By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Sources indicate the White House is developing a strategy to assist federal agents in removing individuals, aiming to minimize community unrest. While avoiding direct condemnation of the slain protester, Alex Pretti, as some in the Trump administration did, the speaker primarily criticized local leadership in Minneapolis. The speaker placed blame on the Minneapolis Mayor and Governor for the lack of leadership. Ultimately, the speaker suggested that the lack of calm and order in the community was intentionally fostered by local leaders.
Read the original article here
The situation unfolding around the Alex Pretti shooting investigation, where the Trump team is demanding the right to destroy evidence, is frankly, astonishing. It’s hard to even process the headline – “Trump team demands right to destroy evidence” – without a significant degree of disbelief. Never in a million years did anyone imagine this would be a real request, and the judge’s swift denial is a small comfort, but it doesn’t change the fundamental problem of why this was even on the table.
The core of their argument, as revealed in the court filings, appears to be a resistance to any form of oversight or compliance. They seem to believe the administration is somehow above the law, that it shouldn’t be “bossed around” by anyone, especially not when it comes to how they handle their authority. This attitude, the outright defiance of accountability, is deeply troubling. The filing itself offers a glimpse into their rationale, suggesting that complying with a preservation order would somehow “harm” the government, leading to “potentially burdensome consequences” and unwanted judicial involvement in their record management. It’s a chillingly arrogant stance, effectively claiming they have the right to operate outside the boundaries of established legal and ethical standards.
The implications are clear: they believe they are the arbiters of truth and justice, accountable to no one. It leads to the suspicion, perhaps the certainty, that evidence has already been destroyed or altered. The very act of requesting permission to do so after the fact, rather than requesting permission to safeguard evidence, is in itself an admission of guilt. This is not the behavior of an entity concerned with truth or justice. The long arm of the law needs to come down hard on those involved and the cover-ups that have followed.
The underlying sentiment here is one of blatant disrespect for the legal process and for the public. It suggests a complete disregard for transparency, for the pursuit of justice, and for the fundamental principles of the rule of law. It’s a shocking display of audacity, a belief that they can operate with impunity.
The fact that a judge had to intervene in this matter is a stark indictment of the situation. It highlights the gravity of the potential wrongdoing and the lengths to which those involved might go to protect themselves. The mere fact that the request was made raises serious questions about what the evidence contains, and what they are trying to hide.
The destruction of evidence in a criminal investigation is an obstruction of justice. The intention is to hinder the truth and protect those potentially responsible. This is not about due process or legal technicalities; it’s about covering up wrongdoing. Any claims about the absence of harm or the need for government autonomy are nothing more than attempts to obfuscate the real issue: the potential for a deliberate obstruction of justice.
There’s a critical element to consider: the timing. The speed with which this request was made, coupled with the nature of the alleged offense, paints a disturbing picture. Camera footage, fingerprints, and other pieces of evidence could quickly reveal the truth. Destroying this evidence hinders the ability to hold individuals accountable.
In a world where information is rapidly disseminated, the internet has become a powerful force in providing an alternative narrative. The attempts to control the narrative through disinformation or suppressing evidence are no longer as effective as they once were. The administration’s actions are exposed for the world to see, and the truth, however painful, will eventually emerge.
This situation requires resolute action. The judge’s intervention is a crucial first step, but it must be followed by robust investigation and consequences for any wrongdoing.