D.C. Officer on Trump’s Crackdown: It “Doesn’t Make a Lot of Sense”

President Trump’s federal takeover of D.C. “doesn’t make a lot of sense” to D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, he told MSNBC’s Chris Jansing on Wednesday. The interview highlights how the ongoing militarization of the nation’s capital is not only an authoritarian power grab but also a theatrical farce.

Hodges—who was attacked while defending the Capitol building on January 6, 2021—noted that the troops Trump has stationed in D.C. are not exactly cut out for the job.

The National Guardsmen patrolling the city’s streets are not “in their lane,” said Hodges, citing his six-year stint as a member of the Virginia National Guard. “I can tell you that this is not what they’re trained to do,” Hodges said. “Soldiers are trained to fight and win wars. We’re not in a war out here in D.C. There’s crime out here, but it’s not a war-torn hellscape like Trump has said. The troops are not trained to do law enforcement.”

As for the officers from various federal agencies now policing Washington, he said, “I don’t think this is really their specialization either. So many of these federal officers are investigators. They’re supposed to be behind a desk, you know, working that way.” Rather than helping local police in the harsher areas of the city, Hodges said, “you’re going to see [the federal agents] standing around in Chinatown or on the [National] Mall or walking around Georgetown.” (Social media footage from the first few days of Trump’s takeover shows them doing just that.)

In the event that President Trump actually wants to help local law enforcement, Hodges offered some advice. For one, he said, the president could “actually allow D.C. to spend its own money.” D.C., after all, is currently still “in the hole” by about $1 billion due to Republican cuts to the city’s budget. Further, Hodges suggested, the Federal Emergency Management Agency could undo its recent 44 percent cut in assistance to the city’s security funding.

“So there are things that they can do to help us out that they’re not doing, and I would love to know why,” he said.

There’s apparently much more of the nonsense Hodges describes to come. Trump on Wednesday announced plans to extend the D.C. occupation beyond 30 days, at which point—though he will require congressional approval under the Home Rule Act—he’s vowed to do so even without Congress’s green light. And the capital is apparently just a testing ground, as the president suggests he’ll bring similar crackdowns to cities across the country.

President Trump was accidentally caught in one of his favorite lies: that he finished the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, one of the marquee promises of his first term.

“The Biden administration was auctioning off border wall materials, but we’re hearing now that … the auctioneer’s selling those materials back,” a reporter asked Trump while he took questions Wednesday at the Kennedy Center. “Are you finishing building the wall?”

“Well, I’ve built hundreds of miles of wall, and I was getting very close. I actually finished the wall, but then I added another 200 miles because when you do the original wall that I said I was gonna build—which I got built—and I got it to the specifications of the Border Patrol and ICE,” the president answered meanderingly. “They wanted steel, they wanted concrete inside, they wanted rebar inside that, they wanted it to have wires, the walls are wired for, you know, all of the internet stuff and security things.”

The president’s answer doesn’t make much sense. He said verbatim that he finished building the wall, but added on an extra 200 miles for the hell of it. How do you add 200 miles to a finished border wall without altering the border itself, which Trump never achieved?

He’s lying to avoid admitting that he failed at something. In reality, Trump only added 500 miles of border wall to a 2,000-mile border, and most of those wall pieces were for repair or reinforcement. And it wasn’t even a wall—it was a 30-foot fence.

For all his talk about Hillary Clinton and the Russia investigation, Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care that Russians hacked into sensitive government databases this year.

Answering questions outside the Kennedy Center Wednesday, the U.S. president appeared remarkably blasé about the foreign attack.

“There’s new reporting that the Russians have hacked into computer systems that manage U.S. federal court documents. I wonder if you’ve seen this report, and do you plan to bring it up with Putin when you see him later in the week?” asked one reporter.

“I guess I could. Are you surprised? Are you surprised? They hack in, that’s what they do,” Trump said. “They’re good at it, we’re good at it, we’re actually better at it.”

The New York Times reported Tuesday that a Russian entity had accessed the court case document system, as well as “recently compromised sealed records,” as part of a yearslong effort.

