Sydney Sweeney "Nazi Ad" Situation is Crazy
PDS Published 07/28/2025
-
That is the big debate people are having after her new campaign with American Eagle just launched, where the tagline is “Sydney Sweeney Has Good Jeans.”
Right, it is a play on words, the campaign is for American Eagle’s denim line, but also genes like genetics.
And some of the videos seem to use her “genes” to make a “hey did you know Sydney Sweeney is hot?” joke, like this one:
“My body’s composition is determined by my jeans. Hey, eyes up here. Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.” (0:00-0:13)
But some feel that others have a different tone:
“Genes are passed down from parent to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue. Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.” (0:00-0:14)
And many feel that by emphasizing genetics, especially Sydney’s blue eyes, and calling her genes “great,” the ad was essentially promoting eugenics.
With some saying:
“Like, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white woman is talking about her good jeans. That is Nazi propaganda. I also am thinking about all the young girls who are doing their back to school shopping right now at places like American Eagle who are seeing ads like this…yikes.” (0:49-1:10)
“Praising Sydney Sweeney for her great genes in the context of her white blonde hair blue eye appearance, it is one of the loudest and most obvious racialized dog whistles we have seen and heard in a while. When those traits are consistently uplifted as genetic excellence, we know where this leads.” (0:55-1:16)
Others writing:
“i like Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle as much as the next guy but ‘we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children’ is a crazy tagline for selling jeans.”[]
“something about an ad sexualising a woman with blonde hair and blue eyes while commenting that she has great ‘jeans’ feels extremely conservative especially in this political climate.”[]
Many blaming Sydney for participating in the campaign, claiming it:
“wasn’t just a commercial. It was a love letter to white nationalism and eugenic fantasies, and [she] knew it.”[]
Tons of people in her Instagram comments pissed at her, with some pointing to the eugenics criticism, others slamming her for doing another ad campaign that sexualizes her. []
With many also noting that the campaign seems reminiscent of very controversial ads Brooke Shields did with Calvin Klein when she was just a teenager where she said “nothing” comes between her and her Calvins.
And in one ad, she does a similar jean pun where she describes genetics.
But many felt those ads oversexualized her, and now, people think it is odd for American Eagle to reference a commercial mostly known for sexualizing a child.[][][]
Others pointing to the fact that, in American Eagle’s press release, the company notes it created a “Sydney Jean” meant to raise awareness for domestic violence, with sales from those pants going to a crisis text line.[]
But many argued that given how sexy the ads are meant to be, you would never know this angle even existed. [][]
So there is just controversy at every corner here, with criticisms notably growing especially loud over the weekend.
But the thing is, when the Sydney Sweeney ads first launched, they were actually very good for American Eagle.
Though, this morning, following the backlash, it seems there was some fluctuation.
Others have also argued that the backlash to the ads is overblown, thinking it’s just a pun about Sydney being pretty, not a Nazi dog whistle. []
Some kind of landing somewhere in the middle, thinking whatever they were going for just didn’t land, writing:
“I dont' like THINK american eagle is some sort of nazi company or this is even like 100% on purpose but it's definitely capitalizing on ever growing fascist sentiment in this country.”[]
So I would love to know your thoughts on any of this here, what you thin
-
“We had the Greatest Six Months of any President in the History of our Country, and all the Fake News wants to talk about is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax!” [Post]
That comment is almost a week old now, but Donald Trump seems to only be getting more exasperated as Jeffrey Epstein just won’t die. [Image]
With nearly a dozen sources telling the Washington Post that top White House officials underestimated the outrage, especially from Trump’s base, and had hoped the country would forget about the Epstein files and just move on. [Quote, find “a dozen people”]
But according to two people familiar with his thinking, the president’s become increasingly frustrated with his administration’s handling of the scandal, and he’s concerned that it’s overshadowing his agenda. [Quote same link, find “overshadowing”]
And clearly, his concern is well-founded, as reporters have pestered him with questions about Epstein at pretty much every press conference since the DoJ memo.
With one asking about the DoJ’s meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell [Pronounce 00:29] during Trump’s briefing alongside the Philippines’ president last week. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 11:01 - 11:08] Caption: “I didn’t know that they were gonna do it. I don’t really follow that too much. It’s sort of a witch hunt.”
