Who is the most vile Trumper of them all? Greg Bovino, of Border Patrol, gets our vote after he praised federal agents for killing Alex Pretti in Minneapolis

Greg Bovino: Sub-Human Excrement (Axios)

The Donald Trump administration is filled with so many incompetent, integrity-challenged sycophants that it's almost impossible to rank them on a scale of detestability. You can't go wrong, of course, by starting with the head guy, Trump himself. But where do you plug in such rogues as J.D. Vance, Kristi Noem, Pete Hegseth, RFK Jr., Pam Bondi, Marco Rubio . . . and the list goes on?

In the wake of federal agents fatally shooting 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretti on Saturday in Minneapolis, I have a new candidate for Most Detestable Trumper. That would be Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino, whose utter lack of empathy following what best could be described as a "tragedy for American democracy," raised an obvious question: Is this guy sub-human?

Let's consider this Axios report about Bovino's comments the day after the shooting which comes under the headline "Border Patrol's Bovino praises agents who killed Alex Pretti." (By the way, I'm not making that headline up, as breaking news reporter Avery Lotz makes clear in her report):

Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino praised federal agents who fatally shot Minneapolis nurse Alex Pretti, insisting without explanation or evidence Sunday that Pretti was "there for a reason."

Bovino actually got something right with that statement: Pretti was there for a reason, to be a legal observer and help direct traffic, according to those who knew him. He was not, however there to cause trouble, as Bovino suggested.

Outrageous comments from Trump insiders did not end there. Bovino also said Pretti wanted to  "massacre law enforcement." White House adviser Stephen Miller called Pretti a "would-be assassin."

The words of a doctor who witnessed the shooting indicate the killer agents are deeply disturbed individuals:

“I saw that the victim was lying on his side and was surrounded by several ICE agents. I was confused as to why the victim was on his side, because that is not standard practice when a victim has been shot. Checking for a pulse and administering CPR is standard practice. Instead of doing either of those things, the ICE agents appeared to be counting his bullet wounds."

The Axios report provides broad context surrounding the shooting, and that includes more Bovino comments that make the mind swirl. In one, he refers to Pretti as "the suspect." In another, he called Border Patrol agents "the victims." That brought two thoughts to my mind: (1) Who killed whom here? (2) No wonder Trump hired this guy; he makes Trump sound sane. Avery Lotz writes:

The big picture: For the second time this month, videos of a Minnesota resident being shot by federal agents contradict the narrative federal officials pushed. Both times, officials doubled down with ramped-up rhetoric.

Driving the news: "The suspect put himself in that situation," Bovino said on CNN's State of the Union Sunday. "The victims are the Border Patrol agents there."

• Federal officials said DHS officers were conducting a targeted operation against an undocumented immigrant when the confrontation occurred.
• Videos from multiple angles show Pretti filming a scene where civilians encounter federal agents. An agent shoves a person to the ground before spraying Pretti with a chemical irritant.
• Officers wrestle Pretti to the ground and appear to remove a gun from his waist. Then shots ring out.
• The Department of Homeland Security claimed without evidence Pretti was there to "massacre law enforcement."
• 
  

In a fine moment for journalism, CNN's Dana Bash pressed Bovino on Sunday for answers he did not want to give.

Friction point: CNN's Dana Bash repeatedly pushed Bovino for evidence to support that claim Sunday. Instead, he said without offering new details that officers prevented "any specific shootings" of law enforcement.

• He added, "So, good job for our law enforcement in taking him down before he was able to do that."
• Bash asked for evidence Pretti went after law enforcement or was trying to impede their operation. Bovino said Pretti injected himself into "an active law enforcement scene."
• Bovino also offered no evidence to show Pretti brandished a weapon, as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem suggested.

• State of play: Bovino complained about "freeze-frame adjudication" of the incident, but claimed Pretti came to the scene "for a reason."

  • Bovino refused to weigh in on footage showing an officer disarming Pretti before shooting him, saying, "we don't know that agent was taking any gun away."
  • Bovino was adamant Pretti assaulted law enforcement officers who were trying to de-escalate the situation, despite the contradictory video evidence.
  • 
    

  What we're watching: Gov. Tim Walz said Saturday the state will conduct its own investigation and blasted the administration's initial account as "lies."

• •  DHS blocked local agents from the scene, Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said.
  • A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order to prevent federal agents from destroying or altering evidence, including evidence feds already removed.
  • 
    

  Go deeper: Gun rights groups challenge shooting of legally armed Minneapolis man.

