Chicago Shooting Video Exposes Gaps in Federal Narrative After Charges Collapse
The Morning Sixpack - 02/13/2026 Bodycam fallout, Epstein resignations, DOJ clashes, DHS chaos and Trump trailing Biden in new polls
Bodycam, Texts and Praise: Feds’ Own Evidence Undercuts Chicago Border Shooting Narrative
The government’s own footage and messages are now raising serious questions about how a Chicago woman ended up shot FIVE times—and branded a “domestic terrorist.”
Federal prosecutors released body camera video, internal texts and emails in the case of Marimar Martinez, the 30-year-old U.S. citizen shot by Border Patrol during “Operation Midway Blitz” last October. Charges accusing her of ramming a federal SUV were quietly dropped after Judge Georgia Alexakis said the government’s handling of the case caused her “to question the narrative being put forward.” Martinez survived being hit in the arm and leg. Now the public gets to see what prosecutors were sitting on.
The newly released bodycam footage—this one from another agent, not the shooter—shows agents in a Chevy Tahoe with weapons drawn before the collision. “Camera’s on,” one says.
Another shouts, “Do something, b*tch,” as horns blare outside. Moments later: “It’s time to get aggressive and get the f**k out, because they’re trying to box us in.” (They weren’t.)
The CBP driver of the SUV jolts LEFT. “We’ve been struck,” agents report. (They hit her.) Roughly two seconds after the driver exits, gunshots ring out. The shooter, agent Charles Exum, had a body camera—but it wasn’t turned on.
Martinez’s attorney, Christopher Parente, didn’t mince words: “All of this could have been avoided, because you would have clearly seen that she never drove at this agent and that he shot her as she went by, but Agent Exum never bothered to turn on the camera that the government paid for him to have.”
He also pointed to physical evidence showing at least one bullet traveled from the back to the front of Martinez’s car—undercutting Exum’s claim that he fired through her windshield as she came at him.
Then there are the texts. In one exchange, Exum bragged, “I fired 5 rounds, and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.” In court, he explained, “I take pride in my shooting skills.” In another thread, when asked if he had support, he replied, “big time,” adding that “Chief Bovino, Chief Banks, Sec Noem and El Jefe himself…according to Bovino” were backing him. Parente says “El Jefe” refers to Donald Trump. An email from then–top Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino, sent hours after the shooting, praised Exum’s “excellent service in Chicago” and offered to delay his retirement. Meanwhile, Martinez was hospitalized.
The Department of Homeland Security labeled Martinez a “domestic terrorist,” a claim it has never retracted. DHS also amplified a social media post from FBI Director Kash Patel that showed the wrong video entirely. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker criticized the shooting; Exum texted mockingly in response. Now Martinez plans to attend the State of the Union as a guest of Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García and is preparing a civil suit seeking tens of millions in damages. DHS maintains she “attacked law enforcement.” Martinez says she was sideswiped and shot while driving away.
Watch the video. It’s clear as day Martinez is telling the truth and DHS is LYING.
Source: CNN
Editor: When agents are texting like they just won a bowling trophy while a woman is in surgery, forgive the public for asking questions. Transparency shouldn’t require a court order—and turning off your bodycam isn’t exactly a confidence builder.
I implore you. Watch the video again. You will see one “agent” with his finger ON the trigger long before they get out of the SUV. You will see, ironically, that as another “agent” pulled his finger OFF the trigger that his bodycam literally shot through the trigger guard and onto the steering wheel, which you see turn abruptly to the left to hit Martinez’ car. There were no cars to the right of them and none in front. They weren’t “boxed in.” They LIED about the entire incident.
Goldman Sachs’ Top Lawyer Quits After Epstein Emails Surface
Goldman Sachs just lost its top lawyer after newly released Epstein emails made her position untenable.
Kathy Ruemmler, the bank’s chief legal officer and former White House counsel to Barack Obama, announced she will step down effective June 30, 2026. The resignation follows the release of emails showing she maintained a close relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein—even describing him as an “older brother” and referring to him as “Uncle Jeffrey.”
The emails paint a far more personal relationship than Ruemmler’s recent public statements suggested. While she has since called Epstein a “monster,” she once wrote, “So lovely and thoughtful! Thank you to Uncle Jeffrey!!!” after receiving luxury gifts, including high-end handbags and a fur coat. These exchanges occurred years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction and sex offender registration—raising uncomfortable questions inside a firm that prides itself on compliance and risk management.
In her resignation statement, Ruemmler framed the move as putting the bank first: “My responsibility is to put Goldman Sachs’ interests first.” David Solomon, the firm’s CEO, said he “accepted her resignation” and praised her as “one of the most accomplished professionals in her field.” As recently as December, he publicly backed her.
