The Common Ills: One fluffs Markwayne Mullin, the other presses him

The Sunday Chat & Chews? Margaret Brennan wasted time on CBS' FACE THE NATION when she spoke to Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin. Was she asleep? Did she not do any prep for the interview? It was a waste of time. We'll note two examples.

First, she raised the issue of the man shot last week in New York in a residential neighborhood where ICE shot the man driving the car despite the fact that they were in a residential neighborhood.

Yes, the man's five-year-old child was in the car and, no, ICE shouldn't have shot for that reason. But it is also true that the elected to shoot a gun repeatedly in a residential neighborhood. That put everyone in that neighborhood at risk. The man being targeted was not shooting at anyone. ICE went beyond what they should have. In doing so, they put hundreds of civilians at risk.

She wanted to cite only the five year old and she let Mullin turn it around and say the father put the child at risk. She didn't counter that. She didn't call out the shooting in a residential neighborhood. She just let him go along rewriting history.

And she ignores what happened yesterday morning outside of Houston when ICE used their vehicle to run over Miguel Parra-Hernandez who was on foot in a parking lot.

If that had been a police officer, there would be a very loud outcry and investigation.

Miguel has a broken leg because ICE deliberately hit him with their car. That's not how you apprehend people. You also don't just start shooting at a suspect in a residential neighborhood who is not shooting at you or anyone else. In both cases, excessive force was utilized and maybe instead of allowing Mullin to attack the parenting of the man shot, she could have made that point.

Our second call out has to do with Chump and Priss Pot Hegseth's barbaric decision to livestream an execution.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm not asking about him. I'm asking about the livestreaming and the risk that could be created by it.

SECRETARY MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Listen, once again, no one has to watch it if they don't choose to.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why livestream it?

SECRETARY MARKWAYNE MULLIN: I – I follow President Trump. He's a the commander – he's the commander in – in chief of the – of the country, and he does a phenomenal job.

We corrected the 'emotional' Diane Sawyer years ago for this. It was worse because she said it. She said Bully Boy Bush was the country's commander-in-chief. Nixon's little tidbit we didn't expect much from. But Markwayne wrongly -- no surprise there -- identified Chump as the country's commander-in-chief.

Chump's not.

He's president of the United States.

But he's only commander-in-chief of the military. And until the day comes that the US is a military junta, no president will ever be commander-in-chief of this country. They are presidents of this country. The role of commander-in-chief is over the military, not the country.

And if we're going to talk about live streaming and potential damage? I think we need to talk about children. Children shouldn't see a live streaming of someone being publicly executed without permission from a parent or legal guardian. So if the appalling event is streamed, how does Chump intend to keep children from seeing it live? Will there be some wall that will exist?

The GOP freaks put up porn walls in some states. So I assume that a wall like that can be put up to prevent children from watching on their own.

There are so many questions that this barbaric decision raises. Rene Marsh covered a few on CNN THIS MORNING:

MARSH: Officials across the Pentagon and the Army were caught off guard by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's announcement that the firing squad execution of the Fort Hood mass shooter would be shown in public. That's according to three sources familiar with the matter.

Hegseth made the announcement in an interview on Wednesday, and it was the first time many in the Army and Pentagon had even heard about the idea. While the Pentagon confirms plans for a livestream, President Donald Trump says he has not yet made a final decision on the matter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: There are two thoughts. Don't show it and show it. Because, you know, by showing it, maybe other people won't be doing what he did. So I'll make a decision ultimately. I know what the military would like to do, but we'll make a decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARSH: Well, joining me now is a reporter for the Associated Press, Jeffrey Collins. He actually witnessed the firing squad execution of Brad Sigmon back in March of 2025.

Jeffrey, good morning. Thanks for joining us. I mean, as someone who has witnessed lethal injection, the electric chair, and even firing squad executions, how does the reality of witnessing a firing squad differ from some of those other execution methods?

JEFFREY COLLINS, REPORTER, ASSOCIATED PRESS: The biggest difference between a lethal injection and the firing squad is just the firing squad is just much quicker and much more violent. A lethal injection, you know, it happens slowly. You know, the person kind of slowly ceases breathing.

The inmate, you know, whereas with the firing squad, it happens very quickly. You know, they put the hood over the inmate's head. Forty- five seconds later, without any warning, one, two, three, or anything like that, a shot's fired -- three shots, actually, in South Carolina. There were three volunteers. And, you know, it's just over that quickly. But it's also, like I said, a very violent kind of thing. MARSH: And I know you have witnessed that in 2025. I just wonder, after seeing that in person, how that has impacted you and just even the replaying of that, having witnessed that.