Witness provides details about Alex Pretti shooting in court filing, showing feds initiated the confrontation, not the other way around -- as White House claims

Feds spray Alex Pretti before beating him on the ground (The Guardian)

An anonymous witness has provided details in a court filing  about Saturday's fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minnesota. The witness' account largely matches the description of events we reported in a post on Sunday (1/25/26). Here is the latest from a report at ABC News under the headline "Witness describes shooting in federal court filing":

An unnamed witness provided more details in a federal court filing Saturday night about the shooting in Minneapolis of 37-year-old Alex Pretti.

The witness, whose name was redacted in court documents, said immigration agents pepper-sprayed three observers, including Pretti, before an agent shoved a woman to the ground.

"More agents came over and grabbed the man who was still trying to help the woman get up."

The witness said that agents pushed Pretti to the ground and added that "it didn't look like he was trying to resist, just trying to help the woman up."

The most important point from the witness' statement: Agents initiated the confrontation with Pretti, not the other way around -- as has been described by accounts from the Trump White House. The witness goes on to describe a brutal act of violence against Pretti, which he/she captured on video:

"They threw him to the ground. Four or five agents had him on the ground and they just started shooting him," the witness said. "They shot him so many times."

The witness said they recorded a video that "accurately depicts the events leading up to the agents shooting him and several minutes afterwards."

The declaration was filed Saturday by the ACLU of Minnesota as part of an emergency motion to lift a stay on a federal judge's order that barred immigration agents from arresting protesters or using nonlethal weapons against them.

Videos show feds had beaten Alex Pretti and taken the gun for which he had a lawful permit, meaning he was unarmed when they executed him in a hail of gunfire

Alex Pretti holds a cell phone, not a gun, as agent confronts him. (NY Times)

A security analyst appearing on MS Now to discuss the fatal shooting yesterday of a Minneapolis resident at the hands of federal agents said he now fears for his own life because of what happened to 37-year-old victim Alex Pretti. Rob D'Amico said he could be in danger because, as a former FBI agent, he routinely carries a  concealed weapon, much as Pretti was doing yesterday when roughly a half dozen agents swarmed him, pummeled him to the ground, took his weapon, and then fired roughly 10 shots into him.

D'Amico could see himself being in a similar situation someday, according to a report at Raw Story under the headline "DHS hammered by expert for 'troubling beyond belief' false statement about latest killing." David McAfee writes:

The latest shooting and killing of an American citizen by federal immigration authorities was backed up by an "incorrect" statement from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to an expert.

What is the most troubling part of the DHS statement? It suggested Pretti was armed and threatening federal agents -- even though video analysis indicates Pretti's weapon (for which he had a lawful permit) never left his holster, until one of the feds reached in and grabbed it, then hurriedly left the scene as Pretti was on his knees being beaten. In other words, Pretti was unarmed as feds beat him until he was motionless on his back -- before they essentially executed him with gunfire. All because of an incident that started because an agent noticed Pretti quietly out of the way appearing to take photographs with a cell phone. Pretti appeared to be trying to assist a woman agents had pushed to the ground, with both of them being doused with chemical spray -- and Pretti ultimately being beaten and shot. 

D'Amico watched the scene on video with a sense of deepening alarm, as McAfee reports:

        D'Amico said he is now fearing for his own life.

"What kind of scares me is I carry concealed all the time, retired FBI. If I happen to be there, I'm in the same situation. I'm armed. I'm trying to help someone. And then all of a sudden you get in a scuffle and your weapon is there. But at no time. And from the first video, when he's on all fours, when the subject's on all fours, I didn't see a gun in his hands either. Which meant at that point he still hadn't gone for the gun," he said.

He went on to specifically note how the false information causes harm.

"So the biggest thing is the statement is incorrect that they released. And that's what we saw on the last one, which is we talked about earlier. If you can't believe the statements that are being put out, it is just very troubling. And that's why you don't release statements until you have a somewhat investigation," he then added. "You have people go through it, but they're just quick to come out and say something to the narrative to get people on the defensive that he came at them with a weapon. This video, even though it cuts off at the end, shows that that's not, in fact, what happened. And it's troubling. It is troubling beyond belief."

In short, D'Amico says, the Trumpers who oversee DHS issued a statement before they knew what they are talking about.  So, what did actually happen? Like many of you I watched probably 8-10 videos that appeared on social media. All of them were taken under chaotic circumstances, I didn't find one that appeared to give a definitive account of the incident. But the best summation of what I saw -- of what the video evidence seems to show -- comes from Peter Birkenhead, who writes at Salon and numerous other publications, along with writing the " One for All, All for One" newsletter at Substack. Here is Birkenhead's succinct take, and in my view, it is absolute truth:

I’ve watched the videos several times now and it’s clear that agents initiated the altercation, approaching Alex Pretti as he was taking video with his phone. They maced him, shoved him, roughed him up and forced him to the ground, where one of them removed a gun from his waistband and walked away, at which point other agents shot him multiple times while he was prone and unarmed. He was murdered.

