Alex Pretti Was Killed: Medical Examiner Rules Homicide as Federal Agents’ Narrative Unravels

The death of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old Minneapolis ICU nurse, has now been formally ruled a homicide, a determination that places federal immigration agents at the center of a fatal use-of-force investigation and directly undermines their initial public claims.

Pretti was shot and killed on January 24, 2026, during a federal immigration enforcement operation in south Minneapolis. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner concluded that Pretti died from multiple gunshot wounds and classified the manner of death as homicide — a medical finding that confirms his death was caused by the actions of others, not by accident, misadventure, or self-defense.

This ruling strips away euphemisms. A civilian was killed by law enforcement.

A Scene That Was Not What Authorities First Claimed

Federal officials initially asserted that Pretti interfered with an arrest and posed a threat to officers. That assertion has not withstood scrutiny.

Video footage, eyewitness testimony, and subsequent reporting show Pretti holding a cell phone, not a firearm, moments before he was tackled by agents. He was not the subject of the immigration operation. He was a bystander reacting to a chaotic and aggressive federal action unfolding in a residential neighborhood.

No clear warning. No identifiable uniforms in early moments. No evidence that Pretti was informed he was dealing with federal agents before force was used.

What followed was a rapid escalation initiated by officers — not de-escalation.

Use of Lethal Force Without Clear Justification

Two federal agents fired the shots that killed Pretti. Both have since been placed on administrative leave.

Critically, video evidence shows an agent emerging from the struggle holding a firearm that authorities later attributed to Pretti — a detail that has raised serious questions about evidence handling, narrative construction, and credibility. At minimum, the footage contradicts claims that Pretti posed an immediate lethal threat before force was used.

Deadly force is legally justified only when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The available evidence raises the opposite inference: that Pretti was unarmed, confused, and overwhelmed when lethal force was deployed.

Homicide Ruling Forces Legal Accountability

In medical and legal terms, homicide means one thing: another person caused the death.

While the ruling does not assign criminal guilt, it establishes the foundational fact necessary for prosecution, civil liability, and constitutional review. It confirms that this was not a tragic accident or an unavoidable outcome — it was an act committed by law enforcement officers.

The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation to determine whether Pretti’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated through unreasonable seizure and excessive force, and whether due process protections were ignored in a federal operation carried out without sufficient safeguards.

Pattern, Not an Isolated Incident

Pretti’s killing did not occur in a vacuum. It comes amid mounting national concern over federal immigration agents operating with expanded authority, minimal transparency, and limited accountability — often without body cameras, local coordination, or clear identification.

When federal agents kill a U.S. citizen during an operation they were not the target of, the burden of proof shifts decisively to the government.

And so far, the government has failed to meet it.

The Central Question

This case now turns on a single, unavoidable question:

Why was lethal force used at all?

A homicide ruling demands answers — sworn testimony, forensic clarity, and accountability under law. Anything less is not justice. It is impunity.

Alex Pretti was a nurse. A civilian. A citizen.

He is dead.

And under the law, that death now stands as a homicide.

Epstein Email to Peter Thiel Reignites Scrutiny of Elite Ties

 

An email attributed to Jeffrey Epstein and dated May 19, 2014—addressed to billionaire technology investor Peter Thiel—has resurfaced online, renewing questions about the nature and frequency of Epstein’s relationships with powerful figures years after his first criminal conviction.

The message, sent from an address bearing Epstein’s name, is brief but pointed. Its subject line reads, “That was fun, see you in 3 weeks.” The casual tone has drawn attention because it appears to suggest an ongoing, friendly relationship rather than a one-off professional interaction.

Thiel’s Public Explanation

Peter Thiel has consistently stated that his interactions with Epstein were limited and professional, saying he met Epstein primarily to discuss tax-related matters. Thiel has also said he cut off contact after learning more about Epstein’s criminal conduct.

Supporters of Thiel’s account note that wealthy individuals often consult multiple advisors, sometimes informally, and that a short email—on its own—does not establish wrongdoing or the subject matter of any meeting.

