Frontpage videos

Minneapolis isn't the first city that President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have targeted for aggressive U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids; cities ranging from Chicago to Los Angeles have been targeted as well. But Minneapolis has suffered the worst ICE violence, and the fatal shooting of unarmed motorist Renee Nicole Good by agent Jonathan Ross on January 7 continues to generate outrage.

Trump is threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to the unrest in Minneapolis. And attorney Ty Cobb — who served as a White House lawyer in the first Trump Administration but is now a scathing critic of the president — warned that the tensions in Minneapolis could go from bad to worse if Trump does that.

During a Sunday, January 18 appearance on MS NOW, Cobb compared Trump's two administrations and argued that he is more dangerous now because of the "sycophants and enablers" encouraging his worst ideas.

Cobb explained, "I don't have any recollection of any discussion of the Insurrection Act in my time (with the first Trump Administration). But there were guardrails back then. There were people who could say 'no' to the president. And now, he's surrounded by sycophants and enablers and people who don't say no. I mean, it's just stunning the number of people that have signed on for what's going on in Minnesota and what's going on in Greenland — you know, things that would have never been tolerated in the first 250 years of our democracy."

The attorney continued, "But I do think he wants — desperately wants — to invoke the Insurrection Act. I think it's come upon him a little sooner than he and (White House senior adviser) Stephen Miller and others had planned. I think martial law is definitely in the cards. And it's a way that he'll be able to control the elections."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

President Donald Trump continues to repeat the claim that undocumented people are being allowed into the U.S. to vote illegally.

During a panel discussion on CNN Saturday, host Abby Phillip reported that Trump’s apparent hunt for evidence is coming up empty.

"The New York Times reports that a review shows no widespread fraud," she read. "Of the nearly 50 million registrations checked, just 10,000 cases were opened. Now, that is 0.02 percent. And by open, that might not even be evidence of fraud. It could be that the system that they use mistakenly flagged people who are citizens."

Phillip cited one Florida case in which a woman submitted more than 100 names she claimed were fraudulent voters.

"Turned out it was less than a handful that were actually legitimately people who may not have been, may not have been citizens," Phillips said. "There's nothing there.'"

A fight quickly broke out between a conservative commentator and a columnist after the former, Joe Borelli, asked why, if the states have nothing to hide, they aren’t just handing over all of their data. Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Solomon Jones explained that it is unconstitutional and that the U.S. Constitution gives the states full control over elections.

"I think that you're talking about things that could happen, things that might happen, things that people have proposed as opposed to what's happening right now," said Jones. "And the evidence says that there aren't people who are undocumented immigrants voting, in these elections in any way that could actually impact the election. That's been a myth that the Republicans have pushed for years."

Commentator Chuck Rocha explained that he was once an election judge in East Texas, and that there have been municipalities where legal immigrants who pay taxes and participate in the community were the subject of ballot measures asking whether citizens agreed they could vote in local elections. He said that some of those small municipal elections, immigrants have been allowed to vote. No immigrants have been given the right to vote in a federal election.

Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Sheriff Danny Ceisler canceled his office's coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after it became clear that it increased public safety problems.

"So what we saw in Bucks County, and really across the country, is when you mix local law enforcement with immigration enforcement, that torches the relationship between immigrant communities and law enforcement," said Ceisler."And we rely on those communities to call 911 to report crime, to come into the courthouse and testify," he noted.

"And we saw a decrease in all of that cooperation, which isn't just a public safety problem for those immigrants. That's a public safety problem for the entire community."

Despite law enforcement cutting cooperation, Bucks County is not a sanctuary county in the state.The sheriff is an elected post, he noted, and while campaigning, what he witnessed was that the overwhelming majority on both sides wanted the same thing.

"They want a secure border. They want actual, bona fide criminals who have received due process to be deported, but they don't want the people who are here because they want the same quality of life as us, who are paying taxes, who are really lifting up the community in ways that we don't even see," he added.

Sheriff Ceisler added that he has no concerns that the county will become less safe after this move."So we have had this kind of level of cooperation with ICE for decades, where ICE does its work. And if we have people in our custody, we turn them over," he said. "But when you're a law enforcement executive like I am, you have limited resources. I only have so many deputies, and we have our office's mission. We have our responsibilities. So I need my deputies focused on their work."