How does the DHS statement stack up to the truth? Not well, On Facebook, Birkenhead  correctly calls it "absolute bullshit." You can read the DHS statement at the following link. The Guardian was not buying the official account:

Video recorded by witnesses to the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis on Saturday shows that the 37-year-old registered nurse was holding a phone, not a gun, when he was tackled and shot, directly contradicting the claims of senior Trump administration officials that he threatened to “massacre” officers.

37-year-old US citizen shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis

Read more

In the aftermath of the killing, which was recorded by multiple witnesses, the Department of Homeland Security released an image of a handgun, which Donald Trump referred to as “the gunman’s gun” in a social media post. Kristi Noem, the DHS secretary, said at a briefing that Pretti had “approached US border patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun”, though she later declined to say whether or not Pretti pulled the gun out.

Greg Bovino, a senior border patrol commander who was reprimanded by a federal judge last year for lying, also told reporters that Pretti had approached border patrol agents with the same gun.

Video provided to the Guardian by a Minneapolis resident who drove past the scene at 8:58 a.m. local time, as a group of observers recorded video on their phones of federal officers on Nicollet Avenue in south Minneapolis, showed Pretti standing on the street holding up his phone as one officer reached out and shoved him back. Pretti retreated, but appeared to continue recording the officer as he did so.

A GOP congressman tries to back former Special Counsel Jack Smith into a corner but winds up on the losing end of a nationally televised back and forth

(AP News)

A Republican congressman likely is putting salve on his wounds today after making the ill-advised decision to engage in a verbal sparring session with Jack Smith over the latter's investigations of Donald Trump. If Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) thought Smith would be an easy mark -- perhaps taking a cue from Trump's rants about Smith's efforts to prosecute him on charges of interfering with the 2020 election and unlawfully handling classified documents -- the widely televised encounter, via major networks and live streaming, did not turn out that way. Raw Story captures the mood surrounding the back and forth under the headline "GOP rep gets more than he bargained for from Jack Smith over Trump threats." Nicole Charky-Chami reports:

A Republican lawmaker Thursday had an unexpected reaction after he asked former special counsel Jack Smith about President Donald Trump's threats.

Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) was questioning Smith during the House Judiciary Committee hearing — the first time Smith has testified publicly on the probes against Trump — when he asked about the gag order the prosecutor sought against the president.

"Mr. Smith, America was founded on the principle that the government doesn't silence political speech, in particular speech, before it happens," Cline said. "You sought a prior restraint against President Trump without a single violation of pretrial release. In fact, there was no real-world harm you could articulate, that justified giving the federal government the power to silence him as a presidential candidate was there?"

Cline appeared to be hoping he would catch Smith in a gotcha moment. But Smith proved to be cool under fire. In fact, Charky-Chami wrote:

Smith fact-checked Cline.

"The court granted those motions and found that the prosecutor did not have to wait until someone was harmed to make such a motion," Smith said.

Cline responded, pausing for a moment and stumbling on his words.

Actually, the request was rejected when you were not able to . . . it was restricted. Correct? The gag order was restricted, correct?" Cline said.

Smith clarified what happened.

"Well, we filed for an order in the district court. The district court granted an order," Smith said. "President Trump appealed that order. The court of appeals absolutely agreed that there was a basis and that the threats to witnesses that came from the targeting by Donald Trump were real, and that we had a duty to protect them. You are correct in that the court of appeals narrowed the order. So the order covered witnesses, court staff, the judge and my staff. The difference was that it didn't cover me anymore, which I was fine with."

 Cline essentially found himself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend an out-of-control president who is used to getting his way via threats and intimidation. From the Raw Story report:

Cline asked Smith if he had any evidence that Trump had threatened him or intimidated witnesses to prevent them from coming forward.

"I had evidence that he said, 'if you come after me, I'm coming after you,'" Smith said. "He asked — he suggested a witness should be put to death. The courts found that those sort of statements not only deter witnesses who've come forward, they deter witnesses who have yet to come forward."

Cline asked Smith if he was able to identify a witness who might have been intimidated by Trump — that's when Smith set the record straight.

"We had extremely thorough evidence that his statements were having an effect on the proceedings," Smith said. "That is not permitted in any court of law in the United States."

Cline tried to push back and argue that he should have reconsidered the gag order. Smith had a sharp response to the suggestion.

"Both courts upheld the orders, and it is not incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings," Smith said. 

A reasonable person might expect that Cline, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, would seek to establish facts surrounding Smith's investigation and attempted prosecution of Trump. Cline's questions, however, indicated his main interest was in attempting to protect a president who is a member of his own party. Consider this line of questioning from Cline, as reported by Charkey-Chami:

Cline tried to argue that the gag order could have infringed on Trump's First Amendment rights.

