Bulwark Takes - The Minneapolis Shooting Demands a REAL Investigation (w/ Andrew Weissmann)

Episode Date: January 25, 2026

Sarah Longwell is joined by Andrew Weissmann for his reaction to the second killing of a civilian in Minnesota by federal agents. Andrew is professor of practice at the NYU School of Law who served as lead prosecutor in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office from 2017 to 2019, and was General Counsel for the FBI from 2011 to 2013. They discuss the roles of the First and Second Amendments in the case, the contradictions and falsehoods issued by the government, and why it is important for people to continue speaking out and come forward with any video evidence in cases like this.

You're better internet? Cox Internet, of 300 megas, has the velocities rapid and confiables that you dox. Perfect to streaming and gaming and to work from just $45 dollars a month

when you addergues mobile. Incluja equipment of Wi-Fi and guarantee of price of two years in your plan. No, you know, Cepter, Cogh, GANLim-Limated

Guarantia of Precio no include, Imposts, and Cargues, and Rucats, and Rucats. Sarah Longwell, publisher of the bulwark 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 Pready was a 37-year-old ICU nurse and an American citizen. I'm just going to level set this

really quickly by saying, we've been doing live streams much of the day over here at the bulwark. And there's been a lot of emotion attached to it. I want to step back, try to be less emotional. and 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. 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 this is something I learned from when I was the general counsel of the FBI,

which is usually whatever your first 10, 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 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 general counsel. But now let's just focus on the facts here, which is peaceful protesting is not a death-eligible offense. Carrying a gun is not a death-eligible offense.

In fact, in this administration, they have 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 even there.

But even if there were, that is not a basis to kill someone. 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 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 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 what happened. At the very least, the complete overreaction. Even if you 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, 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. And so you can't 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 Stephen 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. Stephen 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 he wasn't. And 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 where it's just stepping back to make sure that people understand that in normal administrations, Republican and Democratic, I've worked for 21 years in administrations of various political stripes. This is not normal. People are in law enforcement to do justice. One of the things that was drilled into me by Robert Mueller, that radical rogue Democrat, that I'm being superstitious, was that when something like this happens, first, before you make any statement about what

happens, you do 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 one and done. 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 any 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. If there were mistakes, we will let you know that that is the proper response. to say something that is either completely false. And one other thing, just to be on my high horse, to denigrate the victim 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. 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 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 really could be a case of cold, blooded, murder. And just to hit your point, Sarah, which is that we can focus on the agent. But to me, the equal thing to focus on is the administration's response. 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 being carried out.

Yeah. Speaking of the administration, for anybody who's interested in this video, I presume you have seen the video, but I am going to show it to you again. We're going to show it to you again. We have a split screen that is a. Bovino holding a press conference explaining from the administration's point of view what they think happened. We paired it 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 a fair warning. During this operation, an individual approached U.S. Border Patrol agents with a 9-millimeter semi-automatic handgun. The agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he raised. violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a border patrol agent fired defensive shots. What's wrong with you? Honestly.

Okay, Andrew, here's my question. Because I've watched that video now so many times. But listening to Bovino 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 weapon, 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 sprayed in the face, which means he was already blinded. And then six people jumped to the ground. And then it is unclear why he is shot and a gun goes off. And then 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 don't have camera yet where somebody says fucking bitch like they did at the end of the Renee good, but 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 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, to me, it reminds me of, remember Lord of the Flies or the Stanford prison experiment? I mean, this idea of giving ill-trained people or people trained to do this power and no sense of the responsibility that comes with it. They're obviously huge. parallels throughout our history of regimes that have operations like this. I want to make sure people understand you, Mr. Brevino is, 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 D.C. to have not understood in the most basic fundamentals of constitutional law. He said that you could arrest people based on mere reasonable suspicion. And I think things suggested it could be based on suspect classifications, meaning like race. That's just to be clear, not the law. And that was something that he was saying even after it, the case before this judge in DC was pending and the law was absolutely clear and you think anybody would in the 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, 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. That is, we're just going to tell you what to believe.

January 6th was a grave national injustice. And others, do not look at the videotape. Do not listen to Sarah Longwell and Andrew Weissman. 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 is not being carried out. And we now have two innocent people who are dead, who lost their lives. You know, it's easier to ignore blowing up a boat's 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 saying, we should have empathy for those people as well. this is happening here in America with law enforcement officers who seem to act with complete impunity and are very much given that license from the White House. And so you understand why they would feel emboldened. Can I just ask you a question about them being categorized as law enforcement? This came up today as we were talking.

