Consolidation of Power

Summary

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.

Transcript

[Angie Hicks]

Mom.

[Tyler Redick]

I like to propose a dinner optimization plan for 2026. Soccer practice every week. Get back late and you're stressed out about making something fast but actually nutritious for dinner. When Ashley's mom picked me up, I noticed that she made Blue Apron. It came like a little kit and by the time it was ready, I still had shin guards on and it was real food. Fresh veggies, protein, actual flavor. Take it from the younger generation, we're innovators. Giving a couple Blue Apron meals around. Not the worst idea. Get 50% off your first two orders plus free shipping with code. Listen, 50 terms and conditions apply. Visit blue apron.com terms for more.

[Angie Hicks]

Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co of Angie. When you use Angie for your home projects, you know all your jobs will be done well, from roof repair to emergency plumbing and more done well. So the next time you have a home project, leave it to the pros. Get [e-mail].

[Andrew Weissmann]

Hello and welcome back to Main Justice. It is Tuesday morning, January 13th. I'm Andrew Weissman and I'm here with my co host, Mary McCord. Hello, Mary.

[Mary McCord]

Good morning, Andrew.

[Andrew Weissmann]

You know, it's funny, I was, I'm already like thinking about what we're going to be discussing because there's so much that we need to get to. And our job is to both try and give you a deep dive into specific things and also not to sort of chase the news. And I think this discussion that we're going to have is really a good example of that. I have to say, Mary, this is why we have this podcast, no question.

[Mary McCord]

And what Andrew's alluding to, if it's not obvious to everyone, is our lead topic today will be what happened in Minneapolis. The tragic and fatal shooting of Renee Goode by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. And what has happened since then with the protests, with a new lawsuit filed by the state and the city to try to stop this real surge there. There's been incredible abuses of constitutional rights, incredible overreach. And, and there's a lot, because of our experience as prosecutors that we can pull apart from this. So many facets.

[Andrew Weissmann]

You know, this is when I'm biting my tongue because there's so much to say. But that's definitely topic one. Topic two, we promised people last week that we would have an actual expert that they wouldn't have to suffer through. Just us on international law.

[Mary McCord]

Right. To talk about, of course, what's happened in Venezuela. And then we will turn to the news that really just broke recently about a criminal investigation into The Federal Reserve Board chairman, Jerome Powell.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And his response.

[Mary McCord]

Yes, and his response, which I think is very significant.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Very.

[Mary McCord]

So let's jump in. There's so much here to talk about, and I'll just lay out a few things and then we can dive in. So first we can talk about what we saw in that video of Renee Goode being shot by this ICE agent. I will say I think it is too early to determine whether it is a criminal act, but we can talk about some of the considerations there. I think another thing to discuss is the fact that the new reporting is that the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which would normally investigate a shooting like this to determine if there was excessive force used, has apparently said, we're not going to investigate. And four of the leadership of that criminal division of Civil Rights quit yesterday, a mass exodus because of the decision not to investigate this.

[Andrew Weissmann]

But just to be clear, just to put that in context, there is a decision to investigate Jerome Powell.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I just think, like, let's connect the dots here. That's going to be investigated. James Comey is going to be investigated. Leticia James going to be investigated. But what the agents did or did not do here, that's not going to be investigated. Tom Homan and the allegations about his accepting a bag of cash of $50,000 in a kava bag, that's not being investigated. Pete Hegseth and the people operating under signal in unclassified information, that is not being investigated. So I just think it's very, very important when we're talking about what is being investigated and what is not being investigated to look at the pattern here, because it's like, you don't have to take out the big crayons to get the picture here. It's like the law is for thee and not for me.

[Mary McCord]

Yeah.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So you've talked about two of the pieces here. And one thing I just will note is that when you mentioned the video, there actually now are so many videos to look at, but the New York Times has an excellent, excellent compilation that you can sort of see. And it's very much how I teach criminal procedure. And for students of mine who might be listening to this, they're going to know exactly what I'm about to say, which is when I think about a Fourth Amendment issue, like what the law requires and whether there's been a violation of the Constitution, I always tell the students, go frame by frame, think of it as a movie and think about as something develops, as you're going in time and watching either what the civilian's doing or what the law enforcement officer's doing, take it moment by moment and analyze what kind of justification there is and whether it changes over time. And I think here that frame by frame approach is going to be very useful. I totally agree with you, Mary, that we should not be jumping to the ultimate conclusion because we still don't know a lot of things. But I guess because I'm impatient and also I do have a view with the caveat, it's based on what we know. Now, what I would say is taking that frame of going frame by frame, I have significant questions about certain moments of time that I think are extremely problematic. That's not to say that there aren't answers, but I really do have a.

[Mary McCord]

Lot of questions and I think we should talk about those. I do want to say, though, there is a delta between unjustified, immoral, excessive, wrong, and maybe even civil liability for excessive force. Absolutely. There's a delta between all of that, which I think undeniably is the case here, and criminal responsibility, which requires normally a mens.

[Rebecca Ingber]

Rea.

[Mary McCord]

Right. A specific intent. Although there are state law crimes that hold people criminally responsible for killing that don't require a specific intent to kill. Those are manslaughter types of crimes. And we can talk about some of the issues. If the state were to try to prosecute this agent, what would happen there? But let's take that frame by frame because there's been a lot of discussion about, I mean, the administration, people like you said, the Vice President, the Attorney General, Secretary Noem, the president, et cetera, have talked about this being in self defense. Right. To avoid being run over. In fact, I think she's been characterized as running over the agent, which of course you can watch the video and see that she did not run him over. There is a point, though, when he is up at the front corner of the car and as she's turning her wheels to move away and does move away from him, there may be a brushing of him or it may be that he's lunging to the car. Those are things still unclear. And that's when the first shot is fired. Right. The second and third are fired as he is out of danger because she's driving that car away. So that's a little bit of the frame by frame. But you can even get in before that to why was the ICE agent coming around from behind her car on the far side, the passenger side, while other agents are engaging her? So her gaze is out the driver's side window toward the agents who are yelling at her and trying to get her door open. This agent who shoots her comes around and then goes across the front of her car. And as she starts to pull out, it's not clear whether she ever even saw him, because he has come around while she's engaging with these other agents.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Let me just give you sort of my Fourth Amendment, sort of the Constitution, and the way I sort of think of it and the questions.

