Another Murder in Minneapolis?

On May 25, 2020, police in Minneapolis detained, choked, and killed a Black man, George Floyd. The video footage showed that the policemen involved indisputably used excessive force, and one of them, Derek Chauvin, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 22½ years in prison. History doesn't repeat itself, they say, but it does rhyme. Yesterday, it definitely did some rhyming, with Minneapolis the site of a high-profile law-enforcement killing once again. On this occasion, the victim was a white woman, Renee Nicole Good, and the police force in question was ICE.

Video of the shooting was captured by (apparently) an onlooker, and is already widely available on the Internet (see here, for example). It is violent, inasmuch as someone was shot to death (though no blood is visible), so be forewarned. The video is pretty central to assessing the narrative being put forward by the Trump administration versus the one put forward by local authorities. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that Good was "stalking and impeding" ICE, and that she tried to "weaponize her vehicle." Later, Donald Trump got on his sanguinary social media platform and added this:

I have just viewed the clip of the event which took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is a horrible thing to watch. The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense. Based on the attached clip, it is hard to believe he is alive, but is now recovering in the hospital. The situation is being studied, in its entirety, but the reason these incidents are happening is because the Radical Left is threatening, assaulting, and targeting our Law Enforcement Officers and ICE Agents on a daily basis. They are just trying to do the job of MAKING AMERICA SAFE. We need to stand by and protect our Law Enforcement Officers from this Radical Left Movement of Violence and Hate!

By contrast, Minnesota DFL officeholders, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Gov. Tim Walz, and Minnespolis Mayor Jacob Frey, claim this is nonsense and that the death is the fault of ICE and the Trump administration.

Again, readers should consider watching the video, which is only 30 seconds or so. It's actually so chaotic, it took us several viewings to fully make sense of it. Whether people want to watch it or not, we'll try to describe it. Good was driving a minivan, one with decorative stickers all over the rear window and hatch. You couldn't find a more "suburban mom" vehicle if you tried. At the moment the footage starts, there are two vehicles to the right of her car, one to the left, all of them 2-20 feet away. These are presumably all ICE vehicles, and Good's car was roughly at a right angle to all three of them, and thus was at a right angle to the lanes on the street.

There are five agents shown in the video, though only three of them are really relevant to the discussion. Relevant Agent #1 was standing behind the vehicle, and slightly to the right of it. Relevant Agent #3 was standing in front of the vehicle, and slightly to the left of it. If you believe the claims of Trump and Noem, either one of these agents could theoretically have been the "ramming" target. Relevant Agent #2 approaches the vehicle, apparently to apprehend Good, and tries to open the door.

At that point, someone (very possibly Good) shouts "Nooooooooo!" Meanwhile, Good backs her minivan up slightly, to avoid contact with the vehicle that is closest to her (right side, about 2 feet away). Agent #1 (behind the minivan) gets out of the way without difficulty, while Agent #2 (trying to open the door) backs off slightly. Good then endeavors to flee the agents, and Agent #3 (in front of the minvan) gets out of the way, again without difficulty, and then fires several shots into the driver's side window, at point-blank range. Good is presumably dead/dying at that point, but the momentum of the minivan carries it forward perhaps 30 feet before it crashes into (presumably civilian) cars parked on the side of the road.

And now, here is our take on the video:

1. There are many reasons someone might choose to flee ICE. The most common is surely to avoid being detained and expelled from the U.S.; Good was a citizen and there is no reason to think this was her concern. Either she just freaked out, or else she feared she was going to be arrested on charges of [wave hands]. And, of course, once the Trump administration has its hooks into you, you can never know what will happen.
   
   
2. It's not at all clear why Good was on the scene. It's possible that her presence was random and inadvertent. It is more likely she was a "civilian observer," who was monitoring ICE as a form of resistance/protest. This is what Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) said yesterday, and she has no reason to lie.
   
