I do want to add a content alert; there is little to nothing horrible in Annie’s post, but there is a link to testimony that could be at the least disturbing. This is such an important story, and it really is on us to make sure this stuff stays out front all the time until there is justice.
Welcome to the Weekend Gene Pool. You know the drill. We give you a topic, you spill your guts, we betray you by publishing it next week with snarky comments.
We’ll get to that in a minute. But first, a brief nod to what seems to be a burgeoning scandal in the Trump regime, one that was almost totally ignored yesterday, drowned out by more salacious semi-details in The Epstein Chronicles. I’d considered waiting a bit to address this new scandal-in-progress but I came up with the perfect name for it, and I wanted to stake that claim, which I have done with the headline above.
Here is the story.
Until Watergate, the existing American scandal standard was “The Teapot Dome Affair,” though “-dome” never entered the lexicon as “-gate” did for required scandal suffixery. (Tragically, the 1959 steel scandal never became “Chromedome.”)
Teapot Dome was a rather simple affair. Warren Harding’s Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall, a man who looked like an angry and constipated Mark Twain,
… took bribes from oilmen amounting to hundreds of thousand of dollars’ worth of cash and cows — he was also a rancher — in return for leasing them government oil reserves in the West that included the Teapot Dome field in Wyoming, which was no beaut of a butte; it was said to look something like a teapot, with its spout, but only as designed by those architects of Herman Goering’s priapic tables.
Teapot DomePriapic Table
Eventually, Fall, the fall guy, fell. He did a year of hard labor in the teapot can.
—
Kristi Noem — former governor of South Dakota — is also a Westerner, and also a rancher, and also a member of the president’s Cabinet and as such also controls huge domestic budgets, and also is connected by photographs to large mountains.
The beginnings of the Teapot Noem® Affair were revealed yesterday by ProPublica. Here are the headlines:
Firm Tied to Kristi Noem Secretly Got Money From $220 Million DHS Ad Contracts
The company is run by the husband of Noem’s chief DHS spokesperson and has personal and business ties to Noem and her aides. DHS invoked the “emergency” at the border to skirt competitive bidding rules for the taxpayer-funded campaign.
…
The majority of the money — $143 million — has gone to a mysterious LLC in Delaware. The company was created just days before it was awarded the deal.
—
Honestly, you don’t need to know more than that. Or maybe you do. I myself didn’t read any further because the Epstein news of the day seemed to imply the possibility that Donald Trump once gave Bill Clinton a blow job. That story seems pretty, um, inflated, but you know. Eyeballs.
More on Kristi “Twisti” Noem later in the week, I am guessing.
—
Today’s Gene Pool challenge is based on something that happened to me last evening. I was in my car, traveling west on Massachusetts Avenue, a bustling two way thoroughfare in D.C. I turned right onto 15th Street SE, a one-lane, one-way street going my way. This street had a bike lane, which was, of course, also one-way in the same direction as the street. I checked to my left for bikers. There were none. So I turned right. This turn was legal and prudent. And that is when I almost killed a young woman and a girl I presumed to be her daughter, who looked to be about seven. They were on an electric scooter. The girl was standing in front of her mom, between mom and the handlebars.
The scooter was going the wrong way in the bike lane at twilight. It was rolling to a stop for the light, but moving faster than I was.
I had to jam on my brakes and veer to the left to avoid them. Then I did something I almost never do. I butted in to something that was Clearly Not My Business. I pulled to the curb and got out of my car. They were still at the light.
I said, “Ma’am, this is not my business, but I think you’re risking both of your lives by driving the wrong way in a bike lane on a one-way street at night. I almost hit you. I don’t think you should do this.”
She stared at me, blandly. She did not seem offended.
“Okay,” she said.
The light changed.
She roared off, at maybe 20 miles an hour, down the bike lane, the wrong way on a one-way street, into the darkening, menacing night.
