The White House and BlackRock have multiple paths to victory in the Texas Senate race despite offering Texas voters a vivid illusion of choice. Democrat Jasmine Crockett and her potential Republican rivals seem like complete opposites, but that only highlights that their votes aligned on two dominating and disruptive issues—supporting Israel and replacing the United States Dollar.

Representative Crockett and her Republican colleagues “Standing with Israel” in both resolution and military aid form is hardly surprising given the broad bipartisan support for all-things-Israel. However, the joint votes paving the way for the Trump family plan to own the crypto alternative to the United States Dollar and BlackRock’s “tokenization of everything” is surprising. It means that both Texas parties have a strong chance of nominating a proven supporter of the BlackRock and Trump family dreams.

Crockett’s Crypto Catapult

In 2022, Jasmine Crockett was a freshman in the Texas House of Representatives when she ran in a nine-way primary for open U.S. House District 30. Three weeks before Election Day, over $2M in crypto-related spending poured in to support Crockett. A crypto Super PAC called Web3 Forward fronted half of that and had the following to say about their support:

Crockett’s statement in defense of that crypto haul also stood out: “Crypto tears, baby, crypto tears, the mailers are beautiful though, I’m just saying.” She ended up winning the nine-way primary and the subsequent runoff with crypto assistance. In 2024, Representative Crockett only had a Libertarian opponent who she handily beat.

The Trump Family Crypto Plan

In between Trump’s first and second term the Trump family business went “all in” on crypto as a business model. This is not just another minor conflict of interest like say trading a pardon for a $1M lunch. This is an attempt for the White House to lead disrupting the world financial system while the Trump family owns the core component of replacing existing currency—the electronic alternative to the United States Dollar. The key legislation enabling the crypto disruption was 2025’s “GENIUS Act” which regulates so-called “stablecoins” to allow crypto currency to become a mainstream method of payment and finance. This Act passed through Congress with little public attention shortly after the major fight over the Big Beautiful Bill. In effect, the President will be able to use regulatory power combined with this legislation to push the rapid, widespread adoption of crypto-currencies while he and his family own the digital version of the United States Dollar.

No Fight from Crockett

You would expect someone who portrays herself as a fighter against the White House to go to proverbial war, but there’s no record of any objection at all from Representative Crockett. A Democrat Congresswoman introduced the “Stop TRUMP in Crypto Act of 2025” which would prevent the President, Vice President, Congress and their families from directly controlling a digital asset while in office. This Act was introduced as an amendment in the Senate, but failed. In the House, the Rules Committee prevented any amendments from being offered on the floor. Representative Crockett has not sponsored the Stop TRUMP Act, there’s no record of her attempting to amend the bill or warning the public of the blatant corruption taking place by the White House.

In terms of the Texas Senate primary, she voted identically to her possible Republican opponents Senator John Cornyn and Congressman Wesley Hunt to pass the bill without any fight for a corruption and conflict amendment. If she wins the Democrat primary, there will be no choice on the Texas November ballot from stopping this audacious White House scheme that also allows conflicts and corruption for everyone in Congress. By everyone cooperating with special interests, they all end up on the same page and in the similar spots to profit.

What Can Be Done: The Power of And

Citizens aren’t powerless in situations where candidates from “both sides” are supporters of the same terrible idea. Our choices on ballots may be binary, but the candidates themselves can be motivated to change positions to avoid alienating voters if, and only if, citizens raise these issues instead of just offering blind support for their “side.” As an example, say you are upset with the White House but also don’t like that the supposed opposition is in lockstep with the President on this major issue. You are not forced to merely vote for a lesser evil, you can use the power of “and” to raise this issue early and often.

During the primary season, you can raise issue objections to Crockett or another candidate. You have a choice on primary election day and after the primary there is the whole spring, summer and fall of 2026 to raise issues. Maybe, just maybe, it could become such an issue that a candidate like Crockett will finally co-sponsor a bill to prevent it. In doing so, it may bring enough attention in other races to get more co-sponsors or at least give voters a choice. In short, make candidates earn your vote even though you still will be left with imperfect choices come Election Day.

Ways to Raise Crypto Corruption or Other Issues

1. Write Substack articles.

2. Make simple social videos.

3. Attend candidate events to ask questions.

4. Reach out directly to candidates.

5. Share posts that address the issue.

Downloadable Resources:

1. Trump Family Crypto Timeline

2. Crockett’s Crypto Conflict and Lack of Opposition

Resistance Rabbit is the nom de praxis for lawyer and former political operative & legislative aide Steven Lawrence of Fort Worth, Texas. His citizen-led effort project to align people against problems without polarization is CLEAR Rule of Law.

You can help keep his personal work going and him awake for late night writing through Buy Me A Coffee. Office supplies for his project, including caffeine, can be found on his project’s Amazon Wish List.

