Main Justice Podcast Summary

Episode Title: Consolidation of Power
Date: January 14, 2026
Hosts: Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord
Guest: Rebecca Ingber (Professor of Law, International Law and National Security Expert)

Episode Overview

This episode of Main Justice grapples with recent troubling developments in U.S. law enforcement, the rule of law, and the ongoing consolidation of executive power. Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord bring their DOJ experience to unpack:

• The fatal shooting by an ICE agent in Minneapolis and its broader legal implications,
• The federal government’s resistance to oversight and accountability—both domestically and in international law,
• The criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and its significance,
• The administration’s incursion into Venezuela—analyzed with guest expert Rebecca Ingber, focusing on global law and U.S. constitutional separation of powers,
• The DOJ's restructuring to centralize control of fraud investigations directly under the White House.

The episode highlights how recent actions by the Trump administration redefine the boundaries of law, oversight, and executive authority.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The ICE Shooting in Minneapolis and Civil Rights Fallout

Main Segment: [01:28]–[23:39]

• Incident Overview: The shooting of Renee Goode, a protester in Minneapolis, by an ICE agent is under public scrutiny following the release of multiple videos.
• Federal Response: The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has declined to investigate, leading to the mass resignation of key civil rights prosecutors—a nearly unprecedented move.
• Pattern of Selective Prosecutions: The hosts highlight a stark pattern where figures critical of the administration (e.g., Jerome Powell, James Comey, Letitia James) are subject to investigations, while potentially unlawful federal use of force is ignored.

  “It’s like the law is for thee and not for me.” — Andrew Weissmann [04:09]

• Frame-by-Frame Legal Analysis: Both hosts apply a Fourth Amendment lens, noting the flawed legal predicate for ICE’s stop, the disproportionately aggressive tactics, and deviations from established policy on use of deadly force.
  • Queries over whether Renee Goode even saw the agent who shot her.
  • The critical difference between police conduct that is excessive (civilly liable) and that which constitutes a crime (criminally liable intentional homicide, or manslaughter).
  • The ICE agent shot after danger had passed, and with no apparent lawful justification.

  “I feel pretty confident. Shots two and three were definitely not justified.” — Mary McCord [18:01]

• Federal vs. State Authority: Unusually, the federal government has cut off state and local authorities from the investigation, likely undermining accountability and encroaching on state police powers.

  “…This is a real federalism issue here…there is a real infringement on the police power of the states.” — Mary McCord [19:19]

2. Crisis in Accountability: Executive Overreach

• Host Commentary: The hosts emphasize how current executive actions signal a disregard for checks and balances, both by refusing oversight (on ICE actions) and by conducting retaliatory investigations against perceived adversaries.

  “But we’re not going to see any [real investigation]. That is where we are in this country, with dire, dire ramifications…” — Andrew Weissmann [21:45]

3. International Law and the U.S. Incursion into Venezuela

With Guest: Rebecca Ingber [25:08]–[45:30]
Main Topic: Did the U.S. violate international law by sending forces into Venezuela to capture its de facto head of state?

A. The UN Charter & Use of Force

• Legal Framework: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is the “backbone of the international order,” prohibiting force between states except in narrow exceptions (UN Security Council authorization, or self-defense).

  “States could use force as a tool of policy…when the world came together and said no more. There are limited exceptions…” — Rebecca Ingber [27:16]

• No Valid Defenses: There was no Security Council blessing, no imminent threat or armed attack, and no host nation consent—making the U.S. action unlawful as per treaty obligations (which are binding U.S. law under the Supremacy Clause).

  “So there’s no legal justification under international law. I mean, you’re not going to be surprised to hear me say that.” — Rebecca Ingber [27:11]

• Domestically Binding: Treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law—contrary to political rhetoric dismissing international law as “fake.”

  “This isn’t something the UN wants…this is a treaty…the international commitments the United States has taken on are US law.” — Rebecca Ingber [29:23]

B. Precedents: Noriega, Libya, and “Self-Defense”

• Bad Precedent: Even the U.S. invasion to capture Manuel Noriega in Panama is now viewed as illegal; in that case, the U.S. took pains to justify its actions (which the current administration has not).

  “Noriega is the most obvious precedent…and it was condemned by the UN General Assembly.” — Rebecca Ingber [41:06]

• Attempts to Stretch “Self-Defense”: The administration can’t plausibly claim self-defense based on global drug trafficking—no nation has recognized that as an “armed attack.”

  “I have never seen any expert or any state previously assert that the distribution of drugs…is a use of force or an armed attack against a state.” — Rebecca Ingber [40:02]

C. Dangers of Eroding Norms

• Global Consequences: If the U.S. tramples these rules, it undermines its own power, legitimacy, and the global order it helped create.

