Clinton Jaws - Entire Room Speechless as JD Vance Snaps & Destroys All Media To Their Face!

Episode Date: January 9, 2026

CNN Reporter Speechless When JD Vance Fact Check His lies!

Has been an absolute disgrace and it puts our law enforcement officers at risk every single day. You should be ashamed of yourself. Yep. Every single one of you. Yep. Questions. What is, I'm sorry, guys. What's going on here?

You guys are meant to report the truth. How have you let yourself become agents of propaganda of a radical fringe that's making it harder for us to enforce our law? Amazing. Next question. Stupid. I said next question. I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Honestly. To the Capitol down, why are you shaking your head? I can't wait until this is over. This cannot be your go-to. That's her go-to. I am pro-long-Six. I am pro-von. Democrat said what's her got-to.

Today they say they're Gestapo, which is it? Which is it? No. Clinton Jaws, I don't want your money. I just want your like. Please like this video. It's the only thing I care about. I was told that I'm supposed to come on YouTube and I'm,

how's the saying go? There's a saying. Talk what you know. Talk about what you know about. I don't always do. But when I talk about policing, that's what I know. And when I talk about it, I get it right every single time. I've seen a lot of dummies talking about this ice incident.

You've seen it. You've seen the word, even from the right, the stupidity that is coming out of their mouth. They sound like fools unless your name is just. J.D. Vance. I agreed with every single thing that he said. I was like, finally! And I don't understand how he gets it. How does this guy understand policing, but he does?

He eats the media alive. Let's watch it. And I'm also going to, I'm going to talk about last night, CNN panel, worst panel I've ever seen on Abby Phillips talking about it. I was yelling at the TV. Let's go, J.D. When I was actually walking out here, somebody sent me a photo of a CNN headline about what happened in Minneapolis. And this is the headline. I'm just going to read it.

Idiots. Outrage after ICE officer kills U.S. citizen in Minneapolis. Well, that's one way to put it. And that is the way that many people in the corporate media have put this attack over the last 24 hours. And I say attack very, very intentionally because this was an attack on federal law enforcement. this was an attack on law and order. This was an attack on the American people. The way that the media, by and large, has reported this story

has been an absolute disgrace, and it puts our law enforcement officers at risk every single day. What that headline leaves out is that that woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation in the United States of America. What that headline leaves out is that that woman is part of a broader left-wing network to attack, to docs,

to assault and to make it impossible for our ICE officers to do their job. If the media wants to tell the truth, they ought to tell the truth that a group of left-wing radicals have been working tirelessly, sometimes using domestic terror techniques to try to make it impossible for the President of the United States to do what the American people elected him to do, which is enforce our immigration laws. You people in the media, not everybody in this room, but many people in this room have been lying about this attack. He was trying to ram this guy with her car.

He shot back. He defended himself. He's already been seriously wounded in law enforcement operations before. Who's the real victim? Everybody who's been repeating the lie that this is some innocent woman who was out for a drive in Minneapolis. When a law enforcement officer shot at her, you should be ashamed of yourself. Every single one of you.

Yeah. Questions. Should DHS sort of revisit their procedures here? I mean, nobody wants to see an American guilt. Are there changes that need to be made to make sure something like this doesn't happen yet? But first of all, of course, nobody wants an American citizen to be killed. This is absolutely a tragedy. But it's a tragedy of the making of the far left.

They have radicalized a very small segment of the population, taught them that ICE agents are engaging in wide-scale violation of people's rights. What our ICE officers are doing is deporting the millions of criminal aliens that were led in during the Biden administration. So number one, we have to say. say as a matter of leadership. And I would appreciate if the Democrats would join me on this. Let's be honest.

Good luck. The fact that we have way too many illegal aliens in this country. Our ICE officers should be supported in doing their job. You're trying to actually marshal the far left lunatic fringe to engage in doxing, to try to make it impossible for them to enforce the law. And in some cases, actually to engage in acts of domestic terrorism against our law enforcement officers. Like every mayor, every leftist mayor. Why do you think stuff like this happens?