Then, another one asked about the same thing ahead of Trump’s meeting with the EU’s president Sunday. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 13:27 - 13:32, 13:47 - 13:51] Caption: “I don’t know anything about the conversation. I haven’t really been following it. … You’re making a very big thing over something that’s not a big thing.”
And then, during the meeting itself, after Trump revealed a US-EU trade deal, another reporter brought up Epstein again with this provocative question. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:01 - 00:12] Caption: [Reporter:] “Mr President, was part of the rush to get this deal done to knock the Jeffrey Epstein story out?” [Donald Trump:] “Oh, you’ve got to be kidding me with that. No, had nothing to do with it. Only you would think that.”
So now, according to one person close to the situation who spoke to the Post, the White House is really fraying internally over this issue.
With them saying, “This is a pretty substantial distraction. While many are trying to keep the unity, in many ways, the DOJ and the FBI are breaking at the seams. Many are wondering how sustainable this is going to be for all the parties involved — be it the FBI director or attorney general.” [Quote]
But right now it’s unclear what options are left for Trump.
Because first, he tried telling his base to shut up about Epstein and just forget about it. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:31 - 01:34] Caption: “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?”
But when that didn’t work, he tried offering them a few small appeasements, like releasing the jail cell footage, moving to unseal the grand jury testimony or squeezing something out of Ghislaine Maxwell. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:19 - 00:21] Caption: “I just wish her well, frankly.”
But when that didn’t work either, he tried distracting them with big shiny balls, like some more MLK files, treason allegations against Obama, a new probe into James Comey, an anti-woke battle against the Washington Commanders. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 13:33 - 13:36] Caption: “Barack Hussein Obama, have you heard of him?”
But clearly, even that hasn’t worked, because we’re still here talking about it right now, and polling shows Americans are not happy about Trump’s handling of the files. [Quote, find “16”]
Plus Democrats have happily latched onto the scandal, the media’s enjoyed a feeding frenzy, and Trump’s supporters seem too invested in this story to simply let it go after one news cycle.
But despite his frustration, Trump’s reportedly been hesitant to pull one of his favorite levers during a scandal: firing people.
With someone close to the president telling the Post he’s afraid it might create an even bigger spectacle. [Quote, find “spectacle”]
But regardless, Trump can expect more updates to keep Epstein in the news for a while, not only because it’s been confirmed that his name is in the files, [Headline]
But also because his Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche wrapped up two days of closed-door discussions with Ghislaine Maxwell for any extra info he could use to appease Trump’s base. [B roll, 00:05]
And Blanche promised on social media, “The Department of Justice will share additional information about what we learned at the appropriate time.” [Post]
With Maxwell’s lawyer telling reporters: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:21 - 00:32] Caption: “Ghislaine answered every single question asked of her over the last day and a half. She answered those questions honestly, truthfully, to the best of her ability.”
But then he added that Maxwell had supposedly been treated unfairly for the past five years. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:49 - 00:54, 01:04 - 01:07, 01:23 - 01:38] Caption: “She didn’t get a fair trial. We’re still appealing to the Supreme Court. … Remember, a juror lied to get onto the jury. … She was denied bail. She was treated worse than an animal would be treated in jail when she was first held, woken up every 15 minutes. So we’re just trying to get through the process where we are now and get her some relief.”
With him going on to appeal to the president directly, claiming that the government previously promised not to prosecute Maxwell and suggesting that Trump, as a great deal maker, wouldn’t break a promise like that.
Which has led many to wonder whether Trump’s gonna pardon her in exchange for information, or perhaps her silence. [Image]
And when a reporter asked him that on Friday, this is what he said. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:16 - 00:23] Caption: [Reporter:] “Would you consider a pardon or a commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell?” [Donald Trump:] “I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I have not thought about.”
With him then giving this more dismissive answer to the same question Sunday. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 13:32 - 13:38] Caption: “A lot of people are asking me about pardons. Obviously, this is no time to be talking about pardons.”
