Federal judge orders ICE to lay off protesters in Minnesota

  I have no opinion - what is known is that the agent was struck by the vehicle. What the intention was by the driver does not change the fact that the agent was struck.

Correct. The driver's intention does not change the fact that the agent was hit. 

I'm not asking your opinion on her intent. 

I am asking if you think that the assertion she struck the agent on purpose is a fact or an opinion. 

You quoted a post with several paragraphs and and labeled it "true". In one of those paragraphs an assertion was made that the driver intended to strike the agent.  

Actually, it matters a great deal. It was an accident if she was simply trying to leave; it was criminal assault if she was trying to hit him. The Orange Turd claims that the agent was "run over," which simply didn't happen, regardless of her intent.

And in my life, I have observed that the more someone tries to label what they say as DA TROOTY TROOT and ONE HUNDERT PROSENT FACTY FACTS, the less they believe it themselves.

I once again state that I have no opinion about the assertation You are stating something  that I did not say.

 And that is the difference between you and me - I believe truthful facts while you tend to question actual facts. 

There is actual evidence of her intent. Her wheels were turned to the right--AWAY from the agent--when he was struck.

Of course, as Candy pointed out, she could have turned her wheels after she was shot, as some kind of spasmodic reflex. But it's hard to do that when the vehicle is barely moving, even with power steering.

In the absence of detailed video footage from the proper angles, we cannot definitively determine her intent. We can't ask her, because the agent shot her in the head. Thus, my OPINION is that she PROBABLY didn't intend to harm the agent.

Further swaying my OPINION is the recorded exchange she had with the agent, which didn't suggest that she was hostile to him. It did suggest that the agent was quite hostile to her, FWIW.

Thus, I have an opinion on what went down and why, but I'm not going to call it DA TROOT unless and until some other heretofore unknown evidence comes to light. It seems like MAGA media, and certainly the Turd, haven't applied such reservations to their opinions, which seem to be, as always, unencumbered by facts.

More defensive labeling by you, just as I said.

It doesn't matter.  While committing a crime, she committed the crime of hitting the officer.  It's time to stop people from being indifferent to police commands.

I know you didn't say it. 

The reason I'm asking is because you quoted a post made by Tom and labled it as "fact".  That post contained several statements. I'm trying to determine which of those statements you consider to be fact. Is it all them? Is it some of them?