The mayors are telling citizens to do this. Remember the L.A. mayor? They could be undocumented as well, as well as their employees. But you don't have to cooperate. You don't have to cooperate. Be non-coroperative. That's what the L.A. mayor just told the world. Keep on going. Let's keep on going.

You can, you know, remain silent. There's a know your rights, a series of things that individuals can do and business owners. But, you know, you've seen pictures of people around the country. I saw a woman in a car, man, in a car. And he was waiting for his attorneys. And ICE just broke the windows of his car and dragged him out. That's because he was non-coroperative. That's just so stupid.

He wasn't being cooperative. Do you see what's going on here? These guys are lunatics. Everybody. Everybody is a lunatic. She's a lunatic. She's a complete lunatic. She's telling the world.

She's telling California, you don't have to be cooperative. But what is normal practice? Like, if you are detained, you're allowed to see your attorney who is... No, you're not. Just roll up your window. Ignore them. Democrats have to stop rallying the... mob against legitimate law enforcement operations.

And that means that we are going to get tougher. And that's what this AAG position is about. We're going to get tougher at the people who are defrauding the United States by inciting violence against our law enforcement officers. When somebody throws a brick at an ice agent or somebody tries to run over an ice agent, who paid for the brick and who told protesters to show up and engage in violent activity against our law enforcement officers, you see just with this most recent terrible incident in Minneapolis, you see friends of this woman's or other people who are

eyewitnesses saying basically that she was there to engage in obstruction of a legitimate law enforcement operation. How did she get there? How did she learn about this? There's an entire network and frankly, some of the media are participating in it that is trying to incite violence against our law enforcement officers. What you see is what you get in this case. You have a woman who is trying to obstruct a legitimate law enforcement operation. Nobody debates that. You have a woman who aimed her car at a law enforcement officer. Yes, she did. And the accelerator. Nobody debates that. I can believe that her death is a tragedy while also recognizing that it's a tragedy of her own making and a tragedy of the far left who has marshaled an entire movement, a lunatic fringe against our

law enforcement officers. What some of them are doing, what some of them are doing is encouraging people to get violent with our law enforcement officials. It's disgraceful and it's got to stop. Go ahead. Mr. President, thank you. You said earlier that... This guy's a dumb dick. There's a left-wing network to attack, to docs, to assault,

and make it impossible for ICE officers to do their job. You told my colleague just now that there's an investigation going on into that network. Yep. So if everything that you say is true, how does... being part of that network justify being shot. Meaning she didn't do anything wrong. Well, being part of the network doesn't justify being shot, but ramming an ICE officer with your car,

that's what justifies being shot. It's not a good thing, by the way, but when you force somebody to engage in self-defense, it's almost a preposterous question. I'm not saying that funding some of this stuff justifies capital punishment. Nobody would suggest that. The reason this woman is dead is because she tried to ram somebody with,

her car and that guy acted in self-defense. Of course. That is why she lost her life. What is, I'm sorry guys, what's going on here? You guys are meant to report the truth. How have you let yourself become agents of propaganda of a radical fringe that's making it harder for us to enforce our laws? You just asked me a question that presumed that the reason why this woman died is because she was engaged in legitimate protest. She tried to run somebody over with her car and the guy defended himself when that happened.

Next question. Stupid. I said next question. Mr. Vice President, I mean, you presumably watch the video yourself. There's not the slightest doubt in your mind. Now, there isn't. That this, the victim, you still believe that she deliberately. Who's the victim?

He tried to ram him despite, despite seeing this video. Look, it doesn't matter if she tried to ram him. She went for him. That's the point. It was her actions that caused this. Whether she meant to or not. And let me ask you something. Would your mom do that?

