DHS Faces Scrutiny Over Rapid Claims in ICE Shooting (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: You've also been criticized for your comments. The shooting, we should note, was Wednesday at 10.37 a.m. Eastern. Just over two hours later, the Department of Homeland Security put out a statement definitively asserting what had happened, defending the ICE agent, accusing Renee Good of domestic terrorism. That's a characterization that you reiterated in a press conference half an hour later. And Republican Senator Tom Tillis said, quote, it was very unusual to have a senior law enforcement official to draw a conclusion about an event where the scene was still being processed. Generally speaking, law enforcement would recognize that a life was lost, that families are changed forever, the shooter's life will change forever. We're collecting video. We're trying to assess the situation. Why did you not wait for an investigation before making your comments?

[00:00:43] Speaker 2: Everything that I've said has been proven to be factual and the truth. This administration wants to operate in transparency. I have the responsibility as the secretary of Homeland Security to know this information as soon as possible. I had just been in Minneapolis the day before, had already had conversations with officers on the ground and supervisors and knew the facts and decided that the department and the people of this country deserve to know the truth of the situation of what had unfolded in Minneapolis.

[00:01:10] Speaker 1: With all due respect, Secretary, the first thing you said was, quote, what happened was our ICE officers were out in an enforcement action. They got stuck in the snow because of the adverse weather that is in Minneapolis. They were attempting to push out their vehicle and a woman attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over and rammed them with her vehicle. That's not what happened. We all saw what happened.

[00:01:31] Speaker 2: It absolutely is what happened. Those officers had been out in enforcement action. A vehicle had been stuck. They had come to help get that vehicle out. That's when this individual started blocking traffic for minutes and minutes.

[00:01:43] Speaker 1: You said that the woman attacked them and surrounded them and attempted to run them over and rammed them with their vehicle.

[00:01:49] Speaker 2: Blocked the road for a long time and was yelling at them and impeding a federal law enforcement investigation. What you need to focus on, Jake, is they were breaking the law by impeding and obstructing a law enforcement operation. They were breaking the law already and these officers were doing their due diligence of what their training had prepared them to do to make sure they were handling it appropriately.

[00:02:10] Speaker 1: You said within hours of her being killed, you said that she was a domestic terrorist. How do you define domestic terrorist?

[00:02:16] Speaker 2: She weaponized her vehicle to conduct an act of violence against a law enforcement officer and the public. As they are doing that.

[00:02:23] Speaker 1: How can you assert with certainty that she was trying to hurt the officer as opposed to she was trying to flee the scene?

[00:02:32] Speaker 2: If you look at what the definition of domestic terrorism is, it completely fits the situation on the ground. This individual, as you saw in the video that we released just 48 hours after this incident, showed that this officer was hit by her vehicle. She weaponized it and he defended his life and those colleagues around him and the public.

[00:02:51] Speaker 1: The question is, I don't doubt. My position is, I wasn't there. I didn't see it. Some people say that it clearly showed that she was trying to hit him and did. Some people say, no, she was clearly trying to move her car and flee and get away. I don't know. What I'm saying is, how do you know? How can you assert for a fact within hours before any investigation, this is what happened?

[00:03:16] Speaker 2: The facts of the situation are that the vehicle was weaponized and it attacked the law enforcement officer. He defended himself and he defended those individuals around him. That is the definition. When there is something that is weaponized to use against the public and law enforcement, that is an act of domestic terrorism. Happened in our shores, it happened here in our country. You don't get to change the facts just because you don't like them. We will continue to look at this individual and what her motivations were. We know that throughout that morning, she had harassed and impeded law enforcement operations. That raises the suspicion level with all of these law enforcement officers as far as paying attention to what her capacity is. As you see on the videos, they've proven out that this law enforcement officer took the action that his training prepared him for and he worked to make sure that he could save his own life and those around him.

[00:04:07] Speaker 1: How can you assert that there's no ambiguity in this before any investigation has taken place?

[00:04:14] Speaker 2: I had just been in Minneapolis and had been with those officers, had seen what they were facing on the streets every day and had talked to their supervisors as soon as the incident happened and had gotten the facts and seen videos before I ever went to talk at that press conference. And the Trump administration and President Trump is the most transparent and open government that we've ever had. Give them, give the public the information, give them what they need to know about a situation so they can have the truth as soon as possible.

[00:04:41] Speaker 1: So if this agents were perfectly fine, if everything he did was accurate, does that mean that other ICE agents should look at what...

[00:04:47] Speaker 2: He wasn't perfectly fine. He was injured. He went to the hospital. No, his actions were fine. I didn't say... In fact, I think a lot of people and guests and even you yourself called this situation something very different and untruthful about what it was as far as... What did I say that was untruthful? That this was not a correct definition of what was happening on the ground.

[00:05:06] Speaker 1: I said that your description, they were attempting to push out their vehicle and a woman attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle is not what we see on the videotape and it's not.

[00:05:16] Speaker 2: It absolutely is the facts of what happened on the ground that day. They were there pushing out a vehicle earlier. They had got, helped each other do that.

