With terrible timing, Wu blunders on crime

'My condolences and all of our thoughts,' she said as the cameras rolled, 'are with the family of the individual whose life has been lost.' She used her opening words not to praise the quick-thinking cop who likely prevented one or more homicides, not to reassure the public that Boylston Street was safe, not to express compassion for the two people who were nearly stabbed — not even to announce that, as with all police killings, an investigation was immediately being opened.
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
No: Wu's first instinct was to offer condolences for the knife-wielding aggressor who had been killed before he could commit homicide.
Advertisement
As a matter of simple empathy, it is natural to offer words of comfort to the loved ones of someone who has died suddenly and terribly. Whatever wrongdoing Jaramillo may have been involved in, there is no reason to be unkind to his family as they
Advertisement
Even before the shooting, Wu was scheduled to appear Wednesday at a high-stakes hearing on Capitol Hill. She has been summoned, along with the mayors of New York, Chicago, and Denver, to testify Wednesday before the US House Oversight Committee about the city's so-called sanctuary policy and its impact on public safety. The committee's Republican majority has been touting the hearing as a showdown that will link the Democratic mayors to dangerous crimes committed by immigrants without legal status.
In reality, Boston is not notorious for harboring criminal offenders;
Advertisement
I doubt that Wu intended to suggest she cares more about criminals than about victims. But it isn't hard to understand how such a subtext could be inferred. Expressing sympathy is a natural human response, but the wrong context and timing can transform a moment of compassion into a political liability. Wu's words reinforced that Democrats and progressives have
But the mayor's miscalculation on Boylston Street is a reminder that in our unforgiving political climate, every utterance can ignite partisan flames. Now, her impending congressional appearance becomes even more daunting. With critics poised to seize on every nuance, she faces the double challenge of defending both her policies
and
her lapse in judgment.
To subscribe to Arguable, Jeff Jacoby's weekly newsletter, visit
.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

17 minutes ago

• USA Today

Why did US bomb Iran? In Trump's vibes war, it's impossible to trust anyone.

At least the last time a Republican president got America involved in a military quagmire in the Middle East he had the decency to cook up a bunch of phony reasons beforehand. The day after President Donald Trump launched attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and swept an unprepared nation into another Middle-Eastern conflict, Vice President JD Vance said the most ludicrous thing imaginable. Asked if he and Trump trust the U.S. intelligence community and its assessments, which had been that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon, Vance replied: 'Of course we trust our intelligence community, but we also trust our instincts.' Your instincts? Trump and Vance just marched America into a potential war because the vibes felt real nuclear-weapon-y? Trump didn't even take time to lie to Americans before bombing Iran At least the last time a Republican president got America involved in a military quagmire in the Middle East he had the decency to cook up a bunch of phony reasons beforehand. These guys just hauled off and dropped bombs and now want us to sit back and trust their hunch that it was the right move. In 2003, former Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the trouble of holding up a blue-capped vial of fake anthrax before the U.N. Security Council to back up the Bush administration's claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction. (Spoiler alert: Nope!) All we got from the Trump team was a lie that the president was going to ponder the bombing option for a spell, and then a stupid Truth Social post saying the bombing had happened. No congressional approval. No case made to the American people. Just bombs away, then a bunch of people known for their dishonesty trotting out and saying, 'Trust us, this was a good thing.' Trump just bombed Iran. We deserve to know why, but don't count on the truth. | Opinion Marco Rubio, like much of the Trump administration, hates intelligence Pressed on CBS' 'Face the Nation' to explain what intelligence led the administration to think bombs needed to be dropped, a frustrated Secretary of State Marco Rubio uttered three words that perfectly encapsulate President Trump, his cabinet and the entire MAGA movement: 'Forget about intelligence.' They should put that on hats. Vance swears Americas is only a little bit at war with Iran Vance continued to stumble about during his June 22 interviews, telling NBC News: 'We do not want war with Iran. We actually want peace.' Because nothing says 'we want peace' quite like firing a couple dozen tomahawk missiles at a country before walloping it with more than a dozen 30,000-pound bombs known as 'Massive Ordnance Penetrators.' On ABC, the duplicitous Mr. Vance made this whiplash-inducing claim: 'We are not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' So we don't want war, we want peace, but we're at war with Iran's nuclear program, but we're not at war with Iran. That's starting to sound a bit like, 'I want to love you but you keep making me drop bombs on you, so it's all your fault.' Opinion: From massive protests to a puny parade, America really let Donald Trump down Of course this Age of Stupidity brought us a war based on vibes And in the same NBC News interview, he barfed out this gem: 'I empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents.' Buddy, right now we have a dumb president. We have a president who still hasn't accepted he lost the 2020 presidential election, one who misspelled his own name in a June 22 social-media post that read: 'The GREAT B-2 pilots have just landed, safely, in Missouri. Thank you for a job well done!!! DONAKD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!' Thank you, Donakd! We have a president who, just hours after his Defense secretary said the Iran mission 'was not, has not been about regime change,' posted this: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' MIGA? Those are the words of a dumb president. And he's the same president who in his previous term took the word of Russian President Vladimir Putin over information from America's intelligence community. Choosing who to trust here is nearly impossible So what are the Russians who Trump trusts saying about America's bombing of Iran? Russian Security Council deputy chairman Dmitry Medvedev said it didn't accomplish much and the nation's nuclear sites suffered only minor damage. 'The enrichment of nuclear material – and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons – will continue,' Medvedev said on social media. 'A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.' So who do we trust? The Russians, who Trump apparently trusts? Rubio, the guy telling us to forget intelligence? Vance, the guy who wants us to roll with the vibes? Trump, the guy who seems deathly allergic to honesty? If you elect liars, you're going to get lied to It's simple: We can't trust anyone in this administration. They're liars and sycophants from top to bottom, either too lazy or too full of themselves to even pretend they can present a clear case for this risky military action. If Trump's bombing of Iran proves successful – and I, of course, hope it does – it'll be dumb luck. But if it leads to disaster, it'll be exactly what anyone paying attention to these reckless hucksters predicted. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.