"My recollection is that we, of course, discussed First Amendment issues regarding this application because I and my staff respect the First Amendment, but the First Amendment does not allow one to make statements that interfere with the administration of justice and a judicial proceeding," Smith said.

"My interpretation was supported and agreed upon by the district court and the court of appeals in terms of the phenomena of the statements being made, targeting individuals, causing threats to happen to them. I would also add, sir, that in the days after Donald Trump made some of these statements, the district court in this case received vile threats, threats to the district court's life in that environment," Smith added. "I felt a duty as a prosecutor to make that motion, and I make no apologies." 

Smith has extensive experience in criminal cases attracting national attention, and that likely helped him fend off attempts by Cline to back him into a corner. Charkey-Chami writes:

Smith, a career federal prosecutor, was appointed as a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to investigate Trump's handling of classified documents and his role in the events surrounding the Insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Smith led high-profile criminal investigations and prosecutions against Trump on multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and violations of the Espionage Act related to classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, though the cases faced significant legal challenges and delays, with Trump ultimately avoiding trial on these charges following his 2024 election victory.

Trump wallows in malignant narcissism as he repeatedly relies on insults, threats, and falsehoods to "capture hearts" at World Economic Forum in Davos

America's Charmer in Chief at Davos (Reuters)

I recently have found myself thinking, "Donald Trump surely cannot embarrass the United States more than he already has." But within seconds of that thought forming in my cranium, or so it seems, word usually comes of another Trump action or statement that proves I once again have jumped the gun. The most recent example came yesterday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where political and business leaders, economists, investors, celebrities, and journalists gathered to ponder weighty issues,  such as rising fragmentation and rapid technological change that are transforming the global economy. 

You might think Trump would want to leave such a heralded assemblage with a positive view of the United States and its leadership role in the world. But Trump is about touting himself, not the country he is supposed to represent. In the process, Trump has proven he is willing to insult those who gather to hear his "thoughts," turning even the most respectable event into a bullying session you might expect to see on an elementary-school playground.

How did The New Republic (TNR) appraise Trump's address and it's impact on his audience. The headline was as follows: "Trump Embarrasses All of America in Slurred, Disjointed Davos Speech; Donald Trump gave a terrible speech to a dead silent room at the World Economic Forum." 

That headline pretty much says it all, but TNR provides enough cringe-worthy details to make even those who have supported Trump throughout his torturous first year back in office feel maybe a shred of shame. Malcolm Ferguson writes:

President Trump delivered yet another rambling, long-winded speech Wednesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, using the massive world stage to rail against windmills, complain for the umpteenth time about how the 2020 election was rigged, reaffirm his desire to seize Greenland from Denmark, and take credit for every good thing in the world.

The room was dead silent virtually the entire time.

Did Trump try to connect with his audience, make an effort to find common ground? Not a chance. His main goal apparently was to piss them off -- and on that score, he undoubtedly succeeded. Ferguson writes:

“Certain places in Europe are not even recognizable frankly, anymore. They’re not recognizable. And we can argue about it, but there’s no argument,” Trump said early in his speech to the room full of Europeans. “Friends come back from different places—I don’t wanna insult anybody—and say ‘I don’t recognize it.’ And that’s not in a positive way.… It’s not heading in the right direction.”

The rhetoric aligned seamlessly with the deeply racist, anti-immigrant sentiments that the European right is pushing with his support.

Trump also took the time to hit on one of his favorite punching bags: windmills.

Why windmills? It seems clear Trump disses wind energy at every opportunity because he sees it as a threat to his financial backers in Big Oil. In other words, Trump made the Davos speech about himself, as one might expect from an individual who mental-health experts have described as a "malignant narcissist." (See here, here, and here.) Trump, as is his wont, did not let facts get in the way of thrashing windmills and Europeans, Ferguson reports:

“Did you ever think of that? They put up a couple big wind farms, but they don’t use them, they just put them up to show people what they could look like,” he continued. “They don’t spin, they don’t do anything.”

Did Trump make any citations to reality-based sources? Or course not; he never does. Finally, Trump settled on a familiar topic, one that must have had his listeners eyeballing the exits:

Trump then of course got to Greenland, accidentally mixing it up with Iceland for nearly the entire time he spoke about it.

“Until the last few days, when I told them about Iceland, they loved me,” Trump said, meaning to say Greenland. “They called me daddy … very smart man said, ‘He’s our daddy.’” 

“So we want a piece of ice for world protection. And they won’t give it,” Trump continued. “We’ve never asked for anything else, and we could have kept that piece of land. And we didn’t. They have a choice. You can say yes and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no and we will remember.”