[Mary McCord]

And we've litigated this issue at ICAP in a civil case.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yeah. So one issue is just sort of, what do the officers have as legal authority to even be doing what they're doing? In other words, what allows them to say, get out of the car and to reach in and try and open the door? What is the authority for that? Normally, you have to have some predication for, like, what is the violation of law to which there is some suspicion, whether it's reasonable suspicion or probable cause. What is that? Is it that she was obstructing ice? Well, that's very problematic because there was no use of force by her. She's just sitting in her car at that point. She's not ramming her car into somebody or anything like that. So there's a real issue about what's the argument for why they're allowed to even do that.

[Mary McCord]

And let's just assume she is committing a traffic infraction. I mean, the car was sideways in the street. Yes.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So here's. There's no question that she appears to be committing a traffic violation of some sort. I'm no expert in Minnesota traffic law, to say the least, but I can be pretty sure that there's something that says, don't put your vehicle in the middle of the street. But ICE is not the traffic cops.

[Rebecca Ingber]

That's right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And so I remember when I was doing stuff with the FBI, years and years, I was a young prosecutor, and there was a war in the Columba family, and we were going to use traffic violations as a way to try and thwart that kind of violence of the hit teams roaming around the city. The FBI did that with local law enforcement that had traffic authority authorization here. Ice, I don't think, has the ability to say, well, we were doing this because of a traffic violation. So there already is the issue of what gave them the authority here. And I think it's relevant because my thoughts theory, and I want to underscore theory, because I agree with you, it's too soon. Is that there is a certain amount of we own the streets. You do what we say, if you are not complying on the one of the recordings, there is the reaction after she is shot where she is cursed at in really vulgar language.

[Mary McCord]

And it seems obvious, I think, that she has been killed or else very, very, you know, mortally wounded.

[Andrew Weissmann]

But I think the reason that that is relevant, and I have questions about their view of the law and also what their duty is to civilians, are reflected in what appears to be no lawful basis to have done what they did. With respect to the car so far, we're not even getting into the shop. And it's then reflected in the language that's used.

[Mary McCord]

That's right. And that's similar to what we've been seeing in the aggressiveness by ICE agents against not just people they perceive to be undocumented. And we know that many times they're wrong. There have been US Citizens, there's been lawful permanent residents who they've stopped based on racial profiling, but also the way they've treated protesters. And that certainly escalated after this shooting. But it's something we've been seeing place to place, this incredible aggressiveness. And remember also, while these agents are dressed in military gear, often they have long guns, masks. So. Yes. So first we start with not even clear there's any authority to be making a stop. And even if you're making a stop, you're not trying to apprehend someone suspected of murder.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Right.

[Mary McCord]

You're trying to get somebody to move their car off the road. So the aggressiveness is so disproportionate.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And one of the videos seems to have the agent who did the shooting pulling his gun out of his holster before any of this happened. In other words, before the car is sort of even, arguably sort of directed towards him.

[Mary McCord]

So he's not before the other agents try to open the door. But you mean before the shooting. That's right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yes, exactly. And so the timing of, like, why is he doing this? There's absolutely no suggestion, contrary to what the President has said, which is that I'm going to paraphrase sort of part of this activist, lunatic, dangerous fringe that does not appear to be supported based on anything we know now. But let's just take the first gunshot and let's even move aside from the fact that he put himself in front of the car, that he sort of crouches down and shoots through the windshield at her, which, you know, is, to me, is against ICE's own policy.

[Mary McCord]

It's not just to you. I mean, the policy is there, and it's a ICE DHS policy It's a DOJ policy. In all of my years. I mean, it was the policy. It's very dangerous to shoot into a. A car because if you do shoot the driver, the car is going to careen off and potentially which is what happens other law enforcement, you know, et cetera.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So there's no justification for it.

[Mary McCord]

Straight.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And that's addressed in the internal policies, which is there's no suggestion that she's a mass murderer who's about to go out and kill people. And so what is the basis for the use of force? But there's so much talk about the first bullet. But let's just focus for a moment on something that you said, Mary, in describing this, which is that there appears to be two more shots. We don't have all the ballistics, we don't have the autopsy. We don't know which shot killed her. Shot or shots, plural. We don't have all of the information. But the second and third shot, the car is gone. It's leaving, moving away. It's not anywhere near where it could hit him or another agent. And there isn't also, she's not fleeing from a crime, and she's not fleeing from a crime where she's an imminent danger to someone else. And he is shooting at a sort of 90 degree ish angle. I'm not trying to be precise because we don't have that data. Yep. What is the possible argument there? And so on the frame by frame. And I want to really focus on something which is I want to make sure people who are listening to this at least understand the way I think about this. As much as we're focusing on the agent who did this, I am equally focused on the reaction of the administration, the reaction of dhs, the reaction of the president, the reaction of the vice president, where they have come to a conclusion. Yeah. About what has happened here without an investigation. In the world I used to inhabit, Mary, where I was head of the Fraud Section, apparently that position is now going to be within the White House.