Would your mommy go and do that? Would your mom try to flee from police and drive straight for one? And if your mummy did do that, would you not expect your mom to get shot? I know there's an ICE officer right now who very much wishes he was not put in the position where he had to fire a gun to defend his own life. How's he feel right now? First time I've heard from anybody who mentioned the ICE cop. Who's the real victim in this?

his life might be ruined forever. She made him. Shoot her. I will say, look, I would appreciate everybody saying a prayer for that agent. Look, in the past six months, he's been hit twice by a motor vehicle. One time, the first time, it led to over 30 stitches and very serious injuries to his legs. This is a guy who's actually done a very, very important job for the United States of America. He's been assaulted.

He's been attacked. He's been injured because of it. He deserves a debt of great. gratitude. And I think the media prejudging and talking about this guy as if he's a murderer is one of the most disgraceful things I've ever seen for the American media. Yeah. Thank you. Closing statement. I think it's really irresponsible for you guys to go out there and imply or tell the American people that a guy who defended himself from being rammed by an automobile is guilty of murder. Be a little bit more careful. We're going to talk about toning down the temperature, which I know the president wants to do and I certainly want to do. One of the ways we tone down the temperature. One of the ways we tone down the temperature. is to have a media that tells the truth. I encourage you all to do that. God bless you. Yeah, such a good point. Man, the guy nailed it.

Let's move on to CNN. I've got to calm down a little. But last night, I watched their panel. But we want to play different angles of the shooting for you. Good. And I want to warn you what you're going to watch. I'll use their angle. How about that?

And we'll go through it. Here is disturbing video. Okay, really disturbing. There she is. The cop that did the shooting. Where is he? He's over here. Okay? What does she do? She backs up. He was over here, but she positioned her vehicle in front of the cop. Tire turned that way. Did you see that? Now I'm not an expert on vehicles.

But this vehicle, I think, is front wheel drive. I had a minivan front wheel drive and only the front spun. Why would her wheels spin in the front? It's probably front wheel drive. If you're a cop, are you not going to hear that? Are you not going to hear that acceleration? Watch again. Watch again with everything that I said, where the cop was and how she positioned the vehicle in front of them.

Back up. Cop over here. Watch the wheel spins. Of course he doesn't. What the fuck? You got it. You got no choice. He didn't know she was going to do that.

And here is a second angle. You fear death and grievous bodily harm? You're justified. And of course he did. It doesn't matter where her tires were pointed. But when he shot, they were pointed straight for him. They got a cop on the panel next cop, guys. CNN.

They found him somewhere. Could this have been avoided some other way? No. And I think that the investigation that hopefully will be ongoing soon, look at the video, start revealing some of these things that we just don't know right now. Oh, you don't know. When you think about it from the law, there's this standard. It's the reasonableness standard.

And basically it states that, you know, the way that this is going to be judged isn't in hindsight, but it is from the perspective of the officer or agent at the moment that they discharged their firearm. did they feel that their life was in danger? Yeah, he feared, wasn't it reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstances at that moment? A deadly weapon is coming your way. The challenge for all of us at this table is we do not have the perspective in the vision that that agent had at that moment. We had the exact vision. Car going straight for him.

What did they see? We can understand that they may feel that intent was implied by the car moving forward, that their life was in danger. but was there any other circumstances that made that individual pulled the trigger? Doesn't matter. No one knows that right now. It's the vehicle. And that needs to come out during the investigation.

Now, the flip side of it, which is what we've been speaking about most of today, was could something else have been done? Could this officer have just stepped out of the way? She drove in front of him like I showed you. No, he couldn't have. Not have fired. And even if he does, it doesn't matter. Could this officer have just stepped out of the way?

Could he not have fired his weapon? They have the license plate. Go get this person afterwards. I promise you the cop in his mind had no choice but to fire. If he didn't fire, he was going to die. That's what the cop thought. He wasn't thinking maybe if I hop over. I don't got time to do hopping.

I only got time to pull my trigger. What an idiot. And I can just say one final point. If anybody sitting at this table, I've actually been in that position. Whoopi Dingon. I have been on the bumper of a car. as it was moving with my weapon, drawn out, making that split second decision in milliseconds, actually, whether or not to shoot that person in the car, who I felt at the time was a threat.