   
3. Noem and Trump also claim that Good was taking an active role in resisting ICE, and that her presence was not random. That said, their rhetoric is so over the top (as it usually is), you should probably take their overall narrative with a fistful of salt.
   
   
4. With all of this said—and we would back this assessment with Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor—there is absolutely no way Good was trying to kill or assault anyone. She was very clearly trying to get away, as quickly as she could, with as little damage done as possible. Consequently, the notion that the agents' lives were in danger is not credible. Either the agent who fired the shots had a burr in his saddle due to prior confrontations (with Good or others), or he grossly overreacted due to adrenaline or something. Whatever happened, the circumstances did not come CLOSE to justifying the use of lethal force.

Needless to say, one should not expect the Trump administration to punish the officer, or even to review his actions. That is not how they roll, to say the least. Minnesota could try to charge him, and put him on trial, assuming they can identify him (as per usual, the ICE agents had their faces covered). However, this is a tricky legal hill to climb. Federal officers have immunity for actions taken in the line of duty, but they also cannot violate state law with impunity. We may soon find out if Minnesota officials think it's worth trying to prosecute.

At very least, the killing has compelled Minnesota officials to reiterate their demands that ICE go away. On top of that, Walz has ordered the Minnesota National Guard (MNG) to prepare for deployment, to protect the citizens of Minnesota. So, tensions are high, and things could get ugly. One can envision a circumstance where Walz activates the MNG, Trump tries to nationalize them, and then it's up to the courts as to whose side the law is on. During that time, the members of the MNG could be stuck between a rock and a hard place as they try to decide whose orders to follow.

Could Good's death lead to a response like the one we saw after Floyd's death? The smart money says "probably not," if only because the post-Floyd response was something of a black swan event. That said, Good was white and a mother, and there is certainly some segment of the populace that has more sympathy for someone with that demographic profile as opposed to a homeless Black man with a criminal record. It is also worth noting that protests inspired by Good have already begun, and that a GoFundMe set up to raise money for her family raised close to $400,000 in its first day.

There is one other thing we are confident about: This is going to hurt Donald Trump and his party, politically. Even those Americans who would like to see more vigorous immigration enforcement did not have "kill a woman who is a mother and a citizen in cold blood" in mind. The "we need to be strong on immigration" segment of the voting public has been shrinking, according to polls, and the obvious reason is the harshness of the White House's policy. This killing is not going to help on that front. Meanwhile, American voters DO NOT LIKE IT when they feel that lawlessness has taken hold, and that the government is more a cause than a solution. Think about the election of 1968 (Vietnam/civil rights/Detroit Riot), for example, or the election of 1992 (Rodney King). While we might not see a George-Floyd-style response, we do not think this is going to fade from memory anytime soon. (Z)

The Lost Cause, The Sequel

We have mentioned the "Lost Cause" mythology numerous times. Basically, this was an attempt by white Southerners to reframe the Civil War as Northern aggression against the romantic antebellum South, while framing slavery as a benevolent institution in which slaves learned useful life skills for free. Now rewriting history is back again, only this time about the attempted coup on Jan. 6, 2021. And it is just as full of lies as the first lost cause was.

Donald Trump is trying to recast the riot and attempted coup as the police attacking peaceful protesters. If you like historical fiction, here is a page from the White House's ominous black & white website about the 1/6 insurrection. Here is a screenshot:

The Website basically blames then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for the riots. It reads, in part: "On his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, President Trump issued sweeping blanket pardons and commutations for nearly 1,600 patriotic Americans prosecuted for their presence at the Capitol—many mere trespassers or peaceful protesters treated as insurrectionists by a weaponized Biden DOJ." Note that it neglects to mention that all the rioters who were imprisoned or fined either pleaded guilty or were found guilty by a jury, in many cases for a serious office, such as attacking a Capitol police officer.

