BA handwritten FBI confession said a woman helped scout the Pulse nightclub attack. Then the cell towers didn't match.
BThat's the case of Noor Salman, widow of the Pulse shooter. Federal prosecutors charged her with aiding and abetting.
Bsportified posted on X about it. They pointed to that confession, claiming she scouted the target with her husband.
BBut the cell tower forensics blew the government's case open. The physical evidence didn't line up.
BThis was one of the worst mass shootings in American history—forty-nine people killed in Orlando in 2016. The pressure to convict was enormous.
BAnd in 2018, a jury acquitted her on all charges.
BAcquitted doesn't mean innocent. She was married to the shooter.
BIt means the state didn't prove its case. A confession that contradicts the physical evidence is worthless.
BBut a false confession doesn't mean she knew nothing.
BMaybe. But 'maybe' isn't enough to lock someone up for life.
BI hear that. But the families of forty-nine people might see it differently.
BThey might. But the system has to be better than a bad confession.
BAgreed. And that's exactly why the forensic contradiction matters.
BDifferent federal fight now. A post on X from Melissa Redpill claims Thomas Massie will force a House vote next week to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
BOver what exactly?
BWhat Massie calls an illegal war with Iran. The post says multiple GOP sources say the measure is coming.
BWhoa. If that's real, it's a huge constitutional fight.
BNo confirmation yet from Massie's office or House leadership. So it's a claim, not a fact.
BStill, the underlying idea isn't crazy. Congress never authorized military action against Iran.
BThe president can act in self-defense. The administration says it's protecting shipping or troops.
BProtecting shipping is one thing. A sustained bombing campaign is another. That is when Congress has to step in.
BBut impeachment? Hegseth didn't start a war. He's carrying out the Commander-in-Chief's orders.
BThat's not a blank check. The War Powers Act exists for a reason.
BSo file a lawsuit. Impeachment over a policy fight is a wrecking ball.
BIt's not a policy fight if there's no authorization! It's a structural attack on Congress.
BImpeachment is for high crimes, not disagreements about whether a strike is legal.
BAbuse of power can be impeachable. If the executive ignores Congress, what's the remedy?
BCongress controls the purse. Cut the funding.
BThey should. But you know as well as I do they won't.
BThen maybe the courts.
BCourts hate war powers cases. They call them political questions and walk away.
BSo it's impeachment or nothing?
BIt might be. And that's exactly why Massie's move—if it's real—would matter.
BI still say it's a long shot. Impeaching a Cabinet secretary over war policy sets a brutal precedent.
BOkay, but what precedent does Congress set by doing nothing while the executive bombs another country without a vote?
BThat's... a fair point. But I want a real floor debate, not a tweet.
BNow you're asking for a functioning Congress.
BConfirmed facts first. We'll know soon enough if the vote is real.
BAnd the post itself is wrapped in conspiracy language. The actual meat is the impeachment vote.
BWhich is why we're checking it. Massie is a libertarian, not exactly in leadership's good graces.
BWhich is another reason to doubt the vote happens. Leadership controls the floor.
BUnless he uses a privileged motion. That can force a vote.
BWould it have the votes? Probably not.
BProbably not, but it forces everyone on the record. That's the point.
BOkay, I can see the value in forcing a vote. But impeachment still feels like a stunt.
BA stunt that exposes a real problem: Congress has abdicated war powers for decades.
BThat I agree with. Both parties have let it happen.