hate crime on the light train that was enabled by left wing ideology.
That is a lot of killing in what was once a safe society.
So then you do recognize the different sides. Maybe you meant to write that there is more than one side. Either way, your response did not offer anything meaningful.
You have no problem with radicals other than those who are part of what you perceive as 'the Left'. So radical groups like the Proud Boys are just fine with you? No problem with those who broke & entered the Capitol on Jan 6? And of course, it is obvious that you have no problem with anything Trump does.
BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[✘]
The Proud Boys weren't really ideological. They were looking for trouble and were infiltrated by the FBI some went to jail, and the organization no longer exists. Are you really worried about them?
No problem with those who broke & entered the Capitol on Jan 6?
You mean the people who sat in jail for over a year waiting for a trial? The FBI got every one of them, right? Are you afraid of them?
And of course, it is obvious that you have no problem with anything Trump does.
Right, I have no problem with what I want done.
So the Proud Boys are just fine with you!
You cannot answer any question, just deflect on each turn.
Yeah, more refusal to answer a direct question. Okay, Vic, you were all over 'lawfare' when Trump trials and indictments were underway, so do you recognize real lawfare coming from the PotUS today? Do you see it? Do you approve?
Trump is corrupt. Do you recognize this? Do you approve?
is a stunning example of denial
Do I think Comey, Brenan & Clapper of guilty of such things as perjury and leaking information (mainly false) to the media?
Yes, I do.
Do I think they will be held accountable in a DC Court?
No, I don't.
Trump is corrupt. Do you recognize this? Do you approve?
Oh ya, Crazy Trump is trying to support the constitution and secure the US border and make the streets of America safe again.
Are there any other questions you want answered?
You are linking to 1.4.20
(If you type the comment ID as I just did, the system creates a hyperlink for you and makes it convenient for everyone to see exactly what you are referring to.)
Yes, answer the questions I asked. Clearly you are going to deflect.
Obviously you consider 'lawfare' only when it applies to Trump but now when Trump blatantly engages in it all of a sudden genuine 'lawfare' is righteous.
You dont think Trump is guilty of anything, which I think calls your judgement into question.
I agree with that description.
They had a very brief existence:
Evidently the FBI under Chris Wray prioritized getting them.
Does anyone fear them?
If Trump went after INNOCENT people who happen to be his political opponents and had judges & prosecutors willing to go along with him that would be lawfare & revenge. The problem with your premise is that these people did engage in unlawful activity when they went after Trump.
You have had all the power in the world and 8 years to make that case and you couldn't.
That is a warped view of reality. Trump is the only PotUS who tried to steal a presidential election with coercion, lying, fraud, and incitement. And Trump absolutely did NOT cooperate on the safe return of classified documents after months of the government attempting to get him to cooperate. His obstruction was a crime.
The case was made. The trial was killed by Trump supporters electing the scoundrel.
Disingenuous nonsense.
Trump has never won one of the cases that were brought against him post 2020.
He lost the E Jean Carroll case.
He lost the "Stormy Daniels" case.
He lost the case about him exaggerating and/or minimizing the worth of his properties.
The election interference case was stopped when he won the election .
The documents case was stopped when he won the election.
The Georgia case was ended for reasons that were not connected to his innocence or guilt.
Thats zero for six in terms of him being found innocent. It has Never happened.
Civil case. Not criminal. It's even laughable that this was even brought to the courts given how long ago this supposedly happened. More pathetic "get Trump" rhetoric from the democrats.
Civil case. Not criminal.
MISDEMEANOR past it's statute of limitations inflated to a "felonies"
Targeted case. The very same complaint has been made through US history. Yet only ONE had charges filed. More pathetic "get Trump" rhetoric from the democrats.
Then why even bring it up?
Fact of the matter is, Vic is correct in 1.4.30:
When it comes to criminal cases, as you do claim he's a criminal, the left and the Democrats are, what, 0 for 20? 0 for 30?
Trump has been charged in 20 or 30 criminal cases and you still think he should be president ? LOL.
Charged. No trials, no convictions. I guess "innocent until PROVEN guilty" is a foreign concept to you.
Actually, he won them all. We nullified the lawfare and elected him.
And we are not done yet!
Sure, who needs the CotUS, the rule of law, quality trade relationships, lower prices, free speech, free and fair elections, etc.?
Let's support corruption, deceit, incompetence, authoritarian rule, and divisiveness!
I've been asking that for 4 years as millions of unvetted people were allowed entry into the US and inflation hit 9% and the FBI was investigating Catholics and intimidating parents. Worst was the use of lawfare to defeat a Presidential candidate.
Perfect example. You contend that Biden pushed to have Trump indicted for Jan 6 and the classified documents obstruction acts. You have no evidence of this and even evidence that suggests this was not the case (the dragging of feet by Garland).
But here you have routine examples of Trump engaging in lawfare with substantial evidence and you flat out ignore it.
Rule of law does not matter if the Rs are in charge?