[Mary McCord]

I hope we have time to talk about that.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So that's what I did. That meant I dealt with corporate investigations, corporate crime. So a necessary part of that discussion of corporate crime was that you had an individual within a corporation who is alleged or suspected of doing wrong. But equally, you looked at how did the organization react to that, because you were trying to assess what should be the ramifications to the organization. A healthy organization would react the way you and I would marry. They would be equally appalled. They would try and figure out what went wrong in their processes and how did this happen? How do we prevent it or reduce the risk of it happening again? That's a healthy response. You know, it's not a healthy response when you've got something that appears to be wrongdoing, sometimes even blatant wrongdoing, and you say there's nothing to see here without an investigation. That's when you know there's a problem with the corporate culture. And to me, I just think the lens has to be broadened so that we're not just focused on Agent Ross and the other agents who were there, but were reacting to Secretary Nair, the Vice President of the United States. The President of the United States saying that they now know what happened. It's not what is supported in, at least to my eye, by the video. It is not supported by an independent investigation.

[Rebecca Ingber]

Yeah.

[Mary McCord]

And to the extent people are saying what more investigation. This gets back to these shots two and three, because the law is actually quite clear that you cannot shoot at a fleeing suspect in self defense when you are not in danger. That's been Supreme Court precedent. And I will note that in a civil case that my organization handled of a woman who was shot in the back, police had approached her car in a very early morning and they did not have insignia that they were police. They were looking for someone else, not her. They come up to her car door, she thinks she's being carjacked and pulls forward. Right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Is this Torres?

[Mary McCord]

This is Torres. Right. And this case went to the Supreme Court, Torres v. Madrid. After it came back from the Supreme Court, we continued to litigate it because the officers claimed that they had qualified immunity, that they were reacting reasonably. Because when she first pulled forward, much like this case in Minneapolis, there was an officer closer to the top front bumper of the car, but by the time they made their shots, she was past them. And so there was this argument that they made about what they did was reasonable. And the court, you know, rejected that in terms of them having immunity from civil lawsuit because they shot at her so many times as she is driving away. In other words, they could not be in any danger at all. And so here I think part of the investigation should be. I mean, I feel pretty confident. Shots two and three were definitely not justified. There is still, I think, some question about shot number one, given where the agent was. But things that would be considered there about whether that was a justified shot would be the agent himself violating use of force policy and putting himself in this position of danger and her potentially not even seeing him. And thinking things like that. But which shot killed her? And so one of the investigative things we don't know the answer to yet is what does the medical examiner said about the shot that killed her? What did the ballistics analysis say? We know one shot went through the windshield because you can see the bullet hole. So put together the medical examiner's autopsy report, which we don't have, the ballistics analysis. Is it the first shot that killed her? Is it the second or third shot that killed her? These are important things that investigations reveal, in addition to talking to all kinds of witnesses and talking to the agents. And these are things we would normally expect that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice would be investigating.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So what do you make, Mary, of this is a bit of a rhetorical question of the fact that at first it was announced that the FBI would be working with the state and locals on this investigation. And then the reporting is that the sitting U.S. attorney in Minnesota federal position said, no, they're not. And the FBI was like, nope, no, we're not. And now it's only a federal investigation, which means that witness statements, as you said, the car, the forensics, the autopsy, all of that is something that the state, which would have been able to normally have access to and participate. We don't have them doing that. What's your take on that?

[Mary McCord]

Well, you know, I've never seen it quite like that before. I'm sure in your career and mine as well, I've seen so many joint investigations, federal and state. Now some sometimes if the federal, sometimes if the feds want to prioritize a prosecution, a federal prosecution over a state prosecution, they'll say we want to go first and the state may defer, and then maybe we'll bring charges later or, you know, resume its investigation later. But actually sort of cutting off access to the investigation. That is highly unusual. And I think it is a real infringement on the police power of the states. The 10th Amendment reserves the police power to the states. And we have something here that is not just potentially a violation of federal law, but something that's a violation potentially of state law. Again, I think that there's a lot of facts to still tease out before we could say whether we think there's criminal responsibility. But those facts should, you know, have a chance to be put forward. The investigation should be able to go forward. And there are other things, too. There's other civil liability for this type of excessive force that could be forthcoming. And so to me, this is a real federalism issue here, where I understand the federal interests, and they'll say, supremacy Clause, we're doing an ICE operation. I understand that interest, but that interest is coming in conflict with a very significant state interest here. And I think that's partly why we see this lawsuit by the Attorney General in Minnesota, which is not specifically about this shooting, but it's about all of the stops that are happening by ice, many of them unlawful, unconstitutional, without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, things we've talked about in the past. And this is very much impacting the state, including state law enforcement that's getting called constantly to come to somebody's aid because it looks like they're being assaulted by ice.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Absolutely. One of the things that's sort of big picture and it's just like it's just staring at the face is, you know, you have the federal government saying, no, there's only going to be a federal investigation. We're not going to allow the state and locals. And you sort of say, well, what are they afraid of? And then you have the head of the federal government, the President of the United States, you have the Vice President of the United States, and you have the Secretary of DHS all saying that this was fine. So how are you going to have an independent investigation? Especially when you have the President of the United States saying, and acting in a ways that the Department of Justice is just an arm and that DHS is just an arm of the White House. But you have the determination made before the investigation. So there's every reason to be not just cynical. It's like they're telling you, right, and now you have no open civil rights investigation. Let's just contrast this. I hate to do this sort of what if. But President Obama, when he made even a remote suggestion that Hillary Clinton would never endanger national security of the United States, which was viewed as a way of sort of signaling his view that she couldn't possibly have that as an intent in connection with the email investigation. All the Republicans and people were outraged by that. And just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend that. I'm just saying that we are so far from normal. This is the killing of a woman who was peacefully protesting what was going on, and she is dead as a result of what law enforcement did. Those are sort of the undeniable facts an investigation would tease out whether there is civil or criminal liability or neither. Right. But we're not going to see any of that. That is where we are in this country, with dire, dire ramifications in terms of the message to ICE and the message to civilians who want to engage in peaceful protests. But this is such strong significance in the same way that we've seen with other people that we have talked about Abrego Garcia being perhaps the most notable.

