Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we're taking
you right into the middle of three really major
political and legal firestorms that are all connected.
They really are. Our mission is to give you that
shortcut, you know, the distilled facts on accountability
for federal officers, the huge political fallout
from weaponized investigations and how all this
chaos is actually unexpectedly reshaping the
2026 election map. And this is really a deep
dive into that tension, that clash between a
political story and, well, the hard legal reality.
We're looking at what happens when parts of the
government, I mean, from the Federal Reserve
all the way to ICE, get turned into tools for...
frankly, political revenge. And how the legal
system pushes back, even when it's under all
that pressure. Exactly. Our source material for
you today is pretty rich. We have detailed analyses
of the Minneapolis ICE shooting, a really gut
wrenching firsthand account from a U .S. citizen
who was detained in all of that. And on top of
that, the surprising fallout from a, let's just
say, very bad political misstep in Washington,
D .C. OK, so let's unpack this. Let's do it.
We're going to start in Minneapolis. The administration
is engaged in this, well, this pretty clear effort
to protect a federal agent, Jonathan Ross, who
shot Renee Good. And at the same time, they're
pushing this narrative that the shooting was
justified, that Minneapolis is a city out of
control. Right. The standard playbook. But our
sources all point to one thing that makes this
case profoundly different. And that's the video
evidence. It is just unusually clear. And that
clarity completely rips apart the administration's
defense. That clarity is everything. It forces
us to look past the usual talking points. And
you have to understand, Ross, he's an experienced
agent. Right. A decorated Iraq war vet, been
in federal law enforcement since, what, 2007?
Since 2007. And with ICE since 2015. So this
is not, you know, one of the new recruits they've
been rushing through training. But that training
context is still so important right now. Our
sources confirm the... administration's rush
to staff ICE has led to these drastically shortened
Academy programs. Oh absolutely. Training that
used to take five months is now crunched down
to 48 days. And we're even hearing this detail
about a 47 -day target. Yeah that specific number,
47, allegedly a nod to the 47th president. I
mean that tells you everything you need to know
about the priorities here. So even if Ross himself
is experienced, the standards for his whole unit
are just eroding. Exactly. And it doesn't rule
out the possibility that his partners, the people
right there with him, were poorly trained and
that their failures helped this whole thing escalate.
At first, a lot of legal observers were, well,
they were pretty pessimistic. They were. Law
professor Emmanuel Malian was quoted saying that
a state prosecution would be close to impossible
without the feds cooperating. Meaning without
access to FBI. eye reports, body cam footage,
all the stuff that DOJ controls. But that's where
the story really shifts because of local resolve.
Hennepin County attorney Mary Moriarty, who ran
on a platform of holding law enforcement accountable.
She's not backing down. No. She announced her
own investigation and publicly demanded that
all the evidence be preserved. Her determination,
it just signals that she sees a clear legal path
forward with or without federal cooperation.
Which is a huge deal. So if Moriarty is going
to charge, and the administration just keeps
yelling absolute immunity, what is the biggest
legal flaw in their argument, the one she's going
to exploit? OK, so the biggest flaw is that they're
basically mistaking civil protection for criminal
protection. They are conflating two totally different
legal concepts. Then what are they? Well, Agent
Ross is protected by qualified immunity. But
you have to remember. That is a civil protection.
It's designed to shield officers from frivolous
lawsuits when they're doing their job legitimately.
So from being sued for money. Exactly. But critically,
qualified immunity provides no shield whatsoever
against a criminal prosecution brought by a state.
Zero. OK. And what about the other big one we
hear all the time? Sovereign immunity. The idea
that a state just can't charge a federal employee.
That argument is just as weak here. Sovereign
immunity is not some blanket get out of jail
free card. States are absolutely free to sue
or charge federal employees who violate state
law. Especially when they're acting outside the
scope of their duties. That's the key. The moment
an agent commits a crime, especially one like
this, where his actions seem to violate the DOJ's
own rules for lethal force, he has stepped outside
the bounds of his lawful function. And Mori already
knows this. That's why she's moving forward.
So let's get into the specifics of the incident
itself, because this is where the sources suggest
any justification Ross tries to make just falls
apart. The standard here is based on the Supreme
Court's Tennessee v. Garner decision right from
85. Right. And the standard from that is unequivocal.
Deadly force cannot be used just to stop someone
from escaping. That's it. If you fire at a moving
car, it has to be because there's an objectively
reasonable threat of death or serious injury.
And no other option exists? And no other option
exists, like simply stepping out of the car's
path. And the fact pattern we're seeing from
video in Minneapolis shows, well, clear procedural
errors. Ross fired the second and third shots
through the driver's side window. And the victim's
tires, they were turned sharply to the right.
It really suggests she was actively trying to
steer away from everything. But the core issue
here, it's the procedural malpractice. Experts
quoted in Forbes were, and I'm quoting, absolutely
baffled that Ross walked in front of that vehicle
after the incident was already underway. You
just don't do that. You cannot deliberately create
a situation that puts you in harm's way and then
use that as the justification for lethal force.
