DHS Faces Scrutiny Over Rapid ‘Terrorism’ Claim (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, without any evidence at all, accuses this 37-year-old mother of three, who just dropped off her kid at school, of being part of a domestic terrorism operation and cites her as a domestic terrorist.

[00:00:15] Speaker 2: Right, and everyone we've spoken to, Wolf, experts, law enforcement officials, those who used to work at ICE, say it's simply too early in the investigation, based on what we know, based on what we've seen, to make any sort of claim like that.

[00:00:26] Speaker 1: Yeah, ridiculous claim. And we have some new CNN reporting that we're about to share with you. Multiple, multiple Department of Homeland Security officials are privately expressing shock over the department's immediate response to the shooting.

[00:00:42] Speaker 2: CNN's Priscilla Alvarez joins us now. So, you've been talking to your sources within the agency, and it's different, it's interesting to see how Tom Homan has been handling this, as it compares to Kristi Noem. Tell us more about what you're learning.

[00:00:55] Speaker 3: Well, and Tom Homan being the White House border czar, who took a more measured response when he, in an interview with CBS, where he said he didn't have all of the evidence yet, for all the reasons that you two just walked through, in terms of the Homeland Security Secretary's statement and press conference, where she called this an act of domestic terrorism, where she said that this woman was trying to, quote, run over the law enforcement agents. There was so much shock among Homeland Security officials over all of that, because typically the precedent is that you don't get ahead of the investigation, that you say there's an investigation ongoing, and you don't draw firm conclusions. So, I was getting multiple messages about just the sheer surprise that the Department of Homeland Security would reach that conclusion so quickly, only a few hours, actually, after the shooting, and reiterate that later on in the day during that press conference. Now, the officials I've spoken with also caution that they don't know all of the set of circumstances here, and that they stress that there does need to be an investigation, but what they have seen in the videos doesn't seem to align with the training. The Secretary said that the training was followed, but typically, for example, ICE officers wouldn't get in front of a vehicle, which appears to have happened here with this officer. In fact, they are trained to form what is called, quote, a tactical L, to that 90-degree angle to avoid being in front of the vehicle and to avoid injury. So, it's these little maneuvers that are made that Homeland Security officials I've been speaking with say have called into question the conduct of this officer. I wanna reiterate, however, we don't know a lot about this officer yet. The Secretary said that he is, quote, experienced, but I will also add that in my sourcing calls, I have also been told that when the hundreds of agents arrived to Minneapolis and Minnesota in recent days, they did have extensive briefings about the possibility of protesters and agitators. So, this is something that prior to this incident, they had been aware of, could happen. They had been told that if it got violent, they were to call local police for backup. I'm also told that in those briefings, they were told not to engage if people were just yelling. So, certainly, there were agents who coming into this assignment from all over the country, including places like Florida, California, Georgia, had been advised that there could be protesters, but were given some level of guidance as to how to deal with that. Lastly, I will say the officer, though we don't know much about him, he had been hospitalized and discharged. According to my sources, that would be typical in an incident like this, and he would also typically be put on administrative leave. I've asked the Department of Homeland Security if that is the case, and they have not responded yet.

[00:03:33] Speaker 2: And just to be clear, IC agents aren't required to wear body cameras, right? And so, do we have any indication whether they have to?

[00:03:40] Speaker 3: We don't know if they had the body cameras on in this particular case. In the Minneapolis region, they are not required to have those body cameras on, according to a law enforcement source that I spoke with. So, we'll see if any of them did, but certainly, they are not required across the board.

[00:03:55] Speaker 2: All right, Priscilla Alvarez, thank you so much.

[00:03:58] Speaker 1: And joining us now to discuss what's going on, CNN legal analyst, Elliott Williams. By the way, he's a former assistant director for legislative affairs over at ICE, knows the issue very well. He's a former federal prosecutor as well. Also joining us, Jason Armstrong, retired Ferguson, Missouri police chief. He faced a very similar situation in his town after the 2014 police killing of Michael Brown. To both of you, thanks very much for joining us. And Jason, let me start with you. There are multiple angles showing this shooting. You've seen the video, presumably in slow motion, regular motion, several times. What's your take, and what do you see in the video?

