Listen To This Story

As I write this, the particulars of the death of Renee Good in Minneapolis are still emerging. Debate rages about whether the officer who killed her was in danger. It seems pretty clear at this moment that he wasn’t; that shooting her was not an act of self-defense. 

But we’ll learn more. 

What is clear from this video — especially if you look at where the officer’s feet are in relation to the left front wheel, at the time of the first shot — is that he seems already out of the car’s path, or that 99 percent of his body is out of the way.

Note: He is not “run over” lying in the street. The officer — Jonathan E. Ross — rapidly moves to the driver’s side window where he fires twice more.

Seconds later, in a video taken by the officer himself, you can hear him mutter “Fucking bitch.” His words are faint because, according to the other video, he is now holding his phone down. We believe we recognize his voice because we first hear him earlier when he talks to Good’s wife while filming her. This same video shows Good facing Ross just before she is shot. She smiles at him, and says, “Dude, I’m not mad at you.” 

Donald Trump’s own version of events is… interesting:

I have just viewed the clip. … [The driver] violently, willingly, viciously ran over the ICE officer. … [I]t is hard to believe he is alive, but is now recovering in the hospital.”

We see the officer afterward, apparently fine, but for a barely discernible little hitch to his walk. He goes to the car after it crashed, sends bystanders away, stands around talking to fellow officers. We do not see him being carried off in an ambulance. What we see is him get into his SUV and leave the scene. (Will we ever see a hospital report on his claimed nearly fatal injuries?)

Yet, some people are waiting for the Trump administration’s “investigation” to tell them what to think — because they seem unable to believe their own eyes. And some so-called analysts treat it like a rorschach test — as if there were no objective, physical evidence.  

In a Washington Post story, “Two congressmen watched an ICE shooting video. Only one is sure of what he saw,” Rep. Eric Swallwell (D-CA) said: “I saw a murder.” On the other hand, Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) — watching videos from his tiny iphone screen — said he couldn’t really see the officer, that he couldn’t make out what was happening. 

And, according to the Post, “Flood said he did not take issue with Trump and Noem’s claims that Good ran over the officer, a description not supported by the video.”

Instead of using his own eyes on the best evidence we have, Flood prefers to rely on what one might politely call “overly interested parties” as to what happened: “The secretary has access to a lot more evidence and facts than I do.”

What strikes me in a bigger sense, though, is the way in which the loudest voices line up. As expected, people quickly take sides. However, I’m struck by the way that supporters of ICE oppose civil disobedience when it involves removing people they don’t want here, or believe are here illegally, or are simply at odds with them culturally or politically. 

However, they also thought the January 6 rioters were absolutely justified to commit violence — including against law enforcement officers — having been goaded by Trump and others making false claims about a stolen election. 

And many told lies about the identity of the rioters — that they were members of Antifa, or from Black Lives Matter, or even FBI agents — contradicting their first idea, that they were justified. The most bizarre lie of all — as in the case of the latest ICE shooting in Minneapolis — totally contradicted what January 6 videos showed: They said the rioters were just enthusiastic “tourists,” or that it was a “love fest.” 

Objectively, going out of your way to protect vulnerable strangers — the immigrants, and citizens, targeted by ICE — reflects an entirely different class of values from attacking elected officials, buildings, and law officers because of a proclaimed falsehood (and because the candidate you like lost).

*** 

As Trump’s markedly declining mental health manifests itself in so many ways, business leaders cozying up to the administration for financial gain might want to think twice about getting in deeper with a madman. 

Nobody wants to be a party to a crime. And right now, Washington is a crime scene. 

German companies that cooperated with Hitler suffered consequences for decades. I still remember from my childhood hearing how many people would not buy a Mercedes-Benz or a Volkswagen. 

Now even industries like oil and gas — with their history of colonialism, corruption, and winning at all costs — are nervous. On Friday, the White House summoned their executives to meet with Trump because of how he put them out over their skis on Venezuela. 

Of course, as noted by papers like The New York Times, the companies are worried about the business risks of making a long-term commitment to the oil-rich country, given the dicey history between it, the US, and other foreign oil companies. 

But I saw no immediate mention of something much more important: the extremely serious reputational risks and, potentially, maybe even legal risks to participating in Trump’s plans to invade, control, and expropriate natural resources from foreign countries. 

They are absolutely right to look before leaping. Any corporation or industry selling out to placate a madman like Trump deserves long-term adverse consequences, enforced by public opinion. 

The administration claims that smaller firms want a piece of the Venezuela action, and of course they do. They are eager for profits wherever they can be found, and probably see no downside. But the big brands — notably Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips — had better think twice, lest they become the new Teslas. 

Pretty sure they don’t want to see bumper stickers saying “Don’t buy gas from a dictator’s stooges.” 

Continued Signs of Insanity 

The signs of delusion and megalomania are now coming constantly. 

Like this headline: 

Trump says he will meet Machado — and would accept Nobel Peace Prize from her

Trump also said “it ‘would be a great honor’ if the Venezuelan opposition leader decided to share her Nobel Peace Prize with him.”

And you may have seen Trump’s comment that international law doesn’t apply to him — that he is only constrained by “my own morality.”

My first reaction was Freudian: that he said “by my own mortality.” 

Nuff said on that, as I don’t need the Secret Service on my doorstep. 

But what he actually said is even more interesting, since I don’t think I have ever heard him reference the term or even acknowledge that such a thing as “morality” exists.

And it is kind of shocking that even such minimal self-awareness and self-diagnosis may have crossed his mind. 

His actual words (to a New York Times interviewer) were that the only limits on his actions are “my own morality, my own mind.” 

