Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Anger After ICE Agent Fatally Shots Woman in Minneapolis; DHS Calls Incident Domestic Terror, Witnesses Call It Murder; Protests Erupt in Minneapolis After ICE Officer Killed U.S. Citizen. ICE Agents Shoots Woman in Minneapolis; Protests Happen In Some of U.S. Cities After Trump's Military Intervention in Venezuela. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired January 07, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, anger on the streets --
MAYOR JACOB FREY (D-MINNEAPOLIS, MN): Get the fuck out of Minneapolis.
PHILLIP: -- after an ICE agent fatally shoots a woman in her car. The White House calls it self-defense. Witnesses call it murder.
Plus, as the U.S. seizes two more oil tankers linked to Venezuela, tempers flare on the hill over the Trump administration's defense of its raid.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's a delusional way of thinking.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is an insane plan.
PHILLIP: And is NATO hanging in the balance? As Donald Trump considers taking Greenland by force, the president questions the alliance's loyalty to America.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Leigh McGowan, Shermichael Singleton, Xochitl Hinojosa and Ana Navarro.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America is talking about, outrage in Minneapolis. Protests erupting tonight after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in her car. Whether the shooting was justified is very much the question here. The Trump administration says it's clear that the woman was trying to kill the officer by running him over with her car, going so far as to call her a domestic terrorist. Now, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey argues that it wasn't self-defense. And to be clear, there is still a lot that we don't know about this incident, including what happened in those minutes leading up to it. But we want to play different angles of the shooting for you. And I want to warn you what you're going to watch here is disturbing video.
And here is a second angle of the same shooting from a higher vantage point. Watch.
Now, the mayor didn't hold back in his message to the Trump administration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FREY: They are already trying to spin this as an action of self- defense. Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody directly that is bullshit.
To ICE, get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We do not want you here. Your stated reason for being in this city is to create some kind of safety and you are doing exactly the opposite.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Kristi Noem was unmoved by that remark from the mayor. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mayor Frey called the claims of self-defense B.S. How do you respond to that?
KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I say that he doesn't know what he's talking about. 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: CNN Law Enforcement Analyst and former Secret Service Agent Jonathan Wackrow joins us in our fifth seat. Jonathan, there's a lot going on here. I want to play for you one more thing. This is an eye witness, Emily Heller, who was -- who walked outside of her house just as this was unfolding. She spoke to Erin Burnett earlier, and this is what she had to say about what happened in those critical moments just before a lot of these videos began.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMILY HELLER, WITNESSED WOMAN FATALLY SHOT BY ICE: They were telling her to leave, they were telling her to move, and then all of a sudden they were -- seemed like they were trying to get her. So, they were telling her to move, and then in a split second, they were saying -- they were trying to get her out of the car. So, it was like she was trying to move once they were trying to get in her car. She was -- of course, she wanted to leave at that point.
[22:05:00]
They were extremely aggressive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, taking all of that, I mean, what do you see here as what we need to investigate in order to determine what happens next? Who's culpable and whether this was justified?
JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I think you have to look at it through two lenses. One, it's the law and look at it from, is this -- was this a legal shooting? Was this deemed appropriate under the policies and procedures of DHS for that agent to discharge his firearm and shoot this individual? That's one side of it. And then you have to look at it, was it reasonable? You have to look at it, like could this have been avoided some other way? And I think that the investigation that hopefully will be ongoing soon, will start revealing, you know, some of these things that we just don't know right now.
When you think about it from the law, there's this standard. It's the reasonableness standard. And, basically, it states that, you know, the way that this is going to be judged isn't in hindsight, but it is from the perspective of the officer or agent at the moment that they discharged their firearm. Did they feel that their life was in danger? Wasn't it reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstances at that moment?
The challenge for all of us at this table is we do not have the perspective and the vision that that agent had at that moment. What did they see? We can understand that they may feel that intent was implied by the car moving forward, that their life was in danger, but was there any other circumstances that made that individual pull the trigger? No one knows that right now, and that needs to come out during the investigation.
Now, the flipside of it, which is what we've been speaking about most of today, was could something else have been done? Could this officer have just stepped out of the way? Could, you know, he not have fired his weapon, they have the license plate, go get this person afterwards? I think that is worth debate as well.
And I can just say one final point, if anybody sitting at this table, I've actually been in that position. I have been on the bumper of a car as it was moving with my weapon drawn out, making that split second decision, in milliseconds actually, whether or not to shoot that person in the car, who I felt at the time was a threat. Now, in that instance I did not.
