Attack on Grand Blanc Township Church Leaves Community in Shock
GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP, Mich. – A tranquil Sunday morning service was shattered on September 28, 2025, when a man rammed his vehicle into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Grand Blanc Township, subsequently opening fire on the congregation and setting the building ablaze.
The incident began around 10:25 a.m. at the church located on McCandlish Road.
Law enforcement officers responded to the scene within minutes and engaged in a shootout with Sanford, who was ultimately neutralized.
The aftermath of the attack was a scene of devastation, with the church building severely damaged by the fire.
The Grand Blanc community has been left reeling by the tragedy. Vigils and prayer services were held to honor the victims and support those affected by the violence. Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed their profound sorrow and offered condolences to the families of the victims.
Investigations into the attack are ongoing as law enforcement officials work to piece together the events that led to this senseless act of violence.
–
Comey Indicted: A Legal Proverb and a Political Grudge Match
The recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey has brought a long-simmering feud with President Donald Trump to a boil, simultaneously resurrecting a classic legal adage about the ease of securing an indictment—the proverbial “ham and cheese sandwich.”
On Thursday, September 25, 2025, a federal grand jury indicted James Comey on charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
The indictment has once again highlighted the vast difference between an indictment and a conviction, a distinction famously captured by the legal aphorism that a grand jury would “indict a ham sandwich” if a prosecutor asked them to. This phrase, attributed to former New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler in 1985, underscores the relatively low bar for securing an indictment.
An indictment is a formal accusation by a grand jury that there is enough evidence to justify a trial. The grand jury’s role is not to determine guilt or innocence but merely to decide if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The proceedings are conducted in secret and are largely controlled by the prosecution, with the defense having little to no opportunity to present its case.
A conviction, on the other hand, is a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a petit jury after a full public trial. This requires a much higher standard of proof and involves the presentation of evidence and arguments from both the prosecution and the defense, the cross-examination of witnesses, and the unanimous agreement of the jurors.
The “ham and cheese sandwich” analogy, therefore, serves as a cynical but often accurate commentary on the power of prosecutors in the grand jury process. It suggests that securing an indictment is more a reflection of the prosecutor’s will than the strength of the evidence.
In the context of the Trump-Comey saga, the indictment of Comey can be seen through this lens. Supporters of the former FBI Director and critics of the current administration will likely argue that the indictment is politically motivated, a fulfillment of a long-stated desire by President Donald Trump to see his perceived political enemies prosecuted. They may view it as a prime example of a prosecutor leading a grand jury to indict a figurative “ham and cheese sandwich.”
Conversely, those who have long criticized Comey’s actions, particularly his public statements regarding the Hillary Clinton email investigation and his role in the early stages of the Russia probe, may see the indictment as a necessary step toward accountability. For them, the indictment represents a legitimate finding of probable cause that a crime was committed.
The legal battle to come will ultimately determine whether the indictment of James Comey is a precursor to a conviction or simply a political act that proves the “ham sandwich” proverb true once more. The trial will move beyond the one-sided presentation of a grand jury and into the adversarial arena of a courtroom, where the much higher burden of proof will be required to turn an indictment into a conviction.
–
Trump vs. Comey: A Nation’s Institutions Under Pressure
The long and tumultuous feud between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey has reached a critical juncture with the recent indictment of Comey.
Legal Analysis: A Case Fraught with Political Overtones
The indictment charges James Comey with making a false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
The indictment itself has been described as unusually thin, and reports indicate that the grand jury’s decision was not unanimous. Furthermore, the resignation of the previous U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who reportedly had reservations about bringing charges, has fueled speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated.
Comey’s defense is expected to argue that the prosecution is a vindictive act of political retribution orchestrated by the Trump administration. His legal team will likely highlight the former President’s long history of publicly attacking Comey and calling for his prosecution. To secure a conviction, the government faces the high legal burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey knowingly and willfully intended to mislead Congress. Legal analysts suggest that proving such intent, particularly in the context of complex and nuanced testimony, will be a significant challenge.
The very act of prosecuting a former FBI director for his testimony before Congress is unprecedented and sets a dangerous precedent, potentially chilling future testimony from government officials.
Political and Social Significance: Erosion of Trust and Deepening Divides
The Trump-Comey saga has had a corrosive effect on public trust in key governmental institutions. The constant attacks on the integrity of the FBI and the Department of Justice have politicized these institutions in the public eye, with perceptions of their actions often filtered through a partisan lens.
The conflict has also served as a powerful engine of partisan polarization.
The affair has also fundamentally altered the relationship between the presidency and federal law enforcement. The long-standing norm of a degree of independence for the FBI and the DOJ has been shattered, replaced by an expectation of personal loyalty to the president.