But regardless, Maxwell’s set to testify in front of a House committee next month after it subpoenaed her. [Quote, find “subpoenaed”]
And on Monday, she asked the Supreme Court to take up her appeal and overturn her conviction, arguing that she was shielded by the same promise her lawyer mentioned earlier. [Headline]
With that referring to a non-prosecution agreement covering alleged co-conspirators that Epstein signed in exchange for his guilty plea. [Quote, find “plead guilty”]
Though the appeals court argued that the agreement was made with prosecutors in Florida, and it doesn’t bind the authorities in New York. [Same quote]
So if the Supreme Court takes her case, we’re expected to find that out sometime this fall, though once again in their filing, Maxwell’s lawyer noted:
“We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court but to the president himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein’s crimes.” [Quote same link]
So with this idea swirling around, NBC’s Meet the Press asked House Speaker Mike Johnson whether he’d support Trump pardoning Maxwell, and he showed off his dodgeball moves. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 05:43 - 05:51; Clip, 06:56 - 07:02] Caption: “Well, I mean obviously that’s a decision of the president. He said he had not adequately considered that. I won’t get in front of him. That’s not my lane. … If you’re asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance. I think she should have a life sentence at least.”
But that same day, Meet the Press also interviewed GOP representative Thomas Massie, one of the most vocal critics of Trump and party leadership in recent weeks.
With him previously criticizing Johnson for sending the House home for its six-week summer recess early, in an apparent effort to prevent them from voting to force Trump to release the Epstein files.
And in response to the outrage, Johnson had accused Massie and others of trying to inflict “political pain” on their own party.
But on Sunday, Massie shot back with this: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 07:06 - 07:18] Caption: “I don’t know why it should be politically painful to be transparent. Is the pain he’s talking about that somebody in our party will be embarrassed by those files? Then that’s not a good excuse.”
Now later, Johnson defended himself by attacking the motion Massie and Roe Kahna wanted a vote on. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:36 - 00:58] Caption: “House Republicans insist upon the release of all credible evidence and information related to Epstein in any way. But we are also insisting upon the protection of innocent victims, and our concern is that the Massie and Kahna discharge petition is reckless in the way that it is drafted and presented. It does not adequately include those protections.”
But Massie flatly denies that, with him telling the program: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 04:06 - 04:17] Caption: “Ro and I carefully crafted this legislation so that the victim’s names will be redacted and that no child pornography will be released. So they’re hiding behind that.”
Meanwhile, the two people who sparked this whole Epstein saga in the first place — FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino — have both privately said that if they were in charge, they would have released the files while redacting victims’ identifying information. [Quote, find “in charge”]
This according to two sources who spoke to the Post.
-
A 21-year-old airman is dead — and the weapon meant to protect him may be to blame with widespread accusations and viral videos pointing to the SIG Sauer pistol having major issues.
[EDIT: if you want to show the gun going off accidentally as a teaser here is the clip @29:11]
The man killed was 21-year-old Brayden Lovan, who had been serving on a base in Wyoming, but beyond that military investigators aren’t giving many details.
Officially, all we know is that "The incident involved a firearm discharge that is currently under investigation by Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), [and] the Air Force Global Strike Command Safety office, in collaboration with the Air Forces Security Forces.”
They went on to add “at this time no determination has been made regarding the nature of the discharge."
That already raised some eyebrows, but then on Monday the base suspended the use of SIG Sauer’s M18 pistol, which was followed a few days later by SIG Sauer posting on X:
“Our hearts are with the service members and families impacted by the recent reported event at the F.E. Warren Air Force Base. We proactively offered assistance to the US Military as they investigate the incident and remain willing to help in furtherance of their ongoing inquiry.” []
All that was a massive clue that the likely culprit was the M18 pistol itself and led to accusations that the gun can just go off.
That would already be cause for concern since the M18 is used by all the military branches.
So the big question is at the center of this is can the gun just go off?
This is where things get controversial.
Some p320 owners and SIG itself claim that it’s not possible if the trigger isn’t intentionally pulled.
In cases where the gun DOES seem to accidentally fire they often blame things like unofficial holsters for pressing on the trigger and allowing it to fire.
HOWEVER, this weekend a video by Wyoming Gun Project went viral and showed that yeah… a p320 can for sure fire unintentionally and in circumstances that should NEVER lead to gun firing.