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

After one year into his second term President Donald Trump is losing support from his voters over economic issues.

Speaking to CNN, Franz Rowland, a Georgia farmer, complained that someone "dropped the ball in Washington." He's bothered by high prices and those not "looking out for us."

The new SSRS poll shows 58 percent of Americans believe that Trump's first year in office has been a "failure."

"Trump says, you know, be patient. The farmers are going to be better than ever. We better hurry up because we can't. We can't stand this much," said Rowland, who supported Trump hoping he would improve the economy.

"When you hear politicians and others in Washington saying the economy is doing great, the country has never been better — they need to come out here. They need to come out here and live in my shoes. The economy may do may be doing better for some people, but on the farm it ain't doing better," said Rowland.

Toy store owner Florence Allen said that her economy isn't "hot," the way Trump seems to think it is, In fact, none of her costs at home or for the store have gone down.

CNN reporter Jeff Zeleny commented, "Allen, a democrat, has owned her toy store for 20 years and tried to navigate a whiplash tariff policy that's impacted much of her inventory. When you've heard the president say, we're making all."

She wants to see Trump give that money back.

"I think for most people he's not fooling people with that line," Allen continued.

Rowland said that he was hoping that things would get a little better once Trump came back in office.

"I thought by now we would have a we'd have some really good trade. I did think there would be better by now. Yeah," he lamented.

- YouTube youtu.be

“They didn’t ask very many questions.” Independent journalist and U.S. military veteran Laura Jedeed recounts how she was hired as a deportation officer by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a six-minute interview at a job fair in Texas, despite never signing any paperwork, not having completed a background check, likely failing a drug test, and publicly sharing her opposition to the Trump administration and its anti-immigrant crackdown. “It seems like the answer to the question, 'Who are they hiring?' is: They don’t know.”

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: What happens when ICE hires agents with minimal screening, then sends them into the streets masked and armed? We look now at the agency’s hiring practices as it surges agents to Minneapolis and other cities.

We begin with an independent journalist who applied for an ICE job and was offered it without even a background check. Laura Jedeed wrote about her experience in a piece published Tuesday by Slate magazine headlined “You’ve Heard About Who ICE Is Recruiting. The Truth Is Far Worse. I’m the Proof.” — was the headline.

She begins her piece, “The plan was never to become an ICE agent. The plan, when I went to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Career Expo in Texas last August, was to learn what it was like to apply to be an ICE agent. Who wouldn’t be curious?” she said.

Laura Jedeed joins us now from Portland, Oregon.

Laura, would you take it from there? Explain what exactly you did, what this fair was, and then how you applied to work for ICE, and what happened.

LAURA JEDEED: Absolutely. So, the hiring event, basically, you brought your résumé in, you handed it over. They were going to do an interview, and they were promising on-the-spot hiring, to where you could, in fact, walk out with your $50,000 bonus that day, possibly.

I went in. I handed in my résumé, which was a — I did a skills-based résumé. I’m a veteran. I served two tours in Afghanistan. So, on the surface, the résumé looked pretty good. Had a very brief interview, took all of six minutes. They didn’t ask very many questions. And then I left, assuming I would never hear back, because I’m a very googleable person. I have an unusual name. I’m the only Laura Jedeed on the internet. And I make no secret of how I feel about ICE and Trump and all of it.

So I was not expecting several days later to receive a tentative offer. I missed it in my inbox, and it sunk to the bottom, which means that I never filled out the paperwork they requested. I never accepted the tentative offer. I never filled out my background check paperwork. I never signed the affidavit saying I committed no domestic violence crimes. None of it.

A few weeks later, I got a message from Labcorp saying that ICE wanted me to do a drug test, and I went ahead and did that. I was pretty sure I wouldn’t pass. I had partaken in legal cannabis six days before the test. But why not waste some of their money, right? And then, nine days after that, I decided I wanted to — you know, I was curious. Had they processed the drug test yet?