Now, in that instance, I did not. You did not. But again, all... So either you're a pussy, or you didn't fear death or grievous bodily harm. That's why you didn't pull the trigger. But he doesn't tell you that. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, honestly. Spears are crazy.

I think what you just said is incredibly reason. for a normal law enforcement operation. What we are talking about here is not incredibly reasonable. One of the things Christy Noem said was that the officer was following his training. One of the things we know about these ICE officers is their training is so limited. Their expectations of service is so limited. They are hiring basically anyone, giving them tons of money. And they're not prepared for these jobs.

They don't have the training you had when you could make a split second decision. He was prepared. We know that. We know how fast they're hiring, that they have 10x-10. their budget. So this man was not prepared. Did you guys know that? He wasn't prepared. Then tell me why it was a perfect shot. That's pretty prepared to me. But she's going to tell you that he wasn't prepared. You do have a very, very split second, Abby, to make a very quick decision. It's not a methodical process. I'll give you a prime example. They teach a lot of law enforcement officials, federal and local and state if someone has a knife and they're 20 feet away from you where most people

So why would the officer shoot someone with a knife and that distance is so great? 20 feet away. They didn't have to shoot. They could have gotten away or used some other mechanism to subdue them or a person can close a 20 foot gap in less than 10 seconds. Well, of course they can. You could probably do it in 1.79 seconds. 10 seconds. Yeah, I agree with you.

But I'm not sure that the Trump administration actually understands that there needs to be an investigation. There's always an investigation. investigation, idiot. You know, on the border with her cowboy hat, saying right away that it was an act of domestic terrorism. And not only that, blaming the woman when she didn't even have the facts. Guys, it's the woman's fault, okay? That's what you do.

You blame the criminal. How does a mom of a six-year-old child who is now an orphan, how does that person get shot by our local law enforcement? Because she's a retard. That's how. and the administration somehow rush to put blame on the woman who died. It was easy to do this video. So I agree with you, Jonathan.

I think there's some details we don't know yet and we'll have to learn more about it. What strikes me is, first of all, it's extremely sad and unfortunate that someone died. I mean, there's political fighting and disagreements aside. It's terrible. You don't want people to die in law enforcement situations or otherwise. People die. But it strikes me that. that we are undergoing an epidemic of political vigilanteism right now.

Yeah. Why are people showing up in vehicles? Governors, mayors. In convoys, not just in Minneapolis, but all over the country, in an effort to obstruct lawful federal law enforcement activities. These are saying it's okay to do. This is not an isolated incident. We have had hundreds of car ramings against ICE agents all over the country.

According to DHS, this lady in this car today, along with other vehicles, have been tracking ICE agents around. Why are people believing that they can drive their car into a federal law enforcement situation, and that is an appropriate thing to do? I understand they don't like the fact that these agents are enforcing existing immigration law. But that's not how we change laws in this country.

If you don't like a law, you talk to the politicians. You don't drive your car into the middle of a building or a law enforcement situation that's being occupied by the people who are simply there to enforce the law. If I don't like how much the IRS is charging me in taxes, I don't drive my car into the Treasury Department, try to run somebody over. I call my congressman. Political vigilanteism is being encouraged by Democratic officials like the lieutenant governor of Minnesota.

Yes. Tegan, who earlier this year told people to, quote, put your bodies on the line. And Tim Walls calling these guys Gestapo all year. What do you think happens when you radicalize a base of people about this? It does strike me. When did it become illegal to. follow ICE agents around. It becomes, it's illegal to engage in obstruct a federal law enforcement.

Is it not? Is it a felony? It is a felony. They're not impeded. She was filming, right? She's filming them because ICE agents have been known to kill people because people are disappearing in custody because we're missing 1,200 people in allegation. This is the political vigil.

This is not political vigilance. You're encouraging people to interfere. I'm saying that we need to get it on tape. Because the DHS is lying. Because ICE is lying. Because people are getting hurt. I think that there is disappearing. But there's people without the proper training and the proper experience.