—
So, that is your challenge for the day. What is some advice — buttinsky or otherwise — that you once gave with the best of intentions that either backfired orwas ignored to someone’s detriment, or yours?
Send ’em as always, here. (snip-a bit MORE and a little poll on the page)
November 14, 1910 Eugene Ely performed the first airplane takeoff from a ship. His Curtiss pusher flew from the deck of the U.S.S. Birmingham in Hampton Roads, Virginia.By January he would execute the first (takeoff and) landing on a warship, the U.S.S. Pennsylvania. Captain Washington I. Chambers of the Navy Department had been interested in the military uses for the seven-year-old invention. Naval flight training started shortly thereafter. More of the whole story.
November 14, 1954 “Ten Million Americans Mobilized for Justice” began a campaign to collect 10 million signatures on a petition urging the Senate not to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin). The motion of censure against Senator McCarthy was for obstructing a Senate committee and for acting inexcusably and reprehensibly toward a U.S. soldier appearing before his own committee. McCarthy had used his Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee to publicly denounce thousands as subversive, especially within the federal government, many without any justification. The political views of most were painted as treasonable and conspiratorial, rather than differing political views. The petition effort fell about nine million signatures short. More on Joe McCarthy
November 14, 2000 Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, simultaneously co-chair of George W. Bush’s Florida presidential campaign organization and the public official responsible for the conduct of the election itself, certified Governor Bush’s fragile 300-vote lead over Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. Katherine Harris Florida Judge Terry Lewis gave Harris the authority to accept or reject a follow-up manual recount from some counties where the count was open to question. Harris rejected the manual recounts.
November 6, 1913 Mohandas K. Gandhi led 2500 ethnic Indian miners, women and others from South Africa’s Natal province across its border with Transvaal in the Great March. This was a violation of the pass laws restricting the movement of all non-whites in the country. Originally granted the rights of British subjects, Indians’ rights were steadily eroded beginning in the 1890s with the denial of the right to own property. Shortly before the March, a court in Capetown had invalidated all Muslim and Hindu marriages. Gandhi and many others were arrested and jailed after refusing to pay a fine. The Great March to Transvaal Mohandas Gandhi, 1915 Read about the early resistance in South Africa
November 6, 1962 The 17th session of the U.N. General Assembly passed Resolution 1761 condemning apartheid in South Africa and called on all member states to terminate diplomatic, economic and military relations with the country. The policies of the country embodied in apartheid, the strict racially separatist regime, were declared a threat to international peace and security. Apartheid was the racially separatist regime under which black and, to a somewhat lesser extent, so-called colored South Africans, were without political, civil or economic rights. All political power and wealth were held by the white population, approximately 15% of the country. “Apartheid” is the Afrikaans word for “apartness.” (Afrikaans is the language of the Boers, or [white] Afrikaners.) U.N pressure over the years on South Africa
November 6, 1965 2,500 people gathered in New York City’s Union Square to witness the burning of draft cards, a violation of recently passed federal law, as an expression of resistance to the Vietnam War. Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker movement, and pacifist leader A.J. Muste spoke, identifying with the “crime” about to be committed. Gordon Christianson, chairman of the Committee for Nonviolent Action and a World War II combat veteran, used his lighter to burn the cards. A counter-demonstrator shot a fire extinguisher at those ready to burn their cards, but they still ignited. And the counter-demonstrators shouted, “Burn yourselves, not your draft cards!” At trial, those who were arrested conceded the prosecution’s case, submitting footage of the action shot by a supporter. They made a defense under the First Amendment to the Constitution, arguing that the burning of draft cards in such a context was an act of symbolic speech. The trial judge found them guilty and sentenced them to six months in federal prison.
November 6, 1986 Although an American plane with supplies for the Nicaraguan contra insurgents had been shot down the previous month, and a Lebanese newspaper reported that the U.S. government had arranged for the sale of weapons to Iran, President Ronald Ronald Reagan denied involvement (“. . . a story that came out of the Middle East, and that to us has no foundation . . . .”) in what came to be known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Both the ongoing aid to the contras and the weapons sales to Iran were violations of U.S. law.