Predictions: A Trajectory of Retaliation and Uncertainty
The indictment of James Comey has opened a new and perilous chapter in American politics, with several potential long-term consequences:
-
A Cycle of Political Prosecutions: The move against Comey could normalize the use of the legal system to settle political scores. Future administrations may feel empowered to launch investigations and prosecutions of their predecessors and political opponents, leading to a dangerous cycle of retaliatory justice that would further destabilize the political landscape.
-
Further Erosion of Institutional Norms: The willingness to disregard established norms of prosecutorial independence sets a precedent that will be difficult to reverse. Future presidents may feel less constrained in their efforts to influence the justice system, further blurring the lines between politics and law.
-
Deepening Political Paralysis: The hyper-partisan environment fueled by the Trump-Comey conflict is likely to intensify, making bipartisan cooperation on even the most pressing national issues increasingly difficult. The political discourse may become even more toxic and dominated by accusations of bad faith and criminality.
-
Uncertain Legal and Political Outcomes: The ultimate outcome of the legal case against James Comey remains uncertain. An acquittal could be seen as a rebuke of the Trump administration’s actions and could embolden critics. A conviction, on the other hand, would be a seismic event, further inflaming partisan tensions and raising fundamental questions about the fairness of the justice system.
In conclusion, the confrontation between Donald Trump and James Comey has transcended a personal feud to become a critical stress test for American democracy. The ongoing legal battle and its political fallout will have lasting implications for the rule of law, the integrity of governmental institutions, and the very nature of political discourse in the United States for years to come.
–
Flawed Premise: Syrian Power Shift and 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Recent events in Syria, including the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the rise of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), have been co-opted by a baseless conspiracy theory alleging Israeli orchestration and a cover-up of the “truth” about 9/11. This narrative is unsupported by credible evidence and misrepresents the complex realities of the Syrian conflict and the established facts of the September 11th attacks.
The Unfounded Claim of Israeli Intervention
There is no factual basis for the assertion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu engineered the change in power in Damascus. Israel’s involvement in the Syrian civil war has been primarily characterized by airstrikes targeting Iranian and Hezbollah assets, not direct intervention in the internal conflict to install a specific leader.
Understanding Abu Mohammad al-Jolani and HTS
Abu Mohammad al-Jolani’s history is complex and cannot be reduced to a simple “Al Qaeda leader” label.
The Established Facts of 9/11
The claim that these events in Syria somehow prove that al-Qaeda is a “myth” constructed to conceal the “truth” about 9/11 is a significant leap in logic that ignores a mountain of evidence. The consensus of the international intelligence community, exhaustive investigations such as the 9/11 Commission Report, and a wealth of declassified documents firmly establish that the September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and executed by al-Qaeda, an organization founded by Osama bin Laden. This conclusion is based on intercepted communications, financial records, and the testimony of captured al-Qaeda members.
The attempt to link the recent power shift in Syria to a long-disproven 9/11 conspiracy theory is a form of misinformation that relies on speculation and a disregard for factual evidence. The events in Syria are the culmination of a decade-long civil war with its own intricate dynamics, and they do not alter the established historical record of the 9/11 attacks.
–
A Bond Forged in Secrecy: The Complex Dance of the CIA and Mossad
The relationship between the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Israel’s Mossad is a multifaceted and deeply entrenched alliance, characterized by decades of extensive cooperation, punctuated by periods of significant friction and controversy. This intricate partnership, born out of the exigencies of the Cold War and the volatile dynamics of the Middle East, remains a cornerstone of both nations’ national security architectures, adapting to evolving geopolitical landscapes and shared threats.
A Symbiotic Partnership in the Shadows
The foundation of the CIA-Mossad relationship was laid in the early 1950s, driven by a mutual need to counter Soviet influence in the Middle East. The CIA, a relatively young organization, recognized the value of Mossad’s human intelligence capabilities and its deep understanding of the Arab world. In return, the fledgling Israeli agency gained access to American resources, technology, and global reach.
This cooperation has manifested in numerous ways over the decades:
-
Counterterrorism: A primary area of collaboration has been the fight against terrorism. The two agencies have a long history of sharing intelligence on terrorist organizations, plots, and individuals, leading to numerous disrupted attacks.
2 This partnership became even more critical in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent “War on Terror.” -
Combating Nuclear Proliferation: A shared concern over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran has been a significant driver of recent cooperation.