I mean, that is just profoundly poor procedure.
And this is where the crucial context comes in,
the part that makes this poor procedure look
a lot like an accident. We have to look at Ross's
history. Where he came from. Exactly. He was
with Border Patrol in El Paso for eight years,
2007 to 2015. And that history is so telling.
It's a key insight from our sources. They point
to a leaked 2014 Border Patrol report. And what
did it say? It detailed a long -standing documented
pattern where agents would intentionally step
in the path of moving cars, specifically... To
manufacture a threat. To manufacture a threat.
Yes. The entire purpose of this tactic was to
claim the driver was trying to hit them so they
could retroactively justify using lethal force
under that Tennessee v. Garner standard we just
talked about. So he's not just making a mistake
and walking in front of a car. He's potentially
using a known dangerous tactic that was historically
employed by his former agency to justify a shooting.
Precisely. And when you combine that historical
documented pattern with his actions in Minneapolis,
walking in front of the vehicle after the chaos
started, a jury would find that context highly,
highly relevant when they're trying to figure
out his intent. And on top of all that, Ross
has, well, some serious credibility issues from
a previous case. He does. During the Munoz Guatemala
trial last year, Ross allegedly perjured himself.
No. He claimed the suspect asked for a lawyer.
It was a detail he had never mentioned before.
And it was directly contradicted by an FBI agent
who was on the scene. That is definitely going
to come up if he takes the stand. It absolutely
will. So if you pull the lens back, the high
probability of both eight. civil suit for wrongful
death and a criminal prosecution means this story
is going to stay in the headlines for months.
It's a massive political anchor, as our sources
call it. Yeah. The combination of the video,
the procedural malpractice, the credibility issues.
It makes protecting this agent incredibly costly
for the administration. Extremely. OK, so now
let's transition from that high level legal analysis
to what this was actually like on the ground.
We have. the really powerful account of Brandon
Seguenza, a U .S. citizen who was there as a
legal observer. And his experience just reveals
the sheer force and, frankly, the intimidation
tactics that ICE agents were using. He describes
this just terrifying sequence of events. ICE
stops his car. They pepper spray his air vent.
And he has his hands up. The car's in park, but
they still smash the windows, rip him and his
friend out and arrest them for obstruction. And
some of the details, the individual actions of
the agents, they just suggest this was about
deliberate psychological pressure. Oh, absolutely.
An agent rips the legal observer whistle from
Seguenza's neck and mockingly says, I'll be taking
this. I might need it later. And when he asks
for a seat belt, he's ignored. When he says he's
losing circulation in his hands from the handcuffs,
he's refused. This wasn't just chaos. These details
point to calculated intimidation. They take him
to the Whipple Federal Building. And Segrenza
sees dozens of, in his words, brown people being
processed in an unheated garage. He saw buses
being prepped for deportation. Right. And he
also noticed all this internal confusion. Agents
were struggling to use their phones. They couldn't
get doors open. They were complaining about no
cell service. He even thought one agent was being
trained right there in the middle of all of it.
And the environment itself sounds just harrowing.
He heard terrified screaming, crying, wailing.
Yeah. The fellows held up to eight people and
he described most of the detainees as just staring
at the ground with almost no energy. As a U .S.
citizen, he was put in the USC section. He was
held for eight hours. And during that time, he
was only offered non -vegan food like turkey
and gelatin snacks, even though he told them
his dietary needs. And this is where it crosses
a line from just enforcement into intelligence
gathering. Seguenza says he was approached by
DHS investigations agents. And they made him
an author. They did. They offered him legal protection
for any undocumented family members he might
have or even money in exchange for names. Names
of protest organizers or other undocumented people.
Exactly. It was a clear, documented attempt to
turn a detained U .S. citizen into an informant
while he was under duress. And the release. The
way they released him is just shocking. After
eight hours, they let him go. No charges. No
charges. But they direct him to go right back
toward the active protest area. And five minutes
later, tear gas is deployed. He gets hit by a
paintball gun. And he ends up having to help
a stranger who's been tear gassed find a medic.
His whole account just highlights this dual reality.
His citizenship, you know, it gave him some protection.
He was eventually released. He got access to
a lawyer. Right. But he saw that the hundreds
of others who were detained had no such due process,
no legal advocates. His story just captures the
aggressive, disorganized, and deeply intimidating
nature of that whole federal operation. All right.
So speaking of weaponized government instruments,
let's shift gears now over to Washington. Well,
a pretty significant political miscalculation.
I think miscalculation is putting it mildly.
OK, fair. The announced investigation into Federal
Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for fraud related
to the two and a half billion dollars spent on
the Fed's new headquarters. And this move is
just widely seen as political retaliation. Yeah.
I mean, Powell's term as chair ends in May anyway.
So this investigation isn't really about removing
him immediately. It's a revenge. Pure vengeance
for, you know, poor economic numbers. And it's
a huge warning shot to other federal officials
about institutional independence. But the blowback
has been just enormous and it's directly hurting
the administration's own goals. First off, you
have economic instability. Markets hate uncertainty.
