The broadcast network Sunday shows made the unfortunate shooting of Renee Nicole Good their top story, with coverage and “analysis” inevitably geared towards gaslighting the public regarding what it can plainly see and further fueling anti-ICE sentiment. CBS’s Face the Nation stands as an example of such coverage. Host Margaret Brennan opened the show with an interview of Minnesota congressman Ilhan Omar, exposing a stark difference from how her interviews with conservatives transpire. The interview opened with discussion of the shooting, and with this uncontested whopper from Omar: This is Omega-level gaslighting from Ilhan Omar on the events of Minneapolis versus what is plainly evident via published videos- no pushback on this from Margaret Brennan except for attempted clarification on "accountability", which Omar whiffs on as well. pic.twitter.com/59lI4Lul5A — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 11, 2026 MARGARET BRENNAN: The administration says she was blocking the road. They are claiming this is an act of terrorism.  REP. OMAR: Yeah. Renee Nicole Good, as you hear her say, she's not mad. She's sitting in her car peacefully, waving cars to get by this agent, as you see, gets out of his car, automatically starts running towards her, trying to open her door. She feels scared, she tries to turn the wheel away. And then you see the other officer- who can clearly see the car is moving, move towards the front of the car. Which, if they are saying that he has 10 years on service and is trained, he should know that you shouldn't be trying to get in front of a moving car, and so it is not acceptable for Kristi Noem and the president and the vice president to make these kind of judgments without there being a full investigation, even though we can see in the videos that have been produced so far that what they are describing is really not what is taking place. And so if they're saying that we shouldn't believe our eyes, then let the investigation take place before you characterize this mother of three as a domestic terrorist. Prove to us what documentation you have. That, one, that she was paid. Two, that she was agitating when we can hear her say she's not mad, she's not upset. She's clearly trying to wave cars to bypass her. And so it's just- this level of rhetoric is unjustifiable to the American people. MARGARET BRENNAN: Just quickly on that you said accountability, and it's important for people to document what's happening. I just want to be abundantly clear, because the administration says that their officers are being stalked and harassed. When you say accountability, you are only describing recording like she was doing? REP. OMAR: I think it is fair for citizens to document what law enforcement is doing– MARGARET BRENNAN: There's been violence against some of these agents as well.  REP. OMAR: Well, there's also been violence against residents in Minneapolis. That was it. This was the extent of the substantive discussion of what happened in Minneapolis, of the shooting, of the political climate in the aftermath of the shooting, and Brennan offered zero pushback to Omar’s blatant spin of what happened.  Brennan did not play video for Omar and ask her where, specifically, an officer ran in front of Good’s 4500-pound car. There was no challenging of Omar saying that we didn't see what we clearly saw on video. There was no finger wagging, interruption, or display of the “Faces of Brennan” contempt we see when conservatives are interviewed.  The rest of the interview focused on the Minnesota fraud scandal and followed a similar pattern. Brennan asks a question, Omar gaslights and dissembles, and Brennan moves on to the next question.  Some might say the interview was (D)ifferent. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, January 11th, 2025: MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're joined now by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who represents a large portion of that city. It's good to have you here. REP. ILHAN OMAR: I represent the whole city. Thank you for having me.  MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you. The Trump administration is actively telling the public that journalists are misleading them. You heard what was just reported from the scene. What we know is that Renee Macklin Good and her partner were protesters. They were driving around Minneapolis. They were recording what some of these ICE enforcement officers were doing. And the local police chief says Macklin Good blocked the street with her car. President Trump has said that the partner was a paid agitator, that's the phrase he used. Secretary Noem alleged this was an act of terrorism. Given how much heat there is and the administration's scrutiny, would you tell Americans it's too dangerous to demonstrate and to go out and document as she was doing? REP. OMAR: I think it is really important for Americans to record to create the level of accountability and transparency that we need. What we have seen in Minneapolis is ICE agents oftentimes jumping out of their cars. These are unmarked cars. Oftentimes they're wearing a mask. They're approaching, running towards cars. They're pulling people out of those cars. Oftentimes these people are citizens. Oftentimes these people have documentation of their legal right to be in this country, and we know that DHS has lied repeatedly when it comes to these accounts, so it is even more important for there to be recording from eyewitnesses every single time these actions are taking place. MARGARET BRENNAN: But do you see from the recordings that we see, is there anything that you believe was- that was being done that should not have been done by Macklin Good? The administration says she was blocking the road. They are claiming this is an act of terrorism.  