3 This collaboration has reportedly included intelligence sharing on Iran’s nuclear program and, according to recent reports, culminated in joint operations.4 In a rare public acknowledgment in June 2025, the head of Mossad thanked the CIA for its assistance in a series of operations against Iranian targets, highlighting the ongoing depth of their partnership on this critical issue.5 -
Intelligence Gathering and Analysis: The agencies have historically complemented each other’s strengths. Mossad has often provided valuable human intelligence (HUMINT) from within the Middle East, while the CIA has offered its vast technical intelligence (TECHINT) capabilities, including satellite imagery and signals intelligence (SIGINT). Declassified documents have revealed early instances of this exchange, such as Mossad providing the CIA with intelligence on the Soviet Union gleaned from Jewish immigrants.
Strains and Scandals: A Relationship Tested
Despite the deep-seated cooperation, the CIA-Mossad relationship has been far from seamless, marked by significant conflicts and controversies that have, at times, threatened to derail the partnership.
-
The Jonathan Pollard Affair: The most damaging episode was the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst who was caught spying for Israel.
6 Pollard had provided vast amounts of classified American intelligence to his Israeli handlers, causing a severe breach of trust and straining relations for years.7 The affair led to a re-evaluation of intelligence sharing protocols and left a lasting scar on the relationship, with many in the U.S. intelligence community feeling a profound sense of betrayal. -
Divergent Strategic Interests: While often aligned, the national interests of the United States and Israel do not always converge, leading to friction. Disagreements over issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the pace and approach to dealing with Iran, and Israel’s covert operations have periodically created tension between the two agencies.
-
Lesser-Known Conflicts: Beyond the high-profile Pollard case, there have been other, less-publicized instances of disagreement and mistrust. These have often revolved around concerns about Israeli intelligence operations within the United States and differing assessments of regional threats.
The Present State: An Enduring, Pragmatic Alliance
Today, the relationship between the CIA and Mossad is characterized by a pragmatic and indispensable partnership. The shared threats of terrorism, cyber warfare, and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East continue to necessitate close collaboration. The recent joint operations targeting Iran in the summer of 2025 underscore the current, active nature of this cooperation on the most pressing national security issues.
While the memory of the Pollard affair serves as a cautionary tale, the intelligence sharing between the two agencies is believed to be robust, particularly on matters of mutual and immediate concern. The directors of the CIA and Mossad are known to maintain regular and direct communication, facilitating the rapid exchange of critical information.
In conclusion, the CIA-Mossad relationship is a dynamic and complex tapestry woven with threads of deep cooperation, strategic divergence, and occasional betrayal. It is a partnership born of necessity and sustained by shared interests, one that has weathered significant storms and continues to be a pivotal, if often unseen, element in the turbulent landscape of global intelligence and security. The enduring nature of this alliance is a testament to its strategic importance to both the United States and Israel, a bond forged in the shadows that continues to shape events in the Middle East and beyond.
–
The Future of Russia: A Critical Analysis of the “Inevitable Defeat” Narrative
The assertion that a Russian defeat in Ukraine would automatically trigger the collapse of a “Mongol-Tatar Mafia State,” ushering in a “rebirth” into a European model and resolving a century of geopolitical conflict, presents a highly optimistic and deterministic view of a complex and uncertain future. While the war in Ukraine is undoubtedly a pivotal moment in Russian history, the trajectory of a post-conflict Russia is far from certain and is subject to a multitude of internal and external factors. A closer examination of the components of this assertion, supported by a range of geopolitical and historical analyses, reveals a more nuanced and potentially less sanguine picture.
Deconstructing the “Mongol-Tatar Mafia State”
The term “Mongol-Tatar Mafia State” is a powerful and evocative descriptor, yet it conflates distinct historical and political concepts.
The “Mongol-Tatar Yoke” and its Legacy: The historical Mongol domination of Russia (13th-15th centuries) left a lasting impact on its political development.
The Modern “Mafia State”: The characterization of contemporary Russia as a “mafia state” finds more traction among some political analysts.
While both the historical “Yoke” and the modern “mafia state” concept point to authoritarian and centralized tendencies, they are distinct phenomena. Attributing the current system solely to a Mongol inheritance risks overlooking the more immediate and potent legacies of the Soviet Union and the tumultuous 1990s.
The Unpredictable Aftermath of “Defeat”
The notion of an “inevitable defeat” in Ukraine is itself a complex issue, with definitions of “defeat” ranging from a complete military collapse and withdrawal to a protracted stalemate that drains Russian resources and political will. The consequences of such a scenario are far from predetermined.
Scenarios for a Post-Putin Russia: Analysts envision several potential futures for Russia after Putin, none of which guarantee a seamless transition to a “healthy European way of development.” These scenarios include:
-
A More Hardline Nationalism: A humiliating defeat could lead to a “stab-in-the-back” narrative, fueling an even more aggressive and revanchist nationalism. In this scenario, a new leader might emerge who promises to restore Russian pride and military might.
