this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
412 points (100.0% liked)

politics

27968 readers
2503 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Widely circulated video of Pretti’s killing by federal agents undercut earlier assertions of him being a gunman

White House officials sought to rapidly distance Donald Trump and top officials from their initial portrayals of the man fatally shot by federal officials in Minnesota as a gunman, as they faced a deepening backlash after video footage was widely seen to undercut their assertions.

The move came as Trump advisers appeared to realize that the caustic portrayals of the man, Alex Pretti, who was reportedly licensed to carry a gun, had turned the killing into an even larger political liability for the president.

Over the weekend, senior administration officials including Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff, called the victim “a domestic terrorist who tried to assassinate law enforcement”, while Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, accused him of perpetrating “the definition of domestic terrorism”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Nah, they will just find new ways to set these precedents dishonoring the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 1pth amendments. Probably the 5th too before long.

They are gearing up for fixing elections, these precedents are set on immigration because that is where they have the most support.

If their people buck at executing under false pretense and slandering to justify it, they will find a situation where they will support it.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Oh for sure I'm not implying the Trump administration is over or anything, but this is just the first time I can ever recall the right not immediately and universally rallying around the most patently false bullshit imaginable.

That said, if they actually pull out of Minneapolis as news reports were indicating, I think this is a huge defeat for the Trump administration. I'm sure they will try to come up with a new plan as you say but it's still a big tactical win to defeat this particular strategy since I think it was pretty clear and easy how it was going to work.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

To me the 1pth amendment is the most controversial

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

The first penisith amendment. Those dicks had to slip it in there.