REP. OMAR: Yeah. Renee Nicole Good, as you hear her say, she's not mad. She's sitting in her car peacefully, waving cars to get by this agent, as you see, gets out of his car, automatically starts running towards her, trying to open her door. She feels scared, she tries to turn the wheel away. And then you see the other officer- who can clearly see the car is moving, move towards the front of the car. Which, if they are saying that he has 10 years on service and is trained, he should know that you shouldn't be trying to get in front of a moving car, and so it is not acceptable for Kristi Noem and the president and the vice president to make these kind of judgments without there being a full investigation, even though we can see in the videos that have been produced so far that what they are describing is really not what is taking place. And so if they're saying that we shouldn't believe our eyes, then let the investigation take place before you characterize this mother of three as a domestic terrorist. Prove to us what documentation you have. That, one, that she was paid. Two, that she was agitating when we can hear her say she's not mad, she's not upset. She's clearly trying to wave cars to bypass her. And so it's just- this level of rhetoric is unjustifiable to the American people. MARGARET BRENNAN: Just quickly on that you said accountability, and it's important for people to document what's happening. I just want to be abundantly clear, because the administration says that their officers are being stalked and harassed. When you say accountability, you are only describing recording like she was doing? REP. OMAR: I think it is fair for citizens to document what law enforcement is doing– MARGARET BRENNAN: There's been violence against some of these agents as well.  REP. OMAR: Well, there's also been violence against residents in Minneapolis. MARGARET BRENNAN: There right now is a lot of heat on your state. Treasury Secretary Bessent called Minnesota ground zero for what may be the most egregious welfare scam in our nation's history to date. 85 of the 98 people who were charged by the Justice Department with this welfare scheme are Somali. And you know this, the treasury secretary is probing whether any of the money was somehow funneled outside the country, he actually issued new standards. He's going to make it- make someone disclose if they receive public assistance when they try to wire money out of the country, and he's lowered the bar for suspicious activity. What is the practical impact of doing that in the community? REP. OMAR: It's just creating fear. What they are doing is creating confusion, chaos, trying to intimidate people from being able to exercise their regular, normal activities that they would. There is no justification in any of the things that they say. The 87 people that you've described as being investigated, many of them adjudicated, all happened under the Biden administration. There is no justification for this surge. We know that ICE has the ability to conduct raids. There is no reason have over 2000 people coming in to our city and creating the level of terror that they have created. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the administration argues that they have to do it because the state failed to, right--  REP. OMAR: The state- the federal government and the state have been working peacefully together and have brought justice to these 87 people that you've described. None of the surge that they have conducted has produced any sort of criminal activity. They haven't been able to charge anyone as of yet. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the administration also announced they're going to cut food stamps to Minnesota because they say some of the food stamp money had been embezzled. Are you confident-- REP. OMAR: And those are the things that are being litigated, and it is again, unconstitutional for them to do so. MARGARET BRENNAN: But is it- are you confident that the fraud that has been discovered is no longer being conducted now? Is there any justification for saying this food stamp money is somehow being misused? REP. OMAR: There are ways to investigate fraud, which we have been doing in Minnesota, which the federal government has been doing under the Biden administration. There is no reason for them to use this level of rhetoric. There is no reason for them to fully stop these- funding these programs. The only reason they are doing that is for PR purposes, and it is harming our state. It is harming my constituents, and it is creating the kind of chaos and confusion that no one needs in this moment. MARGARET BRENNAN: Because the administration and many conservative allies in the administration argue that this is still ongoing. There was that conservative influencer who went out and posted this video that went viral, alleging that daycare facilities were pocketing public funds-- [CROSSTALK] REP. OMAR: And as you know, he went hours where these businesses were not operating. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yep, CBS went out and did its own investigation-- REP. OMAR: --yeah which, again creates the level of confusion and chaos that is not necessary in a moment when we are trying to deal with a serious problem that needs serious people to be able to address it. MARGARET BRENNAN: But do you think- there was no recorded evidence of fraud, according to the CBS investigation that was conducted, but Governor Walz did choose to not run for reelection. He dropped out of the race because of all of this.  REP. OMAR: Because he wants to focus on defending our state and not defending a seat. MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think there has been a sufficient level of accountability and ownership of the failure to have oversight here? Do you think this ends? REP. OMAR: That is what we want. We want to collaborately [sic] work with the administration to try to make sure that there is no fraud that's being perpetuated on our state. What we do not want is the level of terror, of confusion, of chaos that is being created without any results in this moment.  [END CROSSTALK] MARGARET BRENNAN: Very quickly, before I let you go, the Chair Oversight Committee said that he wants to refer you to the Ethics Committee. REP. OMAR: I've been referred like 100 times, so go ahead.  MARGARET BRENNAN: He's looking at your husband's income and net worth. He said it was tied to private equity investment funds, but he seems to be insinuating that you personally are tied into this welfare scam. How do you respond to that?  REP. OMAR: Ever since I've gotten to Congress, they have been doing these sort of weird ethics investigations, none of them have yielded anything because I have been as transparent as I can be, and there is nothing wrong with any documentation that I have ever provided to the federal government. MARGARET BRENNAN: Congresswoman Omar, thank you for joining us today. 'Face the Nation' will be back in one minute. Stay with us.  