This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear the Trump tariffs case, arguably one of the most important cases it will hear all term.
But, it’s important to understand that this is not a case about tariffs in general or about whether they are good policy. It’s a case about specific tariffs that President Trump imposedin February and whether he had the statutory authority to impose them. In other words, this is yet another example of Trump attempting to seize power that neither the Constitution nor our laws grant him and going to the Supreme Court in hopes they will validate it nonetheless. After argument, the Supreme Court will decide whether Trump had the legal authority to impose these tariffs in two cases.
We’ve been tracking this issue since Trump first threatened to impose tariffs, waffling back and forth seemingly from minute to minute. We studied the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision that rejected Trump’s effort to impose tariffs using IEEPA (I-E-Pa), the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, for the very simple reason that the Act, unlike other statutes that do give a president the right to impose tariffs, doesn’t mention tariffs at all. It does not give the president any authority to impose them under the statute that he has expressly said he used to do so. This is the kind of textualist argument conservative justices have backed in other cases, and to abandon that approach here would be a sharp and hypocritical departure for them. Last term, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the justices’ primary focus should be on the text of the statute.
The Constitution gives the power to impose taxes, which includes tariffs, to Congress. Because IEEPA doesn’t extend that power to the president, his use of it here is just a power grab, the kind of practice the Supreme Court should push back against if it intends to remain relevant to the American experiment. The Federal Circuit’s decision pointed out that while other laws expressly give the president the power to impose tariffs, IEEPA does not. Congress knows how to give the president the power to impose tariffs when it wants to and because it did not do so here, that should be the end of the inquiry. The administration should lose here. So what we hear in oral argument, even though it won’t necessarily signal where individual judges will end up, is worth following closely to see what tea leaves can be read for this case. It may also give us some sense of whether the Court intends to act as a check in other cases involving Trump’s power grabs.
The “major questions” will also be in play on Wednesday. You may recall it from recent terms of Court, where a conservative majority has recently used it to say there must be clear guidance from Congress before a federal agency can act on a major question of economic or political significance. Here’s the wrinkle: The Court has only used the doctrine to hamstring the Biden administration, and not to hinder Trump.
In 2022, the Court decided West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, rejecting the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants because Congress had not specifically authorized a regulation with such major political and economic consequences.
In 2023, the Court rejected Biden’s student loan relief package in Biden v. Nebraska, holding that even though a federal statute allowed the Secretary of Education to “waive or modify” student loan debt, that authorization was insufficient for the Biden policy because this was a major question.
The Federal Circuit used these cases as precedent against the Trump administration. “Tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade” is “both ‘unheralded’ and ‘transformative,’” the court wrote, concluding that as a result, the administration needed to be able to “point to clear congressional authorization” for its tariffs. The absence of any language in the statute authorizing them was fatal to Trump’s case in the lower court. But the sardonic joke among appellate lawyers has been that the major questions doctrine only applies to Democratic administrations. On Wednesday, we will see whether that holds up and if the Court’s conservative majority is willing to twist itself into pretzel logic to support this administration’s political objectives.
There are other issues to look at this week:
As the Trump administration continues its extraterritorial strikes on supposed drug traffickers, there is increasing concern about the legality of that conduct. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck and I will take up that issue on Monday evening at 9 p.m. ET/8 CT in a Substack Live (if you subscribe to Civil Discourse, you’ll receive an email inviting you to join us when we go live, so mark your calendars and be ready).
As we head into the week, there are billboards up on the expressway heading toward U.S. Southern Command, in Doral, Florida, that tell troops “Don’t let them make you break the law” in response to those attacks.
New billboards are going up near Miami, Chicago, and Memphis, Tennessee, as well, a warning to troops being deployed in American cities. The billboards are part of a campaign by veterans to support and encourage the troops to uphold military order.