The backdrop here is simple: Wall Street has strict rules about gift-giving to avoid conflicts of interest and bribery concerns. Goldman Sachs requires preapproval for gifts tied to clients. The optics of expensive presents from a registered sex offender—no matter how personal the relationship—were never going to age well.
The broader Epstein document releases continue to ripple through political and business circles, dragging old relationships into new light. For Ruemmler, the emails proved impossible to outmaneuver. Goldman can spin it as a voluntary exit—but timing, as always, tells its own story.
Source: AP News
Editor: If you’re the chief legal officer of a global bank, “Uncle Jeffrey” is not a nickname that screams strong judgment. Wall Street loves to preach about risk management—until the reputational risk is sitting in your inbox.
Lawmakers Erupt Over Epstein Files: Redactions, Trump Allegations, and DOJ Demands Collide
The Epstein file release was supposed to bring transparency—instead it has detonated a political firestorm now engulfing the Justice Department.
Two explosive clashes broke out this week after the DOJ’s court-ordered document dump: one over redactions tied to a mysterious “political figure,” the other over an unverified tip alleging rape and murder involving Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. The result? Public demands, social media spats, and fresh pressure on Attorney General Pam Bondi to resign.
First up: Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche went toe-to-toe online with Rep. Ro Khanna over a 2016 email sent to Epstein by a redacted individual described as a “political figure.” The sender bragged about getting “more votes” than Jeb Bush during the 2016 presidential race, mentioned trying to visit Epstein’s island and signed off with “love ya.” Khanna, co-sponsor of the Epstein Files Transparency Act alongside Rep. Thomas Massie, argued the name should not have been blacked out because the law limits redactions to victims or minors.
Blanche shot back that Khanna was effectively “calling for the release of a victim’s personal information,” later posting: “I’ll ask you again to take down that post.” Khanna responded there was “no evidence this political candidate was a victim.” The DOJ has already faced criticism for other redactions—including briefly concealing the name of Emirati billionaire Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem before reversing course under bipartisan pressure.
Then came the second blast. Rep. Ted Lieu publicly demanded DOJ action after flagging an unverified 2020 FBI tip from a limousine driver who claimed Trump made disturbing comments in the 1990s about abusing a girl while repeatedly invoking Epstein’s name. The tip further alleged that Trump and Epstein raped a girl who was later found dead—claims that were never substantiated and, according to the file, never formally investigated through a witness interview.
“DOJ NEVER INTERVIEWS WITNESS. When will DOJ interview this witness?” Lieu wrote on X, directly challenging Bondi. The allegation remains unproven, and no charges have ever stemmed from the tip. But its presence in the files—and the DOJ’s handling of it—has reignited scrutiny over how Epstein-related claims were triaged, pursued, or shelved.
The Epstein document release was meant to settle long-simmering suspicions. Instead, it’s fueling new ones—from why certain names were hidden to why certain allegations were never chased down. Transparency laws may force paper into the daylight. They don’t guarantee clarity.
Source: Raw Story – Blanche/Khanna dispute and Raw Story – Lieu allegation
Editor: When the DOJ is arguing with members of Congress on X about who counts as a “victim” while sitting on unvetted rape allegations tied to a former president, confidence in institutional judgment isn’t exactly soaring.
DOJ Fails to Indict Democratic Lawmakers Over Anti-Trump Military Video
The Justice Department tried to criminalize a 90-second video reminding troops to refuse illegal orders—and a grand jury shut it down cold.
Federal prosecutors this week sought felony indictments against Sens. Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, along with Reps. Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio. Their alleged offense? Recording a video last fall reminding service members that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they are obligated to refuse unlawful orders.
Grand jurors rejected the case outright. But the attempt alone marks the first time the DOJ has tried to treat public criticism of Donald Trump as a criminal act. The proposed charge: interfering with the “loyalty, morale, or discipline” of U.S. forces—a rarely invoked felony.
The video, organized by Slotkin—a former CIA analyst—didn’t mention specific policies. But both she and Kelly have criticized Trump’s military strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific and his deployment of the National Guard to Democratic-led cities. Trump responded at the time by blasting the lawmakers for “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” and calling their remarks “SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.”
The case was brought under the supervision of interim D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, with two political appointees presenting it to the grand jury. None of the jurors found probable cause. Meanwhile, Sen. Brian Schatz warned that the failed prosecution attempt itself should alarm Congress. Even Republican Sen. Thom Tillis called it “political lawfare.”
The backdrop is hard to ignore. The department previously indicted former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—cases later dismissed by a judge. Now sitting senators were nearly facing arrest over speech about constitutional obligations. As Slotkin put it: “If things had gone a different way, we’d be preparing for arrest.”
The indictments failed. The message, critics argue, was the point.