A great deal of media coverage of the events in Minneapolis is marred by a bad-faith framing of the events that ultimately seek to blame the ICE agent and ICE policy for the unfortunate death of Renee Nicole Good. Case in point, Jake Tapper’s interview of Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) on an extended State of the Union. The interview opens with Tapper offering contrasting quotes of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), setting up a question about the prudence of speaking out on a matter before an investigation is complete. Mullin rightfully pushes back (click “expand” to view transcript) WATCH: @SenMullin takes Jake Tapper's bad-faith frame on Minneapolis, crumples it into a little ball and rams it back down his throat pic.twitter.com/Ro9WskYQ5q — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 11, 2026 JAKE TAPPER: Senator, thanks so much for joining us. You have said that Kristi Noem, the Secretary of DHS, was, quote, “absolutely, 100% correct”, unquote, in her near-immediate characterization of the incident and her description of what Renee Good did as, quote, “domestic terrorism”. Your colleague, senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, notes that, quote, “it was very unusual to have a senior law enforcement official to draw a conclusion about an event where the scene was still being processed…generally speaking, law enforcement would recognize that a life was lost, that families are changed forever. The shooter's life will change forever. We're collecting video. We're trying to assess the situation”, unquote. Why is deviating from what Senator Tillis enunciated there- why is that appropriate? Why not wait for an investigation before asserting what happened?  MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Well, Jake, I think you could go two ways, too. I mean, you played with all the Republicans said, but you didn't play with any of the Democrat lawmakers said about the ICE agents. I mean, it's true that both sides went out there quickly defending their side. The fact is that Renee Good was interfering with police activity. There's no question about that right now. There was no question at this point that she accelerated after she was given verbal commands to get out of her vehicle, and the body cam footage clearly shows different angles from different people's phones- clearly show that she accelerated straight towards the ICE agent. They had the right to defend themselves. Once she blocked the ICE agents from doing their job, they exited the vehicle, gave a verbal command. She wasn't listening, and then she purposely tries to accelerate and run over- I don't know if she purposely tried to run over the ICE agent, but there was an ICE agent position in front of her vehicle. She accelerated to them. At that point, that vehicle becomes a lethal weapon, and the agents had the right to defend themselves, and they did so. TAPPER: I will be playing some of the comments that Democratic officials have made to Democrats later in the show. But it is also true that the Republicans, the president, the vice president, the DHS secretary are actually in charge of the ICE agent.  This exchange was followed by more of Tapper questioning whether anyone could establish with certainty that Good hit the ICE agent with her vehicle before being shot. Never mind the volumes of evidence before us, published online, that established a precise timeline of events. It could be reasonably said that the truth went around the world before the lies had a chance to put their pants on. This explains, in part, both the administration’s aggressive stance and Tapper’s effort to continue to sow uncertainty in the name of asking questions.  Tapper then engages in some vehicle trutherism by suggesting that the ICE agent somehow not hit. This is a fancy roundabout way of asking whether Good deserved to be shot for “fleeing”. Here again, Mullin shuts that nonsense down: WATCH: Jake Tapper tries to suggest that the ICE agent was not actually hit (or hit "horribly) by a 4,000 pound vehicle before opening fire on its driver, which Sen. Mullin promptly shuts down. Notice the attempted bolstering of Tapper's gaslighting with still images as opposed… pic.twitter.com/pIxF2Erx1m — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 11, 2026 TAPPER: You said that she clearly hit him. I don't know that that's true. It may be true. It may not be true. It does seem that he stepped to the side and was able to avoid getting hit in a horrible way, and he was seen walking fine afterwards. Again, I'm not defending what she did, I'm just saying she didn't- she didn’t run… MULLIN: Well, what’s the difference in a horrible way… TAPPER: Well she didn't… MULLIN: What's the difference in a horrible way or not? It's like saying, “well, I didn't really shoot you completely. I just shot you in the arm. But I shot at you.” That's -it doesn't matter. The vehicle was being used in a lethal manner, and he has a right to use lethal force at that time. TAPPER: It may be.  MULLIN: And I mean, I've heard reports saying that. “Well, why didn't you just shoot the tires out?” Okay, give me a break. Like that's going to stop a vehicle.  TAPPER: Yeah, I didn’t say that. MULLIN: That’s the same thing that these people are saying…I know, but I'm just saying these reports out there, there is obviously, I mean, there's video, Jake, you can see the video. It's- it's widely spread across the internet, from- from different angles that you can clearly see him being struck by the vehicle, in front of the vehicle. It doesn't make any difference if he was struck or not. When he was standing in front of the vehicle and she was given verbal commands to leave the vehicle and she accelerated at that point, he doesn't have five seconds, 10 seconds- he has a split decision on what he can do to protect his life and those around his life. So remember, there's a crowd around there too. What if she accelerated out of control at that point, too? But he did- she did hit him and he did use lethal force. And unfortunately, his life has changed. Her family's life has changed. This should have never taken place. But what we do know is that law enforcement had the right to be