Read more

Research can narrow your field of vision in ways that are hard to notice while you’re engrossed in it. Hours pass. The same footage runs again and again. You stop seeing the whole frame and start tracking details, timelines, inconsistencies—things about the specific issue rather than the context.

Writing yesterday’s article was far from the first time I’d experienced that kind of focus. Years ago, while investigating fatal and serious injury crashes involving a roadside guardrail that later became the subject of the ABC 20/20 investigation embedded below, I learned how prolonged exposure to evidence can make you feel like a machine until something touches you. You don’t feel overwhelmed all at once. You feel functional right up until something small breaks through your armor of cold analysis.

That moment came back to me while researching the yesterday’s article. Not because of anything significant to the legal issues—but because of something I almost missed after hours of looking that reminded me that I’m still human. Not just human because I missed something, but because I still felt something. It also reminded me that humans and human stories can make a difference—I’ve experienced it before.

This is a highly personal story that I thought I’d share with those that are supporting Ethan’s work and passion as both a glimpse of myself and a thank you. For all subscribers, please know that you’re making a difference. Every single person that reads and shares independent media makes a difference by keeping in touch with human expression in a society addicted to mass messaging and outrage.

- Steven / Resistance Rabbit

Members only:

Read more

Case File: Renee Good Shooting is part of a new Receipt Round-up series where draws on two decades of legal experience to collect, organize, and publish primary sources—laws, official statements, court records, credible open-source records, and on-the-record actions—around specific high-profile events or issues.

The purpose is not to argue outcomes, but to develop the underlying record in public form. It is a more formal version of what he does personally when developing sources for legal work or articles. - Ethan

Resistance Rabbit’s Case File Memo:

The Minneapolis shooting brought multiple strands of federal authority, public oversight, and transparency into sharp relief. On January 7, 2026, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minnesota resident, during a federal enforcement operation—an event that has since sparked debate about use of force, legal authority, and access to evidence in federal investigations.

In this context, there are multiple elements that have rarely converged—federal immigration as general law enforcement, civilian use-of-force scrutiny, jurisdictional control of investigative evidence, and competing narratives from government and community sources—are coming together in what appears to be a test case for how such incidents will be documented, examined, and understood by the American public.

This is not a discussion or opinion about criminal or civil liability. Those are matters for investigation and possibly trial. Rather, it is documentation from the point of view I would use when evaluating whether to be retained as counsel in matters related to the shooting or events surrounding it.

Before ICE Minneapolis Surge

What the federal government announced about deportation, the Minneapolis operation, and federal funding before the shooting.

December 31, 2025 - Operation Context #1: Deportations

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (official X account)  
Link: https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2006472108222853298  
Publication: X (formerly Twitter) 
Date: December 31, 2025
Relative Time: Approximately 7 days, 18 hours, and 31 minutes before the shooting of Renee Good. 

January 6, 2026 - Operation Context #2: Alleged Fraud

Link: https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-freezes-child-care-family-assistance-grants-five-states-fraud-concerns.html 
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (official press release)  Publication: HHS.gov  
Date: January 6, 2026  
Relative Time: One day before the shooting of Renee Good.
Note: This funding freeze was blocked by a federal judge on January 9th.

January 6, 2026 — Minnesota Operation Announced

Link: https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2008650038847959106
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (official X account)
Publication: X (formerly Twitter)
Date: January 6, 2026, 3:21 p.m. CST
Relative Time: Approximately 18 hours and 16 minutes before the shooting of Renee Good.
Notation: It includes "fraud." Fraud is not an immigration offense.

ICE Agent Authority in Minneapolis

The legal authority do ICE and its agents had—or did not have.

Limited Arrest Authority: 8 U.S.C. § 1357

Abbreviated language of ICE agent authority directly from the statute:

“[ICE Agents]…shall have the power without warrant-

(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

(4) to make arrests for [immigration related] felonies…if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest…”

(5) to make arrests- 
            (a) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer’s presence, or 
            (b) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States..., if the [agent] ...is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest."

Source: 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (Powers of immigration officers and employees)  
Link: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1357%20edition:prelim) 
Publication: U.S. Code (official federal statute)  
Section: § 1357 (a) & (c) detailing immigration officers’ powers without warrant.
Not Mentioned: (1) Enforcing state laws; (2) Enforcing other federal laws besides immigration; (4) Interrogating known citizens; (5) Patrolling communities for ordinary crimes; (5) Investigating crimes unrelated to immigration status. 
Lawyer note: If Congress has not granted a power, no ICE agent has the legal ability to do it. 

