Joe Kent And The 18 Intelligence Agencies

If everyone is thinking alike, someone is not thinking.  

General George S. Patton, Jr. 

 

 

Joe Kent, director of the  National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in protest of the Iran War on March 17. I never heard of the man before his resignation, but undoubtedly he’s enjoying his Fifteen Minutes of Fame. No question he is working on a tell all book and will be welcome at the usual suspects, err media sources, when it comes out. 

 

Mr. Kent’s stated reason was “Is opposition to the war in Iran and what he said was Israel’s influence over the Trump administration’s policies.” I’ll let the veiled antisemitism go for the moment, but something piqued my interest. 

 

The head of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCC)  said all eighteen agencies of the Intelligence Community (IC) agreed the Iranians had no nuclear threat. From an interview with Megal Kelley, “Even though you have the 18 intelligence agencies saying that their nuclear capability is gone, they’re still somehow digging out from the rubble and will be able to assemble 10 bombs in two weeks.”

 

OK, I’m still a little confused. The (now former) head of the NCC said Iran was no nuclear threat. Nuclear threats of overseas nations, particularly ones with intermediated range ballistic missiles (IRBM) are not the focus of the NCC. From their pages:

 

MISSION

 

Lead the nation’s effort to protect the United States from terrorism by integrating, analyzing, and sharing information to drive whole-of-government action and achieve our national CT objectives. 

 

A ballistic missile headed to New York with a nuclear warhead is not terrorism. It’s a direct threat against the United States, which is in the focus of the IC. 

 

Now he claims all 18 agencies of the Intelligence Community agree Iran is not a nuclear threat. At this moment, no, thanks to operations last summer leveling their main nuclear sites. But again, is this plausible that every part of US intelligence is working on one issue. To better explain this, let’s look at the 18 parts of the Intelligence Community:

 

The U.S. Intelligence Community is composed of the following 18 organizations:

 

Two independent agencies—the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA);

 

Nine Department of Defense elements—the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and intelligence elements of the five DoD services; the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force.

 

Seven elements of other departments and agencies—the Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence; the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; and the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis

 

Take the first two. The ODNI and CIA handle overall intelligence collection, analysis, and production for the National Command Authority (NCA), i.e., the President and the federal government. Depending on the agency, they either task or coordinate with them. No question, the issue of Iranian nuclear capability is a major concern of these two offices. 

 

The next group are military or national defense agencies. Five (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Force) fall under the Department of Defense for defense planning and operations. Again, Iran is a major issue for these organizations.  

 

But I would draw your attention to the final group, “Seven elements of other departments and agencies.” These are departments that handle critical intelligence needs, but not necessarily overseas military threats. 

 

Department of Energy: The office protects vital national security information and technologies, intellectual property of incalculable value, provides scientific and technical expertise to respond to foreign intelligence, terrorist and cyber threats, to solve the hardest problems associated with U.S. energy security

 

The Department of Homeland Security duty is to identify and assess current and future threats to the U.S.  

 

Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible for understanding threats to our national security and penetrating national and transnational networks that have a desire and capability to harm the U.S.  

 

Drug Enforcement Administration is responsible for enforcing the controlled substance laws and regulations of the United States. Its goal is to enhance the U.S.’s efforts to reduce the supply of drugs, protect national security, and combat global terrorism.  

 

Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research… provide early warning and in-depth analysis of events and trends that affect U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.

 

Treasury Department Office of Intelligence and Analysis is a component of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI). TFI has the mission of safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats.

 

Coast Guard Intelligence’s responsibilities include protecting citizens from the sea (maritime safety), protecting America from threats delivered by the sea (maritime security), and protecting the sea itself (maritime stewardship).

 

Of these seven agencies, State and Homeland Security would have a direct interest in Iran nuclear weapons development. By that, I mean their assets are directly focused on the work the mullahs are doing to develop a weapon. Would the Treasury TFI be interested if Tehran enriched uranium to 90%? Yes. But they have no resources to collecting on Iranian nuclear production. 

 

I would also point out many of them do not have assets to collect on the nuclear program. The Coast Guard focuses on threats to the US and our sea-lanes, not ballistic missile threats. The DEA has no ability to collect on Tehran’s actions.  They would not be asked by the NCA if they think Tehran had a legitimate nuclear weapons threat against the US or our allies (like Israel Mr. Kent). 