there to enforce the laws. She was interfering with law enforcement from doing their job, and that is a federal offense. TAPPER: So it may be that she hit, I don't know. I'm waiting for the results of the investigation, but let's- let's take a look more closely at some of the images of the shooting, as you just referenced. From the view I'm showing right now is the- this is the first video that we all saw. Officer Ross is obstructed when he appears to fire the first shot. You can't see because the other two ICE agents are there. But when he fires the second and third shots, he appears to be at the side of the vehicle, not in front of the vehicle, firing through her window to her left. Were the second and third shots warranted, if by then he was shooting from the side and out of harm's way? MULLIN: Well, that's very selective imaging that you guys are using there, because you can use a lot of different images in just that. You could also use the one where he's actually hit by the car. TAPPER: I'm granting you your first- I'm granting the first shot! I'm just saying what about the second and third? To recap this sequence: Tapper tried to suggest the agent was not actually hit, got shut down for it, and then tried to further gaslight by having Mullin react to cherrypicked still images as opposed to video. Throughout the interview, Mullin reinforces the notion of the agent defending himself from a vehicular assault, which is entirely within bounds pursuant to Minnesota statute. After getting schooled on tactical training, Tapper attempts a January 6th “whatabout” that gets flipped into accountability for George Soros due to his funding of all manner of leftwing protests. It is then that Tapper tries this Jedi mind trick: TAPPER: These are not the George Soros-funded anti-ICE protests you are looking for pic.twitter.com/uUeeXsb9zo — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 11, 2026 MULLIN: George Soros, who is obviously paying these agitators and paying for these professional protests to go on, he should start being held accountable because he's costing people's lives. And there's no question that he is obviously behind this. We know this, and that's not even disputable at this point. But that's a big difference between the First Amendment and purposely disrupting and purposely getting in the way of law enforcement people- of law enforcement from doing their job. TAPPER: I'm just saying, we don't know that George Soros is directly involved in this specific incident… The interview briefly shifted to Iran before ending. There was not a substantive conversation bere, but a bad-faith attempt at smearing the ICE agent and shifting blame away from the ICE Watch activist. It should be noted that Mullin was never shown a piece of video to react to. In fact, this the sole portion of video aired for any Republican during the whole two hours: It is telling that the one and only piece of Minneapolis video for Republicans to react to on CNN's State of the Union was the agent's phone cam of the shooting and subsequent utterance of "fucking bitch". Telling, but not unexpected. pic.twitter.com/ZxGjbHc41G — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 11, 2026 Res Ipsa Loquitur. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on CNN State of the Union on Sunday, January 11th, 2026: JAKE TAPPER: Joining us right now is a close ally of President Trump, Republican senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma. Senator, thanks so much for joining us. You have said that Kristi Noem, the Secretary of DHS, was, quote, “absolutely, 100% correct”, unquote, in her near-immediate characterization of the incident and her description of what Renee Good did as, quote, “domestic terrorism”. Your colleague, senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, notes that, quote, “it was very unusual to have a senior law enforcement official to draw a conclusion about an event where the scene was still being processed…generally speaking, law enforcement would recognize that a life was lost, that families are changed forever. The shooter's life will change forever. We're collecting video. We're trying to assess the situation”, unquote. Why is deviating from what Senator Tillis enunciated there- why is that appropriate? Why not wait for an investigation before asserting what happened?  MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Well, Jake, I think you could go two ways, too. I mean, you played with all the Republicans said, but you didn't play with any of the Democrat lawmakers said about the ICE agents. I mean, it's true that both sides went out there quickly defending their side. The fact is that Renee Good was interfering with police activity. There's no question about that right now. There was no question at this point that she accelerated after she was given verbal commands to get out of her vehicle, and the body cam footage clearly shows different angles from different people's phones- clearly show that she accelerated straight towards the ICE agent. They had the right to defend themselves. Once she blocked the ICE agents from doing their job, they exited the vehicle, gave a verbal command. She wasn't listening, and then she purposely tries to accelerate and run over- I don't know if she purposely tried to run over the ICE agent, but there was an ICE agent position in front of her vehicle. She accelerated to them. At that point, that vehicle becomes a lethal weapon, and the agents had the right to defend themselves, and they did so. TAPPER: I will be playing some of the comments that Democratic officials have made to Democrats later in the show. But it is also true that the Republicans, the president, the vice president, the DHS secretary are actually in charge of the ICE agent. You yourself just now…  MULLIN: But, Jake… TAPPER: I'm just- I'm just I'm just saying, like, that will come up later in the show, but I'm not asking you about it. The ICE agent, you just asserted that the woman clearly tried to run over the guy, and then you said, at the very least, she was going forward while he was in front. I think that does illustrate the fact that this is, at the very least, a widely disputed incident full of ambiguities and interpretations. How can anyone be confident that she was trying to attack the officer instead, if she was trying to flee the scene? MULLIN: It- fleeing the scene…it doesn't make any difference. If you accidentally run over a police officer, you still are being charged with involuntary manslaughter. If you are accelerating at a fast rate of speed, driving your vehicle down the road and you cause a death of a civilian, you are charged with involuntary manslaughter because you're driving your vehicle in a reckless manner. In this particular case, she purposely blocked the ICE agents. Is that disputed? No. We know she purposely blocked the ICE agents. Is it disputed that she accelerated after the ICE agents gave her a verbal command to get out of the vehicle? No.  