Why the Email Matters

Critics argue that the language and timing of the message raise legitimate questions. By 2014, Epstein was already a registered sex offender following his 2008 conviction in Florida. Any continued association after that period, they argue, warrants scrutiny—especially when the tone implies repeat meetings.

The phrase “see you in 3 weeks” suggests planning and continuity, which appears to sit uneasily alongside claims of minimal or purely transactional contact. While the email does not describe activities, locations, or participants, its existence complicates simplified narratives about brief or reluctant engagement.

What the Record Does—and Does Not—Show

It is important to separate evidence from implication:

• What is known:

  • Epstein maintained contact with numerous influential figures after his conviction.

  • An email exists that appears to reference a meeting with Peter Thiel and anticipates another.

  • Thiel has acknowledged meeting Epstein but denies any improper conduct.

• What is not established:

  • The content of the meeting referenced in the email.

  • Where the meeting occurred or who else, if anyone, was present.

  • Any illegal or unethical behavior by Thiel connected to Epstein.

No public record has shown Peter Thiel accused of, charged with, or implicated in Epstein’s crimes.

The Broader Context

The renewed focus on this email reflects a larger reckoning with how Epstein was able to remain embedded in elite financial and social circles long after his criminal history was known. Each document, email, or photograph adds pressure for clearer timelines and fuller explanations from those who crossed his path.

For many observers, the issue is not guilt by association, but transparency. When powerful individuals minimize contact that appears, on paper, to be more sustained, skepticism naturally follows.

Bottom Line

The 2014 Epstein email to Peter Thiel does not prove misconduct. But it does raise unresolved questions about the depth and duration of their interaction—and about how candid public explanations have been when weighed against documentary evidence.

As more Epstein-related records continue to circulate, the demand remains the same: clarity, context, and accountability grounded in verifiable facts, not assumption.

Local Police Chief Intervenes After ICE Detains U.S. Citizen Observing Enforcement Activity in Minnesota

St. Peter, Minnesota — A quiet southern Minnesota town became the center of a growing national debate over federal immigration enforcement after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained a U.S. citizen who was legally observing and recording ICE activity in her community, according to accounts from witnesses and local officials.

The incident occurred in St. Peter, where a woman was sitting alone in her vehicle, peacefully observing and recording ICE operations from a public roadway. Legal experts have consistently affirmed that recording law enforcement activity in public spaces is protected under the First Amendment.

According to multiple eyewitness accounts, ICE agents noticed the woman and began following her with three federal vehicles. The woman reportedly attempted to leave the area, at which point the agents allegedly boxed in her vehicle on a rural road. Agents exited their vehicles with guns drawn and ordered her out of the car.

Witnesses say the woman was unarmed, alone, and posed no visible threat.

When she asserted her rights and questioned the agents’ authority, ICE personnel allegedly opened her car door, forcibly removed her from the vehicle, pinned her to the ground, and placed her in handcuffs. She reportedly sustained cuts, bruises, and scrapes during the encounter.

Her husband arrived on the scene shortly afterward and began recording. According to his account, he informed the agents that they had no judicial warrant and no legal authority to search the vehicle or detain his wife. During the exchange, an ICE agent allegedly responded, “I’m not getting into the legality of everything,” a remark that has since circulated widely online.

Despite learning that the woman was a U.S. citizen, ICE agents reportedly placed her in a federal vehicle and began driving her toward the Twin Cities, where a federal detention facility is located.

Approximately twenty minutes later, the situation changed.

According to local officials, the St. Peter police chief intervened after being contacted by the woman’s husband and an attorney. The chief identified the ICE vehicle, took custody of the woman, and personally drove her home. ICE agents released her to local law enforcement without filing charges.

Local sources say the intervention occurred because the detention lacked legal justification.

The incident has raised serious constitutional questions, particularly regarding First Amendment protections for recording law enforcement, Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure, and Fifth Amendment due process rights. Civil liberties advocates argue that the case illustrates the dangers of federal agencies operating without clear accountability at the local level.

“This wasn’t a protest. This wasn’t interference,” said one local resident familiar with the incident. “She was observing. That’s legal. Everything that followed is what concerns people.”

ICE has not publicly released a detailed explanation of the incident as of this writing.