Source: The Washington Post (free)
Editor: When reminding troops to follow the law becomes a potential felony, we’re not debating policy—we’re stress-testing the First Amendment. A grand jury may have stopped this round. The fact it got that far should make everyone pause.
Inside the Chaos at DHS: Kristi Noem’s Turbulent Tenure, a Fired Pilot (over a blanket), and a $70M Jet
The Department of Homeland Security is in open turmoil—and it now includes a pilot fired over a missing blanket, a luxury jet purchase, and a secretary fighting to keep her job.
Kristi Noem, already under pressure after the fatal Minneapolis shooting of Alex Pretti, is facing intensifying scrutiny over management chaos inside DHS. According to a Wall Street Journal report, her close adviser Corey Lewandowski fired a U.S. Coast Guard pilot after Noem’s blanket wasn’t transferred between planes. The pilot was later reinstated because there was no one else available to fly them home. DHS didn’t directly address the episode but said personnel moves are meant to “deliver excellence.”
The Pretti shooting became a turning point. After backlash over the aggressive immigration crackdown in Minnesota, President Donald Trump put border czar Tom Homan in charge of the operation and signaled it would wind down. Behind the scenes, officials say Noem and Lewandowski berated ICE leadership over protest videos, demanded new enforcement plans and worked to stage a public reset—complete with Oval Office meetings and press events.
Meanwhile, spending decisions have raised eyebrows. DHS is leasing—and moving to purchase—a luxury Boeing 737 MAX for roughly $70 million, officially earmarked for “high-profile deportations.” Staff reportedly joke it’s the secretary’s “big, beautiful jet.” The department insists the aircraft saves taxpayer money compared with military flights. At the same time, insiders say contract approvals have stalled projects, including border wall steel purchases that reportedly rose in cost by more than $100 million during delays. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott has clashed with Noem’s team over management and authority.
Lewandowski’s unusual status as a “special government employee”—capped at 130 days of service annually—has also drawn scrutiny. He has reportedly directed personnel decisions, weighed in on contracts and even pushed to be issued a federal badge and gun. DHS denies he sought a firearm and says he is fully compliant with ethics rules. Still, his outsize role has fueled internal complaints and a White House inquiry last year into whether he exceeded his permitted service limits.
Publicly, the White House says Trump has “full confidence” in Noem. Privately, administration officials describe DHS as the biggest headache of the president’s second term. After the Minneapolis fallout, Noem has sought to broaden her profile beyond immigration—approving disaster funds, staging FEMA briefings and leaning on political allies for supportive op-eds. But critics argue the damage is already done.
The reset tour is underway. Whether it sticks may depend less on messaging—and more on whether the chaos actually subsides.
Source: The Wall Street Journal (free)
Editor: Firing a pilot over a blanket while juggling a $70 million jet purchase is not exactly the model of disciplined governance. When the border czar has to clean up your operation and staff are joking about your plane, “optics” may no longer be your biggest problem.
Voters Say Biden Did a Better Job than Trump
Just one year into his second term, Donald Trump is trailing Joe Biden in head-to-head job approval—and that should set off alarms inside the White House.
Three new national surveys show voters saying Joe Biden—whose own unpopularity pushed him off the 2024 ballot—did a better job than Donald Trump. Harvard CAPS/Harris found 51% of registered voters think Trump is doing worse than Biden. Rasmussen Reports, typically friendly terrain for Trump, showed 48% of likely voters say Biden performed better, versus 40% for Trump. YouGov/Economist landed in similar territory, with 46% saying Trump is doing worse than Biden.
This isn’t just soft erosion—it’s movement on Trump’s supposed strengths. An NBC News poll found 49% of adults “strongly disapprove” of his handling of border security and immigration. CNN polling analyst Harry Enten reports Trump’s net approval on the economy is now 26 points lower than at this point in his first term—and 53 points lower among independents. Among voters aged 18–29, YouGov/Economist has him at a brutal -42 net approval.
The White House insists voters are forgetting the “economic disaster and immigration crisis” of the Biden years, arguing Trump is delivering on border enforcement and inflation. That echoes Democratic complaints about “Trump amnesia” in 2024—except this time it’s MAGA making the case that voters have short memories.
Still, this isn’t exactly a Biden renaissance. Several former Biden officials are running for office, but few are highlighting their time under him. And Republicans head into the midterms with a reported $550 million cash advantage, per The New York Times. Money talks—even when polling whispers panic.
The bigger number may be Gallup’s: just 59.2% of Americans expect to have high-quality lives five years from now—the lowest level in nearly two decades. That’s not a partisan stat. That’s a mood.
Source: Axios
Editor: When voters start saying the guy they just fired did a better job, that’s not a messaging hiccup—that’s a warning light on the dashboard. Nine months until the midterms. Buckle up.