#27 Our good friend, by C0RI0LANUS, says, "This young Democrat seems to have decent progressive ideas..."

Never fear the next generation. At one time we were all the next generation.

#24 And thank you, JPW.

#24 JPW says, "...- it's because the right, for all their flaws, have played the long game and built their current power structure from the ground up."

100% correct.

#21 Yep.

And thanks, Snoofy.

#17 I regret that I have but one N/W flag to give to this most excellent (and on-target) post.

Bravo, JPW.

Bravo.

snip ...

Beyond those specifics, we will offer two other, more general, counterpoints to McCabe. The first is that there are thousands of people serving prison time for murder right now despite the lack of ballistics tests and eyewitness testimony (not to mention the lack of video). Surely it cannot be the case that if someone sneaks into a bedroom and bludgeons the person there to death with a crowbar, there is zero chance of a conviction because of a lack of ballistics data and eyewitness testimony. The second is that McCabe, like most of the experts showing up on TV/in print right now, does not acknowledge that there is a political/messaging dimension to this case, in addition to the criminal dimension. Anyone who does not mention that, well, it feels like they're not thinking about the entire picture.

The second issue we would like to address is pardons. It is true that, because Ross' defense is certain to be rooted in federal law, his case will be heard in a federal courtroom. However, the charges would still be violations of state law. Donald Trump cannot pardon violations of state law, even if the violation is adjudicated in a federal courtroom. Further, the pardon power does not extend to civil actions. So, while Ross might possibly avoid civil/criminal liability, it won't be by virtue of a pardon, because a pardon doesn't apply here. If the FEDERAL government were to file charges, then Trump could pardon Ross from facing federal prosecution. But that will not be necessary, because there is no way that "Attorney General" Pam Bondi allows charges to be filed on her watch.

And that brings us to the third issue. Generally speaking, the federal statute of limitations is 5 years (and when it's not 5 years, it's longer). So, it is possible that the next administration could pick up the ball that Bondi is deliberately going to drop. However, Trump could certainly issue a preemptive pardon, which would put the kibosh on that. If Trump does do it, he'd presumably wait until 2028 or 2029, because the issuance of a pardon would imply guilt in the minds of voters. That would run entirely contrary to the messaging that the White House is trying to put out there.

Meanwhile, as is the case in many states, Minnesota has no statute of limitations for murder. So, there is certainly a version of events where things get dragged out in court for a few years, and then the next presidential administration, and the next FBI Director, turn over everything to the Minnesotans"unless it somehow gets "lost" between now and Jan. 20, 2029. In the end, we say once again, Jonathan Ross should not be sleeping easy at night right now, or anytime in the near future.

And now, let us move on to new material. Because we don't want to overwhelm readers, we've been keeping these items to about 5,000 words. We will see how many sections we get through before we hit that mark. Maybe Part III will be the coda, but since we're already at about 1,400 words, we tend to doubt it.

snip ...

In Part II of this unexpected series, we looked carefully at the shooter, Ross, and his potential legal exposure. Our intent was to communicate two main points. The first is that the people who will make the decision whether or not to file charges, particulary Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, are very interested in fighting this legal battle, to send a message about both law enforcement and the Trump administration being out of control. That means that the merits of the case, and the chance of victory, probably matter a little less (or a lot less) than they normally would.

But that brings us to the second main point from yesterday's posting. Even if the FBI withholds its results (and, incidentally, refuses to obey subpoenas), there's an awful lot of meat there for Moriarty to work with. There's also a lot of meat there for a wrongful death civil suit. There's surely enough there to get past a grand jury and/or a motion to dismiss, and once the case ends up in court, there are all kinds of things for the prosecution and/or the plaintiff to explore. That, in turn will serve to keep this matter in the headlines for months and months. At the moment, the closest parallel we can think of is Jamal Khashoggi, except if Mohammad bin Salman had actually had to face a trial and take the witness stand. The Khashoggi murder stayed in the news for months, and still looms large in the memory today.

Before we move on to new material, however, we would like to address a trio of issues that have been raised by readers in our mailbox. The first is that high-level prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys are doing lots of interviews these days, and they are very much convinced that the FBI's lack of cooperation is fatal, or nearly so, to any possibility that Ross will be successfully sued or prosecuted. For example, Andrew McCabe, who is certainly no friend to the Trump administration, said that videos are great, but you still need ballistics from the vehicle, witness interviews, interviews with the shooter and with other agents who were on the scene, and so on, to bring a case.

We obviously don't have the expertise that McCabe does, but we do know that, in every field, experts who are used to the "general" case sometimes struggle with the "outlier" case. When we became aware of McCabe's remarks, we had several thoughts. First, there will be an autopsy, and that will be revelatory in a way similar to ballistics tests. Second, Moriarty is well aware of the need for eyewitness testimony, which is why she's put out a call for people to come forward. We would imagine that many of them will. Third, as we note above, there is such a thing as a subpoena. Maybe the FBI will stonewall some things, Epstein-files-style. But certainly the various federal employees who were there that day can be compelled to take the stand.

snip ...

As a reminder, in Part I we discussed the Trump administration's response, and how it is trying to cover up any possible crimes committed by shooter Jonathan Ross. That is sort of par for the course for an administration that's comfortable with dishonesty and corruption; Lyndon B. Johnson's or Richard Nixon's administrations would probably have done the same thing. At the same time, the White House is also trying to turn this into a rallying point for its jackbooted immigration/domestic order policies. That is a move that would even have made Landslide Lyndon and Tricky Dick blush.

In that same installment, we also talked about the two videos that have gotten a lot of public attention. We think it is important to state, once again, that we came to the first video with an open mind. That is to say that, although we oppose the Trump administration's fascistic use of modern-day blackshirts against American citizens, we fully expected the video evidence to be open to interpretation. It really isn't. It runs completely contrary to the administration's narrative of events. The second video has a little more for the White House to latch onto, but only a little, since the only non-ICE person who (arguably) behaves badly in that clip is the victim's wife, and not the victim herself.

Publicly, the administration and the MAGA faithful claim the two videos completely validate and justify the shooter's actions. It is hard to accept that they really believe that. Several readers who wrote in feel the same way. For example, K.B. in Chicago writes: "I question whether anyone watched that video and bought the administration's narrative that a soccer mom from Minnesota is a 'domestic terrorist.' MAGA folks are great at parroting talking points from the Dear Leader and Fox News even when overwhelming evidence (see 1/6) shows otherwise. There's not a lot of thinking involved there. It's good old-fashioned brainwashing."

K.B. could well be right. That said, the MAGA faithful are going to remain the MAGA faithful regardless of what they saw, or didn't see, or think they saw, or claim they saw. What really matters is the other 60%+ of the electorate. And, as we have reiterated several times, we just don't believe that people without a strong Trumpy predisposition can watch those videos and then say, "You know, the White House has a point here."

#15 Thank you so much for your comment, Nixon.

Spot-on target.

#8 The 12th of Never **

** and that's a long, long time.

#8 You'll be waiting until the 12th of Never, Alexandrite.

#5 You're the same color, Major DEI Boazo.

Be careful, such dragnets are premised upon collect 'em all and let God (your president) sort 'em out (according to his "morals").