Oh, common Tig:
"The Biden administration crossed a constitutional Rubicon this week. For the first time in our history, federal prosecutors have charged a former president. Also for the first time in our history, an executive branch held by the incumbent political party indicted the leading presidential candidate of the other main political party. President Joseph Biden has taken a fateful step about which even Richard Nixon did not dare to dream.
On Friday, DOJ special counsel Jack Smith unveiled a 49-page indictment against Donald Trump. Its 38 counts covered seven criminal charges, including willful retention of national defense information, corruptly concealing documents, conspiring to obstruct justice, and making false statements to federal officials.
Biden administration officials must explain why prosecuting Trump for misuse of classified documents justifies disregarding two centuries of constitutional practice. Presidents remain subject to the law just as anyone else. But our system has long understood that the Justice Department—which assists the president in his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”—can’t prosecute every person for every violation of every federal law.
Prosecutors must exercise discretion to choose the most important cases to bring; the critical factor is whether a prosecution serves the public interest. Even after the Civil War, the federal government didn’t make Confederate President Jefferson Davis stand trial."
Biden DOJ Crossed Political Rubicon With Trump Indictment
Biden set this precedent.
The fact that Trump was indicted while Biden was PotUS does not in any way mean that Biden did anything wrong.
Trump tried to steal the 2020 election with coecion, lying, fraud, and incitement. His Jan 6 indictment was spot on.
Trump refused to return classified documents, tried to hide them, used others to obstruct their safe return. His classified documents indictment was spot on.
No matter who was PotUS, those indictments were proper. You try to spin the notion that Biden used these indictments as lawfare based on correlation with no evidence whatsoever of causation.
Lawfare is a terrible thing, especially when it is used with all its evil components as it was against Trump.
Comey may only have to deal with the most basic element of lawfare, that being the simple punishment of being put through the process of indictment and trial.
Trump is blatantly engaging in lawfare. You seem to refuse to acknowledge this harsh reality.
And who set the precedent for lawfare?
You seem to refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Trump's New York case was arguably lawfare, but he was also guilty (unanimous verdict). Biden had nothing to do with it.
His criminal indictments for Jan 6th and obstruction in return of classified documents were entirely proper. Not lawfare.
Regardless, it is sickening that you would approve of Trump's blatant lawfare — even if it were true that other PotUS' have done so. Lawfare is wrong, period.
I suppose that is all Trump supporters have. When Trump engages in outrageous acts you look to see if any other human being has engaged in the act (even if at a much smaller scale) and then argue 'they did it so we can do it'. That is another example of Trump supporters abandoning the CotUS and the rule of law. As I noted, this is sickening.
The word I prefer is obviously.
but he was also guilty (unanimous verdict).
A New York jury and a blatantly Trump-hating judge. Trump was also ordered to pay a woman with a fantastic story about being sexually abused in a busy New York City department store. Another judge became an appraiser in a case in which there were no complaints about the appraisal of Mar-a-Lago. The judge lowballed the price to charge Trump. If anyone thinks that a New York or DC jury can be trusted when it comes to anything involving Trump one only need to recall the IG report which specifically said that Andrew McCabe, (the former FBI deputy director,) lied to then-FBI Director James Comey, and other FBI agents, as well as to officials of the Office of the Inspector General. I always asked myself why then AG Barr didn't prosecute McCabe. The obvious answer is that he likely thought he wouldn't get a conviction. Let us not forget that the only FBI official who was held accountable was Kevin Clinesmith who confessed to fudging FISA warrant requests. It is awfully hard to find someone innocent who already confessed. What happened to Clinesmith? The judge in the case (now known as judge Boesberg) reduced the sentence to 12 months' probation and 400 hours community service, instead of jail time.
Biden had nothing to do with it
Colangelo joined Bragg’s office in December 2022 after the resignations of Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne — prosecutors who were investigating Trump and resigned in protest of Bragg’s initial unwillingness to indict the former president. Colangelo left a senior role at the Biden Justice Department to join Bragg's team.
Ex-top Biden DOJ official now prosecuting Trump was once paid by DNC for 'political consulting' | Fox News
Comey may or may not get convicted, but it is clear what he tried to do. The fact that he may have avoided legal jeopardy is irrelevant.
He was guilty, Vic.
Biden had nothing to do with it. You are yet again connecting dots that are miles apart.
You have Comey guilty but one excuse after another for Trump.
Now, I see you focused on the New York cases and ignored my actual point. No mystery why you ignored this:
So I will again suppose that is all Trump supporters have. When Trump engages in outrageous acts you look to see if any other human being has engaged in the act (even if at a much smaller scale) and then argue 'they did it so we can do it'. That is another example of Trump supporters abandoning the CotUS and the rule of law. As I noted, this is sickening.
It was Lawfare.
And Comey whether convicted of a crime or not, is an immoral traitor who tried to remove a President from office because he thought it was good for the country.
You keep deflecting.
Trump is blatantly engaging in lawfare.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS?
lawfare:
LAWFARE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Two questions:
Is Comey an "opponent" of the President?
Is Comey not guilty of partisan wrongdoing?