[Mary McCord]

And, you know, in some ways these are different things. But this is a good segue to our discussion with Rebecca about internship international law because, you know, talking about the president's comments, one of the recent comments I just heard was him essentially suggesting the only thing that he is, you know, guided by or restrained by is his own sense of what is moral and what is not. And that is not what domestic law says. That's not what international law says. It's not what our constitution says. But that's clearly what his view is.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Right? This is a really good segue then, to our discussion, as you said, with our guest. You know, we rarely have guests on and we're so lucky. So let's take a break and we'll talk to our guest.

[Mary McCord]

Sounds good.

[Angie Hicks]

Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of angie. When you use Angie for your home projects, you know all your jobs will be done well, from roof repair to emergency plumbing and more done well. So the next time you have a home project, leave it to the pros. Get started at angie.com Tyler Redich here.

[Tyler Redick]

From 2311 Racing game night's fun until someone spends five minutes lining up one shot. Chalk, breathe, rechock still aiming while they figure it out, I fire up Champa Casino. I can spin anywhere, anytime and there's always a new social casino game game every week. Spins happen way faster than that shot. Waitings for amateurs play [e-mail] let's jumba.

[Mary McCord]

No purchase necessary VGW Group Void we're prohibited by law.

[Andrew Weissmann]

CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Jumba Casino Find.

[TikTok Business Representative]

New customers on a platform that's here to stay. With TikTok for business, anything is possible. If you've ever thought about advertising your business on TikTok, now is the time to do it. You can drive more customers to your website, sell products right in the app, and you can even use TikTok's creative tools to easily make content and find creators to help sell your products for you. Find new customers today, just open your browser, type in get started.TikTok.com TikTok ads and grow your business fast.

[Mary McCord]

As we mentioned at the top, we are thrilled today to have Rebecca Ingber join us. Rebecca is a professor of law at Cardozo School of Law and an expert and that is why we asked her to join us in international law and national security, foreign relations law, and the constitutional separation of powers. She serves as co Director of the Florsheimer center for Constitutional Democracy and is a Senior Fellow at the Reece center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law, which is of course the center that produces just security. But I think particularly relevant for today's conversation, in addition to all of her academic success and scholarship, is that she served as Counselor on International Law in the Office of the Legal advisor at the US Department of State from 2021 to 2023. So we are so thrilled to have you join us today, Rebecca. Obviously last week we did talk on the podcast Just Andrew and I, based on our own national security lack of experience, domestic law experience, and some experience I've had with the indictment Abu Khatala right for the attack in Beng. That was a military assist to law enforcement to capture him and bring him here to face justice. But what we really wanted to focus in on is on the international law aspects. And we did talk last week about Article 2, subsection 4 of the UN Charter and our view that the US incursion into Venezuela violated that provision. But we want your view, as the international law expert, is there any justification, self defense or anything else for this incursion that would sort of excuse it from that provision of the UN Charter?

[Andrew Weissmann]

By the way, we always ask compound questions, but that also gives you the advantage. You can choose what you want to answer. What's the best case on the other side and if you think it's wrong, why? So that we're sort of addressing the most serious arguments that could be made against a particular proposition. Leaving aside for the moment domestic law issues, what does international law have to say?

[Rebecca Ingber]

So there's no legal justification under international law. I mean, you're not going to be surprised to hear me say that. And if we're talking about what's the best legal argument the administration could make, I think it's pretty interesting that they have seemed to sort of disavowed even the sort of terrible but squishy legal arguments they might have made in defense. So at the most basic level, and I know you guys have probably discussed this, but the UN Charter prohibits the use of force between states. This is Article2.4 of the UN Charter, and this is, in my view, the backbone rule of the entire international order in the modern world. Before this rule was developed and codified in the UN Charter, states could use force as a tool of policy. They could use force because they were in an Argument over territory or resources. And this was a huge momentous moment when the world came together and said no more. There are limited exceptions to that prohibition. The UN Security Council can authorize force and states can use force in self defense against an. An armed attack. So if we were repelling an actual armed attack, or if we were repelling an attack that was on its way, an imminent armed attack, we could use force in order to repel that attack. We could use the necessary and proportionate force to repel that attack. None of that, of course, is relevant here. There isn't a UN Security Council resolution.

[Andrew Weissmann]

It might be relevant to Venezuela, by the way. I mean, wouldn't.

[Rebecca Ingber]

It's absolutely.

[Andrew Weissmann]

To me, it's like it works the other way, which is Venezuela was the one that had the incoming. Yeah.

[Rebecca Ingber]

Our use of force against Venezuela, which was, no question, use of force. I think the best view of it is that it was itself an armed attack, which gives Venezuela the right to repel it in self defense.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Rebecca, can I ask you something basic? So you said this is the UN Charter. What makes that enforceable and binding in any way domestically? In other words, I understand why it is something that is wonderful to have with the sort of law of nations, to have a civilized world. But what makes that so that the President of the United States says, you know, he has to consider that, as opposed to saying, well, yeah, the UN wants it, but it's not actually operating as a constraint here.

[Rebecca Ingber]

I'm so glad you asked that because I think these are common misconceptions about international law that are really dangerous. So this isn't something the UN wants. This is a treaty that the United States pushed for, helped negotiate, in fact, really drove and signed. Right. We signed it. We then got the advice and consent of the Senate to ratify it, and then the President ratified it. So this is a commitment of the United States and international law. The international commitments that the United States has taken on are US Law.