But, again, all of this just shows how dynamic these situations are for our law enforcement you know, partners around the country that are faced with threats every single day.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, honestly. I think what you just said is incredibly reasonable for a normal law enforcement operation. What we are talking about here is not incredibly reasonable. One of the things Kristi Noem said was that the officer was following his training.
One of the things we know about these ICE officers is their training is so limited, their expectations of service is so limited. They are hiring basically anyone, giving them tons of money and they're not prepared for these jobs. They don't have the training you had when you could make a split second decision. We know that. We know how fast they're hiring, that they have 10x their budget.
So, this man was not prepared. Or if he was, this is a woman in a minivan with her spouse, and like she's in a Honda Galaxy. She was moments before waving people to go around her car, as the witness was saying, she was standing on her front porch and they were like, leave, get out of here. And she was like, okay. She let two cars go in front of her. Then the guy came right up to her car and said, get the fuck out.
These are people that are beating people on the street, people who are assaulting people in custody, who are killing people and have killed people before. She's reasonable to think, I'm going to get out of here. And you can see her car back up. You can see the wheel turn. And then as she starts to turn, she's shot in the face.
So, no, I think I'm taking crazy pills if we're going to talk about an ongoing investigation when the president of the United States is already calling her a domestic terrorist. There's no investigation there. She's already been labeled a terrorist.
PHILLIP: About training, the academy training for ICE officers was shortened to 47 days, apparently picked because Trump is the 47th president.
Training matters a lot in these high stakes moments. And now that ICE officers are fanning out across the country to the tune of thousands, training matters even more because they're engaging directly with the public, and we're seeing things like this happen. I mean, this is such a tragedy. It's such a tragedy.
And I have to wonder, I mean, Obama was able to deport millions of people in this country, and I don't recall ever seeing things like that unfolding in suburban neighborhoods across the country. And you have to wonder why.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, you know, Jonathan and I were talking about the training process with federal law enforcement. I own two firearms companies. I've done a lot of work with law enforcement at every level, particularly around firearms training. And, look, training does matter. I'm not going to negate that fact, but I think for the viewing public who may not necessarily be used to seeing circumstances such as this, you do have a very, very split second, Abby, to make a very quick decision.
[22:10:11]
It's not a methodical process.
I'll give you a prime example. They teach a lot of law enforcement officials, federal and local and state. If someone has a knife and they're 20 feet away from you, where most people say, well, why would the officer shoot someone with a knife in that distance is so great? They didn't have to shoot. They could have gotten away or used some other mechanism to subdue them. Well, a person can close a 20-foot gap in less than ten seconds.
And so the point that I'm trying to make by citing that example is to say I don't know, to your point, what that officer saw or felt. I don't know if he saw her moving her hands and believe maybe she was grabbing a gun. I don't know. Which is why an investigation, a very thorough one, needs to proceed forward before anyone can really draw any conclusions about what that officer saw in that moment.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I agree with you, but I'm not sure that the Trump administration actually understands that there needs to be an investigation. You had Kristi Noem on the border with her cowboy hat saying right away that it was an act of domestic terrorism, and not only that, blaming the woman when she didn't even have the facts. Then you had Donald Trump go out and instead of acting like a president, the way the president should act, also put blame on the woman.
And so if you were -- if we were in a normal circumstance with a normal president, with a normal cabinet secretary, and you know this from your time at the Secret Service, as we worked in law enforcement agencies, you have the cabinet secretary and the president of the United States call for a thorough investigation, independent one from the inspector general. You have the FBI in that situation. Do a thorough investigation with the U.S. attorney's office and the Civil Rights Division to figure out what exactly happened. But instead, there is a blame game.
And I actually don't agree there should be a blame game with state officials either. I think that both sides need to make sure that we are getting the facts first, and then we can go from there. But, yes, I do think this entire incident raises questions about how does a mom of a six-year-old child who is now an orphan, how does that person get shot by our local law enforcement and the administration somehow rush to put blame on the woman who died?
SINGLETON: I mean, so maybe if you do want to, you know, I guess characterize the president's statements in one particular way and Kristi Noem, you know, I believe the FBI has come out and stated that they are going to investigate this. And so I want to respect and trust that the bureaucrats at the FBI, with the state officials and their investigative units, will look into this and at some point we will get a conclusion to what exactly occurred.
MCGOWAN: I want to trust in that too, Shermichael, but, you know what, like that's not reality. This woman was --
SINGLETON: But why isn't -- do you not trust the FBI?
MCGOWAN: I do not trust our current FBI. No, I do not. They are absolutely --
SINGLETON: I'm not talking about the director. I'm talking about the career --
MCGOWAN: It doesn't matter. I'm talking about everyone --
SINGLETON: It does matter, Leigh. It does matter. So, you think the career officials that the FBI don't care about their oath to the Constitution?