Now, did she know the ICE agent was in front of her? We don't know, but she- but we do know that she accelerated and she hit the ICE agent. At that point, that vehicle is a lethal weapon. And that police officer has the right to defend themselves. It is-it's- it is mind blowing to me why we are defending someone that was acting this- in this manner when she- it was clearly that she hit an ICE agent and that's law enforcement that's enforcing our nation's laws. We don't get a choice on which laws we enforce and which laws we don't enforce. The police officers are doing their job. And she was interfering in their job. If you don't want to be in harm's way, don't get in the way of police officers from doing their job. TAPPER: I'm not making the case that Renee Good’s protest tactics were wise or safe. The question is, did her actions warrant being killed?  MULLIN: It would. Did- was a vehicle being used in a lethal manner? Was she accelerating towards a police officer? The answers to those are yes. And in that case, the officer has to make a split decision to protect his life. And that's exactly what he did here. It is no different than you having a gun in your hand. Or having a knife in your hand. That is considered a lethal weapon. And the officer has to make a split decision to protect his life and those around them's lives. And that's what this ICE officer did. TAPPER: You said that she clearly hit him. I don't know that that's true. It may be true. It may not be true. It does seem that he stepped to the side and was able to avoid getting hit in a horrible way, and he was seen walking fine afterwards. Again, I'm not defending what she did, I'm just saying she didn't- she didn’t run… MULLIN: Well, what’s the difference in a horrible way… TAPPER: Well she didn't… MULLIN: What's the difference in a horrible way or not? It's like saying, “well, I didn't really shoot you completely. I just shot you in the arm. But I shot at you.” That's -it doesn't matter. The vehicle was being used in a lethal manner, and he has a right to use lethal force at that time. TAPPER: It may be.  MULLIN: And I mean, I've heard reports saying that. “Well, why didn't you just shoot the tires out?” Okay, give me a break. Like that's going to stop a vehicle.  TAPPER: Yeah, I didn’t say that. MULLIN: That’s the same thing that these people are saying…I know, but I'm just saying these reports out there, there is obviously, I mean, there's video, Jake, you can see the video. It's- it's widely spread across the internet, from- from different angles that you can clearly see him being struck by the vehicle, in front of the vehicle. It doesn't make any difference if he was struck or not. When he was standing in front of the vehicle and she was given verbal commands to leave the vehicle and she accelerated at that point, he doesn't have five seconds, 10 seconds- he has a split decision on what he can do to protect his life and those around his life. So remember, there's a crowd around there too. What if she accelerated out of control at that point, too? But he did- she did hit him and he did use lethal force. And unfortunately, his life has changed. Her family's life has changed. This should have never taken place. But what we do know is that law enforcement had the right to be there to enforce the laws. She was interfering with law enforcement from doing their job, and that is a federal offense. TAPPER: So it may be that she hit, I don't know. I'm waiting for the results of the investigation, but let's- let's take a look more closely at some of the images of the shooting, as you just referenced. From the view I'm showing right now is the- this is the first video that we all saw. Officer Ross is obstructed when he appears to fire the first shot. You can't see because the other two ICE agents are there. But when he fires the second and third shots, he appears to be at the side of the vehicle, not in front of the vehicle, firing through her window to her left. Were the second and third shots warranted, if by then he was shooting from the side and out of harm's way? MULLIN: Well, that's very selective imaging that you guys are using there, because you can use a lot of different images in just that. You could also use the one where he's actually hit by the car. TAPPER: I'm granting you your first- I'm granting the first shot! I'm just saying what about the second and third? MULLIN: I get that, but let's just talk about that real quick. Anybody that's been trained in law enforcement or with- with even in military, you don't get- you don't train just to shoot the one shot. You're always trying to shoot 2 or 3 shots. Typically it's three. It's called a triangle one, two, three or running the buttons: one, two, three or a zipper. So everything you're trained in with muscle memory is a three shot go. And that is- and you can go- you can talk to any law enforcement agency you want to that's went through CLEET certification or much higher levels of training with a weapon. So the three shot is a full fledged muscle memory. However, she is still accelerating- accelerating at this point when he was firing the first and second shot. Iit wasn't a clean stop. And so the threat was still taking place. It was still an active threat because the vehicle was still acting in a manner of a deadly weapon. And until that completely stops, he has to eliminate the threat. And unfortunately, like I said, this officer's life is turned upside down. Mrs. Good's