So I logged on to the ICE hiring portal. And what I found was that not only did the drug test not seem to be relevant, I had been — I was listed as having joined ICE as of three days earlier. I had listed that I had accepted the offer. They had offered me a final position as a deportation officer. My background check was listed as completed three days in the future from when I was looking at it. So, it seems like the answer to the question, “Who are they hiring?” is: They don’t know.

AMY GOODMAN: Wow. You write in the piece, “At first glance, my résumé has enough to tantalize a recruiter for America’s Gestapo-in-waiting.” You’re likening ICE to the Gestapo?

LAURA JEDEED: Absolutely, and I don’t think that’s in any way hyperbole. We have armed, masked thugs on our street right now who are brutalizing, detaining and murdering people with apparent impunity, a carte blanche, a license to kill from our government. And they can’t even keep track of who’s behind the masks. I don’t believe for a second they’re keeping track of who’s a U.S. citizen, who needs to be deported, where these people even are. These disappearances, where people vanish into the system, is it on purpose, or are they really that sloppy with paperwork? Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. This constitutes a national emergency. We have unknown, armed thugs in masks who are terrorizing citizens.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you have served in the military. You deployed twice. Can you talk about what that experience taught you? And also, you did do an interview with an agent, and I’m wondering if you could tell us what that agent said to you and where that went.

LAURA JEDEED: Absolutely. So, I joined the military right out of high school. I really believed in the whole “war on terror” thing. I really thought we were going over to spread freedom and democracy, and what have you. And when I got there, it became very evident very quickly that that was not the case, and that we were doing very — it was a bad war, and we should not have been there —

AMY GOODMAN: Where were you?

LAURA JEDEED: — telling people what to do. I was in eastern Afghanistan for the first deployment, western Afghanistan for the second. So, I did not see combat, but as a military intelligence collector, I saw plenty of the decisions that got people killed on both sides that didn’t need to happen.

So I came back very disillusioned, like a lot of people, and actually like the ICE agent that I spoke to, which, by the way, this interview wasn’t actually part of the hiring process. It was an optional step to see if I wanted to join up. But he told me that he was — also joined right out of high school. He also deployed. And when he got back, he also got out as soon as he could. He didn’t want anything to do with the military. But he had a lot of trouble assimilating, as a lot of veterans do. And so, about six months later, he decided to go for law enforcement, and the rest is history. He’s been an ICE agent, he said, for about a decade. He likes the work. He feels like he’s getting instant results.

And this is very sad to me and also emblematic of a problem we have, where we use this language of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and freedom and democracy at the barrel of a gun. We did this overseas, and it’s come home in every conceivable way.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about your concerns about them not doing a background check. I mean, what does this mean for people who are documented to — well, wife beaters, people who kill women?

LAURA JEDEED: Yeah, I mean, it’s very funny that they hired a lefty journalist with a profile on AntifaWatch. That’s hilarious. But what’s not funny is they didn’t make me sign a domestic violence waiver. So, how many people with domestic violence convictions are running around with guns in our cities terrorizing people? How many people who have been committed of sex crimes or crimes against children are in charge of detention centers where there’s no oversight, where people won’t be missed and won’t be believed? The horror, it just — it boggles the mind how bad this really is.

AMY GOODMAN: And you were hired to be a deportation officer. What exactly is that? Where would you serve?

LAURA JEDEED: Yeah, so, yes, deportation officer. Basically, the agent was very keen on letting me know that I wouldn’t be given a badge and a gun right away. I wouldn’t be out in the street messing people up. I would probably have to push paperwork for about six months before I got there. And when I expressed that that was fine with me, with my analyst background, he — actually, the atmosphere changed. He was like, “No, listen, we want everyone on the street with guns eventually.” And I had to reassure him that that was also fine. It seems like the focus is very much getting people out on the street with guns, and the focus of the people applying, apparently, is to get out on the street as quickly as possible to brutalize people.

AMY GOODMAN: I’ll just end by asking you — you said you signed up to fight the war on terror, and you served twice in Afghanistan. You call what’s happening here in the United States “the war on terror come home.”

LAURA JEDEED: Yes, this is — it is very sad. It is not surprising, but it is very sad. This is a national emergency. This is a state emergency. And frankly, it’s past time that governors called up the National Guard to protect the citizens, who elected them to keep them safe from the people actually terrorizing us in the streets.