 

I would also mention that if these are the opinions of the heads of all these agencies, they are not for Mr. Kent. They are for the NCA, i.e., the President. Yes, others read the intelligence POTUS gets. But if this is true, he had just compromised highly classified intelligence. This is not true, he has just interfered with the highest military and foreign policy operations of the administration. There needs to be repercussions.

 

What does this tell me? One, I do not believe the eighteen agencies agree on the status of the Iranian nuclear program, as for several of these organizations are not focused on this matter. Monitor it, yes, but they are not collecting and analyzing on it. The DEA is not going to present their findings on Tehran’s WMD program to the President. 

 

Two, before I believe Mr. Kent, he needs to provide some evidence to back up his statement. I don’t see others coming out to support him. I do see an investigation on him leaking classified information was opened before he resigned. So Mr. Kent has  motive to muddy the waters. He knows he’s in serious trouble. 

 

In summary, I don’t believe Mr. Kent. If he’s telling the truth, he’s violated an oath to keep classified information to himself. Maybe he should have reviewed his SF-312 before he did this. If he’s lying, and he has motive to do so, he’s left himself up to further legal action. I have no doubt he’s consulted an attorney or three, he needs them. 

A more through battle damage assessment of Operation Midnight Hammer.

In the immediate aftermath of Operation Midnight Hammer and Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, several news sources went straight to work. Citing anonymous sources, within two days they said the attack caused practically no damage to the Iranian nuclear program.  

In the immortal words of Dr. Evil, Riiiiiight. An initial (i.e., before the smoke clears) battle damage assessment (BDS) will be at best an educated guess. This work takes looking at the damage from multiple sources, analyzing what the enemy is doing in response, etc. And seeing the media sources putting out this propaganda, it’s wise to take what they say with a brick of salt. 

 

Fast forward several months, and more reliable sources, we have a better look at what we did in June 2025. And analysising what the Iranians are doing indicates  we did some serious damage to their program. From the Times of Israel:

 

Satellite images indicate Iran working to salvage nuclear materials from damaged sites

​​Experts say new roofs at Isfahan, Natanz likely part of effort ‘to assess whether key assets, such as limited stocks of highly enriched uranium, survived the strikes’ by Israel and US

As tensions soar over Iran’s bloody crackdown on nationwide protests, satellite images show activity at two Iranian nuclear sites bombed last year by Israel and the United States that may be a sign of Tehran trying to obscure efforts to salvage any materials remaining there.

This satellite image from Planet Labs PBC shows a roof built over rubble Iran’s Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center outside of Isfahan, Iran, on Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2026. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)

The images from Planet Labs PBC show that roofs have been built over two damaged buildings at the Isfahan and Natanz facilities, the first major activity noticeable by satellite at any of the country’s stricken nuclear sites since Israel’s 12-day war with Iran in June.

Those coverings block satellites from seeing what’s happening on the ground, which is the only way for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the sites right now, as Iran has prevented access…

The new roofs do not appear to be a sign of reconstruction starting at the heavily damaged facilities, experts who examined the sites said. Instead, they are likely part of Iran’s efforts “to assess whether key assets — such as limited stocks of highly enriched uranium — survived the strikes,” said Andrea Stricker, who studies Iran for the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which has been sanctioned by Tehran.

“They want to be able to get at any recovered assets they can get to without Israel or the United States seeing what survived,” she said.

Isfahan and Natanz are 2 key Iran sites

The Natanz site, some 220 kilometers (135 miles) south of the capital, is a mix of above- and below-ground laboratories that did the majority of Iran’s uranium enrichment.

Before the war, the IAEA said Iran used advanced centrifuges there to enrich uranium up to 60 percent, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Some of the material is presumed to have been onsite for when the entire complex was attacked.

The facility outside the city of Isfahan was mainly known for producing the uranium gas that is fed into centrifuges to be spun and purified.

A third site, Fordo, some 95 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of the capital, housed a hardened enrichment site under a mountain…

…Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors to visit the sites since the attacks.