MCGOWAN: And we're sitting being like, listen, let's just let the FBI do, and I'm like the president of the United States put out a truth that said she was a domestic terrorist who tried to run him over and he was fighting for his life in the hospital.
SINGLETON: Yes, I've heard you state those points. I asked a very simple question.
MCGOWAN: Not true though.
SINGLETON: Do you not trust the career officials at the FBI to do their job well?
MCGOWAN: And we're sitting here having a discussion like --
(CROSSTALKS)
SINGLETON: But do you not trust officials at the FBI to do their job well?
PHILLIP: Shermichael, does it not taint --
SINGLETON: I do.
PHILLIP: Shermichael, does it not taint the possibility of there being a, you know, fair invest thorough investigation when the president has already prejudged it as a domestic terrorist, terrorism organization, the DHS secretary has already determined that the officer was justified and that this person was an agitator who essentially, she was saying, deserved to be killed? How does that not taint people's confidence at the very least when there's going to be a fair investigation.
SINGLETON: It maybe (INAUDIBLE) people's confidence, and that's a different discussion. I have a lot of faith and confidence in the career officials at the FBI.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean --
SINGLETON: I have a lot of confidence in the career officials at -- in Minnesota to do a good job and investigate this.
PHILLIP: Leigh is one of those Americans who doesn't believe that that is actually --
SINGLETON: No, I disagree with you on that. I disagree with you on that.
HINOJOSA: I just left there one year ago and I actually do have a lot of confidence in the career investigators of the FBI and they're very good people who understand how to do this. What I don't have confidence in is where does that information go from there and whether those people will be silenced. And what I have heard from FBI agents and prosecutors within the Department of Justice is when they investigate something and it does not the result in what the president or the FBI director or the attorney general want, then they somehow get involved and try to change the outcome of whatever that investigation is, and that is my problem.
PHILLIP: Okay.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, I agree with you, Jonathan. I think there're some details we don't know yet and we'll have to learn more about it. What strikes me is, first of all, it's extremely sad and unfortunate that someone died.
[22:15:03]
I mean, the political fighting and disagreements aside, it's terrible. You know, you don't want people to do in law enforcement situations or otherwise.
But it strikes me that we are undergoing an epidemic of political vigilantism right now. Why are people showing up in vehicles, in convoys, not just in Minneapolis, but all over the country, in an effort to obstruct lawful federal law enforcement activities? This is not an isolated incident. We have had hundreds of car rammings against ICE agents all over the country. According to DHS, this lady in this car today, along with other vehicles, had been tracking ice agents around. Why are people believing that they can drive their car into a federal law enforcement situation, and that is an appropriate thing to do?
I understand they don't like the fact that these agents are enforcing existing immigration law. But that's not how we change laws in this country. If you don't like a law, you talk to the politicians. You don't drive your car into the middle of a building or a law enforcement situation that's being occupied by the people who are simply there to enforce the law. If I don't like how much the IRS is charging me in taxes, I don't drive my car into the Treasury Department, try to run somebody over. I call my congressman.
Political vigilantism is being encouraged by Democratic officials, like the lieutenant governor of Minnesota, Peggy Flanagan, who earlier this year told people to, quote, put your bodies on the line, and Tim Walz calling these guys Gestapo all year. What do you think happens when you radicalize a base of people about this?
PHILLIP: It does strike me, Scott, that we actually don't know that she was doing any of the things that you suggested. We don't know anything about what she was doing. I mean, do you know as a fact?
JENNINGS: DHS has said out loud today that she had been tracking around ICE agents all day long. That is part of the reporting.
MCGOWAN: She's following ICE agents --
PHILLIP: I think that we -- from -- I've read everything there is to read about this woman so far, and we have very little information about what exactly she was doing. She lives in that neighborhood, it seems, but we don't know that she was a part of a convoy. We don't know that she was trying to do anything particularly with ICE agents. We know her wife was outside of the vehicle recording. But, again, but we were talking about jumping to conclusions.
JENNINGS: So, you think she may have just accidentally wandered in there?
PHILLIP: No, she lives there. That what happened.
JENNINGS: So, your position is that --
PHILLIP: Apparently, from what we know, she lives in that neighborhood.
JENNINGS: So, you say the federal government is lying about them following ICE agents around?
PHILLIP: Well, I don't -- well, all I'm saying is that we don't know.
WACKROW: That's the point of an investigation.
PHILLIP: And that's the point -- exactly. That's the point --
JENNINGS: And I have no problem with an investigation.
