Niagara Pride Awards Jean Hopkins Memorial Scholarship to Two Local WNY High School Graduates

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) took another stab at defending her decision to shoot and kill a 14-month old puppy years ago that attacked some chickens, by citing a South Dakota law that allows animals that kill "livestock" to be put down.

Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, the embattled Republican attempted to put out the firestorm she created by writing in her new book that she "hated" the puppy named Cricket and after an incident took it to a gravel pit and shot it while also claiming it was "worthless" as a hunting dog despite its young age.

On Sunday, she wrote, "I can understand why some people are upset about a 20 year old story of Cricket, one of the working dogs at our ranch, in my upcoming book — No Going Back. The book is filled with many honest stories of my life, good and bad days, challenges, painful decisions, and lessons learned."

ALSO READ: ‘Fraudulent’: Trump tormentor Lincoln Project loses big money in cybertheft scheme

She then continued:

"What I learned from my years of public service, especially leading South Dakota through COVID, is people are looking for leaders who are authentic, willing to learn from the past, and don’t shy away from tough challenges. My hope is anyone reading this book will have an understanding that I always work to make the best decisions I can for the people in my life. The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down. Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did. Whether running the ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my responsibilities to anyone else to handle. Even if it’s hard and painful. I followed the law and was being a responsible parent, dog owner, and neighbor. As I explained in the book, it wasn't easy. But often the easy way isn't the right way."

That did not satisfy Noem's many internet critics.

As one put it, she seemed more invested in selling her book, writing, "Stop using you murdering your dog in cold blood to try to sell copies of your book you sicko."

That was one of the nicer responses she received.

Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa said, "It sounds like out of at least three options 1) train the dog; 2) drive any distance to a shelter; or 3) shoot it on the spot, you literally took the easiest one."

Former Trump campaign aide A.J. Delgado called Noem a "liar."

"BTW, liar, he never 'killed' livestock -- only attacked, which every dog does (i.e., runs after them). Quit changing your story. Your career is OVER."

@OurShallowState said, "The dog frustrated you. You killed it. That wasn't a tough decision by an empathetic person. That was a weak and lazy decision by a sociopathic person. Leading in government is making the right choices. You are insensitive and impatient. Your choices suck."

Democrat Harry Sisson also weighed in.

"There is no justifying your actions. What you did was disgusting and unforgivable. Also, nobody is going to buy your damn book," he said.

Noem even lost the support of some commenting users.

@colin_fendley said, "I have been a farm owner, I have been a K9 Handler, and I have trained thousands of dogs; you can not justify this, my dear. I'm a conservative, and you lost my support."

Former president Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche is stuck between a rock and a hard place in the form of a "crazy, unreasonable client," according to former federal prosecutor Harry Litman.

Litman's analysis Tuesday came on the heels of proceedings in the criminal hush money trial that saw Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Trump's lawyers debating whether the former president had violated his gag order.

Trump's lawyer, Blanche, was ridiculed by legal experts who said he failed to craft an argument without case law to back it up.

"I don't have any cases," Blanche said in court. "It's just common sense."

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist explains how Trump is using existential fear to win the election

"You're losing all credibility," Judge Juan Merchan replied.

"Hard to maintain with a straight face," former prosecutor Joyce Vance said of the battle between Blanche and the judge.

CNN's legal analyst called it an outright "disaster," because it went so poorly for Trump.

According to Litman, this exchange put Trump's lawyer in difficult position.

"Blanche needs badly to work hard to regain Merchan's trust, but he's between a rock and a hard place," Litman said. "He can't look weak in front of his crazy, unreasonable client."

Trump's former impeachment attorney, Robert Ray, tried to downplay the exchange, saying he's had judges say things like that to him before.

Speaking to MSNBC Tuesday, Ray explained that Blanche likely conveyed "he wouldn't be so easily intimidated."

Former Brooklyn prosecutor Charles Coleman disagreed, saying that running afoul of the judge this early in the trial was a problem.

"That was the most explosive," he told Nicolle Wallace on Tuesday afternoon. "That is — for as accomplished an attorney as Todd Blanche is, I don't understand the argument he made. To have a judge tell you that you are losing credibility this early in a trial is really, really dangerous ground to operate on."

Even teenagers were ridiculing Blanche. Two students came to court to observe the trial, including one 14-year-old who thought the exchange between Merchan and Blanche was "funny."

"When the defense attorney was basically annihilated by the judge," said Hope Harrington outside the courthouse. "It was — it really made my day. It was really funny. He had no evidence whatsoever."

Details never before made public are expected to be admissible in Donald Trump's latest New York trial — and onlookers are expecting them to be revealing.

New York Times investigative reporter Sue Craig said she was "struck" by the "new information" revealed in Monday's opening statements, which includes a series of text messages from National Enquirer reporters involved in investigating the stories of adult movie actress Stormy Daniels and ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had affairs with Trump.

One of the text messages, Craig said, read: "What have we done?"

Trump's latest trial kicked off in earnest Monday as each side delivered their opening speeches over Trump's 34-count felony indictment over the hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

"We've heard about text messages that went back and forth with the National Enquirer when they went out to see Karen McDougal, one of the women who had a relationship with Donald Trump," Craig said.

"They were trying to confirm if the story was true."

Craig noted that one of the lawyers representing McDougal was involved in election night texting with somebody at the tabloid, which was previously unknown.

Read Also: A criminologist explains why Trump’s Manhattan trial is the biggest threat to his freedom

"We'll see a lot of that come through. And David Pecker was not on the stand for very long, but just hearing the details that we got, the idea that ... reporters were given about $10,000 to get that story," recalled Craig.

"And I wasn't clear if that included payment to somebody or expenses and payment, but anything above that, he would have to sign off on it. What that told me was the payments that went to Karen McDougal, that went to Stormy Daniels, were unusual. They were high."

She referenced a Trump doorman who was paid $30,000 to stay quiet about a possible Trump love child. McDougal was given $150,000, while Daniels was given $130,000.

During the second half of the show, Lawfare's Anna Bower agreed with the assessment that there was new information that dropped and there will likely be even more. There is some conversation about what will ultimately be admissible out of that information that is new.

"We heard a lot about phone records the prosecution intends to introduce," Bower said. "So, I think that we certainly will see new evidence. But the question is — there were these questions about whether it would be admissible for hearsay reasons."

See the video below or at the link here.

Hearing prosecutors read the 'Access Hollywood' words was 'cringier' than Trump's voice youtu.be