Hey everyone, Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bull Work. Here I'm joined by Andrew Weissman. And for the second time
in less than three weeks, ICE agents in Minnesota have shot and killed a protester. Alex Jeffrey Prey was a
37-year-old ICU nurse and an American citizen. I'm just going to level set this really quickly by saying, uh, we've
been doing live streams much of the day over here at the Bull Work and there's been a lot of, uh, emotion attached to
it. I want to step back, try to be uh less emotional and uh with Andrew here,
really
just like break down what we know and what's happened. So, Andrew, will
you just give me I know you've been talking about this today. Uh we're
going
to watch a video in a second to give people more context, but give me your highest level thoughts just to start out.
Well, like you, I have to first put aside the emotions of the moment. The
second thing is um this is something I learned from when I was the general counsel of the FBI, which is usually
whatever your first take is and whatever your first understanding of the facts are could easily be wrong. So it's it's
useful just to have that caveat that this is something where we're all reacting sort of in real time and the
facts may change. So that those are sort of my first two things and I have to say the second thing is something that's
sort of been beaten into me because I lived through that so much as as general counsel. But now let's just focus on the
facts here which is peaceful protesting is not a death eligible offense. Um
carrying a gun is not a death eligible offense. In fact, in this
administration, they have they're sort of famously have touted the Second
Amendment right to carry a gun. And so, even if somebody was carrying a gun,
that is not a basis. And that I say even if because there's substantial concern
right now as to whether there was a gun or not, you know, even there, but even if there were, that is not a basis to
kill someone. Um that is actually according to this administration a
constitutionally protected right to carry a gun. The administration has said
because he was carrying a gun with various rounds in it that it they
speculated that he was there to carry out mass shooting of law enforcement.
So, it's hard to take all of that without considering the context of this
administration having been found by judge after judge after judge from
Republican and Democratic judges to have been untruthful and unfaithful to the
facts. And so when um protesters in Minnesota and around the country are
skeptical when the administration says, "Oh, this was a good shoot," and they
then don't want to have an investigation of the shoot, you can understand why people are really up in arms about what
is going on here. And like the shooting of Ms. Good. This raises truly
substantial issues about um what happened at the very least the complete
overreaction. Even if he were carrying a gun, they would have to show that the gun was
about to be used in an imminent way such that the agents felt that they were in
fear for their life. And so far, I have not even heard any allegation about the facts that would show that.
There's
a lot to unpack there. I'm just going to try to throw a few. I'm just
going to try to say a few things back to you that I think are really
important because I've been watching this unfold.
One is immediately upon the shooting kind of hitting the web, uh, like it's
on Twitter, there's a just like with Renee Good, like the parallels to Renee Good are
there's a lot of them. Not the least of which is there's just a lot of video. There's a lot of different people, a lot
of different angles. Um, and so you do c you can see a lot of things. The thing
that struck me was also like the Renee Good shooting. The government was out
with official statements posted on Twitter very quickly. People like Steven
Miller were out there and they immediately identified again just like they did with Renee Good. They
immediately identified the person who was murdered and called him a domestic terrorist. Steven Miller has been
referring
to him as a domestic terrorist. the idea that he had this gun, they
made it sound as though he might be brandishing the weapon, which
of course the video clearly shows that that he wasn't. And it's a it's it's like the Renee Good situation in that
the way that the government immediately responds is immediately also disproven
by the video. Even if we don't know exactly what's happened, it's pretty clear that the things they are alleging
as part of their official statements are immediately disproven by a volume of
video that we have access to. Maybe it's worth just stepping back to make sure that people understand that in normal
administrations, Republican and Democratic, I've worked in for 21 years in administrations of
various political stripes. This is not normal. People are in law
enforcement to do justice. Um, one of the things that was drilled into me by
Robert Mueller, that radical rogue Democrat, that I'm beingious.