I need to get a little technical here but I’ll make it quick.
The SIG p320 is a striker fired pistol, meaning that inside the gun itself there’s a spring-loaded pin that flies forward when the trigger is pulled that hits the bullet and goes boom. [Video from The Trace]
This is an extremely popular design across almost all modern pistols -- with one of the only “drawbacks” being that it doesn’t have a safety that actually prevents the firing mechanism from going off -- unlike hammer-fired guns.
Instead, striker-fired guns generally have a funky looking trigger since it has a mechanism that needs to be pressed to even continue pressing the trigger.[]
This is SPECIFICALLY to prevent the gun from accidentally going off if the trigger gets caught on something since the circumstances of something squeezing the trigger in a way that replicates it being deliberately pressed is EXTREMELY unlikely.
Now look at the P320 and you’ll notice something instantly: it doesn’t have that dumb looking trigger like a Glock does… or a Springfield… or almost any other striker fired gun does.
This alone isn’t the end of the world, but couple that with the P320’s allegedly poor build quality and it’s a recipe for disaster, at least according to Wyoming Gun Project.
Right, in the video he uses a screw to simulate the trigger being slightly pressed and then starts doing things like pulling the gun in and out of a holster to see what will make it go off.
What he discovered is that -- and I’m skipping a lot of technical stuff -- is that the gun can go off if the trigger is slightly depressed and the slide (the top part of the gun) is hit.
“There is no reason in hell -- if you are touching, going through the firing sequence. Let’s say you’re taking up slack. You’re a police officer and you decide you’re going to shoot somebody and you’re taking up slack on the trigger and at the last second they throw the gun down and you realize ‘oh shit i’m going to top.’ but you bump the slide, or you get your finger like that and you go to the holster and it goes off. Or you’re fighting with somebody and you put LESS THAN A MILIMETER OF INPUT in the trigger…” @23:48
He then goes on to show that with the trigger BARELY being touched all you have to do is press down on the slide for it to fire.
[show all five examples] @29:11 @33:23 @34:29 @35:36 @37:38
While a lot of people were just shocked that this was even possible, some pushed back and said things like:
“I set a brick on the gas pedal of my car and it drove off on its own.” []
However, that kinda misses the point. Pulling a trigger is a binary thing unlike a gas pedal.
A gas pedal with almost any pressure will give some gas… a trigger is either the gun shoots or it doesn’t.
And as we’ve seen, you can press the trigger slightly and have the gun not shoot, but do that and then touch the slide and it can. Which. Should. Not. Happen.
And SIG has long claimed that the p320 WILL NOT SHOOT without a full trigger pull. [2]
I should also make it clear that the p320 does have other safety features to prevent accidental discharges -- all of which were engaged in Wyoming Gun Project’s videos. [broll @37:58]
Right, so even though the p320 lacks a trigger safety it is supposed to have other things that stop it from just firing on its own.
That being said, the lack of a trigger safety is still pretty crazy, as Ian from Forgotten Weapons pointed out:
“SIG did not put a trigger safety on the 320. Do you technically need it? No… It feels to me like they were very deliberate and left the trigger safety to differentiate themselves from the competition… and that’s why we’re better when in reality that trigger safety, that dingus in a glock… that doesn’t actually cause any real problem and it very much does prevent accidental discharges with holsters… and something that a trigger safety will prevent from turning into a fired gun.” @10:03
So the trigger is bad enough, but it’s also not the only alleged problem with the gun.
The Wyoming Gun Project measured about half-a-milimeter of movement on the slide, which doesn’t sound like a lot but compared to other guns it is. @5:47
Right, just an example here’s Moist Critikal with his Springfield XD.
“And if you go to like, move the slide there’s not even the slightest give in it at all. But maybe that’s common in some way?” @7:10
(Spoiler: it is not. And I’ve shot/owned A LOT of striker fired pistols).
So what next?
A lot of people are asking if the SIG pistols are even worth it, especially when you consider that all of this IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
Right, SIG has been involved in lawsuits because of this exact pistol already.
