Kristi Noem DOUBLES DOWN On Killing Puppy – But Also Changes Her Story!

Well, what the hell did you expect in the Donald Trump days? Politicians have learned if they never show any shame, never apologize, and never accept any personal accountability… they’ll be fine.

That’s certainly what top Trump VP contender Kristi Noem is doing after one of the most horrific and upsetting political gaffes in the history of the country. For those who haven’t heard the INSANE story, the South Dakota governor wrote in her own memoir about killing a puppy. We’ll say that one more time just in case, she said she killed a puppy.

According to Kristi, she tried to train the 14-month-old wirehair pointer to hunt pheasant with her, but little Cricket was too rambunctious. After her first hunt didn’t work out — she just chased the birds around all day — she took her to a friend’s farm where they raised chickens. And, in the least shocking twist of all time, the puppy continued to do what she was doing earlier! Only the chickens couldn’t fly away like the pheasants could, and Cricket killed a bunch before she could be restrained.

Related: Not-So-Fun Fact – Donald Trump HATES Dogs

We don’t know about you, but when we hear that story, all we can think is the dog’s owner is to blame. After all, Kristi was the trainer AND she took a dog she knew liked to chase birds and let her loose around chickens.

Talk about irresponsible!

Noem didn’t see it that way. She “hated” the dog anyway and since it was “worthless as a hunting dog” it had no value to her. So she writes about how she took Cricket to a gravel pit (apparently right by where her kids get dropped off by the bus?) and shot the puppy to death. Then her daughter arrived home a short while later and asked, “Hey, where’s Cricket?”

OK, so that’s the story. Obviously the response was overwhelmingly shocked and appalled. Even tons of Republicans, including dog owners, hunters, and MAGA diehards, said this story was sick. And remember, this is how she told it. It wasn’t an exposé by Ronan Farrow; the governor chose to include it in her memoir, No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward. She was clearly trying to show how tough she was, how she could make the hard choices, but to us it just seems like she made a choice that was lazy (she could have worked harder to train the pup or given it to another home) and psychotic (because it was killing a puppy).

In her first response to the backlash late last week, Kristi tweeted — we kid you not — a plug for her book, writing:

“We love animals, but tough decisions like this happen all the time on a farm. Sadly, we just had to put down 3 horses a few weeks ago that had been in our family for 25 years. If you want more real, honest, and politically INcorrect stories that’ll have the media gasping, preorder No Going Back”

We guess at the time she figured it would just be the lamestream media upset. After the massive wave of backlash, however, she wrote a much longer response. Having a couple days to think on it, the extent of Kristi’s reflection was… she was right about everything, everyone else is soft and crazy, and btw her book is coming out next week. She wrote on X Sunday:

“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. 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.”

Tough challenges? Lady, the challenge was “try not to murder any puppies” and it was an easy one, and you failed in front of everyone! She then got into the defense part. First, she made explicitly clear her choice to kill a puppy was legal in this case:

“The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down.”

Oof. We’re not sure anyone even brought up the law. Mostly folks were thinking about morality and, to be frank, mental stability. Because she jumped to killing that dog herself so fast, we’re not sure she isn’t the one who’s “untrainable”! Even if killing the dog was legal… and that feels like a pretty messed up law, to be clear… Who could do such a thing? What kind of person could kill a puppy themselves? Yeesh.

Next, however, she did something truly interesting. She changed her story. She wrote:

“Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did.”

Did you catch that? “Aggressive behavior toward people by biting them.” She’s now saying Cricket bit humans. Except, she didn’t say that in her initial story. When it came time to write down all the details, to give the full truth as she saw it in her own memoir, she didn’t mention a single time that pup bit a human. So why leave that out? Why mention only now?

Simple. She knows she messed up. She’s mostly doubling down, this statement has the posture of doubling down, that she was always right and has nothing to apologize for. But when it comes down to it, she’s also tweaking the story, quietly adding a detail that could only be described as crucial. Because she knows she screwed up telling that story, she knows she stepped in it. She was trying to look like John Dutton, instead she came across like David Eason.

Noem finished by saying once again, she was “right” to kill that puppy, and that’s all there is to it:

“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.”

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…

— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) April 28, 2024

She showed everyone who she really is, and the vast majority of folks were horrified. Because to all the normal people out there reading it, this didn’t sound like someone who thought killing a puppy was “hard and painful.” She wrote that she “hated that dog” for crying out loud! The choice came across as a particularly easy one for Kristi, as a matter of fact! And that’s still true!

Here are some of the strongest responses to the governor’s new defense:

“Kristi Noem: This is the real me.
America: Yikes.”

“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.”

“How dare you blame a puppy you killed for its death; it’s evident that you are a sick, sadistic person.”

“One cool thing about not killing a pet, is that you don’t have to explain that time when you killed a pet.”

“You’re disgusting. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHEN IT HAPPENED. What matters is that IT DID HAPPEN. You’re a murderer and you go to church? Sit down.”

“Sorry, Kristi, but you’ve betrayed our trust and that of our dogs.”

“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.”

“Kristi blaming the dog is vile. It’s your fault! Bad owners create aggressive dogs.”

“You’re toast. It’s not some people, it’s most people and it’s not a partisan issue. You actually united people on both sides of the aisle with your despicable animal cruelty.”

“You’ve brought both republicans and democrats together in their horror of this story. Congratulations.”

About that last line though… It’s true, for now lots of Republicans are against her. But a lot spoke out against Trump during Charlottesville and January 6, too. And what happened? They came around and started defending his actions. Because that’s how it works.

Believe it or not, there are already hard-right pundits trying to work the spin cycle on all this. And you know what? At this point we wouldn’t be surprised if it works on her Republican fans. Hell, look at what they accept from Trump. Maybe they’ll just move the goalposts again and decide NOT killing puppies is “woke” nonsense.

But we’re guessing it won’t be enough to get her that running mate spot, though. A political ally of Trump told The New York Post on Monday:

“She was already unlikely to be picked as VP, but had a shot. After this, it’s just impossible.”

Well, at least that’s something. We can’t imagine a person with this little regard for life — or this little patience and care — in such a position of power. We’re talking about being understudy to someone who will be 78 years old on Election Day. Someone who can’t even be trusted keeping a puppy safe? No thanks!

[Image via MEGA/WENN/Kristi Noem/Instagram.]