“Some of the searches included mid-level criminal cases in the New York City area and several other jurisdictions, with some cases involving people with Russian and Eastern European surnames,” the Times reported.

But the president’s shocking reaction to the attack also undercuts Republican efforts to reframe the 2016 Trump-Russia scandal against Clinton and former President Barack Obama: If he doesn’t care about Russian meddling under the nose of his administration, why would he care so deeply about reframing the narrative around the foreign power’s intervention nine years ago?

Trump is scheduled to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin Friday in Alaska to discuss a potential resolution to the war in Ukraine. It will be the first time that the Russian leader has stepped foot on U.S. soil in over a decade.

Laura Loomer’s deposition against HBO late-night host Bill Maher has offered absurd new insights into the woman unofficially tasked with federal staffing decisions.

The self-appointed “loyalty enforcer” has had enormous success influencing the Trump administration from the safety of her X account: An analysis by The Daily Beast found that at least 16 individuals were fired from the federal government after Loomer singled them out as covert Democratic agents.

But more than 200 pages of Loomer’s transcribed deposition in her defamation lawsuit against Maher shed light on the influencer’s beliefs and prerogatives—and illustrate her as a raving conspiracist rather than a fine-tuned firing machine.

In sprawling answers to completely unrelated questions, Loomer rants about George Stephanopolous, her lack of boyfriends, and her inability to get a White House press credential, in an interview that quickly flies off the handle.

In one particularly wild exchange, Loomer practically roasted Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene as someone who puts “roast beef in her pants.”

“What is your basis for saying she put Arby’s in her pants?” Maher’s legal counsel asked.

“She carries roast beef in her pockets,” Loomer responded.

“What is your basis for saying she puts roast beef in her pockets and in her pants?” the counsel pressed.

“Because I know she likes to eat at Arby’s,” Loomer said, further clarifying that she believes Greene puts the meat sandwiches in her pants and that she believed Greene would agree with that statement.

“Are you making a derogatory comment about her sex life by talking about Arby’s in her pants?” the counsel asked.

“No. I’m talking about Arby’s, the sandwiches. I’m talking about Arby’s. I would—I’m a very direct person,” Loomer said. “If I was making a derogatory comment, I would have said it.”

Immediately after the Arby’s exchange, Loomer offered another gem without provocation: She believed Senator Lindsey Graham is gay.

“Several of President Trump’s staff have told me in confidence that Lindsey Graham is gay,” Loomer said.

“Hold on, Ms. Loomer, there’s no question,” responded Maher’s attorney.

Loomer sued Maher and HBO in October after the late-night show host suggested that Loomer “might” be “fucking” Donald Trump. The far-right activist has since claimed that Maher’s joke tanked her odds at landing a White House gig.

Three days into his federal takeover of Washington, D.C., Trump said he plans to extend the crackdown beyond its month-long limit—with or without congressional approval.

The president on Wednesday was asked if he considers the 30-day timeframe during which he’s allowed, under the Home Rule Act, to control D.C.’s police before needing Congress’s OK as sufficient to address his imagined crime spike.

Before today, his administration’s answer to this question was seemingly yes; a White House official has said the operation is “expected to last 30 days.”

Now Trump is looking to extend it.

The president indicated Wednesday that his plan A is to put a “crime bill” before Congress “very quickly.” The bill, he said, will “pertain, initially, to D.C.” and ask “for extensions on that—long-term extensions, because you can’t have 30 days.” Trump noted that he expects unanimous Republican support for this (though, as Semafor reports, Senate Democrats seem able and committed to block an extension).

But Trump also expressed his willingness to bypass Congress to draw out the takeover. “Well, if it’s a national emergency, we can do it without Congress,” he said, adding that while he expects all Republicans to fall in line, “if I have to [call a national emergency], I will.”

Trump has flogged national emergency power more than any other recent president, exhibiting, per libertarian legal scholar Ilya Somin, “a dangerous pattern of invoking spurious emergencies to undermine the Constitution, threatening liberty and circumventing Congress.” So far during his second term, he’s declared a dozen such national emergencies—and is apparently ready to add to that list in order to impose his will, unchecked, on the American people.