  “It will make the world less safe. That’s not a world that I will feel safe in.” — Rebecca Ingber [44:21]

• “Might Makes Right”: Administration allies have openly embraced brute force over legal norms.

  “Stephen Miller…made it very clear…‘We have a big stick, and we’re going to do what we want.’” — Andrew Weissmann [42:10]

• Risk of Copycat Actions: Weak responses encourage others to violate international law; precedent is shaped as much by world and domestic reaction as by the initial violation itself.

4. Investigation of Jerome Powell and Assault on Institutional Independence

Segment: [47:00]–[56:00]

• Powell Investigation: The DOJ is pursuing a grand jury investigation into Jerome Powell, likely stemming from his Congressional testimony about Federal Reserve renovations.
  • The case appears exceptionally weak, focused on supposed inexact statements about the scope of renovations—accusations likely impossible to prove as criminally intentional.

  “You cannot make a criminal case based on that…unless literally you have him on tape beforehand saying ‘This is major, but I’m going to lie about it.’” — Andrew Weissmann [49:17]

• Powell’s Video Response: Powell addresses the investigation with clarity, stating it’s retaliation for the Fed’s resistance to White House pressure.

  “Those are pretexts. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates…rather than following the preferences of the President.” — Jerome Powell [49:52]

• Implications: The case is meant to intimidate and undermine the Fed’s independence, a foundational aspect of U.S. economic policy—echoing the administration's broader attacks on independent agencies.

  “…this is abusive. And this really is one where it’s like, you know, if you’ve got something, let’s see it.” — Andrew Weissmann [55:12]

5. Department of Justice Restructuring: Centralizing Fraud Enforcement Under the White House

Segment: [56:00]–[57:57]

• New DOJ Role: A new Assistant Attorney General for “fraud” will report directly to the White House, bypassing the Attorney General and undermining longstanding norms of prosecutorial independence.

  “Let’s write out loud. There is no independence whatsoever.” — Andrew Weissmann [57:17]

• Weaponization Concerns: The move likely signals an intent to use DOJ prosecutions as political weapons, rather than as neutral enforcement—particularly concerning with the simultaneous gutting of existing fraud units (e.g., Foreign Corrupt Practices).

  “…It may say that it’s about fraud, but it remains to be seen what it’s really going to be doing and whether this is a way of really just having an operational tool or weapon…” — Andrew Weissmann [57:52]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the ICE shooting pattern of investigations:
  “Let’s connect the dots here. That’s going to be investigated. James Comey is going to be investigated. Letitia James is going to be investigated. But what the agents did or did not do here, that's not going to be investigated.” — Andrew Weissmann [03:34]

• On the dangerous erosion of executive restraint:
  “We are so far from normal. This is the killing of a woman who was peacefully protesting…and she is dead as a result of what law enforcement did.” — Andrew Weissmann [21:53]

• On the legality of the Venezuela operation:
  “There’s no legal justification under international law…I think it was itself an armed attack, which gives Venezuela the right to repel it in self defense.” — Rebecca Ingber [27:10, 28:41]

• On the impact of international law or its disregard:
  “We signed it…these are our commitments…Are we going to make good on it? …The same argument could work for the Constitution, for federal statutes. And so I do see that as a trajectory that’s really dangerous.” — Rebecca Ingber [29:23] “It is not the US Military that is our great strength. For so many reasons, it’s incredibly short sighted.” — Rebecca Ingber [43:32]

• On the investigation of Jerome Powell as retribution:
  “Those are pretexts. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.” — Jerome Powell [49:52]

Timestamps for Major Segments

• ICE shooting in Minneapolis, DOJ’s refusal to investigate, state v. federal power: [01:28]–[23:39]
• International law, Venezuela incursion, with Rebecca Ingber: [25:08]–[45:30]
• Grand jury investigation into Jerome Powell, Federal Reserve independence: [47:00]–[56:00]
• DOJ restructuring, Assistant AG for Fraud reporting to White House: [56:00]–[57:57]

Episode Tone & Takeaways

The tone is urgent, analytical, and deeply concerned for the rule of law at home and abroad. The hosts foreground the stakes of each legal development—not as isolated news, but as symptoms of a profound shift in American governance. Rebecca Ingber’s guest segment transforms abstract international law into a warning about American decline and the peril facing democratic institutions when power dissolves its own constraints.

For listeners: This episode is essential for understanding how legal norms are being tested and eroded at both the domestic and global levels, as well as the personal and institutional courage required to resist the tide.

Compiled and summarized directly from episode content in the spirit and style of the original hosts and guest. All advertisements and non-content have been omitted.