AMY GOODMAN: Laura Jedeed, I want to thank you for being with us, freelance journalist who writes regularly on her Substack at FirewalledMedia.com. We’ll link to your new piece for Slate, which is headlined “You’ve Heard About Who ICE Is Recruiting. The Truth Is Far Worse. I’m the Proof.” We’ll link to it at democracynow.org.

Nebraska mom Jamie Bonkiewicz filmed her interaction with Secret Service agents who came to her door because of a tweet.

"The Secret Service came to my door today because of a tweet. No threats. No violence. Just words. That’s where we are now," she wrote on X in a thread about the ordeal.

"For anyone doubting me. Here they are," Bonkiewicz said, posting a photo of a local police officer and the federal agent as she stood with her screen door open.

She was asked about the comments she made online, and she made it clear, "I want to see their trials."

He then asked if she goes to protests, which she refused to answer.

"Why do you want to know that?" Bonkiewicz asked.

"I'm just curious," he responded. "For certain questionnaires, we have to ask."

He asked if there were weapons in the house and she said there were not. Bonkiewicz was also asked if she "traveled to any Democratic functions or rallies."

"I just answered you," she said about the question he'd previously asked.

"Anything else you want to tell me? Any statements at all?" the agent asked.

Her husband, who was filming the incident, asked what is considered crossing the line on social media.

"Something like this, a veiled threat," he said, shrugging. "Is it a threatening nature? Now that I know you didn't mean anything by it, it's basically a non-issue."

He asked her again what she meant by the comment, and she made it clear she was talking about officials having Nuremberg-style tribunals for those who enabled unlawful behavior.

Legal commentator Allison Gill spoke with Georgetown University Professor Steve Vladeck on her podcast "The Breakdown" about what it means to invoke the Insurrection Act.

On Friday, President Donald Trump's Justice Department subpoenaed Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, claiming they were obstructing law enforcement.

Legal experts reacted to the investigations and subpoenas with contempt. One noted that he feared the move was a pretext to the Insurrection Act. The major part of the law mandates cooperation with the state and local government. Trump doesn't have that. CNN reported that Trump's allies aren't all on board with using the act.

We view military enforcement of domestic law as corrosive to civil society," said Vladeck, characterizing it as "a break-glass situation that we should have only for emergencies."

Leaders have been reluctant to go that far in the past. Even Trump, who nearly invoked the Act after the George Floyd murder in Minneapolis.

In the past, state and local leaders had been eager to be helpful, and the law had been used sparingly. Leaders also "tended to have factual predicates where one of two things was true," Vladack listed.

First, there must be agreement and cooperation between state and federal officials.

Second, Trump appears to be confused about what the law actually does.

"I think he also has in his mind this view that the statute lets him do more than it does. Like, I think to him, invoking the Insurrection Act is tantamount to imposing martial law. And it's not right. It's actually just saying you can have the army next to ICE and the FBI doing the same things. That's problematic enough in its own right, but it's I think there's a disconnect between what Trump thinks he's getting and what it would actually do."

Gill agreed that Trump appears to misunderstand what powers the Insurrection Act gives him.

"The president can't deploy the National Guard unless the regular forces fail, which is the military. And since that hadn't happened, you can't deploy," she said.

After Gill read through the full section of the law, Vladeck explained, "the problem is is that if you read that language literally and out of context, you know, a single private citizen who parks their SUV in front of the garage that the ICE officers are driving their vehicles out of is, you know, maybe impeding the ability of federal law enforcement officers. No one would ever have thought that that was sufficient to justify an invocation of the Insurrection Act."

So, he added, it appears the White House has "a bit of a disconnect between what the statute says in a vacuum and how it's always been understood. And it's always been understood to require much, much more to the point of either local authorities who are overwhelmed or local authorities who are themselves the ones who are doing the obstructing."

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday refused to say whether Americans should carry their own citizenship papers to protect themselves from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), instead claiming the federal agents — even those "asking for papers" — are following the law.

A reporter at the White House asked Noem if she is "okay with federal agents and officers violating people's Fourth Amendment rights by asking for papers without reasonable suspicion?"