And since we know that his moral compass has never seemed to constrain him in the past, and that his mind is rapidly decaying from an already bad spot, he’s clearly warning us that he will stop at nothing.

As such, he is confessing to being the most dangerous man on the planet. Where it goes from here is up to those in positions of power. 

Are we going to let this literally existential threat — this severely damaged man has his finger on the world’s predominant nuclear arsenal — continue to spiral out of control? 

Greenland Payoffs 

Trump is showing increasing signs that he would use military force to seize Greenland — sorry, I can’t believe I am actually writing these words — but he’s apparently also open to using cash enticements. Administration officials have discussed lump-sum payments for a while now, but according to Reuters, the conversations have become more serious lately. 

In response to Trump’s saber rattling, Denmark says if Trump attacks Greenland, that’s the end of NATO. Who now doubts that Putin pulls Trump’s strings? This is exactly what Putin has always wanted. 

Related: Will Europe Cave?

***

His delusions of grandeur of course manifest themselves in his ballroom. And it’s like a chain reaction: Having made the terrible decision to raze the East Wing and replace it with a two-story ballroom, they now want to add a second story to the West Wing colonnade for reasons of symmetry. 

And while Trump is wrecking cultural institutions at home (Kennedy Center, etc., etc.), other pillagers are rampaging worldwide. As Le Monde reports, paramilitary forces have looted 4,000 items from Sudan’s national museum. They even filmed themselves with ancient mummies they had plundered. 

Can anyone doubt that the January 6 crowd and the kind of people signing up to work for ICE would have similar contempt for the very idea of museums and history? 

This Is Rich 

You sorta have to love that Trump is going with a massive entourage later this month to Davos, Switzerland, where the world’s elites that he professes disdain for gather at the World Economic Forum. It’s his third such trip. He’ll be joined by at least eight of his acolytes, according to Semafor, including the likes of Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, Steve Witkoff, David Sacks, and Mehmet Oz.

It’s kind of head-spinning to consider how much Trump and his sycophantic bros like hanging with the same people he regularly attacked in speeches to the American masses in order to win office.

More perplexing is his planned topic: how he is making things more affordable for the average American. Now that’s a subject of concern here! Where do I begin? Rising food costs. Health insurance payments predicted to double or triple. Child care so expensive that couples are reluctant to have more children…

Now, there’s nothing wrong with his going to Davos to hear a variety of viewpoints from people of different national and ethnic backgrounds. Even the global rich deserve to be heard! 

But the fundamental disconnect between rhetoric and reality is the ultimate topic here. 

Trump and his buddies like Bessent and Lutnick have been looting the store, and giving out goodies to others of their class at home and abroad. 

This means that the Davos attendees are in a difficult spot: generally benefiting from the Trump presidency but also deeply worried about the global chaos and violence Trump represents. 

Plenty of the attendees are sober individuals who know that they and their companies cannot keep minting money if the planet turns into one giant conflagration. 

Meanwhile, more and more Americans are abandoning their country altogether. A partner at an advisory firm for those seeking to relocate abroad told Bloomberg that whereas US nationals represented just 4 percent of the firm’s global business in 2018, today it’s above 40 percent. Wow and wow. 

For those of us who choose to stay — or are unable to leave — Trump on Friday tossed out the idea of a one-year cap on credit card interest rates, at 10 percent. In a Truth Social post, he said that the public is being “ripped off.” 

That’s funny coming from someone who gives banks pretty much everything they want and has been deregulating them like there’s no tomorrow. 

Trump said he wants the cap to take effect right away, on January 20, which is the one-year anniversary of his return to power. So far, he hasn’t been clear about whether this will somehow be compelled by government, or if he is asking his well-compensated banker friends to do it voluntarily. 

Of course, this comes during the all-crucial midterm election year. And yes, it sounds like a “teaser” rate on a credit card (or a substack). But a year is a long time, so we’re talking real money. Given that Trump has no direct power to enact his gift to the little guy, and given that the cost to his pals is that high, if this does happen it will be because both the usurers and Trump recognize the necessity of a serious sop to the voting suckers. If the behemoths prove willing to part with what amounts to billions, keeping Congress under GOP control must logically be worth that much, and more, to them — think of it as an enormous campaign contribution to MAGA. 

The Opposition IS Growing 

OK, want some good news now? Well, how about the unmistakable fact that the opposition to Trump is growing? 

On Thursday, Congress pushed back on the severe budget cuts to science programs that Trump wanted.

Also on Thursday, nearly two dozen Republicans in Congress broke with Trump on several issues. Clearly, they’re doing so largely out of self-interest, not principle; but it is interesting to see, for example, Colorado Republicans who have previously backed Trump to the hilt now forced to defend their state’s interests against his petty political acts of retribution. Although ultimately they failed to override Trump’s vetoes, which would have required a two-thirds vote, they did register strong opposition.

At least one issue — the resolution calling for no more military action in Venezuela — involves “principles,” even if they come down to the dangerously naive “America First” isolationist line that Trump pushed in his campaign and which, if applied to Ukraine, would give Putin’s imperialist ambitions free rein. 

Perhaps more importantly, I’m seeing signs everywhere, including in my daily conversations with fellow Americans, that young men who were intrigued by Trump are becoming concerned — if not revolted — by his unbridled actions. That includes the so-called “Joe Rogan bros.” 

Couple this with the mounting defections of socially conservative Latinos and Blacks — who had swallowed Trump’s family-values and pocketbook campaign rhetoric but are not seeing any substantive follow-up — and, well, the base is increasingly shrinking to a finite group of hardcore MAGA cheerleaders. Which, I submit, bodes well for the midterm elections later this year.