Comey is obviously an opponent of Trump. Comey's guilt would be determined by a trial; in this case, the indictment is thin and likely to fail.
Note:
Trump is blatantly engaging in lawfare.
Do you approve??
One wonders if you hold the January 6th insurrectionists to the same standard.
I suspect not.
[deleted] [✘] Apply that same standard to political opponents.
Only if you strip out all the facts.
So the statute of limitations matters now?
Your entire argument presumes positions I have not taken. In other words, it is a strawman.
As for the indictment not being thin, you clearly have not read the indictment, nor have you considered the legal opinions on it.
For example (one of many):
Was it tragic, vindictive, or selective when the target was Trump?
I don't understand how people seem surprised when the weapons they use are turned against them.
Only if you strip out all facts.
And you haven't read the documents released by the DNI. Just went off what somebody told somebody that somebody told somebody.
Trump was a target in the New York lawsuits. Biden, as sitting PotUS, stayed out of it.
Trump was properly indicted for Jan 6 and for obstruction in return of the classified documents. Biden, as sitting PotUS, stayed out of it.
In contrast, we have a paper-thin indictment brought a few days before the statute of limitations expired, pushed by the sitting PotUS (undeniably).
What you do not understand is that you are comparing lawfare by New York officials to lawfare brought by the sitting PotUS. And even though it was lawfare, Trump was in fact guilty!
Why do you defend Trump??
You offer claims but no argument and no facts. That is known as bullshit.
Why would we only be talking about what the POTUS did? Biden's incapacity kept him out of most things. The point remains that the NY case was 100% selective and vindictive. Where were all the cries of complaint?
I'm comparing selective, vindictive prosecution to selective, vindictive prosecution.
Why do you cease to care about the rule of law as long as Trump can be attacked?
Well, if there was an insurrection on Jan 6, then yes, the same standard would have applied.
The fact that the participants were too incompetent to succeed does not negate the fact that they were insurrectionists.
When does that matter? The "New York lawsuits" were past their statute of limitations, not to mention only a MISDEMEANOR.
Now all you have to do is prove it.
[deleted][✘]
Did you not read my prior posts? In each one, I acknowledged that the NY cases were lawfare.
And so you reply to my posts, making the argument that NY cases were lawfare. You are pretending that I have argued they were not lawfare.
Pay attention.
You are trying to justify Trump's lawfare by arguing 'they did it too'.
And of course, more demonstration that you either do not read what I wrote or are dishonestly arguing a strawman.
When I deem the NY cases lawfare, what exactly does that translate to in your head?
You are inferring things that are not there. Read more carefully.
You quoted a legal expert expressing the opinion that the Comey indictment is a "tragic day". If this is a "tragic day" (I would probably use "unfortunate"), due to selective, vindictive prosecution then it was also a "tragic day" when that exact thing was done before.
But we don't hear about that. We don't hear people on the left talking about how this exact behavior that is wrong when Trump does it was also wrong when it was done by them.
You are again inferring things that are not there. Read more carefully.
If you don't like people doing that to you, maybe you should stop doing to other people.
I suspect Cobb called it tragic because this is the sitting PotUS engaging in lawfare.
There is a monster difference between the sitting PotUS engaging in lawfare vs. lower officials doing so. This should not need to be explained to you.
And you clearly are playing the ‘but they did it too’ game. Your denial does not change the words everyone can read.
You admit that you are arguing a strawman.
Your personal allegation, however, is a lie.
Why? The POTUS doesn't have any more power to prosecute than an attorney general.
What doesn't need explanation is your reason for the attempted rationalization.
Still not reading carefully, I see.
First, remember that we are talking about the New York cases being the examples of lawfare. I argued that the indictments from Smith under Garland were NOT lawfare.
Second, the PotUS is supposed to be the exemplar for preserving, protecting, and defending the CotUS and by extension, the rule of law. Odd that you are trying to argue that the PotUS is no different in scope, precedent, impact, and authority than state officials.
To wit, I can easily see why Cobb would deem blatant lawfare by the sitting POTUS as tragic. Yet again you post comments that use the lame tactic of downplaying anything bad by Trump to make it seem normal and thus no big deal.
Try to respond without yet again making this personal.
Correct.
He is legally in less of a position to wage a vindictive, selective legal campaign. The NY AG can actually prosecute someone. The POTUS can only try to get somebody else to do it.
Again, I'd probably go with something less melodramatic like "unfortunate" or "distasteful". I would also reiterate that it was unfortunate and distasteful when it happened to Trump. Selective and vindictive enforcement is always distasteful, no matter the victim.
Not that we'll see that on CNN, though.
And yet again you use the lame tactic of calling anything you can't rebut a "tactic".
It's not a tragedy. Nobody died. Nobody has been injured. Nobody has been falsely imprisoned. The consistent use of exaggeration is one of the reasons people lose interest in liberal causes.
And in this case the PotUS has pressured Bondi to do his bidding. Bondi is demonstrably NOT an independent AG and is clearly more loyal to Trump than to the CotUS (and, by extension, the rule of law).