Yeah. Are they law enforcement exactly? Because I think I watched Tim Wals and Fry 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 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. Are they sort of like the FBI under a statute called 1811s, just to get super technical, which is a statute for FBI special agents? My understanding is no, they're not. But they still do have enforcement authority of the immigration laws.

But just to be clear, here, it's not even, you know, there seems to be no immigration violation whatsoever that's an American citizen. I don't see anything that the person's doing improperly. Just to be clear, you can peacefully protest. One thing I just want to maybe footstom, Sarah, a federal judge just a few days ago issued a decision to make it absolutely clear 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 when 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 the ICE agents trying to take phones and stopping people to prevent the recording, the recording that gives us, at least some modicum of accountability so that if you have Mr. Rabino 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 want the videotape because I want to be able to show that I am doing my job correctly. And so not only are they sending a signal that they have something to hide, but they are violating the First Amendment when they do those things. I mean, to me, and 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, 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 watched the Bovino 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. 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 Stephen Miller has tweeted several times saying that the intention was to do maximum harm, which is also something Bovino said. 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. 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 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 finds a gun in that circumstance, 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 indicia that you would see in normal law enforcement. Now, maybe they're just really badly trained and they didn't do that. But that was sort of 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 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. You know, this issue is one that's come up in the courts since the sort of gun rights have been sort of rediscovered in the Second Amendment, where courts that 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 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 I just want to make sure people want to say it doesn't begin to justify. They killed this guy. He was killed. I mean, to like they were having this, you know, discussion about sort of the law and the academics of it, somebody is dead. We have people not taking it 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 Sarah, as we're sitting here, that reaction by the administration is why we're going to be here again. I said that after the good shooting. My heart was in my

throat, it's going to happen again when you have an administration that is sending the message that the populace that is, is upset about this, does not matter. Is there anything that anyone can do besides more people out in the streets? Like, this is the problem right now, is that, because I feel this. I want to fly to Minnesota and I want to go be there with them. Like, 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 rein some of these guys in? I really don't think people should discount 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. I mean, I know that's 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 the intensity and the volume is important. Obviously, Congress can do a whole hell of a lot. And that means being out on the street, talking and writing and calling, your representatives is really important. ICE funding 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, 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. Two, they could have an actual independent investigation. But let's just get real. Given what we've seen, that's not going to happen at the federal level. My understanding is the state, even, you know, has the state, 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 need to be letting people know about that. So that's one thing. 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 actually really important. So he is filming. I wonder who has his phone, like, you know, because that will give us the clearest picture of a lot of it. And this is what I don't understand is 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. And so they have the same ability that the feds don't have the ability to go, you can't do an investigation. They said, there are separate sovereign. And just to be clear, Donald Trump cannot pardon somebody for state crimes. So just keep that in mind. I mean, if he wants on the way out the door to pardon all these ICE agents for what they've been doing, he has the power into the Constitution to do that, that does not apply to state charges. So the state can go forward. To your question about the phone, 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,

it exists and much of the data for it exists on the cloud or in the provider. And so there is a way to get a warrant 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 in saying you have to

share that. Because remember, you could give a copy of the digital information to the state. So 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, 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. 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, 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 as 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 a moat, which I have to admit is difficult in these circumstances and giving you sort of legal answers. But my question to you is politically, because I always think 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 their base will still turn out in enough numbers that the people who are disaffected and upset by this, that it won't last or won't be. a sufficient number of people 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 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? Just the Republican Party. Here's 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've been focused 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 because it was already a liability.

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 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. And so right now, I think that this becomes a major political flashpoint 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 overfunding ICE, which they should not continue to fund, in my opinion. Right. So let's assume we. were both in the White House. And there was a meeting. And 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. We're killing Americans. It is 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.

And it's not working. So why wouldn't that be the politically smart thing, leaving aside all of 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 shit 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, 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'm 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 flashpoint. 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, 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

Capitol, 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 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'll add is two American civilians are dead. as a result of this of what the administration has done and the lies are covering it up. And there are 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 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. 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.

Guys, we're going to keep talking about this over the weekend as it goes on. If anything new develops, we will be back. Thanks so much. Bye-bye.