life and her family, obviously, Mrs. Good's life is lost, but her family's life has turned upside down. It should never have taken place. But the real story is, is why were they even out there? They shouldn't have been out there interfering to begin with. And those that are paying for professional protesters to obstruct the justice of law enforcement, that at some point they need to start being held accountable because they're costing people their lives. And, so like George Soros… TAPPER: We don’t know that she was being paid. That she was being. MULLIN: …who is paying these individuals, need to held- be held accountable. TAPPER: We don't know that- that she was being paid. She obviously was protesting. We don't know that she was being paid. I want to ask you, when it comes to just, like, what appropriate responses are for law enforcement when they're feeling threatened, you were at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. We just honored the fifth anniversary of that horrible day. On that day, more than 140 police officers were injured when that violent mob stormed the complex. President Trump ultimately pardoned all of them. More than 1000 of the rioters, including those who physically attacked police. So using this assessment of when law enforcement can shoot, when they feel threatened, would those officers have been justified shooting dozens of the January 6th rioters who were, as we see on video, physically attacking police in ways that caused them harm? MULLIN: You know, it's interesting you bring that point up because remember, the Democrats went after President Trump saying that he agitated the crowd to do that when he also said that he went, he told them to go down and peacefully demonstrate. But yet they try to pin that on President Trump. In my opinion, when you're using lethal force at all towards law enforcement, they have the right to use lethal force too, if they're feeling threatened. And I made that very clear at the time of that riot that I said, it is a miracle that the Capitol Police didn't use lethal force because in that manner, in that position, I wouldn't have blamed them for doing so. I also went down to the triage center when- when those officers were being medically attended before we could get them to the hospital and visited almost every single one of them. So, yes, I think the Capitol Police had the right to defend themselves in a lethal manner if they felt threatened, which some of them obviously did. But that goes back to my original point. Before you switched to that point is George Soros, who is obviously paying these agitators and paying for these professional protests to go on, he should start being held accountable because he's costing people's lives. And there's no question that he is obviously behind this. We know this, and that's not even disputable at this point. But that's a big difference between the First Amendment and purposely disrupting and purposely getting in the way of law enforcement people- of law enforcement from doing their job. TAPPER: I'm just saying, we don't know that George Soros is directly involved in this specific incident, but let's turn to foreign policy, because I want to ask you about what's happening in Iran. President Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday that, quote, “the USA stands ready to help all the demonstrators in the streets.” The New York Times reports that the president has been briefed on options for military strikes on Iran against the government of Iran in support of the protests. Would you support military strikes against the Iranian regime? MULLIN: You know, the Iranian regime has been attacking the United States, said they're at war with the United States. They publicly said that just a simple two, two weeks ago. We know they're the world's sponsor on terror, who have made USA their their main target. The president has made it very clear that we're not wanting to interfere with what the Iranian people are doing by trying to take back their beautiful country again. We're not at war with with the Iranian people. It's the terrorist regime that's trying to run that country that is at war with us. And the president has made it very clear that if they begin to kill their own people and slaughter them, that the United States will be forced to interfere at that point. And I would back the president. And having that strategy of protecting the Iranian people from the right to restore their country to what it used to be in the 1970s. TAPPER: It does appear as though they are- they are killing and slaughtering the demonstrators in the streets. So we shall see what comes next. Senator Mullin, always good to have you on the show. Thanks for getting up early for us. We appreciate it. MULLIN: Thanks for having me on.  

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agent Jonathan Ross shot Renee Nicole Good in her SUV during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis on Wednesday, after giving her an order to get out of the car which she failed to obey, instead trying to leave the scene in her car, resulting in the fatal shooting. Throughout is coverage thus far, PBS News Hour has leaned heavily on a selection of facts and assumptions to skew against the officer’s defensive shooting action, and ignoring inconvenient facts -- like the fact that Good, a radicalized mother of a toddler, showed up in a dangerous situation to block legal immigration enforcement action, spurred by her wife who urged Good to “drive, baby, drive” before the officer shot at Good three times, killing her. PBS hype of liberal “outrage” began on Night One of the controversy, when few facts were in. Outraged Democrats were presented as nonpartisan: Co-anchor Amna Nawaz: State and local officials in Minneapolis are outraged tonight after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed a woman there. Federal officials accuse that woman of trying to run over officers with a vehicle, claiming the shooting was in self-defense. Co-anchor Geoff Bennett: The city's mayor says the video tells a different story…. On Thursday, the show invited on unlabeled former Obama Administration security official Juliette Kayyem, a popular face on the News