Noem replied: "Every single action that our ICE officers take is according to the law and following protocols that we have used for years that this administration has used, that the previous administration used. They are doing everything correctly and over and over again in litigation in the courts. We've proven that they've done the right thing."

Noem was further asked if it was within ICE's right to demand it without reasonable suspicion, and, if so, why. Noem ignored the question.

Speaking on CNN, former prosecutor Elie Honig called the practice "unconstitutional" and "illegal."

"Well, Pam, that's wrong," Honig told CNN's co-host Pamela Brown. "It's illegal and it's unconstitutional to require people to show their citizenship papers without some other basis to make a stop. So, let me be clear: In order to stop somebody, detain them, question them for immigration purposes, an officer has to have reasonable suspicion."

Honig noted it's a fairly low bar for officers to meet.

"It's lower than the bar that a law enforcement agent would need to make a stop or questioning for criminal purposes, but it's still a bar," he explained. It's not nothing. In fact, just a few months ago, in September of 2025, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court case when he reiterated that U.S. immigration agents do have to have reasonable suspicion to stop somebody to detain them, even briefly, and to question them."

"So, what you cannot do is just go arbitrarily up to people or set up a checkpoint or go door to door," Honig explained.

Wolf Blitzer called it a "pretty huge demand of the American people" that they start carrying their birth certificates or passports.

Trump is also threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act in the U.S., which would allow the president to deploy the military and federalize all state guards to go after Americans.

Freelance photojournalist Zach D. Roberts told "Status Coup News" that ICE is doing nothing more than trying to scare people.

"This is nuts! This is f—— yeah. You're right in the middle of this s——," said Roberts in a video that has been posted to X. "What the f—— is going on? This is insane."

"I've never protested in my life," Roberts continued. "My brother. My brother is here. He does it all the time. I got — dude — like I said, I'm far enough away but just close enough. And I sit in my cushy house and look at s—— and get mad. They're just trying to f—— scare people. But why shoot people?"

"You know what really p—— me off?" the photographer asked. "The fact that they detain people, cuff them, and then still beat the s—— out of them! They tell you it's immigrants. Only immigrants. It's f—— every body.

He noted that friends of his were detained and that they were simply driving home from work.

"What the f——?" Roberts questioned.

Status Coup News noted that they've been on the ground "for months" following the ICE agents as they've traveled to Los Angeles, New York City, Florida, Chicago, Charlotte and now Minneapolis.

There have been a lot of conflicting comments about the various videos showing the ICE shooting of Renee Nicole Good, a Minneapolis mom killed last week. One behavioral expert walked through how people can see the exact same video and have completely different takes on the matter.

Speaking to CNN on Wednesday, social psychologist Emily Balcetis said that she's been studying for 20 years how people look at the same evidence in a case and come to different conclusions.

Balcetis, who penned the book Social Psychology of Visual Perception, told Pamela Brown that people consider a video as a neutral witness, when that isn't necessarily the case.

"Of course, video provides important and valuable information that we need to understand the events of this case," she noted. "But it's not a complete understanding of what what has happened, because video evidence and the footage that it creates is constrained by where the camera is located and what that camera is pointed at, it can't any one video cannot take in the full complexities of a social situation like this one that we saw. The video is missing important information."

Her second point is that observers have limited visual and cognitive abilities and are trying to analyze altercations that are "complex."

"They're fast-moving. There are many moving social dynamics, and that overwhelms our ability to take in with precision and clarity all of what we're seeing at the same time, or at any one moment," said the New York University associate professor. "That means when you couple those two facts together, there are gaps in our understanding of what's happening in this video."

Viewing the video several times doesn't mean that any additional information is gathered because people tend to only see the same things over and over. It does nothing more than solidify the viewer's perspective.

"They're not seeing what they didn't see the first time. That maintains those misunderstandings," Balcetis said. "But then how do we fill in those gaps of understandings?"

She described the human brain as a "computational machine" automatically producing data based on what is viewed.

"Generations and generations have led our brains to evolve to fill in those gaps of understanding. And it does so by leveraging social identities," Balcetis continued. "The more we feel aligned with police officers or with authority will shape not just our opinions about whether that officer was culpable for the violence that we saw, but how we view that video evidence in the first place."