19 minutes ago

SCOTUS to hear case of Rastafarian whose dreadlocks were shaved by prison guards

WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the appeal of a former Louisiana prison inmate whose dreadlocks were cut off by prison guards in violation of his religious beliefs. The justices will review an appellate ruling that held that the former inmate, Damon Landor, could not sue prison officials for money damages under a federal law aimed at protecting prisoners' religious rights. Landor, an adherent of the Rastafari religion, even carried a copy of a ruling by the appeals court in another inmate's case holding that cutting religious prisoners' dreadlocks violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor hadn't cut his hair in nearly two decades when he entered Louisiana's prison system in 2020 on a five-month sentence. At his first two stops, officials respected his beliefs. But things changed when he got to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) northwest of Baton Rouge, for the final three weeks of his term. A prison guard took the copy of the ruling Landor carried and tossed it in the trash, according to court records. Then the warden ordered guards to cut his dreadlocks. While two guards restrained him, a third shaved his head to the scalp, the records show. Landor sued after his release, but lower courts dismissed the case. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lamented Landor's treatment but said the law doesn't allow him to hold prison officials liable for damages. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall. Landor's lawyers argue that the court should be guided by its decision in 2021 allowing Muslim men to sue over their inclusion on the FBI's no-fly list under a sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. President Donald Trump's Republican administration filed a brief supporting Landor's right to sue and urged the court to hear the case. Louisiana asked the justices to reject the appeal, even as it acknowledged Landor's mistreatment. Lawyers for the state wrote that 'the state has amended its prison grooming policy to ensure that nothing like petitioner's alleged experience can occur.' The Rastafari faith is rooted in 1930s Jamaica, growing as a response by Black people to white colonial oppression. Its beliefs are a melding of Old Testament teachings and a desire to return to Africa. Its message was spread across the world in the 1970s by Jamaican music icons Bob Marley and Peter Tosh, two of the faith's most famous exponents. The case is Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, 23-1197.

Newsweek

23 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Republican Says Abortion Law Fear Delayed Her Care for Ectopic Pregnancy

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A Florida Republican is blaming fearmongering from abortion-rights groups about the state's abortion law for doctors hesitating to treat her ectopic pregnancy last year. Representative Kat Cammack went to the emergency room in May 2024 and needed a shot of methotrexate to help expel her ectopic pregnancy. Though doctors estimated that she was just five weeks pregnant, there was no heartbeat and her life was at risk, Cammack told the Wall Street Journal that staff had resisted giving her the drug because they were worried about losing their licenses or going to jail after Florida's near-total abortion ban took effect. Hours later, doctors agreed to give her the drug, she told the newspaper. Newsweek has contacted Cammack's office and abortion-rights groups for comment via email. U.S. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) speaks on the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act at the U.S. Capitol on January 25, 2023 in Washington, DC. U.S. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) speaks on the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act at the U.S. Capitol on January 25, 2023 in Washington, Context Florida's ban took effect on May 1, 2024, making abortions illegal after six weeks with narrow exceptions. The penalties for those who violate the ban are steep, punishable by up to five years in prison, fines of up to $5,000 and loss of medical licenses. The law did not ban treatment of ectopic pregnancies, which occur when a fetus implants outside of the uterus and has no room to grow. If not treated, such pregnancies can rupture, causing organ damage, hemorrhaging or even death. A report from the nonprofit Physicians for Human Rights in September 2024 said the ban created an "unworkable legal landscape" and that doctors had reported that ER staff were afraid to provide methotrexate to patients as it was an "abortive agent." The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration then issued guidance to address what it called "misinformation" about the state's abortion law, stating that abortion is permissible at any state of pregnancy in Florida to save the life and health of the mother, including in cases of ectopic or molar pregnancies and when there is premature rupture of membranes. What To Know Cammack, an abortion opponent who co-chairs of the House Pro-Life Caucus, supports exceptions for reported cases of rape and incest in the first trimester and in cases in which the mother's life is at risk, the Journal reported. She told the newspaper that she did not blame the Florida law for what she experienced. Rather, she lay the blame on messaging from abortion-rights advocates, which she said made hospital staff afraid of giving drugs even in circumstances where it was legal. "It was absolute fearmongering at its worst," Cammack, who is pregnant again, said. But she added that she knows that abortion rights advocates might view her experience differently. "There will be some comments like, 'Well, thank God we have abortion services,' even though what I went through wasn't an abortion," she said. What People Are Saying Molly Duane, senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Wall Street Journal that although Florida regulators say ectopic pregnancies are exempt from restrictions, the law does not define ectopic pregnancy and it can be difficult for doctors to tell where an embryo has implanted. She said blaming medical professionals echoes the "playbook of antiabortion extremists that for decades have been blaming and villainizing doctors." Alison Haddock, the president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the Journal that it is common for doctors in states that have restriction access to abortion to be concerned about "whether their clinical judgment will stand should there be any prosecution." What's Next Cammack, who is expecting her first child in August, said she hoped sharing her story helps those on opposing sides find common ground. "I would stand with any woman—Republican or Democrat—and fight for them to be able to get care in a situation where they are experiencing a miscarriage and an ectopic" pregnancy, she said.