If you’ve forgotten about DOGE, unfortunately, it’s time to remember. There are reports that the Pentagon’s DOGE unit “is leading efforts to overhaul the U.S. military drone program, including streamlining procurement, expand homegrown production, and acquire tens of thousands of cheap drones in the coming months.” And the Bulwark reported that Rear Admiral Kurt Rothenhaus was recently removed from his post as chief of naval research, the top post at the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and replaced by Rachel Riley, who has been working in DOGE-related roles in the Trump administration. Although she was a Rhodes Scholar, Riley, 33, has “no apparent naval experience.”
There are also reports of DOGE interfering with the Department of Agriculture. Senator Dick Durbin tweeted that “President Trump and the DOGE cowboys want to close and diminish critical agricultural research at the University of Illinois. The only other soybean lab like that in the world is in…China. Our President is ceding our agriculture research leadership to China.”
Remember back in February, when Trump floated the idea that everyone could get a $5,000 check from all of DOGE’s “savings”? That didn’t work out so well, did it? You may want to remember this for Thanksgiving dinner.
Tuesday is election day. There is the Virginia governor’s race and the New York City mayoral race. Also, the governorship is at issue in New Jersey. A California ballot initiative will determine whether that state will engage in defensive redistricting designed to offset the aggressive way the Trump administration has demanded Republican states use it to spike the balance between the two parties in the House in their favor, effectively letting politicians choose their voters, instead of the other way around. There is also a race in Pennsylvania, where three Democratic members of the state Supreme Court face retention votes that could be highly significant in the potential 2028 battleground state.
Vote.org, a nonpartisan voter registration and engagement platform, announced a “huge spike” in voter registration ahead of the elections, with their online registration platform being used more than twice as many times as they were during the comparable 2021 election cycle.
They reported that:
More than 80% of those users are under the age of 35
Nearly half (46%) are just 18 years old
Compared to 2021, there are more young voters, more women, and more voters of color using the platform
It’s good news for pro-democracy Americans.
The house will remain out of session, yet again this week.
Epstein. Epstein. Epstein.
But as we all know, that means SNAP is still in danger, which means many of our fellow citizens could begin to go hungry this week if the administration tries to skirt compliance with or obtains an injunction staying decisions by a court in Massachusetts, and a more specific one in Rhode Island, which require the administration to use emergency dollars to fund SNAP. There, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ordered the USDA to distribute contingency funds and to report to the Court on its progress by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, November 3. Expect more litigation this week.
ICE agents are still engaging in “enforcement actions” in American communities and residential neighborhoods. Stories of abuses are circulating; it’s a critical moment for using our skills to ferret out misinformation and focus on the truth. This photo is from a Day of the Dead celebration in New Orleans.
It is clear that this is a week that will require us to summon our courage and continue to pay close attention. The times are far too important for us to look away. Remind yourself that dictators use overwhelm as a tactic for getting people to give up and submit to their rule. Let’s not do that to us.
OK, so we’ve posted about this here at least a couple of times, and now we’re in the week where people will not be receiving benefits on which they depend, to eat. Here’s one more story. And, yes, this is a particular cause of mine, so I want to note that I’ve been looking around town to see where I might be able to help out should this come to fruition, as it appears to be doing. My posting may be sparser, because trying to help people get enough to eat will take up more time now. But, as we’ve also written here, building and sustaining community is important during times such as those we in the US find ourselves, and for me, helping people get enough to eat is sustaining community. So, while I’ll still be around, I may not post as often; the energy only goes so far. Here’s today’s AP story:
The new notice comes after the Trump administration said it would not tap roughly $5 billion in contingency funds to keep benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as SNAP, flowing into November. That program helps about 1 in 8 Americans buy groceries.
“Bottom line, the well has run dry,” the USDA notice says. “At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats.”