Yes. Um, was that when something like this happens first that before you make any
statement about what happens, you do it your complete deep dive to find out what
happened. If there was a mistake, you own it and you tell people what happened
because you are a public servant and you work for the public and you tell them what happened and you figure out how are
you going to build a system to reduce the risk of it happening again. And then
the final thing that Robert Miller drilled into all of us was and you better figure out a system to audit
those fixes to make sure they are working. In other words, it's not a oneandone. All of that was part of how
you reacted in a situation like this. So, if I was at the FBI right now, all
of that would be immediately triggered in terms of how you react to this and
what your obligation is. You shouldn't be making anything statements about this other than saying that, you know, we're
going to look into it. There will be an investigation. We're going to figure out what the facts are. um if there were
mistakes, we will let you know. That that is the proper response. Um to say
something that um is either completely false and I and one other thing just to
to be on my high horse to denigrate the victim is the is really
the playbook of this administration. So, you know, one of the things that we jump to is saying, "Well, this is an American
citizen, a nurse at an ICU, no known criminal history." I understand why
we're doing that, but none of that's relevant. Yeah, let's assume this person was in the
country illegally. That is not a death offense. That is not a reason to shoot
somebody. I mean the the only thing that could possibly be relevant is not tarnishing the person in terms of who
they are is whether there was imminent harm to the agent. If there wasn't
imminent harm to the agent that could be perceived that way, then this is, you
know, an absolute gross injustice and it it really could be a case of coldblooded
murder. And and just to hit your point, Sarah, which is that we can focus on the
agent, but to me the equal thing to focuses on is the administration's
response. It's it is wrong to view the good shooting as only about agent Ross.
It is wrong to look at this and say it's about an ICE agent either, you know,
overreacting or or or actually, you know, having being trained to do
something this bad. It is about the administration's response to this that I
think really inflames passions because there's no sense of justice um being
carried out. Yeah. Um, speaking of the administration, for any anybody who's interested in this video, I presume you
have seen the video, but I am going to show it to you again. Uh, we're going to show it to you again. We have a split
screen that is uh Bavino holding a press conference explaining
from the administration's point of view what they think happened. We paired it uh next to what actually happened and I
want to play that for you now, but it is graphic. So, if you don't want to see that, just uh fair warning.
During this operation, an individual approached US Border Patrol agents with
a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. The agents attempted to disarm the
individual, but he violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and
safety of fellow officers, a Bord agent fired defensive shots.
What the [ __ ] What the [ __ ] is wrong with you?
Get the [ __ ] people. The [ __ ] is wrong with you? Honestly.
the [ __ ] did you just do? Okay, Andrew, here's my question. Um,
because I've watched that video now so many times, but listening to Bevino say
that he came at them with a weapon, right? And I can't tell if he's parsing his words because it sounds to me like
now they're getting now that everybody realizes he absolutely didn't have a we like he was not carrying a weapon. He
didn't even approach them. He was there. They went and shoved that woman and as best I can tell his last act on earth
was trying to help her and putting his body between her and that ICE agent during which then he was pepper-
sprrayed in the face which means he was already blinded. And then six people jump to the ground and then it is
unclear why he is shot and a gun goes off. And then the a one of the agents
proceeds to shoot him several more times while he's already on the ground which again does remind me of the good
shooting in that she was already past him and again he shot her in the side of the head. this guy. We didn't we don't
have
camera yet where somebody says [ __ ] [ __ ] like they did at the end
of the Renee Good, but it it shares the same DNA in that the post thing
is sort
of like, yeah, now we're backing off and we're out of here. Like the the keeping shooting feels like it's done out of
hostility and not a law enforcement tactic. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you could tell me differently.
No, it to me it reminds me of uh remember L Lord of the Flies or the
Stanford prison experiment? I mean the this idea of um giving illtrained uh people or train
people trained to do this um power and no sense of the responsibility that
comes with it. Um there obviously huge parallels throughout our history of of
regimes that that have operations like this. I want to make sure people understand who um Mr. Ravino is um who's
making these statements. He was found by a federal judge in Chicago to be not
candid. That's a fancy way of saying lied. He was found by a judge in DC to have
not understood in the most basic fundamentals of constitutional law. He
um said that you could arrest people based on mere reasonable suspicion. Um and I think things suggested it could be
based on suspect classifications, meaning like race. That's just to be
clear, not the law. Um and that was something that he was um saying even
even after it the the case before this judge in DC was was pending and the law
was absolutely clear. Do you think anybody would with their right mind would get to know what the law is, the
constitutional law? So that's of the background of the person saying this.