The episode has intensified scrutiny of ICE enforcement tactics, particularly in rural communities where federal operations may draw less immediate oversight. Legal analysts note that if such actions can occur in a small, quiet town like St. Peter, similar encounters could happen anywhere.

For now, the woman is home, recovering from her injuries, while questions remain unanswered about how a lawful observer became the subject of an armed federal detention — and why it took a local police chief to stop it.

Today Shows Host Mother Aducted From Her Home

Arizona authorities say they believe the mother of Today show co-host Savannah Guthrie was abducted from her home while she slept, marking a troubling turn in what investigators now describe as a criminal case.

Nancy Guthrie, 84, was reported missing Saturday night from her home in the Catalina Foothills area north of Tucson. Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said Monday that evidence at the scene indicates she did not leave voluntarily.

“I believe she was abducted, yes,” Nanos told CBS News. “She didn’t walk from there. She didn’t go willingly.”

Sheriff’s officials confirmed earlier Monday that the disappearance is being treated as a crime after investigators processed the home and identified what they described as suspicious circumstances. Authorities have not released specific details, citing the active investigation.

“We saw some things at the home that were concerning to us,” Nanos said. “We believe now after we’ve processed that crime scene that we do in fact have a crime scene, that we do in fact have a crime, and we’re asking the community’s help.”

Nancy Guthrie lives alone and has limited mobility, according to investigators and family members. Nanos said she could not have traveled far on her own and emphasized that she is mentally sharp, dispelling concerns that the disappearance could be related to dementia or confusion.

“This is not a dementia-related issue,” Nanos said. “She is of great sound mind. She is as sharp as a tack. The family wants everybody to know this isn’t somebody who just wandered off.”

Authorities said Guthrie was last seen at her home around 9:30 p.m. Saturday. When she failed to attend church the following morning, family members went to her residence and called 911.

Investigators noted that Guthrie requires daily medication and has now been missing for more than 24 hours.

“The clock is literally ticking,” Nanos said. “It’s been more than 24 hours since she disappeared.”

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department has distributed a missing person flier describing Guthrie as 5 feet 5 inches tall, weighing approximately 150 pounds, with brown hair and blue eyes. Officials urged anyone who believes they may have seen her to take a photo or video and contact authorities immediately.

Search-and-rescue teams initially deployed drones, helicopters, and heat-sensing equipment overnight, but those efforts have since been scaled back as the investigation shifted fully to a criminal probe.

“Right now we don’t see this as a search mission so much as we do a crime scene,” Nanos said.

Investigators are reviewing home security footage, analyzing Guthrie’s cellphone, and checking license-plate readers and nearby surveillance cameras. Neighbors are being asked to review their own security footage, even if cameras do not directly face the Guthrie residence.

“They still might see something,” Nanos said. “Maybe it’s somebody walking by. Maybe it’s some vehicle driving by at that time of day.”

The FBI is assisting local authorities, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

Nanos said there is no immediate indication that Guthrie was targeted because of her daughter’s public profile, but investigators are not ruling that out.

“We can’t dismiss that,” he said. “We will certainly look at that.”

Savannah Guthrie released a statement Monday thanking the public for its support and urging anyone with information to come forward.

“Right now, our focus remains on the safe return of our dear mom,” she said.

Authorities said they do not believe there is an active threat to the broader public. Anyone with information is urged to contact the Pima County Sheriff’s Department Tip Line.

Laura Loomer’s Record of Public Extremism, Courtroom Defeats, and the Limits of Grievance Politics

Laura Loomer’s rise in far-right political activism has not been defined by legislative achievement, policy success, or public service. It has been defined by provocation, incendiary rhetoric, and a growing trail of institutional and judicial consequences that undermine her repeated claims of persecution.

Her public behavior has generated attention. Her lawsuits, however, have generated losses.

The latest chapter arrived on February 2, 2026, when the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced that a federal judge ordered Loomer and her company, Illoominate Media, to complete the remaining settlement payments stemming from her failed lawsuit alleging CAIR forced Twitter to ban her. The court rejected Loomer’s attempt to withhold payment and reaffirmed that the debt remains enforceable.

This was not an isolated ruling. It was part of a pattern.