The main above-ground enrichment building at Natanz was known as the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant. Israel hit the building on June 13, leaving it “functionally destroyed,” and “seriously damaging” underground halls holding cascades of centrifuges, the IAEA’s director-general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, said at the time. A US follow-up attack on June 22 hit Natanz’s underground facilities with bunker-busting bombs, likely decimating what remained. Planet Labs PBC images show Iran began building a roof over the damaged plant in December. It completed the roof by the end of the month. Iran has not provided any public acknowledgment of that work. Natanz’s electrical system appears to still be destroyed…

…At Isfahan, Iran began building a similar roof over a structure near the facility’s northeast corner, finishing the work in early January. The exact function of that building is not publicly known, although the Israeli military at the time said its strikes at Isfahan targeted sites there associated with centrifuge manufacturing. The Israeli military did not respond to requests for comment over the construction.

Meanwhile, imagery shows that two tunnels into a mountain near the Isfahan facility have been packed with dirt, a measure against missile strikes that Iran also did just before the June war. A third tunnel appears to have been cleared of dirt, with a new set of walls built near the entrance as an apparent security measure.

Sarah Burkhard, a senior research associate for the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, which long has watched Iran’s nuclear sites, said the roofs appear to be part of an operation to “recover any sort of remaining assets or rubble without letting us know what they are getting out of there.”

Sean O’Connor, an expert at the open-source intelligence firm Janes, concurred that the aim was likely “to obscure activity rather than to, say, repair or rebuild a structure for use.”

Again, at best an initial assessment is a guess. It takes time to see the facts in full. In a Facebook discussion with a friend of mine, he was convinced the bombing did nothing. The man trusted The New York Times (mistake). I pointed out if there was no damage, the Iranians could easily show the failure of the American attack. I also explained, multiple times, a complete assessment would take time. As we have looked at, and analyzed the information, it’s accurate to say we devastated the Iranian nuclear program. 

Completely destroyed, no. But between cutting off their funding, obliterating billions in high tech assets, killing their scientist (thank you Mossad), and putting the regime in fear for their life (literally, the mullahs are looking at real estate in Moscow), their nuclear program is on the ropes. Hopefully, between the Trump White House, Bebe in Israel, and the people of Iran rising up, we can finally wipe this threat to world peace (not an exaggeration) off the face of the earth. 

Stable Non-Hostile Nations

SUMMARY: Our aim is to have friends or allies. But barring that, America’s interest is in having stable and non-hostile powers on the world stage.  

 

In the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Venezuela, many liberal friends of mine were adamant this for one reason, oil. No, that’s not the case. Oil is areason we have an interest in that country, as well as narcotics and other issues. I’ll cover those later in this article. 

 

First we need to take a big picture at what is in the interest of America. What does the United States need in the world? We need access to resources and markets, we need to keep our adversaries at bay, and as such we need other nations assistance. That is, we need friends and allies.

 

A friend is another nation who’s aligned geo-politically, economically and culturally to us (e.g., the United Kingdom, Israel). Also we have multiple allies in the world, such as Saudi Arabia. While we may have different types of societies or government but our critical political and economic interests align. The greatest example of this was the Allies allying with the Soviet Union during World War II against the Axis powers.  

 

What if we don’t have friends or allies in a certain region? We need, to coin a phrase, Stable Non-Hostile Nations. Their interest may not fully align with ours, but they are not opposing ours. They also are stable enough they don’t interfere with American interests in the region. 

 

A current example would be Indonesia. While not a formal ally of the West, we have similar interest against Chinese aggression and free trade. Or Cameroon, with a stable enough government to keep disruptions from overflowing to nearby countries. Another recent example is Israel and Egypt. Very different nations, but as a result of the Camp David accords, both were not hostile to each other.

 

A example of a Stable Non-hostile Nation is Libya. In the aftermath of the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi had an epiphany. It’s better to not be in the cross hairs of the United States. Qaddafi gave up his WMD programs, settled multiple lawsuits over the Pan Am 103 bombing, and stopped supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East and Europe. He also shared intelligence with western nations. 

 

In exchange we agreed to let him live. We would stop our efforts to force regime change as long as he kept his country secure and caused no other trouble. Easy, accomplished multiple goals of the US, and cheap. Of course we can’t leave well enough alone.

 

In one of the greatest disasters of the Obama years, in 2011 the administration attacked Libyan targets, destabilizing the Qaddafi regime. Qaddafi’s convoy was attacked by US forces, and he was killed by rebel forces. 