[Mary McCord]

I think that's the key point.

[Rebecca Ingber]

Right.

[Mary McCord]

Once we have agreed to that treaty, ratified it by the Senate and the President, it's the same as domestic law, right?

[Rebecca Ingber]

It is. And in fact, under the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land. It's the equivalent of a federal statute. And a federal statute is also PS Binding on the US President.

[Mary McCord]

I heard he's bound only by his own morality.

[Rebecca Ingber]

I'm just, I'm throwing that out there. I'm throwing that out there. We've been told that the War Powers Resolution, for example, is also Fake law. So there's been a lot of fake thrown around, not just with respect to international law. And I actually think that that's not unconnected. I think the same sort of forces that have been at work over time to denigrate the role of international law. And again, these are our commitments. I mean, perhaps people might feel less negatively about it if we just thought of it as, do we uphold our commitments? We've taken on this commitment. It's not imposed by some external actor. And are we going to make good on it? The forces that have denigrated that as law said, well, that's not really binding and the President can do whatever he wants because he was just elected. That same argument could work for the Constitution, for federal statutes. And so I do see that as a trajectory that's really dangerous.

[Mary McCord]

And I will say that is an argument that this President has made when violating federal statutes.

[Rebecca Ingber]

Exactly.

[Mary McCord]

And provisions of the Constitution. You know, I was elected. This is what the people want, but that's not the system the framers set up. So on this question, sort of of Article 2. Four, does it make any difference whether this was a law enforcement operation to capture someone who's already been indicted in the United States or whether, as the President said within hours of the operation that the U.S. is going to run the country? Does that matter in terms of how Article2.4 or other provisions of the UN Charter apply domestically?

[Andrew Weissmann]

By the way, I think. Didn't the President say that he's. I think just recently that he's the acting president.

[Rebecca Ingber]

I saw that he's the acting president of Venezuela. Yeah, he posted that. So there's a number of different factors in which this might be important. So first and foremost, in terms of the original violation of the UN Charter, it does not matter what our purpose is for using force unless we have a justification that is bound up in international law, for example, self defense, which we did not have here. So it doesn't matter what we call it if we're calling it a law enforcement exercise. We bombed our way into a country to capture their de facto head of state. So another question, though is what's going to happen going forward? That was an armed conflict. So by doing that, by engaging in this use of force, we exchanged fire with their security services and I believe military. That's an international armed conflict between the United States and Venezuela. Does that armed conflict now continue? And I think there are very good arguments and the bulk of expert opinion would say that we continue to be in an ongoing armed conflict with Venezuela. We're continuing to hold their de facto head of state that they have not disavowed, the President continues to threaten them with very real military force that is surrounding the country. And so there has not been any decisive conclusion to that conflict. And there, I think, the intent to quote, unquote, run the country, I think is very relevant to this point, that this is not over.

[Andrew Weissmann]

What exactly can the United nations do then? In other words, we have this international agreement. We also have this bound up in domestic law. And so to me, a sort of natural question that I have, and I'm sure a lot of our listeners have, is what are the ramifications? So if there is this clear violation of the UN Charter, where in God's green earth is the United Nations? Like, what are they doing? And then the second is what can Congress do at this point? And I mean, again, in the hypothetical world where Congress is acting. But you know, we did have a vote in the Senate on the War Powers Resolution. So what are their options when, if they think that the United States and or the President of the United States is acting against international and domestic law, what can they do?

[Rebecca Ingber]

So the use of force in the international space has always been policed primarily through the outrage of other states. And so this is not an area where there is always going to be a court that has jurisdiction that can intercede, although sometimes they do. There are several cases, for example, of the International Court of Justice. But the court has to have jurisdiction in order to get involved. And even then, there isn't necessarily some global police force. There's no global police power that's going to enforce that ruling, and we wouldn't want that. That's exactly what critics of international law believe exists and does not exist. It's a disaggregated system. And so what we have to watch here is the reaction of other states. It is my view that it is not the violation of law, whether it's an international space or domestic space that spells the end of the system. That means the erosion of the norm. It's the reaction. Is there any accountability? Is there a strong pushback? And for example, when Russia engaged in its further invasion of Ukraine in 2022, there were many people who said, this is the end of the world order. This is the end of the UN Charter. My feeling was absolutely not. Look what's happening. The world has come together to stand up and mark that out quite clearly as an act of aggression. And so we have to watch and see what's happening here. The initial responses of other states were Pretty weak. But that's evolving. And we are seeing them sort of wake up to what's going on. They're thinking, wait and see, approach for a lot of reasons. There's a lot of fear of this president and the international community in Europe. There are lots of reasons why they may not be responding. They might also in some cases agree in part with the cause. Right. This was a terrible leader, that people are not going to shed tears over his departure. But whatever the reason, a lack of response, a lack of outrage will be the thing that starts to erode that norm. And that's the same on the domestic plane. So you asked about Congress. The separation of powers is policed in much the same way. Sometimes these issues go to a court, but even if they do, there is no police power that is going to restrain the President if he chooses to defy a Supreme Court order on a question involving the separation of powers. No, Congress didn't authorize that. No, Congress gets to do that.

[Mary McCord]

Right.

[Rebecca Ingber]

And they often don't intercede. So it's really no different. And so what we have to see is, does the public care and does Congress care? Congress will care if the public cares. And what is the reaction? And when we see weak responses, that is what erodes the rule of law, not the violation in the first place.

[Mary McCord]

To that point, we have seen on the Senate side a joint resolution under the War Powers act that has been introduced and at least moved forward to the potential of having a vote that would say, you need to stop this international armed conflict. And that's, I guess, one of the tools. But suppose, well, first we could debate whether that has any chance of getting through both the Senate and the House. But assuming it does, it still goes to the president's desk, right?