Democrats responded by holding a mock hearing featuring first-hand witnesses to the events that day. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said: "He [Trump] is trying to cover up for the fact that Republicans continue to disrespect those brave men and women of the Capitol Police department who defended our country on Jan. 6. Pelosi said: "For over three hours we begged him to send the National Guard. He never did it. He took joy in not doing so. He was savoring it." Democrats offered a House resolution describing the attack as "an assault on our democracy." It was blocked by objections from Sens. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Jim Justice (R-WV).

On Tuesday, a small group of protesters marched from the Ellipse to the Capitol, which Trump hasn't torn down yet. They were remnants of the original rioters, but they were peaceful this time and carried signs like "Trump was right about everything." Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy but pardoned by Trump called for retribution against the Democrats, prosecutors, and others. He said: "They made an example of us, and we need to make an example of them."

Trump, of course, was impeached for egging on a mob to attack the Capitol. On Tuesday, he addressed the House Republican caucus and talked about the 10 Republican House members who voted for his impeachment. He said: "Every one of them is gone, except one. Makes me feel so good." (V)

Greenland Heats Up

And it is not due to global warming. After capturing Nicolás Maduro with no loss of American life (but the loss of 75 Venezuelan and Cuban lives), Donald Trump has gotten cocky and thinks taking Greenland by force will be child's play. After all, only 57,000 people live there and Denmark, with which it is associated, is not going to attempt to fight off the U.S. military. Does Nuuk, the capital, with only 19,000 people, look hard to take?

When asked about taking Greenland by force, Trump has repeatedly refused to take that option off the table. In fact, Stephen Miller even took a break from deporting immigrants and upped the ante, telling CNN's Jake Tapper: "We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power." In other words, imperialism is back in fashion and might makes right. Maybe Miller is angling for a new job: (Appointed) Governor of Greenland.

He also pointed out, truthfully, that Denmark's claim to Greenland is a bit shaky. Erik the Red settled it in 985 A.D. and claimed it for Norway. He did this without consulting the Paleo-Eskimos living there at the time, probably because he did not speak Paleo-Eskimo. He named it "Greenland" to attract settlers. Think of it as an early "Florida land scam." When Denmark took over Norway in 1380, it acquired Norway's claim to Greenland. The settlers all died off, but in 1721, Denmark sent some more settlers there and it became a Danish colony. Most Greenlanders support Namminersulivinneq (independence), and do not want to be governed by anyone except themselves.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and other Democrats are worried that with the easy win in Venezuela and Miller's increasingly violent rhetoric, Trump may be dead serious about taking Greenland by military force. They are taking the threat so seriously that Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) has introduced an amendment to the must-pass Defense Appropriations bill forbidding the use of government funds for invading Greenland without congressional approval.

If Trump invades Greenland, that will spell the end of NATO, something Trump doesn't like anyway. NATO members are obligated to come to the defense of any NATO country (such as Denmark) that is invaded. So technically, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte would ask the U.S. to help defend a part of Denmark from an invasion by the U.S. Rutte is a skilled diplomat, but that is a steep glacier to climb.

Denmark and most European countries are deathly afraid that Trump is serious this time and will destroy NATO to get his way. They are seeking a meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio to try to get him to talk Trump out of this. Rubio has tried to lower the heat somewhat by suggesting that Trump wants to buy Greenland rather than conquer it. Of course, no one speaks for Trump except Trump.

Assuming Rubio and cooler heads can convince Trump that the America Firsters who hate forever wars would be furious with him if he started two foreign wars in the same month, Trump has other options other than military conquest. He could encourage Greenland to hold a referendum on independence and then get Elon Musk to spend €20 million to advertise Ja til uafhængighed. Once independent, Trump could offer Greenland a sweetheart deal: become a state or sign a Compact of Free Association, like the U.S. has with Micronesia and other Pacific islands. Under it, the U.S. would provide essential services and protection in return for the U.S. being able to set up military bases where it wished.