COLLINS: Well, it's, you know, part -- a big part, this is my job to be able to witness executions and tell the public what I see. You know, in the United States, executions aren't held in public. So oftentimes myself and two other media members are the only people that tell people what this looks like.

So, you know, the -- it's important to me to be able to see these, to be able to say, this is what it looks like. I've seen three firing squad executions, so I can compare one to the other. You know, if something seems wrong, I'm quickly able to discern that. And so, you know, I try to remember that it's that consistency and being able to tell people what I saw that's important.

MARSH: In a traditional witness room, your view is pretty controlled. You're through -- looking through a window and the shooters themselves, they are actually hidden behind a partition. But if there was a live stream of this sort of execution, what are some of the key details that a camera might miss or even highlight that the public might not even anticipate?

COLLINS: Well, again, you know, part of the situation with the firing squad is I can only look one place at a time as a human being. So, you know, there's questions about, you know, how is this just going to be like a camera set up just that just streams? Is it going to be, you know, multi-camera set up? Is it going to be somebody cutting between shots? I mean, there's, you know, when you're just witnessing it, it's done in a very, in a private kind of setting. It's done very sterile, you know, everything's set up. The inmates are already in place before the firing squad begins? You know, they're already strapped in when the curtain opens and the witnesses can begin to see.

So, you know, when -- and again, like I said, you look at so many different places because when the shots are fired, you're looking at the inmate, but you're also trying to look towards where the shooters are at, where you can't see, but you're trying to see what you might be able to see. Trying to look at witness reactions and things like that as a witness. I'm trying to see so many different things and what time it happens. I'm trying to keep that clock in my head too.

RENE MARSH, CNN ANCHOR: The defense officials, they have expressed deep concern over the psychological toll on service members who are actually ordered to carry out the execution. Based on your observation and even your reporting, how heavy of a burden is it for the personnel inside the chamber?

COLLINS: The -- what -- South Carolina, they -- everyone involved in an execution from helping out the media to making sure witnesses get where they need to go or volunteers. And the prison system makes a big deal out of that because they feel like being volunteers, they already kind of, they accept their role and they understand their role. And so, it lessens that psychological burden. But as you talk about witnesses themselves, especially, you know, I'll talk to defense attorneys or even families of victims. And, you know, it has an impact on everybody. I mean, I don't think that you can ever watch someone die in front of you and not have some kind of psychological impact. That's -- you know, we're human beings. So, you know, watching someone lose their life is always going to affect us in some way.

MARSH: Yes. Well, Jeffrey Collins, thanks so much for joining us and sharing your insight.

COLLINS: Oh, you're welcome. Thanks for having me.

Markwayne appeared on STATE OF THE UNION (CNN) where Jake Tapper provided the push back Brennen did not.

JAKE TAPPER: On immigration, a shooting by federal officers in the Bronx reignited tensions over Trump's deportation crackdown and the tactics used, this after agents carrying out an enforcement operation fired multiple shots into a car, wounding the driver while his 5-year-old child was in the back seat.

And joining me now is the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin.

Secretary Mullin, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it.

Let's start by showing our viewers this NYPD video of the shooting. You can see Oscar Belgal in a parking spot. A plainclothes officer approaches the driver's side window with his gun drawn. Another plainclothes officer approaches by the driver's side headlight.

Belgal then appears to try to reverse and try to drive away. One of the officers is banging on his window with a gun. So, I understand that Oscar Belgal in the country illegally, and he has a criminal record, including grand larceny.

I guess the question I have is, do you see how, for anyone, a bunch of men not clearly identified as with the government, as with ICE, banging on windows with a gun might cause anyone to flee? And I wonder, would it not be safer for the officers if they were clearly identified as with ICE?

MULLIN: Well, Jake, what you're not understanding is the full gravity of the situation, that Oscar

-----------------

ICE has been caught lying repeatedly in courts across this country. In addition, many lied about Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti and, even after the truth was known, these officials refused to correct the public record and apologize for calling the two terrorists. As a result, we're not interested when any ICE official wants to share details that can't be backed up or verified.

TAPPER: Yes, so I'm just asking about the tactics. I'm not defending the character of any of these gentlemen, because, obviously, one of the reasons this has gotten so much attention is that Oscar Belgal's 5-year-old son was in the backseat of the car.

Now, you have said that the agents were not aware that there was this child in the backseat of the car. But I wonder also about, in terms of tactics, shouldn't agents be checking for things like that before they fire into the vehicle?

Thankfully, the kids fine, but if this was a targeted operation, they were surveilling Mr. Belgal, are you 100 percent sure that the tactics being used don't need to change in any way here?

MULLIN: Well, let's be clear about this too. Do you know who knew the 5-year-old was in the car?