Shortly after it was first released there were reports that if it was dropped it would fire -- something that should not happen with any modern gun. [broll]
Then there were more and more reports coming out that the gun was just going off, with one piece in 2023 highlighting that at least 80 people claimed to have been wounded without pulling the trigger.
However getting SIG to take responsibility has been extremely difficult.
For example, in the case where a dropped p320 could fire SIG only offered a “voluntary upgrade” rather than issuing a recall.
And it has refused to acknowledge that the p320 is at all responsible for accidental discharges.
All that being said, some people still found ways to joke about the situation with memes like “FIREARM SAFETY RULE #1: TREAT EVERY FIREARMS LIKE IT'S A SIG SAUER p320.”
Obviously there’s still an investigation going into the death that sparked this whole thing, but regardless of how that turns out SIG has itself a PR nightmare on its hands.
But despite all the lawsuits there might not be much recourse for people.
That’s because New Hampshire -- where SIG’s US operations are based -- passed a law two months ago that kills product liability claims against gun makers based on the “absence or presence” of safety features like the special triggers striker fired guns normally have.
That being said, if a different defect can be proven to be the reason the gun goes off then there is some wiggle room there, but it’s going to be a major roadblock.
So in the end it looks like pro-gun people might be wrong after all: guns do kill people regardless of how you parse that sentence.
Go to brain.fm to get 30 days of free access to science-backed music that really works.
-
Federal immigration agents lied about some of the protesters they arrested during the massive anti-ICE demonstrations in LA.
And now, prosecutors have been forced to dismiss multiple cases as a direct result.
That’s what was revealed in this wild new report from The Guardian.
Right, according to court records seen by the outlet, Trump’s Justice Department has charged at least 26 people with various federal crimes during the demonstrations, including “assaulting” and “impeding” federal officers.
But prosecutors have since been forced to dismiss at least eight of those felonies — many of which “relied on officers’ inaccurate reports.”
And specifically, it appears that many of these cases stemmed from the first major protest in LA on June 7th and the subsequent wave of initial arrests.
Right, amid Border Patrol sightings and concerns of ICE raids, dozens of protestors gathered outside a DHS office complex in South LA.
With officers responding by firing tear gas and flash-bang grenades, while some protesters threw objects.
And, after that, the U.S. attorney’s office filed a joint case against five protestors, charging them with assaulting officers — which notably is a felony that can carry a 20-year sentence.
With the Department of Homeland Security saying in a criminal complaint that, as the crowd grew, two sisters named Ashley and Joceline Rodriguez had begun “blocking” officers’ vehicles.
Alleging that a border patrol agent had attempted to move Ashley, but she “resisted” and “shoved the agent with both her hands.”
And claiming that Joceline, in an attempt to prevent her sister's arrest, “grabbed the arm” of one of the agents, with both then being arrested.
Then, in an investigative file, the DHS said that “in response” to the sisters’ arrest, another demonstrator named Christian Cerna-Camacho (Ser-Nah Cah-Macho) started to “verbally harass” agents and make threatening remarks.
With the agency further claiming that yet another demonstrator, Brayan Ramos-Brito (Bray-Yan Rah-Mows Bree-Toe) then “pushed [an] agent in the chest.”
And at that point, a fifth person — Jose Mojica (Mow-He-Cuh) — responded by using his body “to physically shield” Rah-Mows Bree-Toe, and then “elbowed and pushed” agents before both men were “subdued” and arrested by agents.
But, according to The Guardian, later reports by the DHS itself “reveal multiple factual discrepancies in the narrative initially presented by officers and prosecutors.”
Right, for example, while all five protestors were charged jointly, with the agency suggesting that the three men attacked agents in response to the sisters’ arrest, records show that the women were actually arrested in an entirely SEPARATE incident.
An incident that happened AFTER the men had literally already been detained.
With the outlet reporting that a border patrol agent who had served as a key witness and was considered a victim of the assaults “appeared to initially give inaccurate testimony about the order of events.”
But when questioned, the agent later “clarified” the timeline, with the correct series of events also being corrected by a supervisor on the scene who apologized for the error, chalking it up to “the chaos of the events that day.”
But, beyond that, the Guardian also viewed several videos that appeared to contradict DHS’s initial version of events.