If Trump could get the E.U. on board with this deal, it would be much easier, and the U.S. does have a card to play here: Ukraine. In return for E.U. support for the Greenland deal, the U.S. could agree to support Ukraine in some way—for example, more weapons, security guarantees, etc. it could be attractive since European care much more about Ukraine than Greenland and if Greenland voluntarily agrees, it is less offensive.

If none of this comes to pass and the U.S. takes Greenland by force, it would destroy all cooperation with (former) allies. No one would give the U.S. any intelligence. If the U.S. were attacked by terrorists in the future, no one would help track them down. If there was a future need for a "coalition of the willing" (as there was in Iraq), no one would be willing. Many countries would cozy up to China, which is increasing looking less scary than the U.S. It would a five-alarm foreign policy disaster. (V)

What Trump Really Wants from Venezuela

Donald Trump keep talking about Venezuelan oil as if is already his. It's a lot more complicated.

Let's start with the factoid all media outlets are repeating without questioning it: Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves. First, what does that even mean? Many people assume "oil reserves" means how many barrels of oil are under the ground. That is not the way the oil industry defines it. It defines "oil reserves" as the amount of oil that can be economically extracted at the current oil price profitably. Thus, if the world oil price goes up, there are magically more reserves because marginal oil deposits are worth drilling and now count as reserves. Likewise, if the oil price drops, reserves drop because a field where it costs $60/barrel to extract is no longer a reserve if the price of oil drops to $50/barrel. So, to the extent that this factoid is correct, it is a reflection of the fact that it's cheaper to extract oil from the ground in Venezuela than in, say, Texas. That is partly a reflection of environmental restrictions (or lack thereof), and also partly a reflection of low labor costs.

Furthermore, nobody really knows how much oil Venezuela has. Here is a graph of Venezuela's oil reserves:

Note that from 2007 to 2010, the reserves tripled from 100 billion to 300 billion barrels. So there were some rich, new oil strikes in that period? No, nothing of the kind. Then-dictator Hugo Chavez just started issuing a higher number to make himself look good. It was all hype. No new oil was found. He just made up a new number.

Also noteworthy is that the Venezuelan oil is very heavy and requires special refineries to process. The only refineries in the world for this near-useless oil (which is good only for making asphalt for roads and which has only one customer, China) are owned by Trump megadonor, Paul Singer. If Venezuelan oil production zooms, billionaire Paul Singer will become much richer than he already is (net worth $7 billion). Singer knows a good investment (in Trump) when he sees it. He gave $8 million to various Trump-controlled PACs, and an undisclosed amount to the Trump transition/inauguration. So it could be that the capture of Nicolás Maduro was really about Trump proving he has the biggest ball...room in town and payback to Singer.

Singer owns an oil company, Citgo, which he acquired after Trump commenced his current term. Citgo does refining, however, not drilling. Since the Venezuelan oil is hard to extract and not as valuable as Canadian shale oil or U.S. oil retrieved by fracking, the oil companies that do drilling are not likely to want to go after this not-really-liquid gold. Trump has been told this by oil executives, so he is hatching a plan to give them multibillion-dollar contracts to extract the oil. They are maybe willing to do this in return for the billions of dollars of taxpayer money and might even give the oil to Singer for $1/barrel since the real money is in the guaranteed government subsidy. Singer could then sell the refined product to China cheap and still make money from the government contract. Welcome to the oil business. Paul Krugman has more on the economic of the deal if you are an oil industry nerd.

Meanwhile, the Coast Guard has seized another tanker full of Venezuelan oil. The ship was flying the Russian flag, which may not make Trump's best friend (to the extent he has any friends) Vladimir Putin happy. So far, Putin hasn't made a fuss about this, but could yet do so.