The shutdown, which began Oct. 1, is now the second-longest on record. While the Republican administration took steps leading up to the shutdown to ensure SNAP benefits were paid this month, the cutoff would expand the impact of the impasse to a wider swath of Americans — and some of those most in need — unless a political resolution is found in just a few days.
The administration blames Democrats, who say they will not agree to reopen the government until Republicans negotiate with them on extending expiring subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Republicans say Democrats must first agree to reopen the government before negotiation.
Democratic lawmakers have written to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins requesting to use contingency funds to cover the bulk of next month’s benefits.
Government shutdown The AP has journalists around the country covering the shutdown of the federal government. What questions do you have for them?
But a USDA memo that surfaced Friday says “contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits.” The document says the money is reserved for such things such as helping people in disaster areas.
It cited a storm named Melissa, which has strengthened into a major hurricane, as an example of why it’s important to have the money available to mobilize quickly in the event of a disaster.
Some states have pledged to keep SNAP benefits flowing even if the federal program halts payments, but there are questions about whether U.S. government directives may allow that to happen. The USDA memo also says states would not be reimbursed for temporarily picking up the cost.
Other states are telling SNAP recipients to be ready for the benefits to stop. Arkansas and Oklahoma, for example, are advising recipients to identify food pantries and other groups that help with food.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., accused Republicans and Trump of not agreeing to negotiate.
“The reality is, if they sat down to try to negotiate, we could probably come up with something pretty quickly,” Murphy said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We could open up the government on Tuesday or Wednesday, and there wouldn’t be any crisis in the food stamp program.”
ICE is a totally out of control rogue government agency that is simply lawless thugs. This was a civilian in medical distress in the ambulance. In a worse medical emergency the person could have died. The person was not in custody and a citizen but ICE demanded to be allowed to control them. Wake up people we have crossed all the lines. We barely have a functioning democracy. We all need to do what we can to fight this. Incredibly scary. ICE did not have the authority to hold the ambulance up but they did so at the point of a gun. What does that say about where the US is as “a nation of laws” and the republicans who for 50 years called themselves the party of law and order? Hugs
Late on Oct. 5, a Portland ambulance crew informed dispatchers over the radio that it was attempting to transport a patient from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Legacy Emanuel Medical Center but that ICE officers were impeding its departure. Six minutes later, at 9:40 pm, according to publicly archived radio records, the medic driving the vehicle delivered an update: “We are still not being allowed to leave by ICE officers.”
Two confidential incident reports obtained by WW offer insight into what was going on inside the South Portland ICE facility at the time. The written accounts were filed by the ambulance crew members shortly after the incident—one report to their employer, American Medical Response, and another to a union representative—as documentation, as one report puts it, of a “conflict with federal agents.”
The two reports, filed by different medical workers, mirror each other’s accounts, and are consistent with publicly available audio recordings of emergency medical services radio communications, as well as 911 calls and dispatch reports obtained under public records law.
Both reports say that federal agents, in an effort to block the ambulance’s departure, stood directly in front of the vehicle. As the delay dragged on, according to the reports, the ambulance operator put the vehicle into park, causing it to lurch forward slightly.
The reports indicate the federal agents did not like this—so much so that an agent threatened to shoot and arrest the driver. The driver, frightened, asked why. An agent, according to the reports, responded that the driver had attempted to hit him with the ambulance.
“I was still in such shock,” the driver later wrote, “that they were not only accusing me of such a thing, but crowding and cornering me in the seat, pointing and screaming at me, threatening to shoot and arrest me, and not allowing the ambulance to leave the scene. This was no longer a safe scene, and in that moment, I realized that the scene had not actually been safe the entire time that they were blocking us from exiting, and that we were essentially trapped.”
The incident occurred at a contentious spot in the city. The ICE facility on South Macadam Avenue has in recent months been the scene of frequent and persistent protests, typically small in scale, which President Donald Trump has lately used to justify his effort to deploy military troops to Portland to protect federal facilities and the personnel that work in them.