With the outlet reporting that, quote:
“chaotic social media footage of the arrest of the sisters appeared to show an officer pushing Ashley, prompting her to briefly raise her hand, at which point two agents grabbed her and took her to the ground.”
Adding that Joceline “was then seen briefly touching the arm of one of the agents on top of her sister.”
And then going on to assert: “it’s unclear who the DHS and the justice department were alleging were the victims in their purported assaults.”
What’s more, DHS records also show that a border patrol agent seen in the video standing near the sisters had received an email from a supervisor who said he was “trying to tie that whole event together for prosecution” —
And looking into a “rumor” Ashley “may have shoved” this agent.
But the agent told the supervisor she had just told Ashley to move, and she didn’t explicitly say Ashley had shoved her.
But that isn’t the only video that appears to call the DHS’s initial narrative into question.
The Guardian also says it viewed footage that appears to directly contradict the claim that Mow-He-Cuh and Rah-Mows Bree-Toe had physically assaulted the federal agents.
Right, according to the outlet, a DHS special agent noted in a later report that defense lawyers had presented video they said was “in direct contrast to the facts” alleged in the initial complaint.
With the Guardian going on to claim that the footage, quote:
“appeared to show an agent pushing Rah-Mows Bree-Toe, not the other way around, before he was taken to the ground along with Mow-He-Cuh, who was also not seen in the footage shoving or assaulting agents.”
So, as a result, within two weeks of the initial charges, the U.S. attorney’s office filed motions to dismiss the cases against the two sisters as well as Mow-He-Cuh and Rah-Mows Bree-Toe.
With the office only saying that the charges had been dismissed “in the interest of justice,” but not providing any further explanation.
Now, that said, the DOJ has since filed a new case against the sisters, charging them each with a single misdemeanor, alleging that they, quote:
“assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, and interfered with.”
Though notably here, the agency has not provided any further details, and the sisters have pleaded not guilty.
Additionally, the department also reportedly filed a misdemeanor indictment against Rah-Mows Bree-Toe, but then later said it was erroneous and rescinded it, only to refile it again in a different format.
But, like the sisters, he has also pleaded not guilty to the new charge.
But Mow-He-Cuh — who notably claimed he was injured during his arrest — has not been charged again.
In fact, Ser-Nah Cah-Macho is the only one of the five defendants whose original charges are still pending — but even his case has been an absolute fucking mess.
Right, he was arrested four days after the protest after two unmarked vehicles rammed his car while his toddler and infant were inside, and then deployed tear gas.
A high-profile incident that went viral after DHS shared the video on social media, sparking massive backlash.
Now, with that, the DHS has firmly defended the arrest, claiming that he had “punched” a border patrol officer at the protests and “attempted to flee” when officers tried to arrest him.[]
But Ser-Nah Cah-Macho has denied the allegations, pleading not guilty in court.
And, according to the Guardian, while video from the protest showed him scuffling with an officer and raising his hand at one point, “it’s unclear if he made contact with the officer.”
And beyond that, when Ser-Nah Cah-Macho showed up to a recent arraignment, he reportedly learned that part of his indictment had named the WRONG defendant entirely.
With The Guardian describing this as “a stunning error that has jeopardized one of the government’s most high-profile cases.”
And because of the delays caused by that error, Ser-Nah Cah-Macho’s lawyers have also argued that the government’s 30-day window to indict him have now passed, so the case has to be dismissed.
Which is why we’ve seen many people slamming the handling of this case — especially because it has become so significant to the Trump administration due to the viral video — with one expert saying:
“This is an extraordinary mistake and a dangerous embarrassment. The US Department of Justice is supposed to be the pinnacle of professional and responsible criminal prosecutions. When you can’t get the name right, it calls into question all other factual assertions in those documents. It’s way beyond a clerical error. It’s smoke where there is likely fire.”
Okay, so the whole situation with people being changed on false and misleading statements from federal officials is really wild.
But this also comes amid reports that Bill Essayli (Assail-Lee) — the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for Southern California — has been struggling to secure grand jury indictments in protest cases.
Right, last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that his office has filed felony cases against at least 38 people for alleged misconduct, but “many have been dismissed or reduced to misdemeanor charges,” adding:
“In total, he has secured only seven indictments, which usually need to be obtained no later than 21 days after the filing of a criminal complaint.”