In studies she has performed in the lab, they discovered "the more that somebody paid attention to one target in that video, be it the police officer or anybody, that they held a negative attitude towards, the more that they were confident that that person was the aggressor, that they were the ones responsible for the violence that they observed because the more you pay attention to any one target, the what we found in the science was that the more inaccurate they were about the full scope of the case facts."

The goal is to shift understandings in an era governed by polarization.

One thing a viewer can do to account for this "is to try hard to look for the things that we didn't see the first time. If we try to pay attention to what didn't capture our attention to the thing that didn't move fast, to the thing that we didn't think was threatening in the first place, we might understand the case facts in a different way."

In her case, she didn't see Good turn her wheel sharply to the right to go around the officer. After she noticed that, she said it changed her perspective on the matter entirely.

One of President Donald Trump's longtime loyalists sees the coalition that got him elected in 2024 breaking apart.

This week, podcaster Joe Rogan lambasted the president for his ICE operations that included shooting and killing a mother of three.

“I can also see the point of view of the people that say, ‘Yeah, but you don’t want militarized people in the streets just roaming around snatching people up, many of which turn out to actually be U.S. citizens that just don’t have their papers on them,’” Rogan said. “Are we really going to be the Gestapo? ‘Where’s your papers?’ Is that what we’ve come to?”

Last September, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh that claimed American citizens are not being swept up in the raids, and if they were, they were immediately released. Rogan highlighted that it hasn't proved to be the case.

Conservative David Urban, who previously was a senior advisor to Trump's 2016 campaign, agreed with Democratic consultant Karen Finney during a CNN discussion about the matter.

"I think it is very pervasive, right?" Urban began. "Americans overwhelmingly voted — one of the president's strongest suits — Americans overwhelmingly voted for this president. If you look at the numbers and reasons given to secure the border and crack down on kind of the sieve that was the border under the Biden administration, and this administration effectively sealed that border up and did that."

At issue is that Trump "promised to go after the 'bad hombres' and the drug dealers and get those people out of America," Urban continued. There's support for that from Americans, but that hasn't been the focus of the administration.

"What there isn't support for, and the polling bears this out, this isn't David Urban's opinion, this is the polling that bears out that people do not want to see what you're seeing on your screen right now," Urban said. "They do not want to hear what Joe Rogan is saying. They don't want to see masked men, geared up like Delta Force, walking down the streets of America, asking people for their papers, throwing them on the ground, zip-tying people who are doing sheetrock, you know, gardeners, nannies. They don't want to see that. Right? That's not what they voted for."

He explained that it's one of the major reasons that Trump's approval is sinking so significantly. While he was once boasting high numbers on his handling of immigration, it is "becoming a weaker point," said Urban.

He went on to almost celebrate former President Barack Obama's administration and the way they handled immigration by stopping people at the border, but not going after people who were integrated into American society.

Urban said that someone must tell Trump that he's losing the voters.

"Look, when you lose Joe Rogan, right, you've got a problem," he added.

Legal analyst Elie Honig told CNN that after the mass resignation from the Justice Department's U.S. Attorney's Office in the Minnesota District, there could be some challenges with upcoming cases.

The New York Times confirmed on Tuesday that six prosecutors resigned, three of whom worked in the Minnesota District, after being told to target the partner of Renee Nicole Good.

Honig explained that these kinds of resignations are an example of the prosecutors "trying to tell us something" and "waving a flag" with their resignations.

"You do not see that happen. It's very rare before this administration came in, for career prosecutors, nonpartisan career prosecutors to resign in protest over something," he said. "And let me be clear about what is and is not relevant to this fatal shooting investigation: The actions and movements movements of Renee Good on that day, on that street, what she did immediately before the shooting, the way she moved her car backwards, forwards, all of that is very relevant in minute detail."

What is not relevant, however, are any of "her activities before that day, who she may have associated with [and] what her views towards ICE were." He went on to call them inappropriate to the case.

"They have nothing whatsoever to do with whether that shooting was justified justified or not," said Honig. "And so if that's the reason why these career prosecutors have resigned, then they are well supported in doing that, and I applaud them if that's the reason why."