Meanwhile, many, including Portland city officials, have alleged that federal agents have in several cases needlessly intensified situations that might have easily remained far more calm.
The incident described in the crew members’ two reports suggests that such hostility has been directed not only at demonstrators, but at first responders who were asked by the feds to assist. The ambulance was eventually allowed to leave the building with the patient. But the crew’s written reports of the preceding minutes offer a small but revealing sign of how on edge some federal agents working in the ICE facility are feeling—and how quick they are to take an aggressive posture when they perceive a physical threat, even from a fellow emergency worker.
WW first contacted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement about the incident early last week. When WW followed up Friday, Oct. 10, with more details about what it planned to report, an ICE spokesperson wrote: “Please contact the Federal Protection Services for response.”
A subsequent email that day to the U.S. Federal Protective Service went unanswered. A media contact for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which contains FPS and ICE, did not respond to a request for comment either. None of the agencies responded to a follow-up email Oct. 11 asking for comment.
WW also sought comment from the ambulance crew members, the ambulance company, and the union representing the workers. None denied that the incident had occurred as described in the documents. The union added that when armed agents interfere with medical transport, they “cross a moral line.”
Public records provide greater context to the incident detailed in the crew members’ reports. The ambulance was called late in the evening on Oct. 5 to the ICE facility at 4310 S Macadam Ave. According to a publicly available dispatch document, the crew was responding to a medical call for a protester with a broken or dislocated collar bone.
By 9:13 pm, the ambulance was en route. According to a dispatch document, federal officials suggested at first that the ambulance enter the ICE facility through a side door, but then determined it should come in the main gate. The ambulance arrived on scene at 9:19. By 9:22, it had entered the building.
AMR ambulance on NE 82nd Avenue (Brian Burk)
A two-member crew was aboard. Both later documented the event in confidential reports. One record, reviewed by WW, appears on an event summary form produced for American Medical Response—the company that contracts to run ambulance services in Multnomah County. The document lists Oct. 5—the same day as the incident in question—as the “date submitted.” The other document is an email, sent by a crew member to a union representative. It is time-stamped the evening of Oct. 6.
The reports indicate that when the ambulance arrived, the patient was transferred into the vehicle without issue, and soon the crew was preparing to depart. This is consistent with other publicly available records. At 9:30 pm, the ambulance operator indicated plans over the radio to head to Legacy Emanuel Medical Center. Around 9:33 pm, dispatch records say, the ambulance seemed to be getting ready to bring the patient out.
And yet it was not emerging. What was going on? One crew member worked largely in the rear of the ambulance, while the other was sitting in the driver’s seat. Their respective reports offer consistent accounts from different vantages.
An initial delay, the driver’s report indicated, stemmed from federal agents’ desire to ride in the ambulance to the hospital. The driver recalls responding that, in the absence of arrest paperwork, officers could not ride in the ambulance, and that an agent responded this was OK—that agents would follow the ambulance to the hospital instead.
But the point was evidently not resolved. Before long, a report says, an agent again said the ambulance needed to wait for an agent who would ride along.
“I repeated again,” the driver’s report recounts, “that no officer is permitted to ride in the ambulance and that they can meet us at the hospital and that we needed to be let out of the facility. Officers then began walking away from me whenever I spoke. At that point, a group of 5-8 civilian-dressed men walked into the garage and just stared at me. No identification on any of them. I walked back to the ambulance and got into the driver’s seat. I flipped the emergency lights on and put the car into drive. I inched forward slowly out of the garage.”
At this point, a report says, a man in civilian clothes with a neck wrap covering the lower part of his face stepped in front of the ambulance and told the driver to halt. The ambulance driver, in the report, recalls telling the man not to stand in front of the ambulance, and that the man then yelled at the driver to stop, citing the risk of hitting federal agents.
