"If this is accurate, Good was killed by a bullet fired after there was any conceivable argument Agent Ross was in the path of her vehicle, which means there was no legal justification for using deadly force. But DOJ says there’s no reason to investigate."
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/renee-good-private-autopsy.html

"If this is accurate, Good was killed by a bullet fired after there was any conceivable argument Agent Ross was in the path of her vehicle, which means there was no legal justification for using deadly force. But DOJ says there’s no reason to investigate."
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/renee-good-private-autopsy.html

"If this is accurate, Good was killed by a bullet fired after there was any conceivable argument Agent Ross was in the path of her vehicle, which means there was no legal justification for using deadly force. But DOJ says there’s no reason to investigate."
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/renee-good-private-autopsy.html

"If this is accurate, Good was killed by a bullet fired after there was any conceivable argument Agent Ross was in the path of her vehicle, which means there was no legal justification for using deadly force. But DOJ says there’s no reason to investigate."
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/renee-good-private-autopsy.html

Emerging Evidence Provides Basis for Opening Investigation of ICE Agent Who Killed Renee Good
https://www.justsecurity.org/129439/investigation-ice-jonathan-ross-renee-good/

SCOTUS will swallow a lot of cruelty under the banner of “border control.”
But they won’t swallow economic chaos. Tariffs don’t just punish “others”. They boomerang into prices, markets, and elite interests.
That’s why I think they’re more likely to rule against him on tariffs than on immigration.

“The U.S. Constitution places all taxing authority with Congress and none with the President.” 
Project 2025 (Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise), Section 4 “The Economy,” Chapter 26 “Trade” — “The Case for Free Trade” (Kent Lassman), “Tariff Relief.” 

If SCOTUS had prioritized accountability over escape hatches, Trump wouldn’t be operating with this much legal cover.
Trump v. Anderson + Trump v. United States didn’t “stop” him. They reduced the tools to stop him.
My further thoughts here:
SCOTUS tariff ruling could drop Jan. 20. Who owns the wind? #1413542

Hear what I found in Project 2025: this isn’t just “Denmark poking the bear,” it’s the blueprint for turning headlines like this into leverage. It treats US debt/interest costs as mission-critical and even talks about locking in rates with longer-duration issuance (they float a 50-year Treasury), it explicitly calls for reshaping NATO so Europe fields most conventional defense while the U.S. reduces its force posture in Europe, and it treats the Arctic/Greenland as a strategic theater—year-round U.S. presence in Nuuk plus policies to deepen economic ties directly between the U.S. and Greenland. In other words: the “say it out loud” posture you’re worried will fuel Trump? The plan is to make dependence explicit and use it—and the obvious implication is: if you pick leverage as policy, expect other countries to start playing leverage games back.

I think you have a point. A lot of the executive overreach was stress-tested and normalized under prior presidents, and we’ve been delusional in how we teach “American plurality.” Meanwhile, in the background, a real pipeline was building: moral framing → institutions → policy. See the graphic.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/ice-in-minnesota/twin-cities-law-enforcement-raises-concerns-about-ice-agents-racially-profiling-citizens/89-80f7b210-df6f-4516-9c05-20cf8890c7bb — Local law enforcement concerns about stops / racial profiling complaints

Totally fair. Not wanting to repost a fake is healthy. I respect that instinct.

And I don’t think “must be fake” is only vanity. Sometimes it’s just caution. But the bigger point is: the pattern is real even if this specific document isn’t. The fact that it feels plausible tells us something.

On “more of the same”: style-wise, maybe. Consequence-wise, no. Personal grievance as policy + alliance as entitlement + “security” as a blank check for maximal control isn’t standard-issue politics.

So yeah: post it with a guardrail,“unverified screenshot, could be fake, but why does it feel so believable?”

When do we stop treating “this must be fake” as a comfort blanket? It’s believable because the pattern is real.

Maybe it is. Fine. But it reads plausible because we’ve been trained by repetition. The posture—personal grievance → national policy, alliance-as-transaction, and “security” as a blank check for “complete control”—is his signature. It’s on-brand.

Also: Norway doesn’t “decide” the Nobel Prize (the committee does), and “we had boats too” is the geopolitics of a toddler.

If it’s fake, expose it. If it’s real, name it. Either way: stop using disbelief as an excuse not to see the machinery.

From 2009–2022, men/White/Asian borrowers reduced balances on average, while women/Black/Latino borrowers often saw balances grow, with Black borrowers showing the most extreme increase.