I can understand why the public would say that the world we're living in now
feels like that ICE agents, no matter what they do,
um will be backed by this administration and they will just throw out the mantra
of they feared for their life and the person had a gun even when there's no
evidence of it. and we will just get sort of the administration saying, "We're just going to say it. It's fake
news."
In the same way, you know, the election was stolen. In other words,
we're just going to tell you what to believe. January 6 was a grave
national
injustice. In other words, do not look at the videotape. Do not listen to Sarah
Longwell and Andrew Weissman. Just just trust us that we are telling you the
agents feared for their lives. And that's the fiction you're going to go with. It is so important to me. Let's
assume that there is some question right now as to exactly what happened. That is
why you have an independent investigation. That is why you have the state and the locals involved in that
investigation. I mean to me it is just so shocking that that basic obligation
um is not being carried out. And we now have two innocent people who are dead,
who lost their lives. You know, it's it's easier to ignore
blowing up of boats off of the shores of Venezuela and to think that doesn't feel
real. I mean, it is. Just to be clear, I'm not We should have empathy for those
people as well. This is this is happening here in America
with law enforcement officers who are seem to act with complete impunity and
are are very much given that license from the White House. Um and so you
understand why they would feel emboldened. Can I just ask you a question about them being categorized as law enforcement?
This is this came up today as we were talking. Yeah. Are they law enforcement? Exactly.
Like because I think I I I watched Tim Walls and Fry and and and and the police
chief there and like they are being cut out of the investigation. They are being sort of sidelined through this. Are they
law
enforcement in the true strict sense of the word? Like what are they?
That is a great question. Although it's very technical because there are
different statutes that under which different agents can be hired. The reason I say law enforcement is they are
enforcing the laws even if they are civil immigration laws and they are
public servants having that role. Um are they are they sort of like the FBI um
under a statute called 1811s just to get super technical which is a statute for
FBI special agents. Um my understanding is no, they're not. But they still do
have um enforcement authority of the immigration laws. Um but just to be
clear, um here it's not even, you know, there's there seems to be no immigration violation whatsoever that's an American
citizen. I don't see any anything that the person's doing improperly. Just to
be clear, you can peacefully protest. One thing I just want to maybe foot stop Sarah, a federal judge just a few days
ago issued a decision to make it absolutely clear um to the government
that filming law enforcement in public is protected
activity under the First Amendment. It is not just something that you can do
and you're not harming anyone. It is actually protected activity. So that means that agents cannot interfere with
it. And so we're getting so many reports of um the ICE agents trying to take
phones and stopping people to prevent the recording. The recording that would
that gives us at least some modicum of accountability so that if you have Mr.
Bravino saying X, you can go to the videotape to see that it's not X. So,
what does it tell you? If you are an agent, usually if you're doing the right thing, you're like, videotape it. I I
want the videotape because I want to be able to show that I am doing my job correctly. Um, and so, not only are they
sending a signal that they have something to hide, but they are protect, they are violating the First Amendment
when they do those things. Yeah. I mean to me uh and Tim Tim said this on our live stream and I thought it
was exactly right which is these people are exercising very clearly their first
amendment right and their second amendment right. Uh things that conservatives have long claimed to care
about. Let's talk about the gun for just a second because one of the things that they did immediately and I I watched the
Bavino press conference and he really this is kind of what he leaned on. He was like look here's the gun.
Let's take a look at the gun. And you can see the gun here on the screen there that that individual possessed.
And Donald Trump tweeted about it saying he had a gun. And Steven Miller has tweeted several times saying that the
intention was to do maximum harm, which is also something Bito said. Like they all claimed that somehow him having a
gun meant that he was going to commit some mass atrocity. Obviously, I don't know where they're getting that, but
they posted like one picture of a gun in a on a seat of a car, and that's kind of their story.