But he did everything. I don't know if this agent who shot this woman today. Perfect shot. I don't know if he's one of the new recruits that got offered $50,000 and maybe he has less training and experience than ICE agents regularly do. No, he did a great job. And that might have been a contributing factor to how this ended up. Maybe if it had been an agent with more experience. the response would have been different.

What I do know... Doesn't matter what your experience is. The situation was he was put in. That's the situation. He reacted to the scenario. You can't train a cop to take two steps left, two steps right. You don't know where to go. You can't train that.

But he nailed the scenario. If he was in police academy, he would get a standing ovation for nailing that scenario. is that there's a six-year-old boy who's now orphaned. His father died in 2023. Who's at fault? And today his mother, that shot to death. What they are doing.

We have seen pregnant women drag through the streets. We have seen children left alone in cars. We have seen people shot. We have seen people chase like animals. Look, it's a very difficult situation. And we've got to reflect on how we do this so that it doesn't continue happening. As you mentioned, at the end of the day, she was pulled out. of the car and she was not dead yet.

And a doctor was on the scene and tried to help her. And the ICE officer said get away from her or we'll shoot you. That didn't happen. But they probably shoot him away. It's a crime scene. I'm not, I don't care if it's a doctor.

He's a civilian. If I'm on scene, I'm going to rip his face off. Get out of the way, man. I know first aid will take care of it. Civilians aren't allowed to run. into a crime scene. As a cop, you have to protect it,

and you do whatever you have to do to protect it. But this twat... So they shot a woman and then threatened to shoot a man who was trying to help the woman. So if you're telling me that this was just a split-second decision, she might have been saved. But her wife had to watch her

bleed out on the ground while a doctor stood by with an ice officer with a gun in his face. So I don't know what we're talking here. What are you? Well, they've spoken to the... show did not happen. Yeah, and I think my point is that what transpired after she was shot? How did these people get on the show? Did they render aid? Did they allow aid aid to be rendered to her? Again, this is all part of the picture that Americans are seeing and they're asking, what's going on here.

Well, they're all fair questions and should all be part of a legitimate investigation. I think that's what the American people would expect. I mean, a lot of people witnessed this. There's been a lot of witnesses on television today. We played some. I saw another interview with another witness who said that this, A lady in the van was the leader of a convoy that was attempting to impede and obstruct the road where legitimate law enforcement operations were taking place. What do you shake ahead of? I would also like to know if that is true, because that's what an eyewitness has said. If that is true, I think one of the questions we have to ask is, why are people believing that it is okay to create vehicle convoys for the purpose of impeding federal law enforcement?

My suspicion is it's because they've been told by politicians that it is their response. responsibility to do so. But we have to ask ourselves hard questions about why people are putting themselves in these positions and we've seen it all over the country. Because they're Americans and they can't stand what they are seeing. I don't think it's, I don't think it's, I don't think it's that you can impede a law enforcement officer? No, but that wasn't the case on January 6 either. And they were pardoned. And just this week, they're marching down the street to the Capitol down. Why are you shaking your head? I can't wait until this is over. This cannot be your go-to. That's her go-to. On January 6th, I am pro-vanc. Democrat, Democrats said, Today they say they're Gestapo, which is it? Which is it? No, we, I will say the vast majority of Democrats are pro law enforcement.

And we believe that law enforcement, he says they're Gestapo. Let me finish. He says they're Gestapo. You agree? Scott, let me finish. I do not agree. Let me finish, Scott. Many Democrats and the vast majority of them are pro law enforcement.

They believe that law enforcement should actually get the training that they deserve and they need. Hold on. Hold on. You don't know about this guy's training. Let me tell you. Stop implying it is not training. He was dragged by a car last summer. Nailed a scenario.

Blocks from where this woman was killed was a George Floyd shooting. What happened at the time is a Justice Department entered a consent decree with the Minneapolis police department wanting to provide those law enforcement officers training. So something like that would never happen again. And Donald Trump's administration completely dismissed that matter. And so now Minneapolis law enforcement officials are not getting the training that they need. Democratic Party is pro-law enforcement. They were pro-law enforcement on January 6th.