Exactly. This investigation injects deep uncertainty
into the financial markets, which weakens the
U .S. economy. It's so damaging that even Treasury
Secretary Scott Bessent was publicly complaining
about it. And critically, this completely compromises
their ability to reshape the Federal Reserve
Board. Powell, in response, might just decide
to stay on as a governor. His term as a governor
doesn't expire until 2028. Right. So he could
stay on specific. specifically to block them
from appointing a replacement chair. And there's
a fascinating connection here to the Supreme
Court of all things. Yes. So the Supreme Court
is set to hear a totally separate case involving
Governor Lisa Cook, who's also facing similar
fraud accusations. Because the administration
is now so publicly weaponizing these fraud claims
to try and remove people, sources are suggesting
the Supreme Court is now far less likely to approve
that as a valid reason for firing a federal governor.
So the move against Powell could actually backfire
and protect Cook? It could cost the administration
two appointments on the seven -seat board. It
turns their political attack into a massive strategic
loss. And if that wasn't enough, then came the
Senate revolt. Oh, yeah. Senator Tom Tillis,
who's on the banking committee, he announced
he would block all future Fed nominations until
the Powell investigation is resolved. And Senator
Lisa Murkowski immediately joined him. Which
means total paralysis at the Fed for the foreseeable
future. The whole thing is just so counterproductive.
And Tillis went even further. He did. He publicly
stated that the independence and credibility
of the Department of Justice under AG Pam Bondi
is now question. So what does that mean strategically?
It means it opens the door to intense scrutiny
of any future DOJ nominees. It could even lead
to potential impeachment proceedings against
Bondi in 2027. What started as a simple attempt
at political payback has resulted in legislative
gridlock, economic instability, and the weakening
of their own authority. Our sources are just
calling this a profoundly, colossally stupid,
unforced error. The harm just far outweighs any
benefit. So let's pull the lens back one last
time and connect all this political chaos to
the 2026 electoral landscape. OK. Former representative
Mary Peltola has announced she's going to challenge
Senator Dan Sullivan in Alaska. This gives the
Democrats a clear, strong candidate. It does,
but it's an undeniably tough fight. Alaska is
historically very hard for Democrats. It's R
plus 13, meaning the last Republican presidential
candidate won there by 13 points. And Sullivan
is an incumbent. A Republican incumbent who probably
won't face a serious primary challenger. So it's
an uphill battle. However, there are some real
opportunities here. Alaska is significantly less
red when Trump isn't on the ballot. Its partisan
voting index drops to R plus six. It's a big
shift. And Peltola is incredibly popular. She's
described as a moderates moderate. And if all
the talk and chaos coming out of DC, like the
Powell episode, if that continues to alienate
independent voters. So I could see a real shift
toward her. You could. And we also have to talk
about the mechanics of an Alaska race, rank choice
voting. RCV. That was critical to her 2022 House
win. Remember, the Republican vote was split
between Begich and Palin, and that allowed Paltola
to win in the second round of counting. So how
does that play out in 2026 with Sullivan as the
incumbent? Well, it still complicates things
for the Republicans, even if Sullivan consolidates
the base more effectively. If a strong third
party or a moderate independent candidate jumps
in, RCV gives Peltola a crucial path to victory
by picking up all those second place votes. And
what's the polling look like? Early polling,
and this was even before last October, already
showed the race is a dead heat. It ranged anywhere
from D plus three to R plus five. That tells
you the race is incredibly volatile and really
responsive to all this current political turmoil.
So strategically, what does this new focus on
Alaska mean for the whole Senate battle? The
significance is crystal clear. Republicans now
have to spend valuable resources. time, money,
high -profile surrogates defending a seat they
thought was completely safe. A seat that should
have been off the table. Exactly. And committing
those resources to a state like Alaska directly
widens the Democrats' path to keeping control
of the Senate in 2026. It turns a sideline race
into a major battleground. So we've completed
a pretty comprehensive deep dive today. We've
covered the complexity of federal law and accountability
in Minneapolis. We've seen the danger of political
vendettas destabilizing our key institutions.
And we've watched the 2026 map unexpectedly widen.
And I think the big theme connecting all of this
is just how hard accountability is. The legal
system, even when it's facing all this political
obstruction, it does have mechanisms to push
back. You know, from the limits on qualified
immunity to determine local prosecutors and all
the civil suits that are coming. But that process
is so long. And the court drama and political
fighting that come with it can have these massive
cascading consequences for any administration
trying to shield its agents. We discussed that
historical documented pattern. Border Patrol
agents intentionally stepping in front of vehicles
to manufacture a threat to justify using lethal
force. So, considering the administration's current
push to rapidly staff both ICE and Border Patrol
with these shortened training periods, we'll
leave you with this provocative thought. How
might that historical pattern of poor procedure
and manufactured threat proliferate across the
entire DHS apparatus today, and who might be
the next target?