Contrast Receipt: Vehicle Search Powers

Border Vehicle Search Authority: 8 U.S.C. § 1357

Source: 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3)
Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/pdf/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partIX-sec1357.pdf 
Publication: U.S. Code (official federal statute) 
Lawyer note: Congress did grant vehicle stop and search powers, but only near the border.

Contrast Receipt: FBI Agent General Arrest Powers

Unlike ICE agents, other federal agents do have broad arrest powers. An example is the FBI (below); other examples include DEA, ATF, United States Marshals, and Secret Service agents.

FBI General Arrest Authority: 8 U.S.C. § 3052

Source: 18 U.S.C. § 3052 (Powers of Federal Bureau of Investigation) 
Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap203-sec3053.pdf
Publication: U.S. Code (official federal statute)
Lawyer Note: The power granted to FBI agents does not require any connection to a specific type of law or investigation.  

Offense Alleged By The Government

The offense ICE agents are citing to detain American citizens in the way the non-shooting agent attempted to detain Renee Good.

Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Federal Officers — 18 U.S.C. § 111

Abbreviated offense from the statute:

“(a) In General.-Whoever-
        (1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or 
       (2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any [agent]…" (emphasis added)

Source: United States Code (Title 18)  
Link: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:111%20edition:prelim)
Note: All claims of interference or impeding require force. 

My Video Compilation: Interaction, Attempted Detention, Shooting and DHS Official Description

This video compilation contains relevant available footage and annotations related to the attempted detention and subsequent shooting of Renee Good. It includes the ICE agent’s own recorded perspective, contemporaneous media documentation, and a 3D reconstruction of the type I would in reviewing a potential case.

Federal officials have verified key footage—particularly the agent’s POV video—as authentic. While the conclusions derived from the footage have been hotly contested, I have not located any disputes over authenticity as of the time of publishing.

Sources & Video Evidence Reviewed

The following links represent the primary video evidence, investigative reporting, and analytical reconstructions reviewed for this section. Links are not listed in the order of discovery or review.

1. Washington Post — ICE agent phone POV video (shooting):

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/from-the-ice-agents-phone-video-of-renee-good-shooting/2026/01/09/813a4ca6-f441-4b8e-b7f5-a1e72d67e0f1_video.html

Department of Homeland Security (official) — authentication / remarks referencing the agent POV video

2. Washington Post — investigative analysis and timeline:

January 8th:

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/01/08/video-ice-shooting-minneapolis/

January 9th:

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/01/09/moments-before-ice-shooting-minneapolis/

3. CNN — video showing moments before the shooting

Link: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/us/video/minnesota-shooting-ice-video-before-shooting-digvid

Authentication: Department of Homeland Security (official X) — press remarks framing the incident

4.CBS Minnesota / WCCO — frame-by-frame analysis and expert review
Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/experts-analyze-new-video-fatal-ice-shooting-minneapolis/

6. Bellingcat — synchronized multi-angle video analysis
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2026/01/13/analysing-footage-of-minneapolis-ice-shooting/

7. INDEX — preliminary 3D reconstruction of the shooting
https://www.index.ngo/en/investigations/ice-shooting-of-renee-good-preliminary-3d-analysis/

8. Fox 9 YouTube — side-by-side multi-angle compilation (used for cross-checking timeline and angles)

9. Reddit (r/law) — time-synchronized compilation reviewed for completeness
Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1q9tg16/updated_111_minnesota_ice_shooting_of_renee/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Note: The Reddit compilation was reviewed to identify, synchronize, and cross-check publicly available videos and to trace each clip back to its original reporting or source. Primary links above reflect original or first-license holders.

Introduction by : Resistance Rabbit focuses on where we still have agency inside systems that channel & control conflict. His first piece examines a subtle linguistic and mental habit that quietly keeps people trapped in horizontal fights, even when they want something better.

“The Power of ‘And’”
by : Resistance Rabbit

If I had a dollar for every time I heard “but…” or “what about…” as a response in 2025, I wouldn’t be concerned about January grocery and gas money, but here I am. One term for this reaction pattern is “whataboutism.” That’s a label people usually apply to others, but we’re all vulnerable to it. It also can help those of us moving towards vertical alignment—as opposed to remaining in horizontal conflict with neighbors. The definition is simple, but important.

The Clarity of “And”

The word “and” allows adding without detracting from what has already been stated. In the example given by Mr. Webster in 1828, using “and” is much simpler and shorter than saying: “John rode to New York. Peter rode to New York. James rode to New York.” Beyond the simplicity, saying that Peter also rode to New York does nothing to detract from John riding there—they both rode to New York, and so did James.

The addition of more riders with “and” also doesn’t imply any equivalence of the people named. John may be a criminal and Peter may be a well-respected leader, but they are both human and they both rode to New York. More importantly than brevity, in today’s charged environment the power of addition without deflection or detraction is important to recognize. That’s not necessarily true with “but” in either definitional or emotional terms.