Yet again, I can easily see how Cobb (or anyone else) would consider Trump's abuse of power and Bondi's sycophancy to be tragic. The fact that Cobb used "tragic" vs some other adjective means absolutely nothing to me. If he had used "unfortunate", etc. it would make no difference. It is not the chosen adjective that matters but rather to assess what Trump (with Bondi) has done. And that is to engage in lawfare by the sitting PotUS.
Another lie. I have been rebutting your 'arguments' throughout.
Good grief man, do better than dwell on the fact that Cobb did not use an adjective you prefer. How petty.
The point is that Trump, as sitting PotUS, has demonstrably engaged in lawfare and that he almost certainly will continue to do so. The second point is that people who defend him are providing the cover he needs to continue.
So you agree with my point.
I'm sure you believe that to be the case. But yet again, you make an iron clad conclusion with 1% of the facts. You have no clue whether he's done anything wrong or not.
It's important to note that whatever evidence was presented, there were at least 12 jurors who thought it convincing to vote to indict.
Right. We're going to disagree on the choice of words. You're welcome to your opinion. I'm not changing mine.
Ah yes. Code for "called you out on your 'tactics'".
That's your point. My point has been from the beginning that this was a problem before Trump was re-elected, but you didn't give a shit about it then. You didn't care at all about "lawfare" when your "team" was doing it.
In keeping with tradition, it never occurred to you or any other liberal that this "lawfare" weapon would be used against your "team" as soon as the other "team" got the ball back.
Well, here we are. The chickens are coming home to roost. You can be as indignant as you like about whatever Trump is doing, but he didn't invent this. Your people did.
Do not be surprised if several of the other shithouse dirty "tactics" liberals have used in the past turn up again, wielded by the right this time. It would not shock me at all to see some congressional hearings about something or another conveniently scheduled during the run up to next year's election.
I will say right now I hope that does not happen. It was wrong in 2022, it would be wrong in 2026. But given how it was used in 2022, Democrats have no moral high ground from which to object.
Riiiight.
One of the most reliable manifestations of idiocy on this forum is the accusation of "defending Trump" or "MAGA" or a similar pathetic moniker being cast at anyone who dares identify the flaws in whatever rampaging leftist tirade against him happens to be going on in the moment.
I support the rule of law. I am unwilling to suspend that based on political affiliation.
Not if your point is to suggest that Trump is not the driving force in the Comey indictment. If your point is merely that Trump is not the agent who executed the indictment, then that leaves out Bondi as well. Regardless of the little game you wish to play, Comey was indicted because Trump wanted him to be indicted.
You don't?? You believe Bondi is loyal to the CotUS and the law over loyalty to Trump??
Bondi is a woman so you must (in a confused way) be referring to Trump or Comey. Given you are more likely to defend Trump than to defend Comey, I presume you meant 'Trump'. Given this, I have a very strong clue that Trump has done something wrong here. This again should be extremely obvious to anyone:
Should be obvious to anyone that Trump is and will continue to weaponize the DoJ to vindictively attack his political opponents.
Who gives a shit about the adjective? You are focused on the adjective Cobb used instead of focusing on his actual point.
No code, I noted a lie you posted.
And yet again you must make shit up. I have stated from day one that the New York cases were politically motivated. Even though Trump was guilty, it is obvious that politics played a part. But it was not obvious, nor has it been established, that Biden was behind this. In contrast, I have then and do still now hold that the Jan 6th and classified documents obstruction indictments are not driven by politics but rather by proper execution of the rule of law. It was a failure of the DoJ, the SCotUS, and the electorate that Trump has not been held accountable for these crimes.
Look at the pathetic taunting: gratuitously labeling me a liberal and casting me as a D. Just shows you have no argument, and your post is simply a (failed) attempt to antagonize.
Yeah, you seem to want to defend Trump but be immune from being called out on it. Just like you seem to want to be immune from being shown wrong by AI by trying to discredit AI sources.
Your posts (including this one) do not corroborate your claim.
And Trump was prosecuted because Letitia James wanted to prosecute him. Selective. Vindictive. Do you see how this works?
Other than rampant political bias, what evidence do you have to suggest she would not uphold her oath to support and defend the Constitution?
One of many erroneous presumptions. Comey is the one under indictment.
You mean like stating that the Attorney General of the United States has no intention of upholding her oath? In any case, please feel free to prove me wrong.
As if his words are not carefully chosen to convey his point. *eyeroll*
I am focused on how one side engaging in lawfare is a triumph and the other side engaging in lawfare is a "tragedy". I am focused on how Democrats are getting bit in the ass by the snake they created. I'm not sure how to state this any more plainly.
Riiiiiiight.
Ok. Well, by all means, prove me wrong. Share the last post of yours supporting a Republican.
I'm sorry, what were you saying about taunting and gratuitous labels?
From a point of extreme bias I'm sure it looks that way.
How many times must I post that I hold that Letitia James was out to get Trump? You have no argument so you argue a point I have always affirmed and pretend that I have argued the opposite.