CNN host Boris Sanchez asked what the next step is and whether the Trump administration would simply find someone else willing to "do their bidding."

Honig reiterated how rare it is for career prosecutors to resign, particularly those who've been there for a decade or more.

"These are people who've served across Republican and Democratic administrations alike," Honig said. "Many of these folks, including Mr. Thompson, served throughout the entire first Trump administration. So, it's really telling us something unusual when you see a mass resignation like this. What happens next is, somebody else gets put on the case."

The challenge, he said, is that it remains to be seen if it will be someone who is overtly partisan or who has any experience.

"The whole beauty of DOJ is that you have this very large pool of people who've been there for a long time, who have experience, who are not politically motivated, who can handle sensitive investigations like this. And when they resign, you're going to get replacements, and you may well get people who are less experienced and less impartial. And the results may show that," he closed.

As Republicans continue their exodus from the House, a CNN analyst reveals that Democrats hold an advantage in party identification over the GOP, Democrats identifying as liberal just hit a 50-year high, and Democrats — he predicts — will take back the House in the November midterm elections.

CNN analyst Harry Enten reported that “the self identified liberalness of this country is at a 50-year high.” And he noted that “more folks are identifying as liberal than at any point since the Gerald Ford administration.”

In 1976, 30 percent of Democrats said they were liberal, Enten said.

“Look at where we are today: 59 percent — 3 in 5 Democrats — say they are liberal.”

“This Democratic party is a liberal — it is a liberal party. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats now identify as liberal,” he continued. “That is also a 50-year high.”

Enten noted that “that is not the only good news for liberals.”

“The party ID margin, Democrats versus Republicans. Now get this, in the latest reading according to Gallup last quarter, it is an eight-point advantage for Democrats.”

“That looks nothing like what we saw going into the 2022 midterms when Republicans had a five-point advantage, and of course, took back the House. This is even better than what we saw Democrats had back in 2017, in quarter four, when they had a six-point advantage, and, of course, Democrats easily took back the House then.”

“Democrats are gonna take back the House,” he said.

Enten also pointed to the prediction markets, which now say there is a 77 percent chance of Democrats taking back the House in November.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) blasted the Justice Department, speaking to CNN on Tuesday amid reports that the agency will investigate Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

Powell says he was issued a subpoena on Friday. The Fed chair released a video over the weekend saying that it is an example of President Donald Trump using the DOJ to try and force him to change interest rates.

CNN co-host Pamela Brown mentioned the previous efforts by the DOJ to pursue Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calf.), New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, among others. She noted that Democrats argue that the DOJ is being weaponized for political reasons.

After blaming former President Joe Biden for "weaponizing" the DOJ against Trump with the investigation into his theft of classified documents and the probe into his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack, Greene turned her ire to Trump.

"I'll come from the standpoint that I am staunchly against any type of political weaponization of the Department of Justice. I think that is a dangerous precedent to set in America, and I hope it's something that we see come to an end," said Greene.

When asked about the protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis, Greene made it clear she supports the First Amendment above all else.

"I see that as such a sad tragedy," Greene said about the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good at the hands of an ICE agent. "It's a situation that just shouldn't have occurred. I'm certainly no ballistics expert, and I'm not an expert on law enforcement conduct. So it's — I have a difficult time judging that scenario. However, there is a woman that is dead. That is dead today. And I think that's extremely sad."

"But I will say, anytime you engage in activities that put yourself in a dangerous situation where you're impeding law enforcement, these terrible tragedies can occur," she added. "I am I'm a big proponent of peaceful protest. And that goes for any type of protest that we, we have in our country. And I'm a big believer in our First Amendment right. Americans' right to express their free speech and to protest. And I just encourage people, if you're going to protest, do it in such a way where your life is not in danger."

She said that she wants to see things calm down and that Americans "are really fed up with this."

"It just remained — all these type of violent protests remained the biggest topic that they saw on the news for so many years. And to see it bubble up again, this is not what Americans want. They really want prosperity. They want safety. They want their children to be successful. They want to be successful, and they want happy lives. And that means less drama on TV and on social media," Greene said.