The “But” Contrast

There’s both ambiguity and a likely insult embedded into responding with “but…” to a genuine statement. The etymology and definition of “but” is much more complex and ambiguous. It very often used to contrast, and the contrast is often to impugn an initial subject. In the listed examples, we just have to compare the “John and Peter riding” to “but, the greatest of these is charity.” If a sentence just ends with “faith, hope and charity” there’d be no implication that one was greater or less than another.

Many people feel disrespected when hearing “but” or equivalents, and if you’ve tried to persuade someone trapped in a horizontal, neighbor against neighbor mindset, then I suspect you’ve felt that too. Beyond that subjective feeling, psychologists have identified Four Horsemen of negative emotional expressions destructive to relationships—criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. No matter what a person says, the “but…” or “what about…” risks displaying defensiveness and contempt by denying the genuineness of their communication attempt—whether you agree with them or not. This denial dismisses their value as a human rather than just discounting their literal words. Withholding acknowledgment often leads to retreat from receptiveness and to stonewalling, another one of the toxic Four Horsemen.

Acknowledging a concern is an empathetic human response. And if their statement is flawed, then at least expressing direct disagreement validates their human effort to communicate. Unless you’re dealing with a psychopath, propagandist, or other parasite, their attempt at expression is intrinsically valuable whether it’s grounded in objective reality or not. We can disagree with a person’s opinions or factual assertions without dismissing them as a person.

Acknowledgment is not absolution or agreement. It does not require agreement, excuse harm, or end accountability. It simply recognizes an issue before responsibility is assigned or accuracy is challenged—whether in the moment or later. Deflection short-circuits that process by refusing legitimacy to the other person’s attempt to speak. Such withholding tends to collapse receptiveness and turn disagreement into combat.

The Advocacy Power of “And”

“And” offers sequence: acknowledge what is either true or a valid concern and then listen more, argue, investigate, prosecute, or reform—depending on the situation. Two things can be true at the same time, and refusing to acknowledge one of them doesn’t strengthen our position—it weakens our ability to hold others accountable.

The power of “and” enables communication with someone at their level of receptiveness, and sometimes it even leads to them opening up more after the acknowledgement. If they’ve stated something valid, the proper, non-combative response is to acknowledge the issue.

Weaponization

Internalizing and utilizing “and” can make us effective weapons against the “Rust.” Beyond individual conversations, it enables alignment by firmly opposing fraud, violence, child trafficking, and extractive monopolies—no matter what labels the offenders are wearing. Consistently prioritizing principle over partisanship is disruptive to the team mindset trap.

For example, when the question is exposing and prosecuting child trafficking, the answer is just yes. The same goes for fraud. The only teams in fraud are the co-conspirators versus the victims. We far outnumber the conspirators. Harnessing the power of “and” enables holding systems and politicians accountable—regardless of their chosen jersey.

A Recent Example

As a recent example, multiple people have brought up to me the viral Minnesota daycare fraud allegations—almost all of whom had been silent or defensive on Epstein or other major issues. As that story was going viral, I thought there may be legitimacy to it, but was frustrated that it seemed like a lot of attention for an influencer-style exposé that, even if 100% true, paled in comparison to other well-documented issues that need action. As someone committed to due process, I also reject assuming guilt from a viral social media video.

Because of the individuals bringing it to my attention and my intense focus on other issues, I messed up responding to people initially. The first few times, I immediately pivoted to larger frauds or Epstein. Those conversations either ended or devolved into verbal combat.

However, when I started acknowledging the alleged fraud and then pivoting, there were some openings to talk. Perhaps most importantly, I’ve decided to take that one step further—a full stop after acknowledging a legitimate concern and proposing a non-partisan course

Even without more, that subtle “and” acknowledges them as a human trying to say something and maintains my commitment to due process. Personal accountability may come in handy to reference later, or it may not, but either way it’s a demonstration that fraud shouldn’t be a political issue—it’s an issue for investigation and prosecution. Most importantly, it will help keep me vertical internally and doesn’t allow defensiveness to drag me back into horizontal warfare.

Questions & Resources

Thank you for listening to my thoughts and my recent challenge in staying vertical. Since we’re all in this together, it’d really help me and probably others if you’d share your thoughts on last year, this year or what would be useful visuals in a toolkit.

Questions:

1. How can we harness the power of “and” in 2026?

2. What would be useful in a visual toolkit for the power of “and”?

Resource Download:

Additional Resources for The Subtle Power of “And” (includes addendum on the influencer behind the viral daycare story)

About the Author

is the nom de praxis for lawyer and former political operative & legislative aide Steven Lawrence of Fort Worth, Texas. His project to align citizens against problems without polarization is .

Read more