MCGOWAN: When did it become illegal to follow ICE agents around?
JENNINGS: It become -- it's illegal to engage in obstruction of a federal law enforcement. Is it not -- is it a felony?
MCGOWAN: But they're not impeding. She was filming, right? She's filming them because ICE agents have been known to kill people, because people are disappearing in custody, because we're missing 1,200 people in Alligator Alcatraz.
JENNINGS: This is the political vigilantism.
MCGOWAN: This is not political vigilantism. These are the facts.
JENNINGS: You're encouraging people to interfere with federal law enforcement.
MCGOWAN: I'm saying that we need to get it on tape because the DHS is lying, because ICE is lying and because people are getting hurt and they're disappearing.
PHILLIP: I think that there is obviously --
MCGOWAN: The Amnesty International just did an entire thing on ICE. PHILLIP: But, hold on, there's a whole -- there's a big difference between -- there's a big difference between recording law enforcement, which you can do, and impeding law enforcement. And knowing the difference is going to be extremely important in this case, as it has been in every other case where this has come up.
But I'm going to hit pause on this. We're going to continue after the break on this idea that officials are fanning the flames. Ana Navarro is going to join us next at the table. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): This has now turned into what our greatest fear is and has been for a long time around ICE, that this will be used as an anti-civilian force, that it has no accountability. At the end of the day, what we saw today is a murder. And murders in cold blood need to be prosecuted.
I think what we saw today was a manifestation of every American's worst nightmare, which is their government turning into a tyranny.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Ana Navarro has joined us at the table. Ana, there were a lot of people who warned that, you know, a massive increase in ICE presence on the ground would inevitably result in American citizens being the victims of these -- some of these encounters.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. You know, to me this day is very, very somber because I think there were so many indications that this was going to end up happening sooner or later. And it's a day where I think we need to be very sober.
And I think, you know, a few things. First, we live in America. We have a right to protest. We have a lot -- a right to videotape what is happening and amplify the truth, but for the videos that were taken today, we wouldn't know the truth and we wouldn't be seeing it with our own eyes and able to judge it.
Also, you know, I think it's negligent that the ICE forces have been increased so quickly and that there's people without the proper training and the proper experience. I don't know if this agent who shot this woman today, I don't know if he's one of the new recruits that got offered $50,000 and maybe has less training and experience than ICE agents regularly do, and that might have been a contributing factor to how this ended up. Maybe if it had been an agent with more experience, the response would have been different.
What I do know is that there's a six-year-old boy who's now orphaned.
[22:25:00] His father died in 2023. And today his mother got shot to death. And I think it's a time of reflection in America. Protesters need to be peaceful. Protesters have every right to show up and demand accountability. But I also think our government has to be responsible and who they put out in the streets armed and the tone of what's happening with ICE.
We have seen a -- we've seen some agents really abuse power and almost relish what they are doing. We have seen pregnant women dragged through the streets. We have seen children left alone in cars. We have seen people shot. We have seen people chased like animals. Look, it's a very difficult situation and we've got to reflect on how we do this so that it doesn't continue happening.
PHILLIP: As you mentioned, you know, it did seem to some people that we were headed in this direction, because a couple months ago, there was an incident in involving another shooting with ICE agents. They shot into a vehicle and shot a woman. Then they charged her with trying to ram the law enforcement. But those charges were dismissed by a judge, in part, because of contradictory evidence that contradicted the ICE account of what happened in that incident.
And I think all of this, to Ana's point, raises questions, Shermichael, for me about this pact that we have between law enforcement and the citizenry, that under normal circumstances, when you get a badge and a gun, it's a huge amount of responsibility, and that responsibility also comes with, you know, you show your face, you're accountable, you report to someone. And you also have -- you know, you have rules that you abide by.
And that feels like the part that's missing here with ICE, that they've decided ICE agents don't need to show their faces. They don't need to abide by some of the basic principles that regular law enforcement officers do, even though they're engaging with the population at much greater degrees than they used to. Is it a moment to think about that and think about whether that is sustainable?
SINGLETON: I mean, sure. I'm not opposed to having conversations about extended training. You know, look, if one wants to raise questions about shortening training, if you're going to have agents who don't typically act in law enforcement roles, I would not be opposed to that, from my experience with law enforcement, broadly speaking. But even with well-trained officers, we have seen instances where officers have to make split decisions. And sometimes it's not nice. We shouldn't jump to conclusions by calling this guy a murderer. We don't know yet. We have no clue.