The driver recalled expressing skepticism about the risk of hitting the large group of officers in full riot gear, in plain view, about 15 feet in front and to the left of the ambulance. Sensing that departure was imminent, the driver inched forward further: “The group of about 30 officers in front of the ambulance were lining up in what I assumed to be preparation for the gate to open so they could escort the ambulance off of the property,” the report says.
Time went by. The crew was anxious to get the patient to the hospital. But they were still being impeded. Several federal agents, many in riot gear, moved to stand “incredibly close” to the front of the ambulance, the driver’s report recounts. An agent approached to inform the driver of the presence of “violent protesters” outside—a new reason the ambulance could not yet leave.
Around this time, dispatchers received one of the crew’s radio messages: The ambulance was still being held up.
Public records document this period as well: “50-60 fed agents completely blocking the road,” a dispatch report said at 9:39 pm, “but AMR still not driving out yet.”
The gate to the ICE facility had opened and dozens of officers in riot gear had marched out, revealing a clear exit path. Still, according to an incident report, the smaller group of officers continued to stand directly in front of the ambulance.
Around this time, the crew member in the rear, having determined, as a report says, that the “yelling and aggressive nature of the officers had created a scene safety issue,” exited the ambulance to have a word with them.
“My partner was still in the driver’s seat,” the crew member wrote, “and I left the ambulance to attempt to calm and deescalate the situation.”
In the other report, the driver recalled observing this and moving to secure the vehicle before also getting out: “I then placed the ambulance into park, took my foot off the brake, undid my seat belt and opened the driver’s side door. I looked up and suddenly the entire group of officers…were crowded around the open car door, some of them leaning forward towards me, inches from my face.”
An agent, the driver recalled, “pointed his finger at me in a threatening manner and began viciously yelling in my face, stating, ‘DON’T YOU EVER DO THAT AGAIN, I WILL SHOOT YOU, I WILL ARREST YOU RIGHT NOW.’”
According to the driver’s report, the crew member who had been in the rear of the ambulance told the agent that the vehicle rolled forward when the driver put it in park, and that no one was trying to hit him.
To this, the report recounts, another agent replied that this was not the first time this had happened.
According to the medics, the agents continued to yell. There was also further chatter of riding in the ambulance, but in time an accord was reached: Feds would follow along in their own car.
By 9:42 pm, a crew member radioed in: They were finally en route to the hospital. The driver, in the report, recounts making this radio call, and that dispatch copied. The report says an unmarked vehicle with state license plates followed closely behind the ambulance, and upon arriving at the hospital, multiple men in civilian dress exited the vehicle and walked in.
Presented by email with details of this story, a spokesperson for Global Medical Response, the parent company of American Medical Response, did not answer WW’s questions, but said, “We are reviewing the specifics of the situation and committed to a thorough review.”
WW reached out to the two ambulance crew members. Both declined to comment.
Asked for incident reports tied to the medical call, Austin DePaolo, a spokesman for Teamsters Local 223, which represents the ambulance workers, said in an email that the union “doesn’t have any incident reports that members have given us permission to share.”
DePaolo added: “Our Teamster EMS workers answer every call with courage and compassion. When armed agents interfere with medical care, they cross a moral line that could put lives at risk. We stand firmly behind our members who work in EMS.”
Andrew Schwartz writes about health care. He’s spent years reporting on political and spiritual movements, most recently covering religion and immigration for the Chattanooga Times Free Press, and before this as a freelancer covering labor and public policy for various magazines. He began his career at the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin.
Willamette Week’s reporting has concrete impacts that change laws, force action from civic leaders, and drive compromised politicians from public office.
“I think there’s two things that are happening at once: one, there absolutely is an unprecedented abuse of power, destruction of norms, erosion of our government and our democracy in order to prop up an authoritarian style of governance however, they are weaker than they look, and it is important that we remember that because what they rely on is the impression of power, the perception of inevitability in us giving up in advance. Donald Trump is at record levels of unpopularity in his tenure. the Republican house is at record levels of unpopularity. they are underwater across the board and they know it. and that is causing them to double down in public. but it is backfiring. that is why whether it’s a shutdown, whether it’s all of this, they want us to blink first and we have too much to save.”