[Rebecca Ingber]

That's right. So of course the president can veto it. And, you know, in the post Chadha world, Congress no longer has the options that they tried to create for themselves in avoiding that result. But going forward, in terms of how this gets looked at as precedent. Right. It may well be that in the moment, Congress, especially a Congress that has not been exercising its muscles in the war power space, a Congress that has not taught and educated the public that to expect that Congress will be involved in this space, thus they're not gonna necessarily feel the same outrage that they would have at a different time in space if Congress had readily been involved. They're not going to have all the tools in the moment to suddenly wake up and act and change the scenario on the ground in this moment. But they can change how we look at this as precedent going forward, they can affect whether or not these are continuous powers that keep accreting to the President or do they actually try to reassert themselves and reset the balance.

[Mary McCord]

And you know, we're seeing with that vote to move this measure forward, there were a number of Republicans who did join in voting to move this forward. But to go back to a minute to the precedent question that we've been talking about, I mean I mentioned and talked about last week the fact that the US had done an operation in Libya after the Benghazi attack in order to capture Abu Khattala who'd been indicted and he was brought back to the US he was tried and convicted and is serving his sentence now. And I explained at the time that the government did file under Article 51 of the UN Charter a notice that it took this action in self defense. And that was a time when there was no recognized leadership government of Libya. It was still in sort of its post civil war time and it was led by various militias, warring militias really. And we had a compound there with a sitting ambassador and US staff. So the self defense aspect of it was related to the protection of the ambassador and the staff. The ambassador of course, who had been killed in this attack.

[Rebecca Ingber]

And if I'm correct, that wasn't there a suggestion, at least in our Article 51 letter, which I assumed was based on evidence that there were future attacks that they were concerned about and so that this was done to prevent, and.

[Mary McCord]

That'S where I was going to segue to the Panama incursion in order to capture Manuel Noriega and bring him to the United States for trial. How was that one different than what we saw in Venezuela?

[Andrew Weissmann]

And since we ask compound questions, let me just throw out there, what if the administration says that we understand these prior incidents and we take drugs very seriously and we view that as the attack and we view that as the ongoing attack and it's imminent because it is constantly happening and constantly people are dying. And so why are you with the drug dealers and not with civilized society? Because we really want to put an end to it. And even though it's not a bullet, it can be just as insidious. And so that's what we were doing. That's our self defense argument. And so we want to bring ourselves within those precedents.

[Rebecca Ingber]

Yeah, it's so interesting because it did seem over the course of the last year and certainly with sort of culminating in a way with all of these boat strikes over the fall that the government Was, was putting a lot of weight in the self defense basket. It was not a viable claim. I have never seen any expert or any state previously assert that the distribution of drugs, the selling of drugs is a use of force or an armed attack against a state. But it was in the self defense framework. And we thought, many of us thought that that's how they were going to seek to characterize this one. That goes back to your earlier question about what other arguments they might have made. There was also a suggestion that maybe they would try to pin this as consent on previously the government that actually was elected when Maduro took power and suggest that they had consent of the elected government. They did not do that either. So this actually relates, Mary, to your question about Noriega, because Noriega is the most obvious precedent I think here. And I guess there's two things I want to say about that. First, the bulk of opinion is of the view that Panama was illegal as a matter of international law and in fact it was condemned by the UN General Assembly. And that goes back to our question of, okay, well how is this looked upon as precedent afterward? And it's widely considered to have been illegal as a matter of the president's Article 2 authority. So if it's precedent, it's bad precedent. But even so, even saying all this right, even if this were exactly like Panama, it would be bad precedent. But I just want to note, and this is not to defend that operation, there are a lot of distinguishing features here. So before that US Operation, the Panama national assembly itself had declared a state of war against the United States. Noriega's forces had killed and wounded several U.S. forces. They'd attacked and I believe brutally tortured the wife of a service member. They'd credibly threatened attacks on US civilians generally in Panama. And finally, and here's that point that could have been relevant, the US Government claimed it was acting with the consent of the democratically elected government of Panama. So the government went to extreme lengths to demonstrate why this was lawful in that case. And it was still criticized, but it did undertake that effort. And I think all of that's important here because it helps us distinguish and see that none of those factors are present in this case. Right. So even weighed against that controversial intervention, which is their best example, this operation falls extremely short.

[Andrew Weissmann]

This may be the reason why, based on everything you're telling us, Rebecca, that Stephen Miller went out on air and said, it's like the quiet part out loud. I'm not even sure you can say that anymore. It's just like he just made it very clear that he's like, this is just might makes right, like what we are engaged in. What, Mary, what you what? I am engaged in this. Trying to understand legal precepts, understanding rule of law concepts, understanding regimes that are created Post World War II to make the world safe. He's just very much taking that on, going, I don't engage in the conversation. We have a big stick and we're going to do what we want.

[Rebecca Ingber]

Yeah, it's so short sighted. If he actually cared about the US national interest. It's so incredibly short sighted.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Walk us through that.

[Rebecca Ingber]

So this is the world order that I keep talking about, which apparently people think is a bad word these days. This is a system that the United States drove and put in place and helped establish and then helped cement and hold up on its back to keep not just the world safe, but it was in many respects a source of U.S. power. It helped entrench U.S. power, it helped entrench U.S. supremacy in the world. It helped U.S. business interests, for example, to know that there was a stable environment in which they could act. When the United States is following trade rules, when the United States is engaging in bilateral investment treaties with other countries and create systems for dispute resolution, that creates a stable system in which investors, businesses can operate. As just one example among many, when we engage in soft power, when we have exchanges with students, when we have exchanges with literature and films, when we are exporting our values abroad in a way that makes us safer, these are the reasons that, you know, the rest of the world has a love hate relationship with the United States instead of just a hate hate relationship. Right. They wanted to come study here. They wanted to come do research here. They wanted to watch our films. They wanted to watch our TV or now that dates me, our YouTube reels. These are our greatest strengths. For pennies. It is not the US Military that is our great strength. For so many reasons, it's incredibly short sighted. It is not at all in our interests. It will make the world less safe. And that's not a world that I will feel safe in.