[00:05:23] Speaker 1: But that's not what you said. That's not what you said. Yes, yes.

[00:05:26] Speaker 2: Yes, they were pushing out a vehicle. That's absolutely what I said. There's not one thing...

[00:05:29] Speaker 1: We've all seen the video. We don't, I don't need to relitigate it. We've all seen the video. She is blocking the street. They approach her.

[00:05:35] Speaker 2: You haven't seen the video of the entire morning and the previous encounters with this individual.

[00:05:39] Speaker 1: Oh, we have aired it. Yes, we have. On Thursday, we were airing and noting the fact that she was there for several minutes, for minutes and minutes and minutes. She was protesting without question.

[00:05:48] Speaker 2: And at previous locations that morning, that absolutely, that these vehicles had been previously down the block on video that you haven't seen. There's more information that this individual was leading law enforcement operations throughout the previous moments and hours before this incident happened.

[00:06:05] Speaker 1: The question is, what was she doing when she was moving her car? That's the question.

[00:06:10] Speaker 2: The question is, why are we arguing with a president who's working to keep people safe? Why are we arguing with law enforcement operations that have gone on in this country for years and we're working to collect murderers and rapists and drug traffickers and fraudsters off the streets of Minnesota and we don't have local law enforcement and local elected officials that are partnering with us to help do that work? Overwhelmingly, the people in this country said they wanted America to be safe again, but they didn't want dangerous criminals on our streets. I would encourage the elected leaders in that city and in that state to work with us so that we can do our operations without the kind of opposition and people that are conducting and perpetuating the kind of violent rhetoric that we're seeing today.

[00:06:52] Speaker 1: DHS policy authorizes use of deadly force only, quote, when no reasonably effective, safe and feasible alternatives appears to exist. Could he not have just gotten out of the way?

[00:07:03] Speaker 2: This individual and this officer is a highly experienced law enforcement officer. He has years of training and specialized training for these types of situations. We're grateful that he's alive. It's a tragic situation and we're going to continue to work on the investigation into the individual and find out what the motivations were behind her actions that day.

[00:07:22] Speaker 1: We're grateful that he's alive too. I want to play this moment from the officer's cell phone video.

[00:07:28] Speaker 2: Fucking bitch.

[00:07:36] Speaker 1: Is that Agent Ross's voice calling Renee Good a fucking bitch?

[00:07:40] Speaker 2: I can't determine which one it is, but it could be, sir.

[00:07:45] Speaker 1: In June of last year, Agent Ross had his arm pinned in the back window of a car as an undocumented immigrant who was a criminal drove away from a traffic stop. It dragged him about 100 yards. Here's what Vice President Vance said about the incident this week.

[00:08:00] Speaker 3: That very ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car six months ago, 33 stitches in his leg. So you think maybe he's a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile? If this is relevant, first of all, it's horrible that that happened.

[00:08:17] Speaker 1: If it's relevant, which the vice president seems to think it is, do you think this understandably very traumatic event that this officer went through last June might have influenced, as the vice president is suggesting happened, how he responded?

[00:08:33] Speaker 2: There's no indication to that, but the facts are is that we've seen vehicles weaponized over a hundred times in the last several months against our law enforcement officers. So they definitely know that the threat is real, that individuals who are trained by activists to go out and to impede their law enforcement operations will weaponize their vehicles and try to run them over and drag them and not stop. So they certainly go into these situations with that knowledge that that could happen. And that's what their training prepares them for.

[00:09:01] Speaker 1: What evidence are you looking at that so many other people around the country look at, and they say, it looked to me, her tires were turned to the right, she was moving her car, and they see a woman trying to flee. You say she was trying to kill the officer. No investigation has happened. Why are you so certain that your interpretation is the truth when an investigation hasn't even happened?

[00:09:26] Speaker 2: Jake, I'm watching the videos. I'm talking to officers. I'm talking to officers. I'm getting the facts. And coming to a different conclusion. Everything that we've stated as the Department of Homeland Security in this administration has been factual. And I wish we would talk factually about what we see every day from these protesters, what they do, what they say, how they chant over and over, kill ICE, attack law enforcement, how they're trained to perpetuate violence against them and to stop the work that they do every day. Each of these law enforcement officers takes an oath to protect this country and uphold the law. They do that every day and enforce the laws of this country to keep people safe. So these individuals that are out there harassing them while they do that work, doxing their identities, threatening them and their families, it's unacceptable. And that's why President Trump is so strong in supporting their operations in all of these cities.

[00:10:11] Speaker 1: The officer appeared to have fired three shots, the first one through the front windshield, the second and third through the side window. What is the justification for the second and third, given that the officer was out of harm's way?

[00:10:24] Speaker 2: You're watching the same one as I am, correct? Yeah. Yeah, you're watching the same one. So you see how quickly the situation unfolded, how the officer was in front of the vehicle when she sped off, how she ran into him and how he had to take quick action based on his training to defend himself and his colleagues around him. Once he's out of harm's way. That's very clear and factual from the videos that you can see. It's nobody's interpretation. We don't get to change it because we can see it with our eyes and we can build on the evidence that we have on the ground.