Hour, who dutifully condemned the Trump Administration’s claims. Juliette Kayyem: ....she's been accused of lots of things by the White House in terms of, was she engaged in activism, was she trying to run him down? He could have easily -- and some people looking at the videos believed that he actually wasn't in the line of sight of the car -- or the line of impact of the car. And you let the car go on and either pull it over 10 feet away or get the license plate. And so this interaction that results in not one, but multiple bullets being put through the window of an unarmed civilian, who may or may not have known what ICE was expecting of her…. We know now, thanks to the cop’s camera phone, that Good was "engaged in activism" and did know what ICE expected of her. They yelled at her to get out of the car. Kayyem went on to bash President Trump and Vice President JD Vance for “a very shameful maligning of who [Good] is as a human being -- I mean, she's a mother and she was unarmed, and they called her a domestic terrorist….” Minnesota-based reporter Fred de Sam Lazaro lionized Good on Thursday. Fred de Sam Lazaro: A vigil and a makeshift memorial grew Wednesday evening near the site of the shooting, honoring Good, whose family and friends describe her as a Christian who participated in mission trips, a poet who loved to sing, and a loving mother of three. At the memorial today, where protesters have put up makeshift barricades, Somali immigrant Deqa Adan came to pay her respects. Another unchallenged activist spouted: Dieu Do, Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee: The place that Renee was killed yesterday was six blocks away from where George Floyd was murdered. The law enforcement response is the same, to lie, to cover up and to spin a different story on really what actually happened. The field reporter again linked the ICE shooting to the hallowed name of another liberal Minnesota martyr, George Floyd. Not even the release of video from the cop’s phone, which knocked down some of the liberal assumptions surrounding the shooting, made a dent in PBS’s hostile anti-ICE tone Friday. De Sam Lazaro again rounded up the views of some local lefties and acceding to their "fears" of ICE. Fred de Sam Lazaro: Nicole Lundheim had just arrived to pick up her daughter after school and captured the melee on her phone. The Department of Homeland Security said agents were chasing a U.S. citizen who impeded their work and the pursuit ended at the school. It said no students or staff were targeted but that a man calling himself a teacher assaulted officers. Lundheim recalls the episode very differently. Nicole Lundheim: Is -- it almost seemed intentional to create -- to linger long enough to create a crowd, to create chaos. de Sam Lazaro: And with reports of immigration enforcement efforts continuing across the Twin Cities today, Lundheim says the level of concern is rising. Lundheim: So students who are immigrants, students who aren't immigrants, students who have legal standing to be here, but maybe are Black or brown, they are afraid because they could become in the crosshairs, because their best friend, their aunt, their uncle, family members -- like, the fear is visceral. de Sam Lazaro: Fear that may only rise in coming days, as federal officials say they will reexamine the cases of more than 5,000 refugees living in the state….

News flash for Vanity Fair magazine and leftist Icelandic singer Björk! An independent Greenland would be several orders of magnitude easier for the United States to bring into the fold than if it were to remain part of Denmark. And yet this is what Björk is demanding with Vanity Fair acting as her cheerleader. You can read this hilariously misguided effort by Vanity Fair (and Björk) to somehow stop Trump in Tuesday's story by Kahina Sekkai, "Björk Has a Plan to Save Greenland From Donald Trump." First we see Sekkai hype the heroic efforts of this lady to somehow stop Trump by setting up the conditions, namely Greenland independence from Denmark, which would make it much much easier for the USA to acquire Greenland: ...one Icelandic woman has called on Greenlanders, who are technically Danish citizens, to declare their independence in order to resist American imperialism as well as Danish government control. If we may have your attention, Björk has something to say. On Twitter, the singer wished the country's citizens “good luck in their fight for independence.” “Icelanders are extremely relieved to have succeeded in freeing themselves from the Danes in 1944, we didn't lose our language (my children would be speaking Danish now) and I burst with sympathy for Greenlanders,” she wrote on Monday. Björk then goes on to describe the horrors of Danish occupation of Greenland. The singer went on to talk about the history of “forced contraception, where 4,500 girls as young as 12 got IUD without their knowledge between 1966 and 1970,” in Greenland, linking to news articles on the history, and pointing to recent familial separations as proof that “still today the Danish are treating Greenlanders like they are second class humans.” “Colonialism has repeatedly given me horror chills up my back, and the chance that my fellow Greenlanders might go from one cruel colonizer to another is too brutal to even imagine,” she continued. “Dear Greenlanders, declare your independence,” she urged, adding a map of her own, this one Greenland drenched with its own flag. Polls have shown Greenlanders (by a plurality) favor independence, but don't favor become a part of the United States. However, if they gained independence, Politico reports they could strike a deal with America for a "compact of free association" like Micronesia or the Marshall Islands, in which "the U.S. provides essential services, protection and free trade in exchange for its military operating without restriction on those countries' territory." If the brain cells of Björk and Vanity Fair's Sekkai (which have apparently been short circuited by extreme TDS) ever recuperate, will they realize that independence is likely to lead to Team Trump's dealmaking? If so, will the Vanity Fair story be updated to congratulate Denmark as a highly enlightened colonizer of Greenland?