I just provided you the most recent evidence in my last post. (If you cannot rebut, just ignore, eh?) Are you aware that our CotUS and system of law does NOT support crafting a (tepid) lawsuit against a political opponent because Trump is worried that he is looking bad with his supporters? Other than rampant political bias, how is it possible for someone to not recognize that this is not how our system is supposed to work.
Since your post cannot be serious, I am just going to have ChatGPT list off additional actions by Bondi as AG which show her loyalty to Trump over the CotUS and the rule of law:
Google offers this:
Amazing that you have missed all of this.
Then your comment was incoherent.
I stated and put forth clear evidence that she has already violated her oath. Pay attention.
Yes, clearly this is a partisan thing for you.
First of all, you illustrate what is typical of partisans — the belief that one must be tied to a political party. Stupid reasoning. On this site, I criticize the GoP as a whole because the current incarnation lets Trump do whatever he wants. And the individual I criticize is Trump. You translate that into being anti-GoP. Apparently, you have not noticed that the GoP TRUMP is NOT the GoP. Second, show me a post of mine where I supported (as in promoting their careers) a Democrat. The only ones you will find are those where I was promoting Ds other than Biden to run as their candidate . The motivation was to stop Trump. Does that give you a clue?
Maybe you have forgotten that during the primary, I first supported Chris Sununu. When he dropped out I went all in for Haley (campaign donations as well). I would have supported others (e.g. Christie) over Biden. The only one of those running that I probably would not support is Vivek Ramaswamy given he was over-the-top obnoxious and struck me as out of control. I never supported Biden, but once Trump was the nominee, I did plan to vote for him as the best way to use my vote against Trump. Bottom line, since you either totally missed it or conveniently forget it, if Trump has not been the nominee, I would have almost certainly voted for a Republican for PotUS.
Looks like you are doing some extreme stretching to try to find something and falling way short.
Are we still talking about Comey? NY Times? Who are you talking about?
Has he broken the law by filing the suit? Has he broken the law by supporting the Comey indictment? Our system is the rule of law. Until he breaks one, he's operating within that system.
Has she violated the Constitution on his behalf? Or is she acting within her power as the AG in a way of which you disapprove?
I don't remember anything of that sort, but neither would I dispute your claim here. I gladly stand corrected.
That agreed, I still maintain that any objection to "lawfare" needs to be a consistent objection to ALL lawfare. That includes televised congressional hearings for political theater.
I wish very much that I could say I see no chance of a summer set of congressional hearings attacking various Democrats for their involvement in covering up President Biden's senility. I have no insider knowledge of anything like that, but it certainly will not surprise me if it happens. When Democrats object, the correct response will be "you started it".
Looks like you are lost. Pay better attention. I have been quite clear.
First, do you recognize that Trump using the DoJ to engage in vindictive prosecution of Comey is an abuse of power?
Second, this is a violation of Due Process to use the legal system to vindictively prosecute an individual.
Third, it is a violation of the equal protection of the 5th amendment to selectively go after an individual like Comey merely because he is a political opponent.
The Comey indictment is paper-thin. It is weak and Trump had to fire Siebert because he refused to bring the indictment (he officially resigned) and replace him with a wholly unqualified, inexperienced attorney Halligan to bring the indictment before the statute of limitations expired.
But you somehow cannot see this as a vindictive lawsuit and cannot even imagine how this violates the CotUS, legal ethics, DoJ policy, etc.
Yes. Amazing that you do not see this.
Good choice, because I was talking about this even after Harris became the nominee:
Party is NOT the most important factor when picking a PotUS.
I have not once argued against that. Again, from day one I noted that the NY lawsuits were political even though Trump was guilty.
What I have noted is that lawfare by a PotUS is substantially different in scope, impact, and precedent than lawfare by a lower operative. The same way that a crime committed by the Chief of Police or DA or Mayor, etc. is far worse than that of a rookie cop or low-level operative.
The level of corruption in the Trump administration is far greater than I have seen in my lifetime. Clearly well beyond Nixon. From history, well beyond Harding. This is not some game of tit for tat. Trump is corrupt and dangerous for this nation at a level well beyond that of the Ds.
Did you watch all the J6 hearings? There is no evidence of that in any of your comments.
Why did Cassidy Hutchinson, a young woman who was excited to be part of the Trump administration as the aide to the Chief Of Staff Mark Meadows, turn on Trump and Meadows after Jan 6th? BECAUSE SHE SAW WHAT HAPPENED in the White House that day.
The J6 committee testimony was filled with Trump administration members, with access to the West Wing, testifying under oath about Trumps misconduct. That is what it was , all Republicans ratting out Trump .
The committee ended up referring Trump for prosecution, not because it was a tv show but because that was the evidence.
No John, nothing happened. Nothing to see here. This is all perfectly normal.
Not a chance.
Why would it be that? If prosecuting political opponents is an abuse of power, then why wasn't it hasn't it been an abuse of power for the last 4 years? Do you see how this works?