 

Qaddafi was not an ally of the west, but he had changed from being an advisory to a non-hostile regime. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, that was the best we can hope for. We didn’t need to act against Qaddafi, just keep an eye on him. Trust, but verify.

 

Again, Qaddafi was not a nice person. We’re not interested in “nice,” we’re interested in America’s national concerns.  When we can’t have allied nations, we’ll work with nations that are not working against our interests, and stable so we don’t worry about them affecting other countries in the region. 

 

With that as context, let’s look at South America again. Venezuela is definitely in America’s area of interest, like every other country in the western hemisphere. We do not want nations aligning with our adversaries. In the case of Caracas, the Maduro government was very aligned with four of our greatest competitors: Russia, China, Iran and Cuba. 

 

It’s in our national interest to weaken these nations? Absolutely. The weaker they are, the less likely they will engage or compete with us. How do we do that? Isolation, from allies and resources. 

 

How did the end of the Maduro regime affect these nations. Cuba just lost over 31,000 barrels per day (BPD) of crude oil and its derivatives. In the past Venezuela shipped as much as 51,000 BPD, resources Cuba is addicted to. Even before this cut off, Cubans were struggling with power generation, with planned and unplanned power outages common on the island. 

 

Russia has sold multiple weapons system to the Venezuelan government, including many air defense systems. A steady income for the Putin regime, generating cash for his adventures in places like the Ukraine. The Kremlin just lost a reliable paycheck. 

 

China is expanding and hungry, and Venezuela has resources. Prior to last week, China imported 470,000 BPD from Venezuela, approximately 4.5 percent of its seaborn crude. But oil is not Beijing’s only interest. 

 

Venezuela has over 300,000 metric tons of rare earth minerals (e.g., cassiterite, coltan, cerium and lanthanum). China has a large hold of the world market on these minerals, and each advanced nation wants more of them. Beijing is also, like black market oil shipments, importing rare earth minerals from Venezuela under the table. Both supplies has been blocked for the foreseeable future.  

 

Worst off is Iran. After four years of crippling sanctions and trade cut offs in Trump I, Iran was on its knees. Within days of becoming president, Joe O’Biden relieved Tehran of these sanctions and unfroze billions in Iranian assets. Tehran was selling Venezuela  weapons systems (e.g., drones and short-range missiles systems), generating cash for the mullahs. Since January 2025, Iran has been put under sanctions and has the greatest open rebellion against the mullahs since 1979. 

 

With the disposing of the Maduro regime, what can be expected. To be honest, we cannot expect Caracas to be (at least initially) friendly to us, nor an ally of the United States. However, with a less corrupt government, a functioning oil industry and the supporting industries, Venezuela will be stable. A stable nation where millions do not rush to America’s borders or disrupt near by countries with refugees. A stable government not allowing our greatest adversaries access to critical resources, perhaps allowing western companies to handle their extraction. In other words, a Stable Non-Hostile Nation in  what was arguably the most unstable country in South America.

 

So has Trump’s incursion into Venezuela been in America’s best interest? Unquestionable so. We have just given the Venezuelan government reason to not allow drug shipments through its ports so easily. Four of our greatest advisories have been cut off from cash, oil and other minerals. And with any luck, fewer Venezuelan nationals will be heading north, further exacerbating our issues with illegal immigration. It also reaffirms the Monroe Doctrine, we are the preeminent power in the Western Hemisphere. The US must insure no one questions that. 

 

Let’s look at another land issue from the administration. President Trump has been very open about controlling Greenland, as a territory or by treaty.What does that allow us to do? 

 

              

                      Source: Facebook

 

First, it’s not about the land. Controlling Greenland prevents Russia and China from access to northern water routes and Arctic rare minerals. As one person put it on Facebook, ”Whoever controls Greenland controls the high ground of the next century.” It’s close to the western hemisphere, and multiple allied nations. Securing it would provide the West the closest land platform for exploiting these assets and securing sea routes in the north. Definitely in the interest of the West in general, and the US in particular, if we can secure this as a base.  

 

Cutting off our adversaries from critical resources in the West and not allowing them to use these nearby nations as a base to threaten us. Changing volatile  adversaries to Stable Non-Hostile countries so we can obtain resources we need and focus our power on other threats. Looking at Venezuela and Greenland, may I say, Trump might just have a method to his madness. 

