Legal AF: Trump DOJ Destroys Evidence in Pretti Murder

Date: January 27, 2026
Hosts: Michael Popok, Ben Meiselas | MeidasTouch Network

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

Timestamps for Critical Segments

Episode Overview

This episode of Legal AF zeroes in on the latest legal controversy concerning the Alex Pretti shooting—a case in which federal officers are under state investigation for possible criminal wrongdoing. Michael Popok analyzes recent Department of Justice (DOJ) filings regarding evidence preservation, with a critical look at conflicting accounts from federal agencies (Homeland Security, the FBI, and Border Patrol) and the apparent mishandling and potential loss of key evidence, especially a firearm said to belong to the deceased. The central theme: breakdowns in chain of custody, lack of cooperation with state investigators, and the DOJ under the Trump administration actively resisting judicial orders to safeguard evidence.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Missing Gun and Disarray Among Agencies

• Opening Question: "Where is the gun? Where is Alex Pretti’s gun?" – Michael Popok [01:00]
• Popok meticulously reconstructs the timeline and filings, pointing to a missing gun central to the investigation.
• Federal filings are contradictory: each agency passes the buck; no one can confirm possession or status of the weapon.

2. Conflicting Declarations from DOJ Agencies

• Three agencies—Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Border Patrol, and the FBI—filed sworn statements in court. Only one affirmed compliance with the judge’s order not to alter or destroy evidence.
• Popok notes, "Only one out of the three sworn declarations looked the judge in the eye." [01:25]
• The filings fail to clarify chain of custody or even basic facts of evidence security and transfer.

3. Chain of Custody and Scene Compromises

• HSI special agent Mark Zito admits his unit didn’t secure the scene for 38 minutes: "So for 38 minutes, this crime scene was just trampled on..." [03:14]
• Multiple entities on scene (HSI, ICE, FBI, Border Patrol), with unclear handoffs and late arrivals, led to confusion and potential evidence contamination.

4. State-Federal Tension and Judicial Orders

• Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension requested a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop federal agencies from destroying evidence.
• Remarkably, the DOJ opposed this: "The Department of Justice fought the federal judge in court today about whether he should extend his temporary restraining order... arguing he didn’t have the power or the jurisdiction to order them not to delete and destroy evidence." [02:25]

5. Agency-by-Agency Filing Analysis

• HSI (Mark Zito): Affirms being lead investigator, but offers vague and evasive statements about compliance with evidence preservation. Admits late scene arrival.
• Border Patrol (Jeffrey Egerton): Alleges non-involvement in evidence collection, but references the existence of body cam footage without clarifying chain of custody. Contradictory as they admit to possessing a critical piece of evidence.
• FBI (Unnamed Agent): Asserts collection of evidence occurred under "volatile" circumstances, which required deviation from standard 12-step process. Refuses to specify what evidence was collected or its disposition.

6. The Judicial Dilemma and Implications

• Popok underscores: “Do you see why the judge in this case is likely not to lift the temporary restraining order about the preservation of evidence and why there are so many problems with the crime scene, the collection of evidence, the chain of custody and the rest?” [12:58]
• The hosts highlight the absurdity of needing court orders just to prevent evidence destruction—a sign of deep institutional rot and partisanship.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Michael Popok [01:00]:
  “Where is the gun? Where is Alex Pretti’s gun? Which according to Border Patrol, was the impetus for him to be restrained and eventually shot. Where’s the gun?”

• On the chain of custody breakdown [03:14]:
  "For 38 minutes, this crime scene was just trampled on because they didn’t think to preserve it after shooting ten times."

• On DOJ resistance [02:25]:
  “The Department of Justice fought the federal judge in court today about whether he should extend his temporary restraining order, arguing he didn’t have the power or the jurisdiction to order them not to delete and destroy evidence. Yes, you heard me right.”

• Honing in on the contradictions [07:43]:
  “He says that the body cam footage...has been preserved. Doesn’t say by whom. Chain of custody problem. Doesn’t say by whom. Who preserved it?”

• On the scope of dysfunction [12:58]:
  “We have three different entities of the administration, Border Patrol, Homeland Security and the FBI who allowed the crime scene collectively to be trampled on and wasted, allowed protesters and others to destroy potential evidence.”

• Closing Perspective [13:58]:
  “The fact that a judge even had to enter an order to order the Trump administration not to destroy evidence...and only one out of the three declarants thought it was, it was a good thing to tell the judge they haven’t destroyed any evidence. The other two ignored it.”

Timestamps for Critical Segments

• [01:00] – Popok introduces missing gun and problems with DOJ filings
• [02:25] – Discussion of DOJ’s refusal to consent to TRO on evidence preservation
• [03:14] – Breakdown in chain of custody; delayed crime scene control
• [04:20-06:30] – Analysis of HSI (Mark Zito) and Border Patrol (Jeffrey Egerton) filings
• [07:43] – Border Patrol's contradictory possession of body cam footage
• [09:47] – Deep-dive into the FBI’s vague affidavit and missing details
• [12:58] – Popok’s summary of total dysfunction and judicial predicament
• [13:58] – Final reflections on necessity of judicial intervention

Conclusion

In this episode, the Legal AF team lays bare the chaos and lack of accountability in the federal government’s handling of the Alex Pretti shooting investigation under the Trump DOJ. Through sharp legal analysis and clear factual breakdowns, they expose an environment where evidence goes missing, chain of custody is ignored, and top law enforcement agencies cannot (or will not) explain basic procedures—culminating in a judge forced to order the federal government to do what should be standard: protect evidence in a potential homicide. This episode is indispensable for understanding not only this troubling legal episode, but the broader implications for law and accountability in a polarized America.