Comey is getting due process. It's not like he's been sent to a gulag without a trial. There is no equal protection clause in the 5th amendment, and even if there were that does not mean people who commit crimes cannot be prosecuted. If the indictment is actually paper thin, then Comey will be exonerated in a public humiliation of Trump. But it's worth pointing out that the inexperienced insurance lawyer managed to fumble her way into convincing a grand jury there was enough evidence to indict. The weakness of the lawyer speaks to the strength of the evidence.
You're inferring things that aren't there again.
How? Be specific.
Detractors. Opponents. Exclusively one side of the story.
You heard a carefully curated set of information designed to get you to adopt a specific belief and in doing so provide great benefit to the people presenting the information.
That's not a hearing, that's a sales pitch.
Of course they did. That was always going to be their conclusion. Everybody knew that before the "hearings" ever started. You don't expect a Toyota salesman to recommend a Volkswagen, do you?
And of course they could have done that without televised hearings in prime time. But that wasn't theater or anything.... nah...
WTF.
You are implying that Biden prosecuted Trump and that he did so because Trump was a political opponent. Without a shred of evidence, you have apparently bought into Trump's bullshit.
Defending Trump.
That is not the point. The point is that Trump clearly (the evidence is overwhelming) is engaging in vindictive prosecution. And Comey is not the end of it. The Comey indictment is paper-thin. It is weak and Trump had to fire Siebert because he refused to bring the indictment (he officially resigned) and replace him with a wholly unqualified, inexperienced attorney Halligan to bring the indictment before the statute of limitations expired.
Defending Trump.
If Trump's action were not a serious matter I would laugh at the absurdity of posts like yours that ignore facts and pretend that all is normal.
Defending Trump, no matter what.
Not at all.
Without a shred of evidence, you have spun your own supply of bullshit. Again.
Odd that you tried to make it then.
Wonder where he learned that.
I've already said that.
You seem to be struggling with the definition of this word. Your view of events is your opinion.
Basically you offered nothing in your post. Just some platitude quips.
There is an abundance of evidence that Trump is vindictively prosecuting Comey. The case is weak, Trump had to find a low-level attorney to bring the case, and all this after Trump publicly (stupidly) told Bondi that he needs Comey, et. al. prosecuted because not doing so is making him look bad.
You can recognize this reality or you can engage in dishonest tactics to defend Trump.
You have chosen, yet again, to defend Trump.
I'm not exactly sure how many times and ways I need to explain.... that's the world we live in now. The J6 committee and Letitia James knocked down that fence, so here we are.
You cannot punch people in the face and expect them not to punch back.
It seemed pretty easy to convince a grand jury otherwise.
And you have chosen, yet again, to employ dishonest "tactics" instead of actually making a less ridiculous argument.
I'm still waiting for you to show you know the slightest thing about the findings of the J6 committee. If you do you have kept it well hidden.
The J6 committee was completely justified in "punching Trump in the face" concerning his conduct after the 2020 election.
You are not offering anything interesting. I doubt anyone cares.
That simply is NOT the point. I have not argued that it is unusual for Trump to be vindictive. I have argued that he is clearly abusing his power as PotUS and, in this particular case, he is engaging in vindictive prosecution.
The fact that this is natural for Trump is irrelevant.
Do you approve of a PotUS effectively replacing a DoJ attorney who would not bring a weak case to get one that will bring this weak case against a publicly declared political opponent right before the statute of limitations runs out?
It does not matter that Trump obviously is a vindictive asshole, that does not make this right.
Oh come on, Jack, there must be a point where you stop putting forth tepid quips to defend Trump and honestly look at reality. Look at the indictment. Look at the history leading up to that indictment. Investigate the difficulty of the DoJ securing an indictment. Review analysis of this indictment ... there is plenty out there.
Then honestly tell us that you believe this indictment is a proper use of the legal system.
You really are out of steam here. Just take some cliche quip off the wall and type away. You just now used projection (a dishonest tactic), but one that Trump routinely uses.
The word "findings" seems to imply they didn't know ahead of time what everyone was going to say, and that there was some chance that someone might actually offer testimony that wasn't completely condemnatory of Trump.
I said at the time that when they actually prosecute Trump and we hear both sides of the facts, it will be appropriate to form an opinion. They didn't prosecute, though. Which means the DOJ knew they couldn't get a conviction and/or they wanted to keep Trump around as the boogeyman for campaign purposes.
I have no doubt you believe that. As a person who hates Trump more than most, I'm sure the whole experience was very validating for you.
For the record, I do not and did not support his conduct.
But you need to understand that once the line has been crossed, use of that thing is now fair game.
Democrats used lawfare against Trump, he's now using it against them.
Democrats called civil unrest by their opposition "insurrection", Trump appears to be getting ready to use that tactic against them.
Democrats used their control of the House of Representatives to launch a loud, public "investigation" of political opponents during an election season..... so do not be surprised if that happens next summer.
You would think that people would have learned from Harry Reid's use of the "nuclear option". Apparently not.
Good grief. You do not think that the DoJ was actively attempting to try this case? That Jack Smith was the one engaging in delay tactics?
