FBI Blocks State Officials From Investigating ICE Shooting

0:00Spring cleaning? Sell those pre-loved items to your local half-price books. Video gaming systems, DVDs, comics, records. Half-price books will happily buy it from you and give it a second chance to be enjoyed by the customers who shop our shelves. So keeping your space organized means keeping used items in circulation. Look at you doing your part. Learn more about how to sell your used items to half-price books and find your local store at hpb.com. If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family. As an effective and affordable online learning program, IXL covers math, language arts, science, and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from pre-K to 12th grade.

0:45Listeners can get an exclusive 20 % off IXL membership when they sign up today at IXL.com slash 20. Visit ixl.com slash 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price. Welcome to The Beat. We begin with the breaking news as we've continued to follow a lot of concern, protest, controversy, and basically clashing between the federal government and a state government about that horrific ICE agent shooting an American citizen, this woman, to death in Minneapolis. And tonight, the Trump administration has doubled down on what many see as a blatant cover up. They're doing something unusual.

1:26We're going to report this out tonight. They are blocking state officials who, of course, are on the ground and involved and normally would be a key part of gathering information over time. But they're blocking state officials from participating meaningfully in the investigation of that shooting yesterday. Minnesota officials say, quote, the FBI informed them they would no longer have access to case materials, seen evidence, or investigative interviews. In other words, the feds are cutting them out. And that means you have a Trump loyalist who's been very controversial. There's been talk about removing him even because Trump aides aren't happy with him.

2:01And he's had, as you may have noticed this year, quite a few errors and blunders in the investigative capacity. But Kash Patel at the FBI will basically be the person looking into Kristi Noem's DHS. That is a recipe for a cover-up. And suspicious that they don't want any local officials looking at facts and evidence. The feds have not sifted through materials yet or said, hey, let's get our arms around this and then let's have a process or any of the normal things you would expect. But this is not a normal time. This is not a normal government. And it's our job to level with you about what's happening.

2:41In more normal times, we cover these type of stories. And if you live in America, you have probably lived through the discussions and coverage locally or nationally of a lot of times where the authorities, be it local police or the feds, have used heavy or lethal force. In fact, just about everyone alive in the United States who's an adult remembers George Floyd and the BLM protests that came out of the use of police authority. That was in 2020. This case involves federal authority that is, on the one hand, growing out of or echoing the past problems we've had with the use of force in this country.

3:20But also, on the other hand, in the unusual response from the Trump administration in the rush to make misstatements about it or lie, if they know better, this is also a direct part of the current autocratic effort in the United States, where you have a president who is trying to use soldiers and military powers against the citizenry. I repeat, this is a part of that larger policy. And when I say that, that doesn't mean that we are trying to take a position on when and how presidents can use soldiers and militarized police, because there are many times that they do. And that's how the National Guard system works, etc.

3:58But we have to accurately report that the militarization of what was once relatively civil, calm, deportation policy in the United States, the militarization of ICE to this degree, and the rhetoric and aggressive, sometimes violent claims by top officials in the Trump administration are part of this. So that's kind of the problem set. As for what happened, we showed the video last night. If you're following the news, you've probably seen it one way or the other. And there are more forensic accounts of this. The New York Times has a very detailed shot by shot analysis of that footage and some other materials they've gathered together.

4:37It's hard to watch, but here it is. The SUV reverses, then turns right, apparently attempting to leave. At the same time, the agent filming crosses toward the left of the vehicle and grabs his gun. He opens fire on the motorist and continues shooting as she drives past. The moment the agent fires, he is standing here, to the left of the SUV, and the wheels are pointing to the right, away from the agent. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. We can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV. That's an important point because this is about evidence.

5:22And when you look at cases like this, and we've covered many, you have two basic things to keep in mind. What happened and what did people think happened? That video, the slowed down video we showed you last night, the materials we have show that what happened was the ICE agent escalating the encounter, using deadly force, shooting an unarmed woman to death, while not facing anything approaching the legally required danger of grievous bodily harm or death. That's the requirement. That's what appears to have happened. As I've cautioned, and everybody knows, you can get further information, further angles, you can always adjust, but that's what happened.

6:08That's door one. Door number two is what reasonably people think happened. Now, that is still in court up for debate. If the officer says, well, you have the hindsight of looking at all these videos, in the moment I really felt this way and I reasonably had that apprehension and I acted on it. We've covered cases where it comes down to that. What is not okay and not part of the legal process is to have government officials over in Washington or wherever trying to weigh in on this or lie to the American public about it before we even get all the facts. And so that's important because we've heard Trump administration officials jump in and say things that are not accurate about, as I'm telling you, either what happened, what we can see with evidence, or what that one official, that lice agent, thought happened.