Trump can’t even pronounce the medicine he’s advising against Read on Substack
Don’t take medical advice from felons and heroin addicts.
Donald Trump, RFK Jr, and Dr. Mehmet “Crudite” Oz are recommending that pregnant women not take Tylenol anymore because they claim it will give your baby autism. Real doctors would laugh at this if it weren’t so horrible.
How dare Trump and his quacks tell moms that they’re to blame if their kids have autism just because they took Tylenol to relieve pain associated with pregnancy, like headaches, sore backs, and having to live with the men who made them pregnant?
Acetaminophen is the primary ingredient in Tylenol, and a word that’s difficult for Trump to pronounce, like Thailand, which Trump pronounced as “Thighland.” He once called Yosemite National Park, “Yo-Semite.” That sounds like something you’d hear in NYC.
“Yo, Semite! You got lox on them bagels?”
During his press conference announcing the latest discovery in Trump science, Trump could not pronounce acetaminophen. Trump was rolling but came to a complete stop, as if he was on a UN escalator, and said, “Well, let’s see how we say that…”
It started off like, “acid-mo-finomen.” On his second attempt, he said, “a seed o meniphen.” Then he asked everyone in the room, “Is that OK?”
Jon Stewart answered on the Daily Show on Monday evening, “No!”
Stewart said, “We would like a second opinion, and a third pronunciation. Look, there’s already a ton of controversy around the lack of data tying acetaminophen in pregnancy to autism. And you can’t even be bothered to pronounce the fucking word correctly?”
Stewart is correct. There is a lack of date connecting Tylenol to autism, and surely not enough to go weebling around and telling pregnant women not to take it. (snip-MORE)
==============
Bribes-R-Us by Clay Jones
Tom Homan is not the only one taking Bribes in the Trump regime Read on Substack
Around August of last year, before the election, future-at-the-time Trump border czar Tom Homan was approached to help secure contracts in a future Trump administration, and was paid $50,000. The $50,000 was given to him in an FBI sting operation and was captured on video.
The investigation was a spinoff of another investigation because, during it, someone came across information that Tom Homan was taking bribes.
My business is squat compared to most, but still…I have never been paid in cash inside a Cava bag, or any bags for that matter. These fucknuts are worried about immigrants being paid under the table, but what the fuck is Tom Homan doing being paid with bags of cash?
The FBI and the Justice Department planned to wait to see whether Homan would deliver on his alleged promise once he became the nation’s top immigration official, but Trump was reinstalled into the White House, Pam Bondi was put in charge of the Justice Department, and Kash Patel was made FBI director, the case stalled before ultimately killing the case, stating there was nothing there.
Irony alert: Former FBI director James Comey is about to be indicted. In DC, they can’t even indict the guy throwing sandwiches at law enforcement, but they’re gonna indict Comey for lying to Republicans in the Senate.
The White House says Homan never took the money, but then again, Karoline Leavitt says a lot of bullshit that’s not true. She’s still screaming about the UN escalator even though it was Trump goons who fucked it up. The one person who hasn’t said that Tom Homan didn’t take $50,000 in a Cava bag from the FBI is Tom Homan.
Fox News’ Laura Ingraham interviewed Tom Homan a few nights ago, and she mockingly referred to MSNBC, which broke the story, as “always-reliable” MSNBC. But, Laura, at least someone from MSNBC, even dumb-dum Lawrence O’Donnell (he called RFK Jr. “Robert Downey Jr.” last night), would have asked Tom Homan one simple question.
Although if Lawrence had asked that question, it would have been like, “Did….you…take….the….fifty….thousand…dollars? I’m sorry, that shit annoys me. (snip-MORE)
Scottie's Playtime 