And I know that's difficult to say someone has died. I acknowledge that there's a child who's lost another parent. That doesn't make me comfortable as a human being at all. But I do believe you have to empower law enforcement officials to do their jobs while assuring that you're also protecting the constitutional rights of citizens. And that's just the way I look at this.
NAVARRO: But this looked to me like there was something very wrong, because, I mean, you know, this ICE officer shot at least three times that we could hear on the video with other ICE officers very close to the driver, with people all around the car, with a moving car situation happening, and which resulted into that car careening into another car and a tree, and could have caused even more death and injuries. So, you know, I think we've got to acknowledge, all of those things.
I saw earlier today the former mayor of Miami-Dade, Carlos Gimenez, who is now a Republican from South Florida -- a Congressman from South Florida, huge Trump supporter, but he was -- when he was mayor of Miami-Dade, and he's also been a fireman for over 20 years, when he was mayor of Miami-Dade, he was the chief executive of the police department, and Jake asked him how he felt about this and he said, I'm not ready to defend the ICE officer. I have serious questions.
And I think we need to take off our partisan hats and we need to look at this with -- you know, be very cold headed because what we need to work on is make sure to avoid these kind of situations in the future.
PHILLIP: Chris Murphy said Democrats cannot vote for a DHS budget that does not restrain the growing lawlessness of this agency. And increasingly, Leigh, I'm hearing and seeing a lot of Democrats basically saying, you know, back when defund ICE was a position that some liberals were taking, and moderates were saying, well, that's gone too far, now, more and more so-called moderates are saying, this agencies out of control.
[22:30:00]
When we retake power, we've got to do something about it. Do you think that's the right move?
MCGOWAN: I think any agency that has this much money behind them needs to have a --
Jjjj
[22:30:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: The -- Chris Murphy said Democrats cannot vote for a DHS budget that does not restrain the growing lawlessness of this agency. And increasingly, Lee, I'm hearing and seeing a lot of Democrats basically saying, you know, back when defund ICE was a position that some liberals were taking and moderates were saying, well, that's gone too far. Now, more and more so-called moderates are saying this agency is out of control when we retake power we've got to do something about it. Do you think that's the right move?
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PDCAST HOST, "POLITICS GIRL": I think any agency that has this much money behind them needs to have accountability and it doesn't have that. And I think if there's any question to what Shermichael's making and what Ana is saying, this idea of like we don't really know what happened, we don't know what the officer was thinking in this moment, it might come down to training, it might not come down to training, it looks like this, it looks like that.
At the end of the day, she was pulled out of the car and she was not dead yet. And a doctor was on the scene and tried to help her and the ICE officer said get away from her or we'll shoot you. So, they shot a woman and then threatened to shoot a man who was trying to help the woman. So, if you're telling me that this was just a split second decision, she might have been saved but her wife had to watch her bleed out on the ground while a doctor stood by with an ICE officer with a gun in his face.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: So, I don't know what we're talking here.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- about what happened in that aftermath.
MCGOWAN: Well, they've spoken to the doctor.
PHILLIP: I mean -- right, yes, and I think my point is that what transpired after she was shot. Did they render aid? Did they allow raid aid to be rendered to her? Again, this is all part of the picture that Americans are seeing and they're asking, what's going on here?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, they're all fair questions and should all be part of a legitimate investigation. I think that's what the American people would expect. I a lot of people witnessed this. There have been a lot of witnesses on television today. We played some.
I saw another interview with another witness who said that this lady in the van was the leader of a convoy that was attempting to impede and obstruct the road where legitimate law enforcement operations were taking place.
I would also like to know if that is true because that's what an eyewitness has said. If that is true, I think one of the questions we have to ask is why are people believing that it is okay to create vehicle convoys for the purpose of impeding federal law enforcement? My suspicion is it's because they've been told by politicians that it is their responsibility to do so.
It is in fact a felony to obstruct federal law enforcement activities. If you don't like the immigration laws, that's a legitimate position, but you don't change laws by creating convoys to obstruct law enforcement officers. You call the politicians and ask them to change the laws. Political vigilantism is getting people killed. This lady should not be dead.
I hate it that she is dead because this poor kid as Ana said is an orphan. I don't love, in any way shape or form that someone is dead but we have to ask ourselves hard questions about why people are putting themselves in these positions and we've seen all over the country, Abby --
(CROSSTALK)
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Because they're Americans and they can't stand what they are seeing. I don't think it's --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Does that mean you can impede a law enforcement officer?
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: The problem is there is no oversight.
(CROSSTALK)
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, FORMER DOJ PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: No, but that wasn't the case on January 6th either and they were pardoned. And just this week, they are marching down the street to the Capitol (inaudible). Why are you shaking your head?