6:57And if they were investigated or potentially indicted, you would have a whole legal process where they're presumed innocent and they would get their side of the story, too. But the idea that Trump officials have said there was only clearly self-defense happening here. Doesn't wash. And the more we learn about this, the more you'll see. Here are the three shots that rang out in the video. No, no, shame, shame.

7:29not just one errant shot, not just one sort of sudden decision, but the car, as you saw there, continues to move away. You have the shot, another, and another. Photos of the car only indicate visually one bullet hole in the windshield. Now, look, you can see here, you can see most of the windshield, you can see that bullet hole. So, forensically, there's going to be an investigation here, although we have, at the same time, the questions of a federal Trump cover-up, but any serious investigation, and there are outside parties like journalists looking into this, this is an AP photo, that are going to look at whether the second and third shots were not from anywhere to the left or in front of the car, but as you could see, potentially coming through the open window, meaning the officer was, again, as a geographic factual matter, already out of the car's path, with the bullet being fired at the side of the car as it drove away, not into the car from the front.

8:28Witnesses also indicate the officers did something that can happen when you have multiple people, but that goes to the culpability of different individuals when they say, oh, maybe this individual, this woman was trying to run them down or was conflicting with orders, which by the way, doesn't authorize lethal force, but is a relevant question. But witnesses say the woman was receiving opposite instructions. Quote, ICE gave her orders to leave. At the same time, another ICE person said, get out of the car and reach for the door handle. So, according to this eyewitness who spoke to NPR, it was difficult for her to leave as she'd been ordered to do.

9:08ICE was screaming at her to move, move, move. And then they got really aggressive and went over to her driver's side door and tried to open her door. And then she obviously got spooked and started to reverse. and then an officer approached her and got in front of her vehicle and then leaned across the hood of her car and shot her point blank in the face. You can hear the witness refer to the driver being, quote, spooked or afraid. it's really striking that we are in a moment where you have several armed officers including other militarized backup on the street in broad daylight and the federal government is trying to tell you that the key takeaway here is that they or at least the one who shot that one of the ice agents feared for his life but what we see on the video what the eyewitnesses saw and what common sense dictates, even if you want to keep as open a mind as possible, is this woman in her car, who reportedly was told both go and stay while witnessing and facing down multiple armed agents, she got scared and tried to drive off.

10:29And she didn't hit anyone, by the way, if we want to include that detail. And she is not a federal employee trained with this. These individuals, even though some have been asked to do work that was different than perhaps when they first signed up for the job under, again, as I mentioned, the Trump escalations, these people are heavily trained. They are supposed to stay cool. They are supposed to pull their gun as a last resort. They are not supposed to pull their gun in broad daylight on unarmed American citizens, on a woman driving her car, as if that's the only way to deal with even a situation that might have spun to some degree out of their control.

11:05and they are not allowed under the rules to shoot people fleeing. Now, DHS policy says officers are prohibited from discharging firearms to disable moving vehicles. An officer may use deadly force only when they have a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. That's the standard I told you about, and that's why it would, if legally investigated, matter what that ICE agent reasonably feared. The DOJ policy for federal law enforcement is very specific. It says firearms may not, may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.

11:48So to repeat, you've seen several versions of this video tonight. You might have seen it yesterday. In no way under the training rules does that officer make any visible attempt to get away or pull back or get out of what might have been that potential threat or concern about the nature of where the woman was driving. and instead discharge the weapon three times with only one of those bullets going into the windshield. I'm not telling you that we have a final legal solution or explanation of what happened. We have courts and investigations for that very reason. I am telling you that the federal government is not being accurate about what happened and they are trying to avoid a full accounting, including cutting out the local authorities.

12:39No one was pressed on this today. Well, you said, Madam Secretary, the officer was following his training. He did follow his training because of an individual that was... Point blank into a driver's window. Is that part of the training? Is that... How is that self-defense? This is an experienced officer who followed his training, and we will continue to let the investigation unfold. You called her a domestic terrorist, though, without an investigation. This was an act of domestic terrorism, which is perpetuating... But there had been no investigation into who she was or what she was about, and yet But now you're saying these policies and procedures that follow a use of force situation like this are continuing to be put in place.

13:19In that brief exchange, she makes two false statements. As you've already seen tonight, we showed you the training materials first. They weren't following the training, period. And it wouldn't be hard to say, well, they did violate that rule. We can all see they shot in the moving vehicle. But and then continue on with whatever argument you want to make. She also doesn't have to get this detailed. She could just say, we want to do the full investigation and go from there. As I've told you, that's the normal way. Second, when you look at what she's saying, your government is saying that this woman now killed by your government is a domestic terrorist.