Yeah. So, there's an image that was put out by the government of a gun on a seat
of a car, just just sitting on the seat of a car, and we're supposed to believe
that gun was in the possession of the victim. Maybe that will turn out to be
true. I have my deep, deep, deep suspicions. But one,
it is odd to me that you just have a gun on the seat of a car. Any agent who h
finds a gun in that circumstance, it's it's put into a chain of custody, it is marked, it is put in a sealed envelope.
I mean, there are all sorts of protocols for how you treat evidence. It is just
bizarre to me that there's just like, oh, and here's the gun that he happened to possess. It just didn't have the
indisha that you would see in normal law enforcement. Now, maybe they're just
really badly trained and they didn't do that, but it that was sort of a a red flag and it was called out to me by a
former FBI agent as something that was odd. Let's just assume that he had a
gun. That does not begin to answer the question. The the issue is not did he
have a gun. The issue is, did the agents know he had a gun? And was there any
evidence that it was about to be used to harm the agents or anyone else? There is
no evidence of that. All there is is wild, wild speculation that an American
citizen ICU nurse was going to use a gun simply because he has it to commit mass
atrocities on law enforcement. That is that just to be clear, that is the
position of the United States government right now. I'd love to hear that when
the next time the Second Amendment issues come up in the Supreme Court, the inference of possessing a gun is that
you're going to commit mass atrocities on law enforcement. Um, you know, this
issue is one that's come up in the courts since the the sort of gun rights have been sort of rediscovered in the
Second Amendment. um where courts are really push back on law enforcement
saying, "Well, because somebody had a gun, I'm entitled to arrest them because they could have the gun illegally." And
courts are saying, "What are you talking about? You can possess a gun. You can carry a gun. There's open carry laws in
in various states." So the idea that they're jumping to something that's so antithetical to their position is is
sort of wildly off base, but it just I just want to make sure people understand it doesn't begin to justify they killed
this guy. He was killed. I mean, so like they we're having this, you know,
discussion about sort of the law and the academics of it. Somebody is dead.
We have people not taking that seriously, not trying to even figure out
in a serious adult way whether there was a mistake made or worse here by law
enforcement. And and Sarah, as we're sitting here, that reaction by the
administration is why we're going to be here again. I I said that after the good
shooting. I like my heart was in my throat. We're It's going to happen again
when you have an administration that is sending the message that the populace
that that is is upset about this does not matter. Is there anything that anyone can do
besides more people out in the streets? Like like this is the problem right now is
that y I I cuz I feel this. I want to fly to Minnesota and I want to go be there with them. Like I want to I want to say that
I don't think it's okay. And I think there's going to be a lot of people increasingly with that instinct, but
also like is that the only option or are there legal real legal remedies here
that could re some of these guys in? I really don't think people should discount um being as vocal as possible
in Minnesota and in your states. And even if you're listening to this and you're in a blue state, don't think that
that doesn't matter. Politicians pay attention to what people care about.
Good politicians are thinking about that. Even if they agree with you, they want to know. Um I mean, I know this is
odd for me to be saying this to you, Sarah, because you know this very well. People are looking at how much heat it
generates, how much do people care about an issue. So sort of the intensity and
the volume is important. Obviously, Congress can do a whole hell of a lot.