Angie Craig is a Minnesota congresswoman seeking the Dem nomination for an open Senate seat. Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, Craig's ultraliberal primary opponent, has accused Craig of being too tough on immigration. Craig committed the unforgivable sin -- in leftist eyes -- of voting for the Laken Riley Act, and supporting a House resolution condemning antisemitism and expressing gratitude for ICE.   So Craig is clearly on a campaign to atone for her transgressions, and prove to the kind of far-left Dems who vote in Minnesota primaries that she is just as out there as the wackiest of them. MS NOW's The Weekend gave Craig an opportunity to do that, having her as a guest on Saturday's show. The first topic was the blatant stunt Craig pulled on January 7th, picking an argument on the House floor--with cameras conveniently rolling--with Republican congressman Tom Emmer on the subject of the ICE shooting of Renee Good. Craig repeatedly poked her finger toward Emmer's chest, and a colleague eventually had to pull her away. She described herself to The Weekend hosts as "a pissed off congresswoman on the House floor." Oh, the bravery of this woman warrior! Peggy Flanagan is a hopeless lefty, but she got one thing right, saying Craig “cravenly picked a fight” with Emmer. Craig made at least three absurd claims, with no pushback from the MS NOW hosts: Saying "I was outraged, just like every Minnesotan and every American, for what Trump's ICE is doing in Minnesota." So, like Angie,100% of Americans are outraged at ICE! That's even better than Kim Jong Un's latest election results! Asserting that Good and others like her "are constitutional observers. They have every right to be there." In fact, [per AI] while protesting ICE is a First Amendment right, physically obstructing or interfering with ICE officers, such as blocking vehicles, is illegal and can lead to federal criminal charges, including obstruction of justice and assaulting federal officers. Displaying her mind-reading chops, saying that the ICE officer who was in front of Renee Good's vehicle: "Didn't feel like he was in imminent danger. He had his cell phone out rounding that car. It is absolutely ridiculous." This despite video of Good's wife telling her at that moment, “Drive, baby, drive.” Craig urged her constituents "to keep showing up . . . We cannot stop showing up" for anti-ICE activities. Peaceful protests are perfectly fine. But in not also urging people to refrain from the illegal obstruction of ICE operations, Craig could be putting her constituents in legal--and physical--danger. Craig ended her appearance by boasting, "You sure better bet I won't stop" showing up to oppose ICE. Co-host Jonathan Capehart responded with a heartfelt "Amen." Such courage, Congresswoman Craig!    Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend 1/10/26 7:20 am ET JACKIE ALEMANY: With protests scheduled across America today, the fatal shooting in Minneapolis is also igniting tensions on Capitol Hill. Democrats are raging about ICE's actions and their Republican colleagues' reactions to it.  There was a heated exchange on the House floor Wednesday between two Minnesota lawmakers, Democrat Angie Craig, and Republican Majority Whip Tom Emmer. Craig said she wanted to address Emmer's social media posts defending ICE's actions.  Congresswoman Craig is joining us now. Congressman, can you talk a little bit about this debate that you had with Tom Emmer, and your reaction to his response?  ANGIE CRAIG: Well, look, I was outraged, just like every Minnesotan and every American, for what Trump's ICE is doing in Minnesota and across this country. You know, Tom Emmer is someone who I've served with for eight years in the U.S. House of Representatives. He's the third top-ranking Republican  in that party. He has direct access to Donald Trump. This political stunt that the Trump administration pulled in Minneapolis this week got Renee Good killed. And that's what I told him on the House floor.  You know, look, these Republicans in Congress right now, they don't want to take responsibility for the conflict and the lack of judgment by this lawless administration. And look, what you saw was a pissed-off congresswoman on the House floor.  . . .  What you saw in that video that the officer himself took. He didn't feel like he was in imminent danger. He had his cell phone out rounding that car. It is absolutely ridiculous. And now what you've seen, Jonathan, is, you know, JD Vance has to come out and play cleanup for ICE Barbie because her ICE, the Trump administration's ICE, is out of control in our communities. And at this point, ICE is making local law enforcement's job much more difficult, and they need to leave Minnesota. That's my message.  And then I'm gonna add this. They shouldn't be in our schools. They shouldn't be in our daycares. They shouldn't be in our churches. I have legislation that would prohibit them from doing just that.  . . .  ALEMANY: When I saw this shocking video of Renee Good, the first thing I thought about are the people I know and the protesters who are part of these ICE-alerting networks who are trying to be on the lookout for their neighbors.  How are you going to ensure? What do you have to say to those people today about whether or not it is safe for them to continue engaging in this kind of community activity?  CRAIG: Well, look, these are constitutional observers. They have every right to be there. And I would say to our community, look, we have to keep showing up for each other. This is an incredibly difficult time in our community, but we cannot stop showing up. We cannot stop speaking out. And as a member of Congress from this community, you sure better bet I won't.  JONATHAN CAPEHART: Amen. Congresswoman Angie Craig of Minnesota, thank you very much for coming to The Weekend.