-
Fragmentation and Instability: The immense strain of a lost war could exacerbate existing internal tensions, potentially leading to a period of civil unrest, regional separatism, or even the violent collapse of the state. This “Time of Troubles” could create a power vacuum filled by competing factions, including hardline security elites and regional warlords.
-
Continuation of Authoritarianism: The existing power structures, deeply entrenched in the security services and bureaucracy, could manage a transition of power that preserves the authoritarian system, albeit with a new face.
5 This could involve a “managed succession” where a chosen successor maintains the core tenets of “Putinism.” -
A Limited and Fraught Democratization: While a democratic opening is a possibility, it is by no means the most likely outcome. The weakness of Russian civil society, the suppression of independent media, and the deep-seated political apathy of the population present significant obstacles to a genuine democratic transformation.
6 The experience of the 1990s, which many Russians associate with economic hardship and national humiliation, has also soured public perception of liberal democracy.
Resolving the Geopolitical Conflict?
The idea that a Russian defeat would resolve a century-long geopolitical conflict and signify a “REAL victory over the USSR and the KGB” requires a nuanced understanding of Russia’s historical relationship with the West and the enduring legacy of its Soviet past.
A Century of Confrontation: The roots of the conflict between Russia and the West are deep and multifaceted, predating the Soviet Union. Throughout the 20th century, this relationship has been characterized by periods of intense ideological rivalry, proxy wars, and a fundamental clash of geopolitical interests. While the collapse of the USSR in 1991 appeared to herald a new era of cooperation, the subsequent expansion of NATO and differing views on international security led to a resurgence of tensions. A change in leadership in Russia would not automatically erase these underlying geopolitical realities.
The Enduring Legacy of the USSR and the KGB: The Soviet Union may have dissolved, but its institutional and psychological legacy continues to shape modern Russia.
In conclusion, while a Russian setback in Ukraine could act as a catalyst for significant change, the optimistic prediction of an inevitable and smooth transition to a European-style democracy is not strongly supported by current analyses. The path forward for Russia is likely to be turbulent and contested, with a range of possible outcomes that do not necessarily align with Western hopes for a “rebirth.” The deeply ingrained historical, political, and institutional factors that have shaped modern Russia will continue to exert a powerful influence on its future trajectory.
This video from the Stimson Center provides further insights into the potential futures for Russia’s geopolitical orientation.
For more information, you may find this video on the future of Russia-China relations insightful: The SCO Summit and the Future of Russia China’s ‘No Limits’ Deal
–
The assertion that the “neo-imperialist post-Soviet Russian Mafia State under the cover of Putinism is one and the latest of the historical waves of the Mongol-Tatar system of governing” is a complex thesis that draws parallels between contemporary Russia and the historical period of Mongol rule over the Rus’ principalities. While not a direct continuation, scholars and analysts have noted certain structural and political similarities that suggest a lasting influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on Russian political culture and statecraft.
At the heart of this argument lie several key perceived parallels: the centralization of power, the nature of the state’s relationship with society and the economy, and an expansionist foreign policy.
The Specter of the Golden Horde: Centralization and Autocracy
The Mongol Empire, and its successor, the Golden Horde, governed the Rus’ principalities through a system of tribute and vassalage.
Similarly, “Putinism” is characterized by a “power vertical,” a highly centralized political structure where regional leaders and institutions are beholden to the Kremlin.
Economic Relations: From Tribute to State Capitalism
The economic model of the Golden Horde was largely extractive.
Critics of the modern Russian state describe it as a “mafia state” or a kleptocracy, where a small elite of government officials, oligarchs, and security service members (the siloviki) are bound together to control and exploit the nation’s wealth.
A Neo-Imperial Foreign Policy?
The Mongol Empire was built on conquest and the subjugation of neighboring territories. The Golden Horde maintained its dominance through military might and by playing rival principalities against each other.
Contemporary Russian foreign policy under Putin has been described as “neo-imperialist,” characterized by a desire to reassert influence in the “near abroad”—the former republics of the Soviet Union.
Divergences and Historical Debate
It is crucial to note that this thesis is a matter of historical and political interpretation and not without its critics. Many historians argue that the influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke is overstated and that Russian political development was also heavily influenced by Byzantine traditions, Orthodox Christianity, and its interactions with European powers.
Furthermore, the modern Russian state operates within a globalized and technologically advanced world that is vastly different from the medieval period of Mongol rule. The ideologies and justifications for power have also evolved significantly.
In conclusion, while contemporary Russia under Putin is not a direct replica of the Mongol-Tatar system, the argument that it exhibits certain enduring patterns of governance—such as a strong, centralized autocracy, the fusion of political and economic power, and an assertive foreign policy—is a compelling one. These parallels suggest that the historical experience of the Mongol yoke may have left a lasting imprint on Russia’s political DNA, an imprint that some see re-emerging in the 21st century.
–