A Houston City Member Is Not Concerned About Crime.

A member of the Houston City Council may not want the police cooperating with federal law enforcement. Unfortunately for this dentist turned politician, it's state law.

 

A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.

 

President Ronald Reagan

Recently Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted a six-week operation in the Houston area. Over 3,500 illegal aliens were apprehended. Among them were these fine upstanding members of the community:

 

Leo Michel Acosta Sanchez, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico with an Interpol Red Notice in Mexico for aggravated intentional homicide.

 

Angel Gabriel Ramirez-Robles, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, previously removed TWICE and convicted of sexual assault of a child.

 

Ramiro Ricardo Maldonado-Trevino, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico and known MS-13 gang member, convicted of alien smuggling, who illegally entered the United States SIX TIMES.

 

Noi Ly, a criminal illegal alien from Cambodia, convicted of aggravated kidnapping, burglary, carrying a prohibited weapon, and theft.

 

Gustavo Chacha Cano, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, convicted for aggravated sex assault child.

 

Hector Eugenio Ramirez-Martinez, a criminal illegal alien from Honduras, convicted for sexual indecency with a child.

 

Filomin Palacios Godino, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico with an active warrant for illegal reentry, previously removed TWICE and convicted of sexual indecency with a child and driving while intoxicated.

 

Well, they are only here to do the crimes, err jobs that native born Americans won’t do anymore, right? Now this sounds like good news, getting illegals off the streets of America will separate us from many criminals, which will make us safer. But not all agree. 

 

A Houston city council member, Letitia Plummer, has put forth a proposal that would require the Houston Police Department to change its policy on contacting ICE on warrants on illegal aliens. She wants it changed from "shall" contact, i.e., a direct order to do so, to "may contact" that is, you are permitted to contact ICE.  Putting it politely, that is very dangerous and stupid.

 

For example, if a cop pulls someone over for a traffic infraction, run's his identification, and gets an ICE hit, they are required to contact ICE and have them verify the warrant. The police may detain that person for a "reasonable" time. If the feds say he's wanted, he is taken into custody. He may be booked at the county jail, or ICE may send out a unit to pick the suspect up.

 

Now if an officer stops an illegal alien and he has a federal warrant, he is likely wanted for more than just immigration issues. While there is discretion with Class C warrants (the lowest level of crime, normally punished with a fine of less than $500.00), there is limited discretion with higher crime warrants. But with all federal and out of county warrants, the issuing agency must be contacted. 

 

Does this sound like a minor issue? I remind Ms. Plumber that a man named Timothy McVeigh was stopped for a missing registration on his car. He was then arrested for an open traffic warrant. McVeigh was minutes away from release when a notice was received by the jail he was a suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing. 

 

I would also remind Ms. Plumber that by Texas SB 8, sheriffs are now required to enter into an agreement with ICE. If the jail identifies an illegal alien, they must contact federal authorities to determine their status with ICE. Both the actions of the cop on the street and the jails are for one purpose. To enforce that law. 

 

If you are in this country illegally, you must be returned to your home country. You want to immigrate here, fine, apply for admission. Ms. Plumber, immigration to the United States is a privilege we extend to people who choose, not a right. If you can’t comprehend that, I suggest you go back to people’s teeth. 

 

The 4th Estate Again Shows Why It’s Beneath Contempt

I despise journalists for the most part. The false narrative they put out of being “objective” and “unbiased” is laughable on its face. Plus the arrogant presumption of only they can determine the news fit for public discussion, and they must frame the terms. Plus, they are ignorant of basic facts, which brings us to this article.  

Reading this “news” you swear Immigration Agents are not law enforcement officers. And the officers have no business other than immigration status. I’m a patrol cop and suppose I pull you over for an expired registration, only to find you really did renew it last night. Fine, you don’t get a ticket for that. But when I run your license I find an open warrant for narcotics, I can’t let you go. You are a wanted criminal. Not apparently in the way of “thinking” for these two ladies. 

Immigration Agents Arrest Man in L.A. Raid and Drive Off With His Toddler

​By Jill Cowan and Mimi Dwyer

U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents descended on a Home Depot parking lot in Los Angeles this week and detained a Latino man. They secured his hands behind his back, and the man, later identified as Dennis Quiñonez, leaned against his Chevy hatchback.