[Mary McCord]

And it feels like it empowers others to do similar things, which is very dangerous in this present time.

[Rebecca Ingber]

Of course, yes. Was it violated in the breach before? Of course. Were there examples of states encroaching on each other's territory? Were there examples of states engaging in acts of aggression? Yes. And like I said, the most extreme examples, the world came together to fight against. In a world where every state is out for themselves, that is unstable why would any powerful, wealthy nation want to destabilize the world that helps keep it powerful and wealthy?

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yeah, we should be the last nation to be doing that, not one of the first. Rebecca, I cannot thank you enough. This is one where, you know, Mary and I had to play at international law experts. And having you come on to put this in context, explain it so clearly. Your students must absolutely adore you because it's just such a wonderful way of understanding complex issues and it's incredibly timely. Thank you so much for taking the time to join us.

[Rebecca Ingber]

Thank you so much for having me on.

[Angie Hicks]

Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of Angie. One thing I've learned is that you buy a house, but you make it a home. And for decades, Angie's helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter. Get all your jobs done [e-mail] Tyler.

[Tyler Redick]

Redick here from 2311 Racing. You think racing's tough? Try getting your friend friends to agree on dinner plans. I'm in. Wait, maybe what time again?

[Andrew Weissmann]

While they figure that out, I rev.

[Tyler Redick]

Up Chumba Casino play on your browser. No downloads necessary. No need to negotiate. Why wait on them when you can spin for yourself? Play [e-mail] let's Jumba.

[Mary McCord]

No purchase necessary.

[Andrew Weissmann]

VGW Group Voidware prohibited by law. CTNC's 21 plus sponsored by Jumbo Casino.

[TikTok Business Representative]

Looking for a new way to grow your business? With TikTok for business, anything is possible. If you've ever thought about advertising on TikTok, now's the time to do it. You can drive more customers to your website, sell products right in the app, and you can even use TikTok's creative tools to easily make content and find creators to help sell your products for you. Find new customers today, just open your browser, type in get started.TikTok.com/TikTok ads and grow your business fast.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Welcome back, Mary. So just happened, we have learned reporting that there is now a grand jury investigation that appears to be focusing on Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve, somebody who was put there by Donald Trump. But famously, there have been lots and lots of issues between the president and the head of the Federal Reserve. But there now appears to be this criminal investigation. And we also have now a video about two minutes long by Jerome Powell responding. What's going on? And more importantly, what's your take on this?

[Mary McCord]

Yes, well, we don't know exactly what the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. is investigating in terms of the exact Charges. But the speculation is, and that's speculation in part because Congressmember Luna made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice after Jerome Powell testified last spring, in June, about monetary policy, but also about the renovations taking place in the historic Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C. built in the 1930s, that has not had a sort of major full blown renovation in all those years. It's had, you know, smaller things done, but nothing like removing the asbestos, for example. And the referral, and it does appear, based on what Mr. Powell has said publicly, seems to be suggesting that he made false statements in answering questions such as is the new building going to have a VIP dining room and a VIP elevator and water features and marble? And he explained that those things were in the initial plans, but because of cost overruns, it's not, not going to have those features anymore. And the allegation, at least from Congressmember Luna, was that's a false statement because the plans had those features in them. She argues that there's a potentially a false statement when he said the buildings haven't had a major or significant, I can't remember his adjective renovations since they were built in the 1930s. And she says there was a renovation in 1999. So we're going to quibble over what's major and what's not major.

[Andrew Weissmann]

You cannot make a criminal case based on that. But just to be clear that you cannot make a criminal case on that unless literally you have him on tape beforehand saying, this is major. But I'm going to lie about it. I mean, it's just not going to happen.

[Mary McCord]

Because false statements in perjury, right, they require that you're knowingly making a statement that you know to be false and that it's material. And so none of this makes it so. This is a great time, I think, to play the clip from Chair Powell because he sees this for what it is, which is this is retribution for the Fed not lowering interest rates. Shall we play that?

[Andrew Weissmann]

Sure.

[Jerome Powell]

This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress's oversight role. The Fed, through testimony and other public disclosures, made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project. 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.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So, Mary, I just want to make sure people understand why it is important to have an independent Federal Reserve and the markets understand that the international community understands that, which is that what is in the interest of the public, which is not something that's decided every four years. And it's not trying to make the economy look shiny and rosy for the next election. It is trying to think about the health of the economy long term so that the interests of the Federal Reserve and the public can be at odds with somebody's electoral interest, which is that they want to have the year or two before an election look as good as possible, even if it comes at the expense of good and sound economic policy. And that's why we have this independent Fed. That is exactly what the Federal Reserve Board member says. Well, of course, you know, we have a President who views the world as everyone does exactly what I say. And there is no such thing as independence. That is why that's sort of the idea that we've been talking about with Rebecca, this idea that there's no check, there's no balance, it's all me.