A Career Built on Confrontation, Not Credibility

Loomer has consistently relied on inflammatory rhetoric and confrontation as a political strategy. She has been banned or restricted by multiple social media platforms, including Twitter prior to reinstatement, Facebook, Instagram, and payment processors. These actions followed repeated violations related to harassment and hate-based conduct, particularly targeting Muslims, immigrants, journalists, and political opponents.

Loomer has framed these bans as ideological censorship. But enforcement actions across multiple companies, jurisdictions, and years point to a sustained pattern of behavior—not selective persecution.

Anti-Muslim Rhetoric and International Consequences

Much of Loomer’s notoriety stems from her repeated attacks on Muslims and Islam, which have gone far beyond policy critique into collective condemnation. In 2018, the United Kingdom barred Loomer from entering the country, citing her public statements as grounds under public order and hate speech standards.

That decision was not symbolic. It was an official determination by a foreign government that her rhetoric posed a legitimate concern.

Performative Activism and Political Isolation

Loomer’s activism has also taken the form of public stunts—interrupting press events, aggressively confronting journalists and lawmakers, and staging incidents designed for viral amplification. These tactics have drawn criticism not only from political opponents but from within conservative circles, where multiple Republican figures have publicly distanced themselves from her conduct.

The result has been visibility without legitimacy.

The Courts Enter the Record

Where Loomer’s narrative most clearly collapses is in the courtroom.

Her lawsuits—particularly against CAIR—have not produced vindication. They have produced sanctions, dismissals, and binding financial judgments.

Timeline: Laura Loomer’s Legal Losses

2019
A federal district court dismissed CAIR and CAIR-Florida from Loomer’s lawsuit alleging the organization forced Twitter to ban her. The court described the claims as lacking merit and ordered Loomer to pay attorney’s fees and costs.

2019–2022
The court determined Loomer owed approximately $123,761.65, plus costs, to CAIR and its Florida chapter. Loomer appealed multiple times.

2022
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment, rejecting Loomer’s appeals and stating bluntly:

“After three appeals to our Court, this matter should be at an end.”

2023
Facing enforcement of the judgment, Loomer entered into a settlement agreement with CAIR allowing her to pay a reduced amount—$73,500—in monthly installments to satisfy her debt.

2025
Loomer filed a motion asking a federal court for permission to stop making payments, citing political developments and grievances unrelated to the judgment itself.

January 29, 2026
A federal judge rejected Loomer’s request, ruling that she must complete the settlement payments as agreed.

February 2, 2026
CAIR publicly announced the ruling, confirming that Loomer remains legally obligated to finish paying the debt resulting from her failed lawsuit.

The Law Does Not Recognize Victimhood Narratives

Loomer’s repeated framing of herself as a victim of conspiracies and institutional bias does not alter the legal record. Courts do not adjudicate feelings, outrage, or online narratives. They adjudicate evidence, claims, and law.

In Loomer’s case, the courts have been consistent:

• Her claims were dismissed
• Her appeals were rejected
• Her debts were affirmed
• Her obligations remain enforceable

This is not political suppression. It is judicial finality.

The Larger Lesson

Laura Loomer’s career illustrates the hard limit of grievance politics. Public controversy may generate attention, fundraising, and online loyalty—but it does not override contracts, judgments, or the authority of federal courts.

Rights are protected by due process.
Judgments are enforced by it.

And no amount of outrage, provocation, or rhetorical escalation substitutes for legal accountability.

What Loomer’s record ultimately shows is not persecution by institutions—but repeated collision with them, followed by decisive losses on the merits.

Michigan Democratic Establishment Moves to Sideline Abdul El-Sayed in Senate Primary

A growing internal fight within the Michigan Democratic Party is spilling into public view, as grassroots voters push back against what they see as establishment efforts to control the outcome of the upcoming U.S. Senate primary.

At the center of the controversy is pressure being placed on Governor Gretchen Whitmer to intervene early in the race by endorsing either Rep. Haley Stevens or State Senator Mallory McMorrow, with the goal of narrowing the field and sidelining progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed before voters have a chance to decide.