Under Venezuelan law, if the president of the country is no longer available, whatever that might mean, the vice president becomes president. That person is Delcy Rodríguez. Whether she is really the president remains to be seen. The problem is this guy, the leader of Venezuela's powerful secret police, Diosdado Cabello:

He is not known for being terribly user-friendly and does not like taking orders from anyone, certainly not a woman—and one who got parachuted into the job without stealing an election on her own, at that. He has a show on state television called Bringing Down the Hammer, which is basically Venezuela's answer to Dan Bongino or Alex Jones. Before Trump can count on the oil as his, he will have to deal with Cabello. Trump could try to buy him off (with Singer's money), which for the right price might work, but Cabello is said to be untrustworthy and unpredictable. Once he has the bribe in his Swiss bank account, Cabello could switch sides. If Trump announces "Mission Accomplished," well, we've seen this movie before. (V)

Math Time

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) died unexpectedly on Tuesday. This is a pity, since he was not terribly MAGA, was well-liked by his House colleagues, and spent most of his time trying to help the farmers in his heavily agricultural district. He will be missed.

Also to be missed, for a while, is Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN), who was badly hurt in a car accident and will not be voting in the House anytime soon. Not at all missed will be Marjorie Taylor Greene, who officially resigned from the House on Monday. That's three Republican votes that are not available for the moment. On the other hand, Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) just resigned, but a new Democrat will be elected in the late Sylvester Turner's former district later this month.

This math means that the House GOP caucus is technically at 218 and the Democratic caucus is technically at 213, with four vacancies (LaMalfa, Greene, Sherrill, and Turner). However, Turner's D+21 seat will be filled by a new Democrat in early February, Baird will not be voting any time soon, and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) often refuses to toe the party line, so as of February, the de facto line up could be 216R, 214D.

Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) has called for an election to fill Greene's seat, on March 10. However, readers will recall that in Georgia, as in most Southern states, a candidate must claim a majority in order to be elected. That likely won't happen in March, so the seat will almost certainly remain open until a top-two runoff in April. Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is likely to delay the special election for LaMalfa's seat until the June 2, 2026, primary. Sherrill will try to get her seat filled as fast as she can.

So it is likely that, for a couple of months, if one Republican in addition to Massie defects on anything, and the Democrats remain united, the bill fails. That means every House Republican potentially has a veto on everything if Massie wants to be difficult to make a point. How will Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) manage this with virtually no margin for error?

Oh, in case you forgot, the government will shut down again on February 1 unless the parties agree to new funding bills. Democrats know what they want, but will Johnson be able to herd all the cats, and we mean all? A key problem that divides the Republicans is health care. It is going to tax Johnson's abilities to the limit. (V)

Trump Has Made Grand Juries Grand Again

The Fifth Amendment requires that in all criminal prosecutions, before someone can be put on trial, a grand jury must indict the person. This is a safeguard to prevent the government from just putting people on trial because some government official doesn't like them. It is a widely accepted bit of wisdom that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asks for it. This is because the prosecutor gets to tell the grand jury the prosecution's side of the story, but the defendant is not there and can't say "I have airline boarding passes, stamps in my passport, and four witnesses saying I was in France when the murder was committed in California." All you have is one elderly witness with vision problems who says he saw someone who also had red hair and a beard near the scene of the crime.

But now, Donald Trump is making grand juries relevant again. In some cases, the evidence against people he wants to put in prison is so weak, grand juries are balking and refusing to indict. This is practically unheard of. Although MGJGA is hard to pronounce, it is a thing, thanks to Donald Trump.

Grand juries operate in absolute secrecy, and they don't need a unanimous decision to indict. A simple majority of the 16 to 23 grand jurors is enough. Nevertheless, since some of the prosecutions Trump wants are so obviously bogus, the grand juries are starting to return "no true bill" (no indictment) as the result, including cases in Alexandria, Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles, and Norfolk. Liz Oyer, a pardon attorney in the Biden administration, said: "When we see things like grand juries voting not to return an indictment, it is an important reminder that we, the citizens, all have power to resist and push back and to save our democracy."