Immigrant rights activists stood nearby, taking video and shouting at the agents, who were masked and heavily armed…

Ladies, may I enlighten you on law enforcement procedure. You detain someone, you are authorized to secure their hands for officer safety. It’s hands that can harm someone, directly or with a weapon. As far as the agents being “masked and heavily armed,” yes they mask themselves to prevent doxing. Also, law enforcement agents (LEOs) are armed as a rule. Plus, will you please define “heavily” armed? Am I heavily armed by having a pocketknife as well as my pistol? Inquiring minds want to know.  

Mr. Quiñonez was taken away to another vehicle. An armed agent slid into the driver’s seat of his Chevy.

“There’s a baby in the back!” an onlooker shouted. Minutes later, someone cried out, “They’re about to drive!”

Another agent, wearing body armor and carrying a rifle, got into the passenger seat.

Again, ladies, LEOs are armed with rare exceptions (e.g., work inside a jail). Also, body armor is required by all agencies these days. So what is the issue with a federal cop being armed and wearing body armor? Where is the “news” in that? Why do I know you’re trying to make federal agents looks like Imperial Stormtroopers. 

Mr. Quiñonez’s daughter — who relatives said later is a few months shy of her second birthday — looked on, wide-eyed from her car seat. Then the driver reversed the car and drove away.

No kidding ladies, welcome to reality. We can’t leave the kid alone and we can’t just turn a child over to any third party. Plus with a hostile group of people surrounding you, it’s often best to get out of the area for the safety of all involved. Also, while the cops are on scene, it allows the agitators (excuse, activists) rile up people on the scene.

The girl was reunited with her grandmother later in the day. But immigrant rights groups say the episode underscores how federal agents across the country have pushed legal boundaries, sometimes in the presence of children, as they carry out the Trump administration’s agenda to deport millions of undocumented immigrants…

…It is not clear whether Customs and Border Protection has a policy on how to handle minor children at the scene of an arrest or detention. But agents for ICE, a separate Homeland Security agency, are not supposed to drive off with the child of a detainee, according to ICE policy. Local law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County have similar policies requiring officers to call for a social worker.

If I were to hazard a guess the investigators asked Mr. Quiñonez who they could transfer the girl to and he said the grandmother. If he had not, they would transfer the girl to CPS or similar facility for her safety. Welcome to police work ladies, cops have to deal with a suspect’s child or juvenile every day. Rule of thumb, get them to family or a trusted friend as quickly as possible. It's best for the kid. 

… Tuesday’s events began when Customs and Border Protection agents arrested five undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Guatemala, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Federal authorities said in the affidavit that Mr. Quiñonez got out of his car while holding a hammer “in a threatening manner” about 100 feet away from them. As agents started to drive away, they said they saw Mr. Quiñonez throw two “rock-like” objects at the vehicle before getting back into his own car. After a team of agents boxed in Mr. Quiñonez’s car, he got out and approached agents, who said they believed he had tried to assault them…

According to an affidavit by federal authorities, Mr. Quiñonez, a 32-year-old U.S. citizen, was charged with illegally possessing a firearm and ammunition as someone who had previously been convicted of domestic violence. He was convicted of a misdemeanor for injuring a spouse or cohabitant in 2014, the affidavit said…

OK, a US citizen threatens federal agents in the process of enforcing immigration law. After he is detained, the federal agents discover a weapon and ammunition on him. They run him and discover he has a conviction for domestic violence, which means he cannot carry a firearm (assuming the gun didn’t belong to the girl). That’s called investigation 101.

He is charged with a higher crime (it’s a felony for a man convicted of domestic violence to carry a gun). Also the weapon’s charge is easier to prove (no need for intent, the fact he has it is enough). 

So no, there is no issue here. An idiot decided to threaten ICE agents enforcing federal law and was found to have a kid in the car with him. He endangered her by being an idiot with those agents. When the child was discovered, they took her into protective custody and transferred her in a reasonable amount of time to a family member. 

Reporters trying to make news, that’s par for the course. Correspondents trying to create a false narrative based on a template is also expected. That is too bad. Remember that lie the Washington Post chose as its slogan, Democracy Dies In Darkness? With falsehood like this, you’re the ones cutting off the lights.