JENNINGS: Because this cannot -- this cannot be your go to --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: You understand -- but no, I'm not saying that I am pro --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: On January 6th, Democrats said we're pro law enforcement. Today, they said they're Gestapo. Which is it? Which is it?
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: I am pro law enforcement. I am --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Hold on, listen.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: No, I -- listen. No, we -- I will say the vast majority of Democrats are pro law enforcement and we believe that law enforcement --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Is Tim Walz? He says they're Gestapo.
HINOJOSA: Let me tell -- let me finish.
JENNINGS: He says they're Gestapo.
HINOJA: Scott --
JENNINGS: Do you agree? Do you agree? HINOJOSA: Scott, let me finish. I do not agree. Let me finish. They -- many Democrats and the vast majority of are pro-law enforcement. They believe that law enforcement should actually get the training that they deserve and they need.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: You don't know. You don't know that this has training. Stop implying that he is not trained. He was dragged by a car last summer.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Hold on, I've not done it. Hold on. Yes, I know. Let me tell you. In Minnesota, let me tell you, in Minnesota, blocks from where this woman was killed was a George Floyd shooting. What happened at the time is a Justice Department entered a consent decree with the Minneapolis Police Department wanting to provide those law enforcement officers training so something like that would never happen again.
And Donald Trump is -- Trump's administration completely dismissed that matter. And so now, Minneapolis law enforcement officials are not getting the training that they need. Democratic Party is pro law enforcement. They were pro law enforcement on January 6th. They didn't issue those pardons.
JENNINGS: They call them the Gestapo, Xochi. They call them murderers. They call them Nazis.
HINOJOSA: They are pro law enforcement. They are pro law enforcement now, and it is -- but why is it one rule for ICE and why is it another rule for the Capitol Police or the Republican Party? Can you answer that question?
JENNINGS: I don't -- I have the same rule for all law enforcement. I think we should respect all law enforcement. You all have one day year -- one day a year you like the cops. The other 364 days, you call them the Gestapo. That's the Democratic position.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I think going off of what actually happened is important and Democrats may or may not be right in how they characterize the actions of the police officer in the incident today. But just yesterday, after all that we saw, we did see on January 6th, police officers being bludgeoned. And the President put on the government website that they were instigating the violence on January 6th. So, that happened.
And so, if you can sit here and condemn Tim Walz, you can also sit here and condemn Donald Trump for what he said just yesterday about things that we all saw that -- that happened on January 6th, with our own eyes.
[22:35:00]
JENNINGS: I don't agree with blaming law enforcement for January 6th. I don't agree with blaming law enforcement for what's happening when these people show up and try to impede federal law enforcement officers from doing their job. I don't --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: Do you believe in blaming law enforcement when they shoot citizens in their face for no reason? Because that would be an appropriate time to blame law enforcement.
JENNINGS: There's a reason we trust them with firearms and qualified immunity. There is a reason. They have to make tough decisions in difficult circumstances against a radicalized population that's been instructed by Democrats who impede them -- impede them.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: So, a woman in a Honda Odyssey waving people along is a radicalized -- this is the problem.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Scott, but your law enforcement doesn't mean that you don't make bad judgment calls.
MCGOWAN: Can I -- let me --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And it also doesn't mean that law enforcement officers are not held responsible.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And it's a get out of jail free card.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right, we got to leave it there. Next for us, more breaking news tonight. Tempers are flaring on Capitol Hill after the Trump administration briefed Congress about its plans for Venezuela. One senator calls it bullshit (ph). Another calls it insane. This as the U.S. seized two more oil tankers.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:40:28]
PHILLIP: Tonight, as the United States seizes two more oil tankers, including a Russian-flagged vessel, and as lawmakers are finally briefed on the operation to capture Nicolas Maduro, tempers are flaring over on Capitol Hill about the Trump administration's plans for Venezuela.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): This wasn't a, some guys woke up in the morning and hey, let's shoot some shit (ph) up. You know, like this was incredibly organized. Find a Democrat when they're walking by that all wanted Maduro gone and now suddenly they've changed their views.
REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): Did I hear a strategy? The answer is no. There's been no planning.
REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): This morning with the seizure of the tankers, there's been a lot of blowback on that and I think that's misdirected. It's like when I play pool, I'm just hitting the cue ball. But I think this Trump administration is looking three balls down the -- down the field.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): I mean, this is an insane plan. They are talking about stealing the Venezuelan oil at gunpoint for a period of time undefined as leverage to micromanage the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: If that is in fact the plan, I think the details have not really been forthcoming by this administration. But they've been, you know, it's been drips and drabs. They've talked about the 30 to 50 million barrels. They're going to put the money somewhere in some kind of account. And now Trump says, I've been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing only American-made products with the money they receive from our new oil deal.