Do you consider this a proper use of the law? If not, then why are you making excuses for Trump when he blatantly engages in lawfare?
Trump is the one who "kept the case around".
The few people who may have been able to give "the other side" either refused to testify or took the 5th amendment in front of the committee.
Trump himself has had YEARS to give his side of the story related to the J6 accusations, and he never has, because his side of the story is a disaster for him.
And yet here you are.
I understand this may be difficult to understand, but you don't actually get to decide what points other people are making.
You are yet again attempting to insert your bias as fact. You have zero clue whether the case is "weak" or not. They've simply accused him of lying before Congress. (Lying before Congress is apparently only legal if you're a member of Congress.) It may not be very difficult to prove.
You will live a very unhappy life waiting for politicians to do "right" and/or not be "vindictive assholes". The list of "not right" over the last 5-6 years alone makes a weighty tome.
I merely state that what has gone around is now coming back around, and that should not surprise anyone.
Come on, yourself.
I do not. Neither was the NY case. Neither was the EJ Carroll case. Neither were the televised campaign ads masquerading as 'hearings'. But as I've stated repeatedly, this is the new world in which we live. Democrats cannot spend nearly a decade waging legal battles against their political opponents and then whine when the same happens in return.
Odd that you say that about a paraphrase of your own idiotic statements.
Just an amazing level of denial. It takes no effort to find a plethora of analyses of this indictment, and the super majority deems it weak. For example:
Denial works for Trump, it is not working for you.
And you move the goalposts to the absurd. I made no argument about politicians doing right. I asked you to weigh in on whether vindictive lawsuits (lawfare) is the right thing to do. You deflected.
Good, you do not hold the Comey indictment to be proper . So why do you continue to try to normalize this and defend Trump? The argument "they did it too " is childish and fundamentally flawed. Yeah, we know there are vindictive people. But right now we have Trump, as sitting PotUS, blatantly engaging in vindictive prosecution and Comey is just the start. There is no comparison to be made with other PotUS' that match what Trump is doing. This is outrageous.
But, no, to you this is normal. It is wrong, but no big deal. Nothing new to see here. Nothing significant. Oh, and even though you agree this is not proper, you challenge (against substantial analysis to the contrary) the weakness of this case.
Ah yes. Another of the tedious collection of insults you roll out whenever someone dares remind you that your opinion is not actually fact.
Your opinion of the indictment is just that... an opinion. That doesn't change because you found a few other people who share it.
The indictment may or may not be weak. You personally have no clue.
If it IS weak, then Comey will undoubtedly be exonerated and Trump will be publicly humiliated. If is stronger than you want to think it is, a person will be convicted of a crime they committed. Either outcome seems relatively positive.
You're pretending I didn't use your exact word? Are you in so many arguments you're losing track of what you said to whom?
I didn't say that. I said I don't think it's a proper use of the legal system. There is a difference.
For all you or I know, Comey did, in fact, lie to Congress and did obstruct.
If there is sufficient evidence of that, the indictment would be "proper". Whether or not the DoJ should be spending time on this is another matter entirely.
Failing to join your cult of partisan outrage does not constitute either of those things.
Your intentional repeated misstatement of my position is childish and fundamentally flawed.
Brilliant. Just like Trump: ... we may reach a peace agreement ... we may not.
It is rather pathetic that you implicitly claim that you have no clue if the indictment is weak or not. You can read the two page indictment and I have provided you two obvious sources. It would take no effort on your part to easily get dozens more that all discuss why this indictment is weak.
But you will not do so because clearly you are going to defend Trump regardless of the evidence.
Okay, then I retract my credit to you.
The Comey indictment is weak and is obvious lawfare. You cannot rebut this other than to do a 'nuh-uh' laced with cliche off-the-shelf quips. That is usually the nature of rebuttals nowadays from Trump supporters.
What's pathetic is your almost staggering unwillingness to admit there are details you might not actually know.
And you imagine ALL of the evidence is contained in those documents? Do you even understand how indictments work?
Still struggling with the difference between opinion and fact, I see.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The grand jury had a different one.
Never suggested anything like that. Get a grip.
No, Jack, I stated that the indictment is weak. Because it, point of fact, is weak. And it is not just me making this assessment. Do just a tiny bit of research and you will see that this is the overwhelming opinion.
I did not say anything about the trial . Pay attention.
I expect the trial, if it even happens, to be based on weak evidence, but until I see the (new) evidence (or lack thereof) one can only speculate.
Another cliche, off-the-wall, general-purpose trollish quip.
They just barely got a majority. That is rare for a Federal grand jury. Apparently, you have a very flawed understanding of Federal grand juries:
You like math, do the math. 11 no's out of 162,000 cases.