13:57this is right out of a dystopian George Orwell book without as the questioner mentioned without investigation, material documentation just the person driving is a terrorist anyone we kill is a terrorist and so on this is dangerous and this is dangerous for anyone in America who's going to have to deal with ICE which we're told is going to be everywhere so don't think that you're not part of the group that could be affected here's the Minneapolis chief of police The investigators need to follow all of the facts and all of the evidence to its logical conclusion. It is our obligations as law enforcement, as law enforcement leaders, to be the grownups in the room and to look at this and say, hey, maybe we need to reevaluate our tactics.

14:44Because as best I could tell, all this was initially about was a middle-aged woman in her car blocking the street. There you have that. Thousands gathering on the ground also to remember the woman who was killed by the ICE agent. Renee Nicole Mackling-Good was 37 years old. She was the mother of three. She has never been charged with anything involving law enforcement other than, say, traffic tickets, which the AP checked. She's been described as a devoted Christian who took part in youth mission trips to Northern Ireland when she was younger. She loved to sing. She participated in a chorus in high school.

15:22She studied vocal performance in college. online there's footage of a person who was identified as the victim's wife distraught right after the shooting

15:45I have to see you in school did you call any of your people dead I don't need help I don't need help

15:57These are times where people might want to look away, or even question which videos we should watch and how many times. It is difficult. It is a tragedy. The AP spoke to Good's ex-husband, who said she just dropped off her six-year-old son, who was just referenced in that difficult video, dropped him off at school, was driving home with her partner when they encountered this group of ICE agents. this is the human side to this story. And so while it is understandable to look away or take a break from some of what we're living through, a federal government engaging a cover-up lying to you is also hoping that you, the citizenry, might just do that.

16:39We don't have that luxury. We have two special guests to get into what matters here when we come back.

16:50I knew after witnessing it that this would be misconstrued into self-defense, which it absolutely is not. This was totally preventable and absolutely unnecessary. We're joined now by Eric Ballier, retired ICE officer and NYU Law Professor Melissa Murray. Professor Murray, your thoughts tonight? Well, I think we've all been waiting for something like this to happen. The robustness of the ICE enforcement effort, I think, has made everyone aware of the presence of these agents in our cities. And it was only a matter of time before it ended like this. And, you know, this is deeply, deeply unfortunate.

17:32A child has been left without a mother. That child already suffered the loss of his father. He's effectively been orphaned. Two other children are without their mother. This is a horrific turn of events. One of the things that is striking, especially striking to me right now, is to hear Secretary Noem characterize this as domestic terrorism, even as this administration takes steps to effectively block Minnesota from participating in the investigation. As we know, in the aftermath of 9-11, one of the best practices that was identified post-9-11 was the state, local, and federal officials working in collaboration to investigate acts of terrorism.

18:08So if this is an act of terrorism, as Secretary Noem has characterized it, then it would make sense to have Minnesota's involvement because that has been a post-9-11 best practice. The fact that they are walling them out of this and that this has become an entirely federal question, federal issue, and there is no jurisdiction for state investigative resources to be applied here is quite unorthodox, I think, at this point. Eric? Thank you for having me. I think a couple things on the FBI's engagement with the investigation. Number one, in my experience, that has been a fairly standard operating procedure for the FBI to take lead, especially if it's in relation to federal law enforcement shootings.

18:55That being said, I also think from an evidentiary stance, evidence collection, consistency of policies, personnel, and process, consistency with lab work, forensics, ballistics, all of those things, I do think that this makes sense. I would expect, and I have the utmost confidence in the rank-and-file FBI agents to get this done, do it right, be thorough, objective, and fair. You're saying it makes sense to not use the local authorities? Why? So I think at some point they will be brought in. I think this is the first phase of the investigation where they are doing forensics on the weapon that was used.

19:33They're doing ballistics. They're interviewing people. They're pulling body cams from any federal officers that were wearing them at the scene. So I think this is a fairly standard routine. It doesn't give me a whole lot of concern at this point. Okay. I mean, I think I hear you. I think the reason why there's concern is that you have federal officials who've been misleading about the material. So they're not necessarily entitled any rational deference when they've misstated the material and then are taking that step. But turning to the operational part, what did you think, given your background, of the way the interaction went?