These purchases will include, among other things, American agricultural products, American medicines, American device -- medical devices, equipment to improve Venezuela's electric grid and energy facilities. I just wonder how and I'm not sure they've got answers on Capitol Hill.
NAVARRO: You know, on this Venezuela issue, we need to have lot of nuance and we need to understand that it's incredibly complex. And frankly, a lot of Venezuelan exiles that I've spoken to are okay with the U.S. taking the oil because it had been stolen by the Maduro regime. The -- let's remember that the Venezuelan oil company inside of Venezuela is controlled by the Maduro regime. And they have been lining their pockets. There are billions, in money.
In the meantime, the country is in abject poverty. The hospitals are completely collapsed. There are no groceries. So, I think Venezuelans say to themselves, okay, it's been stolen by Maduro and Chavez for 25 years. If the Americans, if the gringos take it, maybe at least we'll get -- we'll see something. What my problem with all of this is, is that all the talk I hear about this administration - from this administration is about oil.
In the meantime, there is incredible heightened repression going on inside of Venezuela. Nobody is demanding that the political prisoners be released. Nobody is demanding that the foreign hostages be released. We have got to prioritize democracy. It can't be the third or fourth burner on the stove while we focus on oil.
PHILLIP: I also just wonder, I mean, again, I'm hearing about the oil deals, but to Ana's point, where is the other side of the deal? Like, what is Venezuela doing now in exchange to advance American interests outside of just giving Trump control of the oil? SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look. I
personally think you have to remove the rest of the individuals that are there. I actually agree with Ana. I think we made the right decision in part to help the people who are there. Eight million people have fled Venezuela. Correct me if I'm wrong, Ana, with that number.
NAVARRO: Yes.
SINGLETON: But I also think it's an effort to focus on China. I mean, China only gets maybe six percent of oil from Venezuela, so it's not a big deal in that regard. But I think from China's position, they're looking in terms of optionality in the system. Most oil is sold on the U.S. dollar. I think if you're the Chinese, you're thinking how can we provide optionality to the global broader community, then my assumption would be if I'm in the Trump administration, I'm thinking about it that surgically.
That said, you can't go and remove Maduro and not remove the other people there. I'm hoping there is a plan for that. The President said that there is one. I would like to see that over time, but I don't think it's going to be enough to trust him. They just had the Chinese and the Russians there as the vice president was sworn in.
(CROSSTALK)
[22:45:00]
SINGLETON: So I don't trust them.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: But you know what the problem is, Shermichael?
PHILLIP: Yes.
NAVARRO: That, well, the focus is on oil and all the tweets that are coming out from Donald Trump are about oil. Every day that goes by, the people who are left from that Maduro regime are being more repressive. There are colectivos, goon squads, basically, stopping people, checking their social media, detaining people, detaining journalists. We can't allow us to continue.
SINGLETON: No, I don't disagree.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It could be -- it could be a sign of good faith for them to get some of the political prisoners released, but so far it hasn't happened. Just hold your thoughts, because we're going to come right back at the other side of this break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:00]
PHILLIP: Welcome back. Scott, you were just going to say.
JENNINGS: Yes, well, first of all, I agree with most of what Ana said. I think when we're dealing with this regime, we have to understand just how terrible they are, why we arrested Maduro and what the regime has been doing in the country. And I agree with you. I think if these political prisoners can be freed and we can do that in an expeditious way, I'm in total agreement with you.
NAVARRO: If you can pressure the regime to give you the oil, certainly you can pressure the regime to release the political prisoners.
JENNINGS: So this was my next point. I think the seizing of the oil and the oil tankers. First of all, some of these vessels are stateless and they're sanctioned oil, but it strikes me that it's about leverage. And so, we have control of this oil in our conversations and negotiations with these people who are left in charge. And Shermichael, I agree, they're bad people. I'm not sure it's a great idea to decapitate the whole government at once.
But we have leverage over these people. They want the oil back. I think in one of the cases they asked for one of these tankers back because they want it to be part of the 30 to 50 billion barrels or whatever. If we have the leverage to possibly get political prisoners released or to get them to do other things that we want them to do, that's a good thing.
SINGLETON: Yes.
JENNINGS: Ultimately, what you have to unspool here is when will Venezuela become a legitimate democracy again? How quickly can you give the people of Venezuela a chance to elect leaders that aren't illegitimate dictators or part of an illegitimate regime which is what they have now.