I seem to recall, a math fixation, but, it doesnt, ADD up, but probably due to my ADD, I don't recall, but didn't see myself concentrating, but some would still send me to concentration camp grounds well groomed due to the marriage of Trump and the art of the Bribe, and Bully With Bulwinkle in his young eye that can't red all about it, cause it wasn't extra, extra, reed all about tit 4 tat, cause we've already been through all of that shit sick sick shit that Vic and his has bin where he stored the avatar of a 4 year investigation that ended in and for, much and many, a frustration galore, cause there was not the evidence, as many others have also found,unless dense, thus Y no one wanted the damn position to prosecute this offense, asz knot sound, lessUn/unless, heard by the herd is the lesson they can't seem to learn that found, is the same ole Trump shit, cause pound for pound, Trump is the Bull, and entering a lull, to lift up no one, cuz the orange clown is a sharply dull while slicing threw papers that used to Constitute our Constitution, that Trump feels he can discard due to his skull being knumb, cause I feel sorry for the peep holes trying to show a vision into the Trump door slammed inn the face of the reality, they a tempt to open with, and for, closed mines, due to the increase in canary islands, wear they dress to stay, cause the Emperors Orange phat asz is showing again, in the lunacy weigh where wait is less, due to Trumps pull in of strings arrached to injustice, that he upholds while slippin it past those cast in play and regularly red that way in a colorful weigh in down this once great country tis of thee is , the fat orange he and I ap pear of nice guy's with Trump goin goin gone wild ,
as the retribution tour continues till the defenders offensive defense of an indifference to an adolt adult who is too mature to not be too mature
The interesting part is that the shooter was a poor shot. He hit the detainees.
It looks like the shooter could hit the broad side of an unmarked van. The shooter likely didn't know who was inside the van.
Very good point
Or the detainees were the shooter's target and the marked cartridge was a false flag.
there you go
The only 'factoid' at this point is Patel the Douche once again jumped the shark in his haste to remain employed.
Or it was a double false flag! Lol.
Nearly a dozen violent assailants equipped with tactical gear and weapons attacked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas, on July 4, shooting a local law enforcement officer in the process. The officer is expected to recover.
What's the spin on this?
You'll forgive me for not following all of the US's daily shootings, it's an exhausting endeavour.
If you use the logic of Jimmy Kimmel it works.
We can understand why you do not want to be informed of all the assaults on ICE agents, and the DAILY assaults on the Portland branch of ICE because the bubble the left has put you in will burst.
"Or a triple false flag!"
"Nuh Uh! You can't triple false flag a double false flag!"
I would hate to step on your calloused knuckles.
For years if not decades we have had to put up with this false flag insanity. Now we can put the shoe on the other foot.
You wanted Kash Patel made FBI Director. He is an incompetent conspiracy theorist serial liar. Why should anyone believe anything his Bureau says ?
By telling the public what was written on the shell casings?
That's not a big deal
Rational people understand what is happening
Yea, I heard one of the bullets had writing on it that said "cheaper than deporting". S/
Really? Didn't Jussie Smollett prove there was still racism?
You wanted Kash Patel made FBI Director. He is an incompetent conspiracy theorist serial liar. Why should anyone believe anything his Bureau says ?
What you mean is that he was the guy to expose the Russia-hoax.
Obama weaponized the FBI. The people have it back.
From the most leftwing narrative creator: Mother Jones.
We have certain publications banned from this site. How come Mother Jones is not banned?
You said it in your 1st line.
I'm not going to pull a liberal and claim which way the shooter leaned before any facts are known.
Of course, the story identifies the shooter as a white male, indicating that the person was a right winger, but that is just unknown.
If the shooter turns out to want to shoot detainees because of some hate toward illegals, then I will be the first to call that person out. It could also be someone out for revenge from the massive amount of left wing violence in the country, including the killing of Charlie Kirk.
And once again, the left is responsible:
It will somehow be spun for the left lemming branch of the democratic party to believe it is a right winger.
Yeah, they're going to be hard pressed to spin that away from their history of violence.
Kash Patel is a known liar. Its too bad he has eroded faith in law enforcement.
That's one opinion. One can only assume you believe the stupidity spouted off of Jon Favreau, a former Obama aide.
Can you give an example where he actually lied about somethin?
Almost a full day later and, as expected, no examples.
Here is a picture for any fucking retards that thinks he was shooting at immigrants,
Quicky shift to the left wing narrative and claim the picture is AI or photo shopped.
Oh no! Don't show it!
Let's hide it like Obama did with Ft Hood.
In a residence belonging to Jahn, Patel said he left a handwritten note that read: 'Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror, to think, "is there a sniper with AP rounds on that roof?"'
Jahn had downloaded a document titled Dallas County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, which contained a list of DHS facilities.
Jahn had also searched for apps that track ICE agents for a week before he launched his horror attack, Patel said.
'Further accumulated evidence to this point indicates a high degree of pre-attack planning,' Patel concluded.
It comes after Patel previously shared an image of the bullets used in the shooting on the ICE facility, which showed shells engraved with blue ink reading: 'Anti-ICE
This won’t matter to the shooter was right wing conspirators but….
In Conclusion:
We got a little derailed here today with talk of Trump and of all things "the Proud Boys."
Well, we just got the definitive motive for the shooter who killed a migrant in Texas.
He was trying to kill ICE Agents and left info behind.
"Fair Balanced and still unafraid."