They didn't issue those parties. They call them the Gestapo, Sochi. They're pro-law-forcent now. They call them Nazis. Why is it one rule for ICE and why is it another rule for the Capitol Police or the Republican Party? Can you answer that question? I have the same rule for all law enforcement. I think we should respect all law enforcement.

You all have two rules. One day a year, one day a year you like the cops. The other 365 days, you call them the Gestapo. That's the Democratic person. That is not the Democratic position. I don't agree with blaming law enforcement for what's happening when these people show up and try to impede federal law enforcement officers from doing their job. I don't shoot citizens in the face for no reason. There is a reason.

We trust them with firearms and qualified immunity. There is a reason. They have to make tough decisions in difficult circumstances against a radicalized population that's been instructed by Democrats to impede it. Impeding. Waving people along is a radicalized. This is the problem. Doesn't mean that you don't make bad judgment calls. It doesn't mean that you don't.

And it also doesn't mean that law enforcement officers are not held responsible. Can I make a, incident? It's not a, it's not a get out of jail free card. No. It's not a get out of jail free card. All right. We got to leave it there next for us.

More breaking news tonight. Temperes of flair. I got to show you that cop, guys. He shows up the next morning on CNN. This is what he says. And there is that shot. Good training. Through the windshield there, the bullet hole. Was the officer from the standpoint of law enforcement?

Was his actions reckless or justified in the deadly shooting? Right? We've had a lot of conversations around. Was there other options? Could the agent have stepped out of the way? Yeah. Hoppity hill. Hippity hop.

The car looked like going to the right. Looked like it's going to the right. Yeah, I just want to ask you about that. As a former. I just showed you right here, it's going forward. Is it going to the right? Man, all you had to do is look at the video, you idiot. Member of law enforcement, what are you trained to do in a scenario like this?

And did you see that training play out here? Did the officer follow the training protocols? Sarah, I have been in this exact situation. Exactly. Years ago as a special agent with the Secret Service during an arrest. Identical. I was in that exact position. Identical.

At the front of a vehicle. I had my weapon drawn. We knew that there was a potential imminent threat inside that vehicle. It was coming towards myself and my partners. Oh, and his partners. In that moment, I chose not to fire my weapon. Why? Because firing a weapon at a moving vehicle is a high risk, very dangerous option.

It's the only option if you fear death or grievous bodily harm. But he's thinking, this is too dangerous? I'd rather die? No, he didn't shoot because he knew he wasn't going to die. I'm glad he was never my partner. And I'd bet that maybe a couple of his partners came out after

and said, why didn't you shoot? I was about to die. This story is bogus. One, because there's an order of consequences that is a moving vehicle, the rounds could ricochet. Once you... So you're just going to get you,

let yourself get ran over, idiot? potentially neutralized the driver, that vehicle becomes an errant vehicle. It could go into crowds. It could cause additional damage. In this moment, you know, was it justifiable for that individual to fire that weapon? That's where an independent investigation is critical because what we don't know right now, Sarah, is what did that officer see inside the vehicle? It doesn't matter what he sees inside.

He sees a vehicle coming towards him. Wow. What did the officer see in the vehicle? That made him draw his weapon and shoot at the driver. What could he have possibly seen? Do you really think he's looking inside the vehicle to see what she's doing? Maybe she's on her phone. It doesn't matter.

Applying makeup? It doesn't matter what he sees the driver do. He knows her behavior, which is her foot is on the game. gas pedal going forward towards him. Doesn't matter what he sees. What if she's masturbating? Changes nothing. Again, taking the totality of the circumstances in the moment

into effect, that needs to be looked at by an independent investigating. Oh, you're a moron. You're a moron. We will see where this goes from here. DHS clear. He didn't fire his firearm because it's, I don't even know why he didn't.

I got to go. I got to go. Hello. Hi. Hi. What are you doing? Well, I'm not doing anything. Nothing really... Every time I do the voice,

she hangs up. She knows she's on video. I don't even know if I'm going to post this. Thanks for watching. Bye-bye.