Part of the reason for all the no true bills is the incompetence of some of Trump's appointments. Alina Habba, Lindsey Halligan and Jeanine Pirro have no business being U.S. attorneys, so the ham sandwiches are resting easy. In Los Angeles, the top prosecutor, Bill Essayli has gotten indictments on fewer than a quarter of the immigration cases he has brought. So at least one small part of the fabled checks and balances is actually working. (V)

Do Not Blame Trump

Democratic strategists are advising 2026 Democratic candidates not to focus on Donald Trump, Venezuela, or even the mighty Epstein files. They say the key to winning to midterms to point out that the Republicans have failed to do anything about affordability and to explain what they will do to make life better for people. James Carville was right: "It's [still] the economy, stupid." If Democrats can make a case on how they will make the economy better, that will be the key to winning, the strategists say.

It isn't like talking about Trump is taboo. It is fine if it fits in with affordability. For example, blaming Trump's tariffs for the high price of everything is fine. One tool the Democrats can then talk about using is having Congress take back the power to levy tariffs and use them only in a highly targeted way. For example, a high tariff on Chinese solar panels combined with a subsidy for American-made solar panels could be a way for people to reduce their electricity costs (by generating their own power), while also creating manufacturing jobs. Another good topic would be healthcare costs and how Republican policies (such as blocking subsidies) have made them go through the roof.

To some extent, this advice comes from observing the big Democratic wins in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey and the race for mayor of New York. There the candidates talked endlessly about affordability and won bigger-than-expected victories.

One word the Democrats must absolutely ban from their vocabularies is the I-word (impeachment). This doesn't motivate Democrats or independents much, but it motivates Republicans enormously. Not a word about it, please.

In particular, young and minority voters voted for Trump in greater numbers than expected because they hoped he would lower prices on Day 1, as he promised. By November, it will be abundantly clear to them that he failed to do so. Showing video clips of him making that promise will be fine if combined with an explanation of what a Democratic Congress could do to lower prices (or raise wages). Many 2024 Trump voters are not motivated by "democracy" issues, but by kitchen-table issues. (V)

Hegseth Goes after Captain Mark Kelly, aka Captain America

Secretary of Defense Pete "kegstand" Hegseth, formerly an employee of Fox entertainment, is seeking to demote Capt. Mark Kelly, formerly of the U.S. Navy, and a combat veteran and an astronaut, for exercising his First Amendment rights. Kelly retired from the U.S. Navy with the rank of captain and receives a pension commensurate with that rank. A demotion would affect that pension.

Trump and Kegseth... er, Hegseth, are attacking Kelly for a video he and other former military officers now serving in Congress made that reminds all military personnel of their right to refuse illegal orders from their superiors. Kelly said: "Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders." And indeed, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), to which all service members are subject, says that members must obey only lawful orders. The reason for this is that after Nazis were put on trial at Nuremberg, the defense of "I was just following orders" is not a defense. So, Kelly and his colleagues were restating the law and for that, Hegseth has called the action "seditious" and wants Kelly to be punished. Someone should really read him the First Amendment. (As an aside, the others in the video did not retire from the military and so Hegseth doesn't have the same leverage over them.)

The process that Hegseth is using is called a "retirement grade determination proceeding," which is determines an officer's rank before they retire, and also determines their pension. This is an administrative proceeding governed by a federal statute, 10 USC section 1370. This means that Kelly can submit a response to the claims and can appeal an adverse decision to a federal court, which is expected within 45 days. And thanks to this Supreme Court, there is no longer the deference that courts have typically shown to agency decisions, so a court can, and probably will, take a very close look at the purported grounds for any demotion.