TAPPER: Sure, Oscar Belgal, yes.

Markwayne started into another fantasy and was winging it -- as evidenced by "If I'm a father -- if I'm a father -- which I am a father" -- and we're not putting his nonsense in here. Again, ICE has lied too much and too often. They've given up the right to be believed. They surrendered that right when they lied repeatedly to the public and repeatedly in court.

TAPPER: So let me just ask you another thing. We have seen a bunch of these incidents where agents go after someone who is behind the wheel of a car. And sometimes it ends with the target winding up dead, including two incidents like this since you have become secretary, a Venezuelan man in Texas, a Dominican man in Maine in July.

Tactically, should DHS institute practices where officers are suggested -- it's suggested that they wait for someone to get out of the car before going after them so that the car cannot be weaponized?

MULLIN: Well, the problem that you continue to have is individuals like this are going to flee.
Markwayne spews a lot of nonsense about murder that is intended to outrage but has nothing to do with the shooting that ICE carried out in a residential neighborhood.

TAPPER: So you said ICE agents were wearing body cameras during the encounter.

MULLIN: Yes.

[09:10:00]

TAPPER: The NYPD have already released its bodycam footage.

MULLIN: Yes.

TAPPER: Will the -- is the ICE agents' bodycam footage going to be released to the public as well? And, if so, when?

MULLIN: I'm sure it will be. Right now, FBI and HSI are doing the investigation. So, as it develops and we get all the information out correctly, we'll release information at due time.

One thing that we have learned for sure is that we never want to get ahead of the investigation. That's even with me and the speech or the conversations that I have about it. I want to be very clear that the investigation will go through, and when we find it and we are -- complete the investigation, we'll be very, very transparent with the public.

I can't comment on an ongoing investigation.

Remember that phrase? It seems to have been forgotten since Chump got sworn back in as president in January of 2025.

And when their initial statements are wrong, Homeland Security doesn't correct them. In fact, they have fits in court when evidence is ordered to be made public by judges. They insist that knowing they moved a car and took it out of state to be buffed out is something that the public can't know!!!! They lie and then when caught, they try to pressure the judges into not making public what has taken place.

No one at Homeland Security deserves the benefit of the doubt. If news outlets are going to include their statements, they need to note the many times Homeland Security officials have lied to the press.

And here's where the media keeps failing us. Homeland Security officials have been caught in one lie after another. It's so bad that judges can't really take their claims seriously at this point. But the media too often repeats claims regarding ICE without noting the long pattern of lies from them this year.

This is not a new position for us. Ava and I noted in "Media: They fail to note the pattern of ICE lies but make time to defend this year's John Fetterman" back on October 39, 2005:

We were all taught about the little boy who cried wolf. You don't lie because you'll be known as a liar and the time will come when you need to be believed but you're known as a liar.

A lesson we're taught as children is too much for ICE and the officials over ICE to grasp. That might be shocking if we hadn't already addressed the relaxed 'standards' when it comes to hiring ICE agents.

Their lies were obvious once the operations started. From July 23, 2025, this is from Ava and my "Media: Why America's turned on Chump's war on immigrants:"

We've got two choices here. ICE carried out the raid and thought the man was a violent criminal is one choice. If that's the case, they put an entire school at risk. There was no need to arrest a violent criminal -- or even a suspected one -- on school property. Chump doesn't get this but America's has had enough of students being killed in school shootings.

That Oregon incident? It demands an immediate Congressional probe and we need to know who's signing off on these actions. Who thought it was acceptable to pull that action off at a school? That left every child there at risk of violence.

There's the also the second possibility: ICE knew this wasn't a violent criminal.

They like to lie -- especially Kristi Noem, Donald Chump and Tom Holman -- about the success they're having with these arrests.

But the figures don't back them up.

The California operation that led to them beating Iraq War veteran George and holding him for three days? Julie Watson, Amy Taxin and Olga R. Rodriguez (AP) note, "The government said four of the 361 arrested had prior criminal records, including convictions for rape and kidnapping." The government says they nabbed 361 people. And the government says four "had prior criminal records."

On the proposed live streamed execution, VATICAN NEWS reports:

Pope Leo XIV has posted on his official X account that the Catholic Church holds the death penalty to be “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

In a post published on Saturday, on the World Day Against the Death Penalty, the Pope noted that justice can be upheld and the common good of humanity can be safeguarded without relying on capital punishment.

He said criminals can be effectively detained in order to protect citizens, while still allowing those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption.

“The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. #NoDeathPenalty,” wrote Pope Leo.

The Pope’s post came a day after Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin and the President of the US Bishops’ Conference made statements against the planned public execution of Nidal Hassan.

Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Schiff's office:

San Francisco, CA — This week, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) discussed his view on rapidly developing AI capabilities and the role of Congress in regulating the technology during an interview with Punchbowl News co-founders Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer at the publication’s first-ever Tech Summit in San Francisco.

In the wide-ranging discussion, Schiffhighlighted his legislation to ensure private industry pays for the energy they use amid the buildout of data centers – so that Americans are not forced to pay higher energy costs as a result of the AI boom – and discussed Democrats’ approach to AI oversight next year, noting that Americans should “expect constructive oversight, not destructive oversight.”

Schiff also discussedthe risks he sees in rapidly advancing AI models and argued that concerns about competition with China should include prioritization of safety, developing a skilled workforce, and improving education.

View the full interview here.

Key Excerpts:

On Democrats’ AI priorities should control of Congress flip:

[…] I think the industry should expect constructive oversight, not destructive oversight. I think it should expect a Democratic majority that wants technology to succeed, wants these jobs to stay in America, wants their contribution to the economy and medicine and science but believes in regulation. Does not believe that any group of people be by dint of their wealth are empowered to make decisions affecting all of society for themselves. I think that’s what they should expect. 

[…] What I do want to see is oversight that leads to sensible regulation of an industry that can do a lot of good and can do a lot of harm. To minimize the harms, to protect against the harms, do what government is supposed to do. I want to see a Congress that does what we have done in the past when we also had massive powerful corporations but we’re not afraid to regulate them. That is a basic function of government.

On why Congress must move quickly to put guardrails on advanced AI:

[…] I do think we need to put in place protocols and monitors, a system to make sure that as these frontier models are developing, they’re developing safely. That there are processes in place where we don’t have to simply take the word of the companies that ‘don’t worry we’re doing it safely.’ I certainly don’t believe the self-policing; the moral authority argument is sufficient. There’s just too much profit motive, too much of a collective action problem that confronts the whole industry globally.

[…] You train the power of AI to find out everything it can about a single individual. Do we really think that their health records or their purchases or their subscriptions or any of their data is beyond the reach of an AI agent, sophisticated model, trying to find out the personal information? And with all the Flock cameras and with all the other CCTV cameras and the vulnerability of those systems, are we going to have any privacy left? And I think unless Congress acts, there won’t be any privacy left.

On ensuring AI development is safe as we compete with China to establish AI dominance:

[…] I get that we should be very concerned about China’s advances in this area. I don’t want to dismiss that argument. That’s an argument that says that we need to reach some kind of an accord with China, which won’t be easy to do, but we need to do our best. It is not an argument though that, because China is making advances and we want to stay ahead of China, that we should rush headlong with the development of these models and regenerative AI in such a way that well, ‘let’s be sure that if we kill ourselves we do it first rather than letting China do it.’ We still want to make sure what we’re doing is safe for our people and safe for others.

[…]  Why don’t we focus on improving our education system? Improving STEM education, making sure that everyone who graduates from high school has a good solid education, that the doors of higher education are open. Let’s compete with China on a skilled workforce. Let’s compete with China in how we think about the integration and the manufacturing of products that will incorporate AI. That’s where a lot of the economic benefits are going to come.

On passing legislation to protect Americans from absorbing higher costs from data center buildouts:

[…] I introduced an early bill on this that would insist essentially that these data centers pay their own way. That they not only develop their own energy, but also that they have additional capacity to put energy into the grid during peak times. That they are responsible for the upgrades to the regional system that those costs are not socialized to others. It’s not hard to require that. It’s certainly not going to be done just by some kind of, ‘well, we give you our word.’

[…] There should be complete transparency. I don’t think people should be misled about a project and then suddenly learn it’s going to be a data center in their backyard. But I don’t think everywhere is the same and I think communities should make the decision. Do they want it? Do they not want it? And some communities may want it, and many will not want it and that ought to be a decision that is made locally and I think not nationally. But we should be insistent nationally that those costs and burdens not be socialized onto others.

On the Senate’s latest proposal for permitting reform:

[…] We absolutely need permitting reform, and it looks like we may be close. What I’m going to be particularly looking at, and the text was just released, so we’re all kind of digging through it, is this going to be just regulatory reform for the oil and gas industry? Is this really just going to be used to advance those two sources of energy or, is this going to be advantageous to renewables? And what about in an administration in which there is almost a theocratic objection to anything but oil and gas? We’ve seen our state punished repeatedly by this president who only represents those states that he won. Is that going to continue? Are there any meaningful limits on that in this permitting reform? That’s what I’m going to be looking at.

###

The following sites updated:

Sunday, October 11, 2026

One fluffs Markwayne Mullin, the other presses him