PHILIP: Let me play a little bit more of what happened.
NAVARRO: They have elected leaders that are legitimate leaders. It's just that the illegitimate leader Maduro didn't accept those results. But Maria Corina Machado's party, El Mundo Gutierrez, was elected. Juan Gabriel Guaido before him was elected.
JENNIGS: Yes.
NAVARRO: And Maduro just didn't recognize the election results.
PHILLIP: And the Trump administration now is sort of pushing Machado to the side. I want to play a little bit more from where the visit to Capitol Hill that Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth made today. Because they were asked some questions by CNN and other reporters about the details of this raid, how it's going to be paid for, some of the plan. And here's what transpired.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: The U.S. involvement in Venezuela, how much will it cost? MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, it doesn't cost us any money.
For example, this oil deal that's happening doesn't cost us any money on the contrary. And if it opens up --
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: Look, I can't -- I don't have the numbers.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I want to emphasize that question from CNN. The question is never asked how much does it cost when they're in the Mediterranean or the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean or the Pacific. But now that they're in our hemisphere and a counter cartel mission or ensuring that indicted individual comes to justice, now you're asking the question of cost.
It's a disingenuous question to begin with. You're trying to find any angle possible to undermine the success of one of the most historic military missions the world has ever seen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NAVARRO: They really protested.
HINOJOSA: They're defensive there.
PHILLIP: How dare you ask questions about anything.
NAVARRO: Listen, can I tell you something? We have got 15,000 sailors. We have got one fourth of the Navy arsenal. They've been there for four to five months. We've had, the CIA, have, we have -- this has cost billions of dollars.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But yes, it's going to cost something, right? There is a number somewhere. But they are the ones who are claiming that it's all just going to net zero. And I think it's a reasonable reason to ask how did they get to that conclusion? What do the numbers show? Are they ever going to provide proof?
MCGOWAN: Look, at the end of the day, I don't think this administration provides proof. I think that Trump ran on "America First" and 60 percent of this country is living paycheck to paycheck. We can't afford health care. We can't afford education. We can't afford veteran housing. We can't afford infrastructure, but we can rebuild the oil refineries in Venezuela.
Like if we're talking about democracy, you're talking about where's the democracy stuff? Where are the political prisoners? Why aren't we putting in a new leader? If we think he was just such a terrible leader, why aren't we doing that? We briefed the oil companies. We didn't brief Congress. So I think it's quite, it's quite true.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: That's false. That's totally false. HINOJOSA: Supporting that the oil companies were briefed before.
MCGOWAN: Yes.
JENNINGS: I believe that is completely and totally false.
MCGOWAN: Well, that's nice, but the oil companies were briefed Congress was not briefed. So I think need to follow the money.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I think if you follow people in the oil industry you'd find out they didn't have much of a head --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Let me just explain how we got here. Trump was asked on Sunday on Air Force One whether he briefed the oil companies. He said he spoke to them before and after. He said that. So that's why everybody is --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: They have repeatedly briefed Congress over and over and over.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But they didn't brief Congress until after this --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Of course you don't brief them on every law enforcement activity.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: No, hold on. It is not just -- it's not just a law enforcement activity.
JENNINGS: Sure, it is.
HINOJOSA: I agree -- I hundred percent agree and law people are not going to like this but when you do have a law enforcement action where U.S. soldiers could potentially be at risk, yes, I agree. Sometimes it is working at the Justice Department. We did not brief and the federal government didn't brief on a lot of things. This is more than that.
Donald Trump said he was going to take over Venezuela. That is not a law enforcement action. That means that our President United States is spending his resources, American resources, on Venezuela for the long term and we don't know when this ends.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right, thank you very much. [22:55:00]
Coming up next, as the President considers taking Greenland by force, he's now insisting that NATO wouldn't come to the defense of the U.S. if they were called upon.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, President Trump continues to escalate tensions with NATO allies, this time casting doubts about their loyalty. Quote, "I doubt NATO would be there for us if we really needed them," adding that, "We will always be there for NATO even if they won't be there for us." But just remember, NATO was in fact there for us after 9-11. Here's one Republican senator on Trump's threat to seize Greenland by force.
[23:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Denmark has punched above its weight. It came to Afghanistan, lost 43 soldiers on the ground, fought in some of the most contestant regions, honoring their Article five commitment to the United States. Among the NATO allies at the time, it was 30 nations, they were among the top six.
And think about all the nations bigger than them. I was on Senate Armed Services for eight years, and generals would always say the same thing. The only thing worse than going to war with allies is going to war without allies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Thank you for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" on the ground in Minneapolis starts right now.