[Mary McCord]

I think this is a really important time contextually also because next week the Supreme Court is actually going to be hearing arguments on the President's attempt to fire another member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Lisa Cook. The statute says it's gotta be for cause. He claims he has cause because of some alleged mortgage fraud. This is the go to when it comes to investigating folks. And my understanding is that the head of the Federal Housing Administration, Pulte, who pushed these other mortgage fraud investigations, also wanted to push one. With respect to Mr. Powell. I believe that is not, I think, what's being investigated by the U.S. attorney's office, at least based on what we know so far. But this argument next week about whether the President could fire her and remember this is part of his firing of Democratic appointed board members to multi member commissions at places like the nlrb, the ftc, the cfpb, the Alphabet soup of federal agencies that Congress intended to be independent. And while the Supreme Court has really been pulling back on the idea that Congress can dictate independent bipartisan boards and the President can't fire people, they have at least dropped several signals that the Federal Reserve Board might be different. And I think it's for the very reasons you talked about, the significance of the way it sets monetary policy that impact the entire world, just not the United States and how it is so important that it be not just used for political purposes. The Supreme Court has indicated that maybe because of its history, it's different. And I actually think the timing of this at the time of this argument.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Next week, terrible for the government, I.

[Mary McCord]

Think a good thing for the Supreme Court to be like, okay, this is.

[Andrew Weissmann]

What you'd be buying, right? Like between your presidential immunity decision, between this, like, this is what you're buying, which is complete retribution claims. One quick thing. Look, obviously we do not know what the D.C. u.S. Attorney's office has. It seems highly unlikely that there's anything there. Obviously that is is Jerome Powell's view. But it is worth remembering we don't know if they have some smoking gun. Although, again, there's just no sign of that. And one thing I will say is in looking at and preparing for today, I went to the Federal Reserve website.

[Mary McCord]

I did, too.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And we can put a link to it in our show notes, because I was comparing it to what Jerome Powell said, and there's kind of a one to one between what he testified to. And then on the website, the Federal Reserve explains the renovations, it explains cost overruns, it explains why things were delayed, it explains why things were more expensive. Now, that doesn't mean that the government can't necessarily show that not only is Jerome Powell's testimony wrong, but the website's wrong, but they'd also have to show it's intentionally so. But to me, it looks like total. This is the legal chart term bs, right? And remember, put this in context of what we've seen with respect to the vindictive and selective prosecution motion that is pending. But with respect to the criminal case of Mr. Abrego Garcia, it was motions brought by Letitia James, motion brought by James Comey. And here it's significant. I mean, Jerome Powell, in addition to having been selected by Donald Trump himself, is a serious person. He is. This is not a cavalier. This person is not a partisan person. And the reaction of the markets and the reaction of Democrats and Republicans to this, I think has been appropriate, that this is abusive. And this really is one where it's like, you know, if you've got something, let's see it. What is it that you really think you're investigating here? And especially when it comes to the Federal Reserve, this just smacks of, we have muscle to make you cave to what we want you to do, but he took an oath of office to represent the public and to have it be the public's best interest. I would hope that within the Federal Reserve there is a closing of ranks to support him. Again, assuming that there is nothing there. This is such a dangerous, dangerous development in terms of all of our lives and the way it could affect us.

[Mary McCord]

And, you know, Mr. Powell has been very Very quiet. Through a lot of criticism, rightfully, I think. But here I think he made the right decision to say, I'm going to say something about this because this is wrong and it's being used for political purposes. I thought it was a powerful statement. Speaking of lack of independence, final topic, and this is a near and dear one to you, which is this announcement that a new Assistant Attorney General position is being created to handle fraud investigations nationwide. For those who don't know, and I'm sure everybody does, I'm being a little facetious here. Assistant Attorney General positions are in the Department of Justice. I was an acting Assistant Attorney General. There was not an Assistant Attorney General position for nationwide fraud. There was a section chief. It was you. It was Andrew Wiseman who led the fraud section. And you did, guess what? Nationwide fraud investigations. But what's remarkable to me is not that they would say, oh, let's elevate that to an Assistant Attorney General position. That's fine, it's that the announcement is that position is not going to report to the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, or the Attorney General, Pamela Bondi. That position will report to J.D. vance and the President of the United States.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So in addition to the idea that it's like there's no independence, I mean, this is, let's write out loud. There is no independence whatsoever. It is just the President is just going to take this control. And by the way, this person is able to consult with and give policy advice and direction to the Department of Justice. I mean, it's just crazy, topsy turvy. But the other part of this is when Pam Bondi got to the Department pursuant to the policy changes that were being dictated, the Fraud section was largely gutted of what its task was. So Foreign Corrupt Practices act largely gutted. So the idea that, oh, we now need this new position. Why? Because you're really going to start prosecuting white collar crime, which is the huge purview of that, you know, health care crime was. That's one where that was being done and is being done by the fraud section. So you sort of have to ask yourself, like, 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 that doesn't have to. Even to the extent that Pam Bondi or Todd Blanche is that they're in any way a constraint on the White House, this just obviates that because they just get to act unilaterally. But that's its story to be continued when we see see how that operates. Well Mary, this was a great show. Thanks everyone for listening. And remember, you can subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcasts and you can get this show there and other msnow originals ad free. And you'll also get subscriber only bonus content. And if you sign up before the end of this month, you'll get three months free.

[Mary McCord]

This podcast is produced by Vicky Vergelina. Our associate producers are Iggy Manda and Rana Shabazzi. Colette Holcomb is our intern, Greg Devens II and Hazik Bin Ahmed Fared are our audio engineers, Katie Lau is our Senior Manager of Audio production and Aisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNow Audio.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Search for Main justice wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series.

[Angie Hicks]

Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of angie, and one thing I've learned is that you buy a house, but you make it a home. Because with every fix, update and renovation, it becomes a little more your own. So you need all your job jobs done well. For nearly 30 years, Angie has helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter, from plumbing to electrical, roof repair to deck upgrades. So leave it to the pros who will get your jobs done well. Hire high quality pros at angie.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Com.