[00:04:38] Speaker 4: What I see in the video is it looks like there are some vehicles that leave that area prior to the incident happening. They drive past the vehicle, the individual that was shot and killed by the agent. They drive past the vehicle while it stopped in the roadway. So we're hearing reports that they were blocking the roadway but I see vehicles leave beforehand. Then you see the one vehicle pull up and the two agents get out and approach the vehicle. The agent that actually did the shooting comes from the other side. And one of the primary questions that I would be interested in knowing in this is if the driver saw that individual in front of the car because she was engaged with the agents that were at her window. And when the vehicle pulls off, these situations unfold very fast and quickly. And it was unfortunate that the agent was in front of the vehicle. One of the things that we really emphasize in law enforcement is the tactics of de-escalation. And one of the things that we try to do is not put officers, agents in front of vehicles, especially vehicles that are in motion to try to avoid situations like this from happening.

[00:05:43] Speaker 2: There's a lot of serious questions raised by this video and the different videos we've seen of the angles, no doubt. There's still a lot of nuance here though and facts that we just don't know. But listen to what Kristi Noem, Homeland Security Secretary said not long after the shooting.

[00:06:00] Speaker 5: This appears as an attempt to kill or to cause bodily harm to agents, an act of domestic terrorism. It's very clear that this individual was harassing and impeding law enforcement operations. Our officer followed his training, did exactly what he's been taught to do in that situation and took actions to defend himself and defend his fellow law enforcement officers.

[00:06:24] Speaker 2: Not long after the mayor came out and said that narrative from the federal officials like Kristi Noem was BS, but how can you make such quick judgments either way so soon after this happened?

[00:06:36] Speaker 6: You absolutely cannot, Pam. Have we not learned anything in the last decade of trying to unpack whether police involve shootings or even individual ones between people? There are a host of complicated questions over the reasonableness of the fear of the person shooting in an action that certainly can't be unpacked from looking at a video. I will say, setting aside sort of the nonsense that came from the Secretary of Homeland Security today, or yesterday, the smartest comments I think came from Tom Homan, the borders are for the White House, who is known as somewhat of a hardliner on immigration and somebody I worked with for years at ICE. Tom was clear that we can't rush to judgment when looking at a video. Why? Because he's actually a law enforcement officer and did this for decades and years and knows that it is incredibly risky on either side to look at a video and try to unpack it as if we really know what's going on.

[00:07:28] Speaker 1: Let me just follow up on that and get your thoughts because that the Secretary of Homeland Security immediately described this woman, Renee Nicole Goode, a 37-year-old mother of three who was driving along as a domestic terrorist. This was a domestic terrorist operation against ICE. What was your reaction? That's very strong language, for lack of a better way to put it, Wolf.

[00:07:51] Speaker 6: In order to refer to someone as a domestic terrorist, she's necessarily saying that the actions were taken deliberately to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to make a statement to use a violent act as a means of making a political statement. That's a pretty broad claim about an individual that you really don't know what statement she's made, what writings she has made. Has she attempted other acts before? It's a sweeping claim and it's entirely plausible, I'm not saying it's true, but entirely plausible based on the video that this individual may not have had a political motive in driving the vehicle. And so, yes, even if the facts might say that she acted with some violent intent, there's no way you can look at this individual right now based on what's publicly available and make a claim of domestic terrorism.

[00:08:39] Speaker 1: I think she had just dropped off her six-year-old kid at school and was driving back home. Look, terrorists...

[00:08:46] Speaker 2: Right, her ex-husband said that, and then we've also found out through our reporting that she was there three minutes before as well. I mean, there's a lot we don't know, but Mike, just to follow up on what Jason said, you know, he made the point. That ICE officer came up and tried to open that door, right? Right. And there is a scenario in which she's looking at the ICE officer, not understanding that another ICE officer stepped in front of the vehicle. If an ICE officer puts themselves, or a law enforcement agency puts themselves in a position like that, standing in front of a moving vehicle, but then also has reasonable fear for their life, how do you look at that from a legal standpoint?

[00:09:24] Speaker 6: You, with your legal education, Pam, have touched on the very nature of a factual dispute, and there isn't been factual question as to all of these matters. Yes, an individual, a law enforcement officer, or any one of us might have put themselves in harm's way, but also been the, I guess, the recipient of a violent act. And I think it's for, ultimately, judges and juries to conclude at some point, you know, did this person invite this trouble, or, you know, was the aggressor, or pardon me, who was the aggressor or perpetrator here? And I just think, from looking at a video, as we sit here, we are not equipped to really make definitive conclusions about any of those things. Now, again, this all comes in the backdrop of tempers flaring in Minneapolis. It comes in the backdrop of a political climate around immigration that is very fraught, both for law enforcement officers and the public in Minneapolis. But the idea of simply looking at the video and making definitive conclusions about it at this point, I just think is nonsense.