Um, and that means being out on the street, um, talking and writing and
calling, um, your representatives is really important. Um, ICE funding um, is
something that can be affected. It is something. So, all of that is there. But your question is really to me more as a
lawyer, which is like what can the feds or the state do? Well, the feds could do
a lot, but they're not going to. So, you know, the question is sort of like, is there something the feds could do? Yes,
in a just administration, um, there's a whole hell of a lot they could do. One, they could just pull ICE out. It's
exceedingly not popular just as an electoral matter. Again, odd for me to be saying that to you, Sarah, but it's
like that's one thing they could do. Um, two, they could have an actual independent investigation, but let's
just get real. That's given what's we've seen, that's not going to happen at the federal level. Um my understanding is
the state even you know has the state has said with respect to the good shooting they are doing that
investigation they are going forward now they have one arm tied behind their back
because they do not have access to all the evidence but if you are somebody who
has a videotape if you are a witness if you have any information get it to the
state locals I mean that is how you make a case if you have witnesses you you
need to be letting people know about that. So that's one thing you could do. There are lots of hurdles in bringing a
case, but the first thing that the state needs is the evidence. So this is this is actually really important. So he is
filming. I wonder who has his phone like you know cuz that will give us the clearest picture of a lot of it. And
this
is what I don't understand is I've I've watched the local law officials
and I've watched the federal officials. They're at odds right now. And
so whose
jurisdiction is it exactly? Like how does that work right now? So if there is a state crime in that
state, they can go they can investigate. And I know with with good they have announced that they are doing that. Um
and so they have the same ability that the feds don't have the ability to go you can't do an investigation. This is
they are separate sovereign. Um and just to be clear, Donald Trump cannot pardon
somebody for state crimes. Um, so just keep that in mind. I mean, he wants on
the way out the door to pardon all these ICE agents for what they've been doing. He has the power under the Constitution
to do that. That does not apply to state charges. So, the state can go forward. to your question about the phone. um
even if the phone itself is something that is in the custody of the federal
government and it is not going to be shared depending on how the phone is set up and from many many many phones. um it
exists and much of the data for it exists um on the cloud or in the
provider. And so there is a way to get a warrant um to get all of that
information. You know, it's the downside of the fact that when we use our phones and our laptops, everything's sort of in
the hands of a third party. But in this situation, if you have if you do have a
corrupt actor who's saying, "I'm going to keep the evidence from you." Well, they may be able to keep the physical
phone. And again, by the way, there could be a fight over that because the state can subpoena it and there could be
a, you know, the courts can get involved and saying you have to share that because remember they you could give a
copy of the digital information to the state. So both both entities have it and
I can imagine a judge ruling that way. But there is a way around that as well for probably much of the data that the
state will want. Okay, that's that makes total sense. You know, Tim Walls giving his uh as the governor is sort of like
pleading with federal authorities to just like leave them alone and and he's
not getting it. Now ICE is in Maine. Um like the federal government's lying to
us. We cannot trust what comes out of our federal government, which is a place
we've never really been before. Like the I was shocked the first time and I'm almost more shocked the second time that
instead of learning a lesson, they've decided this is their strategy. This is
their strategy every time is they are going to frame it how they want to frame it. Contra all evidence that we can see
with
our own eyes, but certainly not waiting for an investigation. So I'm
going to turn that to you actually Sarah because I, you know, I've
been answering sort of like trying not to emote, which I have to admit is
difficult. um and these circumstances and giving you sort of legal answers.
But my question to you is politically because I always think that that that has to be what's behind all of this. Is
it the case that they would think that
there's enough polling that um their base will still turn out
in enough numbers that the people who are who are disaffected and upset by
this that it's it won't last or won't be a sufficient number of people um or
won't be the thing that causes people to vote. you know, X, not Y. You know, is
that
what's going on that they think this isn't is relevant or do you think
they're thinking, you know what, we're not going to have elections
anyway?
