am thinking @Malcador and similar posters learned their lesson and am not seeing the need to embarrass them with their initial failure o' imagination (reasonable and understandable) followed by a curious obstinate reluctance to ignore just how different were the trump threat compared to previous examples o' bad Presidents from post ww2.
converse, people who has invoked TDS as a response to those critical o' trump post january 6 deserve the same scorn and ridicule as the seth rich conspiracy nutters... and people who set off fireworks after midnight multiple days before or after holidays such as new years, chinse new years and the fourth of july. it were raining here on new years, so once the weather cleared a few folks in our neighborhood felt justified in firing off their unused arsenals a couple days later. not cool.
sadly, suing kriti noem for her defamation is gonna be difficult... and perhaps surprising, her dhs post ain't what is insulating her from deserved legal punishment. maybe hurl has heard us caution people against speaking out before facts is clear. has been a few doozy examples where we highlighted that the rush to craft a narrative in the absence o' evidence has a tendency to mark the lightning quick pundits as clowns and fools... not that such happening over and over again has slowed those most egregious purveyors o' stoopid even a little. so it goes.
unfortunate, the lack o' facts, or at least the possibility o' a counter-narrative before accepted facts is widely available, results in a legal defense to slander even if such behavior is moral repugnant. most o' us believe that government figures should have facts straight before they make accusations o' criminal behavior or moral turpitude, but that ain't a rule for kristi noem anymore than it is for the clowns posting on this board.
when discussing matters o' public interest, or when speaking o' individuals who is loosely defined as public figures, you may only receive damages if you are able to prove that the speaker knew (or should have known... which gets a little fuzzy at the margins, eh?) they were lying when they made their outlandish utterance. krisit noem has shown time and again that she is not only extreme ignorant but that she will speak before it is even possible to know a truth. as far as we can tell, her definition o' domestic terrorist is less a legal identifier than it is a label o' political affiliation, and at the moment, there is literal millions o' fox news, newsmax and oan viewers who has only seen selected video o' the incident which could be interpreted in such a way that the victim o' the minneapolis shooting were trying to run down an ice agent. go after kristi noem for her abject stoopid is no easier than winning a court judgement against your fellow boardies who misspoke about police shootings in wisconsin or the unfortunate events at Uvalde.
is functional your right as an american to blow your ignorant load.
...
also, and am feeling gross even mentioning, but the victim o' the shooting is dead, so kristi is further insulated from legal pain. is much more difficult (although not impossible) for surviving family members to be successful plaintiffs in defamation cases. if the victim had survived, brought a defamation claim, and then died, her family might be able to continue her defamation claim, depending on the state. regardless, as a general rule, you cannot defame a dead person... except in texas.
aside, even if kristi noem were held legal responsible, american tax payers would cover the damages.
HA! Good Fun!