And noting “three other cases have been resolved via plea deal.”
With sources reporting that Assail-Lee recently became so “irate” that he could be heard “screaming” at prosecutors at the federal courthouse in LA after a grand jury refused to indict a protestor facing felony charges.
And claiming that he had yelled at a subordinate to ignore the federal government’s “Justice Manual” — which says that prosecutors should only bring cases they believe they can win at trial.
With Assail-Lee allegedly screaming at the prosecutors to press on secure indictments as directed by Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Now, with that, a spokesperson for Assail-Lee denied The Times' reporting, and Bondi has also defended him.
But The Guardian claimed in its latest report that “that rapid felony dismissals are a major embarrassment” for Assail-Lee.
Adding that former federal prosecutors have said that the dismissals “appeared to be the result of an unusual series of missteps by the justice department.”
With one former California state prosecutor telling the outlet that it’s unusual for the justice department to file and then dismiss cases like this — especially numerous felonies in such rapid succession, adding:
“It seems this is a way to detain people, hold them in custody, instill fear and discourage people from exercising their first amendment rights.”
Beyond that, you also had another attorney saying it was also uncommon for Assail-Lee’s office to prosecute these kinds of “he said she said” protest scuffles at all.
Noting that it takes away resources from normal priorities, including fraud, economic crimes, public corruption, and civil rights abuses, and adding:
“Federal charges are very serious and have real implications for people’s lives. Even if it gets dismissed, it will be on someone’s record for the rest of their lives. It carries a lot of consequences, so you want prosecutors to understand and appreciate the power they have.”
-
There is real starvation in Gaza.
That is what Donald Trump told reporters today, and that statement is notably a direct contradiction to what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said lately.
Right, Netanyahu just posted a video online saying:
“There is no starvation in Gaza, no policy of starvation in Gaza and I assure you that we have a commitment to achieve our war goals.” (0:00-0:09)
But today, while speaking to reporters with UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer, Trump was asked if he agrees with Netanyahu’s statement there.
And he said:
“I don’t know. I mean, I would say, based on television, not particularly because those children look very hungry. But we’re giving a lot of money and a lot of food. And other nations are now stepping up. I know that this nation is. Kier: It’s a humanitarian crisis. It’s an absolute catastrophe.” (0:07-0:23)
With Trump also later saying:
“We can save a lot of people. I mean, some of those kids are, that’s real starvation stuff. I see it. And you can’t fake that. So we’re going to be even more involved.” (4:55-5:07)
When it came to talks for deals, he did place some blame on Hamas, claiming they are using the remaining hostages as a shield.[]
But he overall referred to the situation in Gaza as a “mess” and emphasized a need for food distribution.
With him even saying the U.S. will open up food centers, though details on that are yet to come. []
And all this notably comes as in the past couple of days, starvation in Gaza has dominated headlines.
According to the Health Ministry in Gaza, malnutrition has killed 147 people, including 88 children, since the war began.[]
With 14 reportedly dying in just the last day or so.
And the UN’s World Food Program has warned that 100,000 women and children urgently need treatment for malnutrition, and that almost one third of people in Gaza are not eating for days.[]
Over the weekend, multiple outlets also shared devastating images of malnourished children, people trying desperately to get food, and more depictions of hunger there.
We also saw Israel begin dropping food into Gaza, but aid groups did fear it was just not nearly enough to help the situation.
With a UN aid chief telling BBC that that aid delivered during a military pause was a "drop in the ocean" and that the next few days are "make or break.”[]
It’s also notable that Trump is addressing the situation alongside Starmer, because he is dealing with calls for the U.K. to formally recognize the state of Palestine, following France’s decision last week.[]
And obviously, we will be keeping an eye on this situation, on any changing situations with aid, but in the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts on anything here, especially with Trump breaking from Netanyahu to acknowledge starvation in Gaza.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Sydney1-04d4aa50cf2d4e21893a621e9a2a174d.jpg){kind=link}
![[]](https://dirtybirdusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/f3d95791-30dc-46c9-8063-24f5112b3d8b.jpg.optimal.jpg){kind=link}