20:15It's tough to watch. From my training and experience, we were taught to approach the vehicles from the sides. vehicles do not move laterally, they move forward and in reverse. The other thing I think, and you touched on this in your opening, is that we were trained that one agent would take command and give the verbal instructions to the occupants or the driver so that there is no confusion or misunderstanding of what the intent is of the officers on the scene. Anybody else that is there on scene should be in a support role, looking for threats, looking for weapons, and is there to support the direction and commands that that officer gives.

20:52For example, get out of the car. Person gets out of the car. The agent that gave those commands would not then approach the person. It would be another support officer. Let me show a little more because I mentioned the Times accounting of the video since we're talking about those tactics. Take a look. The SUV crashes into a white car parked down the road. What the f - A bystander runs toward the collision. The federal agents on scene do not appear to rush to provide emergency medical care. Eventually, the agent who shot the motorist approaches the vehicle. Seconds later, he turns back around and tells his colleagues to call 911.

21:36Several agents, including the agent who opened fire, get in their vehicles and drive off, apparently altering the active crime scene. Your views of that immediate aftermath and what ICE has been asked to do here, because while, of course, they do engage sometimes with armed individuals or individuals of a higher threat matrix, this seems to be a daytime interaction with unarmed individuals, in this case, an American citizen, that but for their presence wouldn't have involved any death. I agree with you in that regard. I will say one thing that is troubling is we were also taught that when there's a critical incident, especially a shooting, everybody is to render immediate first aid.

22:23There's to be no, that is a sense of urgency. That is something that has not, once that threat is no longer, the immediate turn is to rendering first aid, life-saving CPR, tourniquets, whatever it takes to provide. Everybody's trained in those basic first aid. And I think the lack of urgency that is shown in that video is troubling. Professor? Not only the failure to render aid, but leaving the scene, which fundamentally alters the nature of the crime scene and compromises the nature of any ensuing investigation. So there's that. To go back to what Mr. Biale said with regard to the federal government taking the lead in the investigation, I think it's fine for the FBI and federal law enforcement to take the lead.

23:07But that doesn't necessarily mean the state and local officials having no investigative role to play as well. Minnesota has its own interests here. It has its own criminal law that may have been violated here. They don't know. They have as much of a stake in this investigation going forward as the federal government. Well, and on that point, we actually had the attorney general of Minnesota on just last night. This was before the news broke about this change. But I was asking him because there was this question, basically, of the potential tension between these parts of our federalist government.

23:39Take a listen. What does it say that you feel we need to have a local investigation of the feds here and the kind of reverse federalism problems that you may be facing if Trump says, well, hey, you can't you can't look under the hood? Well, we've got to have a trans, we've got to have transparency. We've got to have meaningful accountability. And so we need, we need an independent investigation that does not involve only the feds investigating the feds, if this investigation is going to have any credibility at all. I think that's the bottom line. For the public to feel like this was done in good faith, they have to believe that this was done legitimately.

24:23And right now, the fact that one group is being walled out of this entirely, I think, does not give credence to the idea that this is going to be legitimate or fair. I'm Melissa Murray and Eric Ballier on a difficult story and a lot of details. I thank both of you for joining us. Later tonight, we turn to the Venezuela internet obsession by Donald Trump and some of his aides. People are calling it a clicktatorship as they used X during the mission. We'll explain. But first, an update on the Epstein files.

25:00More pressure on the DOJ breaking the new Epstein law. It says there are 2 million documents they still want to review, which means 99 % are still being hidden now illegally. Lawmakers are pushing for any number of ways to address this. They can sue, but they're also asking for a federal judge in New York, in the famously independent Southern District of New York, to appoint what's called a special master, who would actually put more of an audit and more teeth behind the requirement that the DOJ comply with the law. Now, we have a member of Congress at the center of that, Robert Garcia, top Democrat on the Oversight Committee.

25:36And I want to begin with some news. We have this exclusive, a letter that you're going to send to the Oversight Chairman Comer, demanding a hearing to examine the DOJ in action thus far on the Epstein law with the failures I just mentioned, as well as subpoenaing Pam Bondi to testify. What can you tell us about this news tonight? Look, I think first, it's very clear that the DOJ and Pam Bondi are leading this White House cover-up. It has been past time for her to come testify in front of the Oversight Committee. Ever since this earlier summer, when we passed the initial subpoena for the documents, the DOJ continuously has broken the law.

26:16Once Congress passed the Transparency Act, that of course, Conor and Massey fought so hard for, they continue to break the law. And they are defying now both the House and the Senate in not getting all these documents. And we've learned just recently from reporting and our own analysis that only about one percent, one percent of the total documents in the possession of the DOJ. We have now actually seen in our and then we have in our possession. And what's more outrageous is that within that one percent, there have been over-redactions. They've displayed names of survivors and not protected them.