Miller told CNN in the statement: “The initial statement from DHS was based on reports from CBP on the ground.”
If true that means they didn’t bother to watch any of the publicly available videos, or any videos recorded by ICE for days while they quadrupled down on a story that had no evidence behind it…
That the agents who turned in reports lied on official reports…
And a whole bunch of other ramifications they didn’t think of when they threw these guys under the bus. And they’re not going to go quietly under a bus, if they go to state trial, they’re all snitching on everyone they possibly can to show that they acted according to instructions from DHS
If this is anything like Jonathan Ross, they’re already being sheltered out of state, in a state that won’t extradite them back to Minnesota, while also refusing to provide any of the evidence they stole from the crime scene.
Well, they say the bad stuff on conservative news… then roll it back on the “liberal” news. But they never go back and update the conservatives. That way the maga stay maga, and the libs think they’re gaining ground—when they aren’t.
There are many reasons why the executive branch (pigs, DAs, presidents, etc.) often don’t comment. It all depends on the details of what they might say, though.
If they say “he’s guilty!” or “she’s guilty!” then there is a higher chance of corrupting the jury pool. This is especially true for national-level leaders (e.g., Luigi’s case).
If they discuss specific facts, but it turns out those are contested claims, then the same issue comes up, but it’s usually less of an issue, if they phrased everything properly.
If there are details of the current investigation status that might tip off potential criminals, they probably don’t want to say those. If they do, there’s some risk that they could face civil suits, depending on the exact details (e.g., Karen Read’s lawsuit).
Of course they can comment on things, and often they should, because the public sometimes really ought to get information on a given topic. In those situations, they need to do what Trump’s people never do, which is write their script and then triple check it for the above points, and only then read it out loud for the camera.
And above all, if they want to avoid negative consequences, they should definitely avoid outright falsehoods. It can be acceptable to say “Our agent reported that [situation]…”, for example, because then the leader is talking about what they heard happened, and not about what the situation actually was.
If true that means they didn’t bother to watch any of the publicly available videos, or any videos recorded by ICE for days while they quadrupled down on a story that had no evidence behind it…
That the agents who turned in reports lied on official reports…
And a whole bunch of other ramifications they didn’t think of when they threw these guys under the bus. And they’re not going to go quietly under a bus, if they go to state trial, they’re all snitching on everyone they possibly can to show that they acted according to instructions from DHS
If this is anything like Jonathan Ross, they’re already being sheltered out of state, in a state that won’t extradite them back to Minnesota, while also refusing to provide any of the evidence they stole from the crime scene.
Well, they say the bad stuff on conservative news… then roll it back on the “liberal” news. But they never go back and update the conservatives. That way the maga stay maga, and the libs think they’re gaining ground—when they aren’t.
I wonder if this is why competent agencies “don’t comment on ongoing investigations”
🤔
There are many reasons why the executive branch (pigs, DAs, presidents, etc.) often don’t comment. It all depends on the details of what they might say, though.
If they say “he’s guilty!” or “she’s guilty!” then there is a higher chance of corrupting the jury pool. This is especially true for national-level leaders (e.g., Luigi’s case).
If they discuss specific facts, but it turns out those are contested claims, then the same issue comes up, but it’s usually less of an issue, if they phrased everything properly.
If there are details of the current investigation status that might tip off potential criminals, they probably don’t want to say those. If they do, there’s some risk that they could face civil suits, depending on the exact details (e.g., Karen Read’s lawsuit).
Of course they can comment on things, and often they should, because the public sometimes really ought to get information on a given topic. In those situations, they need to do what Trump’s people never do, which is write their script and then triple check it for the above points, and only then read it out loud for the camera.
And above all, if they want to avoid negative consequences, they should definitely avoid outright falsehoods. It can be acceptable to say “Our agent reported that [situation]…”, for example, because then the leader is talking about what they heard happened, and not about what the situation actually was.