According to senior Michigan Democratic officials who spoke anonymously, party leaders fear that a contested primary could weaken Democrats heading into the general election. One official reportedly warned that without early consolidation behind a preferred candidate, “we could see real losses.”

That strategy, however, has ignited backlash from Democratic voters and activists who argue that party elites are once again trying to put their thumb on the scale.

In a sharply worded post shared by supporters of Abdul El-Sayed, establishment figures — including Whitmer and Democratic Party leadership — were told to “stay the heck away from this race” and allow Michigan Democrats to choose their nominee through a fair and open primary. The message reflects mounting frustration among voters who say they are tired of backroom maneuvering, early endorsements, and candidates being anointed before a single vote is cast.

The tension is compounded by lingering political history. Whitmer and El-Sayed faced off in the 2018 Democratic gubernatorial primary, a race that party insiders now admit left lasting friction. Officials privately acknowledge that “bad blood remains,” raising concerns that personal and institutional grudges are influencing today’s strategic decisions.

Critics argue that the push to quickly elevate Stevens or McMorrow under the banner of “electability” ignores the reality that competitive primaries often energize voters, expand turnout, and strengthen eventual nominees. They warn that suppressing grassroots enthusiasm in favor of managed outcomes risks alienating key segments of the Democratic base.

Supporters of El-Sayed, in particular, view the pressure campaign as emblematic of a broader problem within the party — one where progressive candidates are tolerated rhetorically but sidelined in practice when they threaten establishment power structures.

At its core, the dispute raises a fundamental question for Michigan Democrats: should party leadership decide who runs and who wins, or should voters be trusted to make that choice themselves?

As the Senate primary approaches, the party faces a critical crossroads. How Democratic leaders handle this moment may shape not only the outcome of the race, but whether disillusioned voters feel inspired to participate or decide the process was rigged long before they ever reached the ballot box.

Trump Exploits Public Distraction to Ram Through $6 Billion Arms Deal to Israel, Again Bypassing Congress

As Americans were consumed by the explosive release of the Epstein files over the weekend, Donald Trump took advantage of the distraction to push through another massive arms deal to Israel — roughly $6 billion in weapons sales — once again circumventing the United States Congress and ignoring established checks on executive power.

According to Haaretz, the Trump administration approved four separate arms sales to Israel, including tactical military vehicles and helicopters, without the customary congressional review required under U.S. law. Senior Democratic officials described the move as a blatant violation of congressional norms, warning that it further erodes legislative authority over foreign military sales and war-related decision-making.

This was not an oversight. It was a calculated maneuver.

By invoking emergency authorities, Trump effectively cut Congress out of the process, silencing debate at a time when U.S. weapons are directly tied to an ongoing and devastating conflict in Gaza. Lawmakers were denied the chance to question how these weapons would be used, whether they comply with U.S. arms export laws, or whether American taxpayers should be underwriting further military escalation.

A senior Democratic official told Haaretz that Trump “refuses to engage Congress on critical questions about the next steps in Gaza,” underscoring a pattern of deliberate avoidance of accountability. This mirrors Trump’s previous use of emergency declarations to force arms deals through despite bipartisan objections, humanitarian concerns, and warnings from international observers.

The timing is impossible to ignore. While the country argued over Epstein, Trump moved billions in weapons behind closed doors. No hearings. No votes. No transparency.

Critics argue this reflects a broader strategy: bury controversial foreign policy decisions under moments of national distraction, then claim executive authority as a shield against scrutiny. The result is a presidency that treats Congress as an inconvenience and the public as an afterthought.

The deal also raises serious legal and ethical questions. U.S. arms export laws are designed to prevent weapons from being used in ways that violate human rights or international law. By bypassing Congress, Trump ensured those questions would not be asked — let alone answered.

At stake is more than a single arms package. This episode highlights a dangerous precedent: a president unilaterally funneling billions in weapons into an active conflict while evading oversight, all while the public’s attention is diverted elsewhere.

As global pressure mounts and civilian casualties continue to rise, the $6 billion arms transfer stands as yet another example of executive power exercised without restraint, transparency, or democratic consent.

The question now is not just why the deal was approved — but why it was done quietly, and who benefits from Americans not paying attention.