Well, that's a much bigger question. Look, I have no doubt they are trying to think of ways that they can not not
eliminate elections. I don't I don't think that I I think we will have elections. Do I think that they will
look for pretextual reasons to potentially disrupt them in certain places? I do think that we should not
have a failure to imagine what Donald Trump and all of these people are
willing to do in order to avoid oversight from people that they don't
control, right? Which is the Republican party. Here's the the more immediate political issue, which is that they have
to vote on funding ICE. And I don't see a situation now after this
where the Democrats don't shut down the government over passing the funding bill. And they should they should shut
it down. I think that the American public and I've done look I I I've been focus grouping this since the Renee Good
killing. The polling is all very clear. People are very unhappy with ICE
overreach. Like he is underwater. This is a marquee. It's his top issue for Donald Trump and he is underwater on
everything other than just sort of straight up border security, but the ICE is polling terribly now. Like it's bec
it was already a liability. Um it's he's way underwater on it. He's way underwater on affordability in the
economy, too. And part of the reason he gave this speech uh at Davos, Greenland,
like now going back to this other insane week we just had a lot of that is like
remember he gave that big rambling speech right before he went to Davos. It was that was clearly a response to the
fact that their polling is in the toilet and he feels like he needs to gain control of the narrative again. Um, and
so right now I think that this becomes a major political flash point that
continues to push public opinion against ICE and against Trump. And I think the Democrats can really do something about
it in this moment if they are willing to shut down the government over funding ICE, which they should not continue to
fund in my opinion. Right. So let's assume we were both in the in the White House and there was a
meeting and I I know I'm assuming a rational actor and that may be the answer. So leave aside morality, leave
aside the rational parts. It's a real hypothetical, but wouldn't part of it be like this is killing us. Um we're we're
killing Americans. We're it's killing us that we're killing Americans. We need to pull ICE out at the very least until
they are trained up one side and down the other. this is not what we need to
do. Um, and it's not it's not working. So, why wouldn't that be the politically
smart thing, leaving aside all of the the feelings that you and I have about what's going on?
Here's the lesson I think that they've learned, which is that if they just keep pushing ahead with other things,
Americans will move on. Like, that is their hope. Their hope is that we do not have the attention span and the
dedication to stay mad about these things to stay focused on these things.
And it's been largely proven correct for them, right? Like it's not that people
weren't outraged by January 6th. It's that three and a half years later, people didn't stay outraged about
January 6th and enough flooding the zone with [ __ ] got done, enough lies got told
that enough people who don't want to say, "Man, I really messed up by voting
for Donald Trump." Uh, that they sort of rely on people's tribalism to ultimately
be willing to say, "Well, just like with Renee Good, they say, well, it's
complicated."
Right? In the focus groups, this is what people say. They're like,
"It's really terrible. She got killed. I don't not sure it was right,
but also I don't know everything. I don't know all the circumstances. Maybe it was that he was feared for his life."
There's
ways that this can work where it's like the second time can either be
the thing that is more shows you how numb you are. Or it can be the
thing
that says this is not an isolated incident. We've got to do something about this. And that takes dedication
from political leaders. And I hope that people will show it in this moment because this should be a flash point.
Yeah. And this is one where you know what you know what you know for sure is
the same in the good situation and in this situation the administration's
position
which is that without an investigation we're going to tell you that
everything's good. Yeah. That everything is fine. That to me
again focusing on the big picture of why this is happening, what caused it to happen. To me, it's a little bit like
January 6, which is you can look at what actually happened at the capital, but you can look at sort of like why did
that happen? And here, the thing that is 100% aligned is the administration
saying nothing to see here. Whatever we do is fine. They are lying to us and they have done
it now in both these instances. Now, they do it all the time uh on a on a host of things, but what is I think
scarier each time they do it here. There's two things about it that scare me. One is they are trying to make their
own reality in a world where we can see what really happened. Which means they're not just lying to us. They are
lying to us like knowing that we know the alternative is true. That's one thing.
The second thing is if this is what they do when they know everyone's filming, what are they doing
when people aren't filming? like this is what they do when they know they're being watched. It chills me to my core
to
think about what they're doing when they feel like they can definitely
get away with it. And I couldn't agree more. The one thing
I will add is two American civilians
are dead as a result of this of what the administration's done and the lies are
covering it up. Um and and they're two human beings, two people who are part of
the American community who have lost their lives absolutely needlessly and everything is
said by the administration's response to it. That to me that is the the focus to
me is making sure people connect the dots between what the agents did on the
ground to what the response is at the White House. Um, and to me that has to
be front and center so people get like why this happened. All right, Andrew Weissman, thanks so
much for jumping on to help us talk about the legal side of this. Um, guys, we're going to keep talking about this
uh over the weekend uh as it goes on. If anything new develops, we will be back. Thanks so much. Bye-bye.
/ @bulwarkmedia 