A military law expert, Eugene Fidell, says the determination can't be reopened for Kelly's speech, and only alleged misconduct committed while serving can be used to determine a rank. We agree with that assessment. From a legal standpoint, there are three obstacles to Hegseth's effort:

1. Under the statute, the rank at retirement is based on the highest grade in which an officer "has served satisfactorily." So, based on the language, it doesn't appear that anything a retired officer does once they're out of service can impact the grade at which they "served satisfactorily."
   
   
2. Section 1370(f) of the UCMJ allows the determination of rank to be "reopened" if "substantial evidence comes to light" that, if known, would have led to a different determination or if "the applicable Secretary determines, pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, that good cause exists to reopen the determination of retired grade." Presumably, the regulations define "applicable Secretary" and "good cause" but, again, the entire section is about what the officer did while actively serving in the military. It's unlikely that "good cause" can encompass conduct occurring after service.
   
   
3. Substantively, this is absolute nonsense. Free speech rights are very broad, as evidenced by Donald Trump getting away with inciting an insurrection on January 6, 2021. Merely reciting the law is in no way, shape or form a violation of anything. Hegseth claims Kelly's words were "prejudicial to good order and discipline," but just saying that doesn't make it so. Kelly did not reference any specific order and did not tell any personnel to disobey any specific orders.

Incidentally, some folks are noting that Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) was also retroactively demoted in 2022. Jackson retired from the Navy in 2019, but unlike Kelly, his demotion was based on his misconduct while he was still in the military, which only came to light following a report from a Department of Defense inspector general that found he drank on the job and was abusive to subordinates, among other things, while serving as Trump's medical adviser in his first term. So, this falls under the provision allowing re-opening in cases where "substantial evidence comes to light" that, if known, would have led to a different determination.

Politically, this move is just incredibly stupid. First, Hegseth announced his intention to demote Kelly right before the fifth anniversary of the 1/6 insurrection, which was an example of actual sedition in which Trump took an active role. This administration sits in a huge glass house and should really not be throwing stones.

Second, Kelly was a decorated and respected officer of the armed forces for 25 years, served in combat, and was also an astronaut! As the saying goes, "Don't tug on Superman's cape.: The corollary might be "Don't trash an astronaut." There are a lot of voters who are veterans who will not be happy to see a decorated veteran attacked by a punk playing soldier.

Third, Kelly is fighting back and recognizes well the political opportunity this affords him. He may or may not have (vice) presidential ambitions, but this botched attempt to smear him only reminds the public of his years of service, his experience in combat and his expertise, and thus, gives him greater credibility and elevates his platform to criticize Trump's current warmongering. Unlike Trump, Kelly has fought in a war and understands what it means to send troops into harm's way, and that to do so as a naked land grab or to make oil companies richer is a dereliction of duty and makes a mockery of our military. Trump has raised Kelly's profile in a way that will only make his megaphone that much louder.

It has always been a mystery that when John Kerry's military record was attacked, he didn't immediately pounce on that opportunity to showcase his service and demonstrate his foreign policy expertise, especially when compared to George W. Bush's refusal to serve. Also odd was that John McCain also gave only a tepid defense of himself when Mr. Bonespurs, er, Trump, went after him. Kelly won't make that mistake. Here is one of the several messages he's already posted to Twitter: "Over twenty-five years in the U.S. Navy, thirty-nine combat missions, and four missions to space, I risked my life for this country and to defend our Constitution—including the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out."

Can the memes of Kelly as Captain America be far behind? (L)

Elizabeth Warren Is Donating $400,000 to State Democratic Parties

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is definitely a team player. She is donating $400,000 from her campaign warchest to 23 state Democratic parties to help bootstrap them for the midterms. She urged other Democrats to do the same, because money in January is more valuable than money in October. The states she picked, including Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas, have some key races this year.

She said the parties need money to hire staff, recruit volunteers, knock on doors, and make calls, starting now. Her money won't go far, but if it inspires other people to give to state Democratic parties, that could really help them. She made a point of emphasizing that the parties should focus on economic issues and say the Democrats will bring real change. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger