>>> NOW FOLLOWING THE FATAL SHOOTINGS OF TWO U.S.

CITIZENS BY IMMIGRATION AGENTS IN MINNEAPOLIS, PRESIDENT TRUMP SENT BORDER CZAR TOM HOMAN TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE IMMIGRATION ABRASION THERE.

EARLIER HOMAN INSISTED NEITHER HE, NOR THE PRESIDENT, WANT TO SEE ANYBODY DIE BUT EMPHASIZED HOSTILE RHETORIC TOWARDS IMMIGRATION OFFICERS MUST STOP.

THIS COMES AS A PAIR OF FEDERAL AGENTS INVOLVED IN ALEX PRETTI'S DEATH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE, BUT WILL THEY ULTIMATELY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE?

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR STEVEN VLADECK SPEAKS TO HARI SREENIVASAN ABOUT THE ROLE STATE AND LOCAL COURTS CAN PLAY IN PURSUING JUSTICE.

>> STEVEN VLADECK, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A RECENT ESSAY IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" WHERE YOU ARE ARGUING ESSENTIALLY ALONG WITH LAW PROFESSOR BARRY FRIEDMAN THAT THE MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS IS A CASE WHERE WE NEED A DIFFERENT PATH TO LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

YOU'RE ASKING FOR STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS TO PICK UP THE BALL.

TELL ME WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS AND WHAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE.

>> SURE.

USUALLY OR AT LEAST HISTORICALLY WHEN FEDERAL OFFICERS CROSS THE LINE, THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT WAYS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MIGHT HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

THE FIRST WAS, OF COURSE, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ITSELF MIGHT DISCIPLINE OFFICERS WHO CROSS THE LINE ALL THE WAY UP TO AS RECENTLY AS 2019, HARI, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TOLD THE SUPREME COURT THAT WAS THE RIGHT SOLUTION WHEN A BORDER PATROL HAD SHOT AND KILLED A 15- YEAR-OLD MEXICAN NATIONAL ALONG THE U.S./MEXICO BORDER.

OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK WITH AN ADMINISTRATION THAT WON'T EVEN INVESTIGATE THE ISSUES, LET ALONE PROSECUTE THEM.

HISTORICALLY THE OTHER REMEDY WAS DAMAGES WAS A CIVIL REMEDY WHERE VICTIMS OR THEIR FAMILIES COULD SEEK DAMAGES IN FEDERAL COURT UNDER FEDERAL LAW AGAINST PERPETRATORS, U.S.

OFFICERS WHO VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS.

HARI, THE SUPREME COURT HAS REALLY MADE THOSE KINDS OF REMEDIES ELUSIVE.

THE COURT HAS ALL BUT CLOSED THE DOOR.

SO THAT REALLY LEAVES THE STATES AS THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE.

MAYBE FOR TORT REMEDIES, FOR DAMAGES, BUT ESPECIALLY FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, NOT BECAUSE THAT'S THE IDEAL SYSTEM, BUT BECAUSE IT REALLY IS ALL WE HAVE UNTIL AND UNLESS CONGRESS WERE TO PROVIDE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE REMEDIAL REGIME AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

>> SO WHAT SHOULD THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DO?

>> I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION IS HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS THE STATE OR EVEN LOCAL PROSECUTORS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, HOW MUCH EVIDENCE ARE THEY ABLE TO AMASS ON THEIR OWN?

WE'VE ALREADY HAD REPORTS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOT BEEN COOPERATING WITH THEIR ATTEMPTS TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION.

THAT, OF COURSE, IS ALSO A NEW TWIST ON WHAT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY A VERY COMMON SORT OF SYMMETRICAL BACK-AND-FORTH RELATIONSHIP.

HOW MUCH EVIDENCE CAN THEY GET ON THEIR OWN?

WE ALREADY HAD THE CITY AND STATE GO TO FEDERAL COURT OVER THE WEEKEND TO OBTAIN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BLOCKING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM GETTING RID OF ANY OF THE EVIDENCE IT COLLECTED, BUT DO THEY NEED WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO PURSUE THESE CASES?

CAN YOU GO TO A GRAND JURY, FOR EXAMPLE, BASED SOLELY ON WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THESE VIDEOTAPES?

EVEN IF YOU CAN GO TO A GRAND JURY, HARI, AT THAT POINT EVEN IF THERE'S AN INDICTMENT, THE DEFENDANT OFFICERS WOULD REMOVE THE CASE TO FEDERAL COURT AND ARGUE THEY HAVE IMMUNITY.

AT THAT POINT WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE REAL TEST FOR NECESSITY AND REASONABLENESS IN THIS CONTEXT?

HOW ARE THESE OFFICERS TRAINED?

WHAT DID THEY THINK?

WHAT WERE THEY TOLD TO DO WHEN THEY WERE CONFRONTING SOMEONE THEY WERE TRYING TO ARREST?

THESE ARE ALL QUESTIONS I THINK FOLKS ARE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE LITIGATED IF THE STATE OR LOCAL PROSECUTORS WANTED TO GO THAT FAR.

>> BACK IN OCTOBER WHEN GOVERNOR PRITZKER OF ILLINOIS SUGGESTED SOMETHING LIKE THIS, STEPHEN MILLER RESPONDED ON I.C.E.

NEWS.

>> TO ALL I.C.E.

OFFICERS, YOU HAVE FEDERAL IMMUNITY IN THE CONDUCT OF YOUR DUTIES AND ANYBODY WHO LAYS A HAND ON YOU OR TRIES TO STOP YOU OR OBSTRUCT YOU IS COMMITTING A FELONY.

YOU HAVE IMMUNE TO PERFORM YOUR DUTIES AND NO ONE, NO CITY OFFICIAL, NO STATE OFFICIAL, NO ILLEGAL ALIEN, NO LEFTIST AGITATOR OR DOMESTIC FROM FULFILLING YOUR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES.

>> FOR THE RECORD, IS STEPHEN MILLER WRONG ABOUT IT?

DO THESE PEOPLE NOT HAVE IMMUNITY?

>> SO THERE'S A DOCTRINE CALLED SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY.

THE CRITICAL POINT TO SAY AT THE TOP IS THIS KIND OF IMMUNITY IS NOT ABSOLUTE.

SO WHEN STEPHEN MILLER, WHEN J.D.

VANCE, WHEN KRISTI NOEM MAKE THESE BROAD CATEGORICAL STATEMENTS ABOUT IMMUNITY, THEY'RE LEAVING OUT THE CRITICAL NUANCE WHICH IS THAT IMMUNITY CAN BE OVERCOME.

THIS IS A DOCTRINE THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND ESPECIALLY LOWER FEDERAL COURTS IN A SERIES OF CASES DATING BACK TO 8 1890 AND THE IDEA IS YES, FEDERAL OFFICERS WHO ARE CARRYING OUT THEIR DUTIES REASONABLY AND RESPONSIBLY ARE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION ELEVATES FEDERAL LAW OVER STATE LAW, BUT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IN DOCTRINE BACK TO 1890, IT GIVES WAY WHEN THE FEDERAL OFFICER'S CONDUCT WAS NEITHER NECESSARY TO CARRYING OUT THEIR FEDERAL DUTIES, NOR A REASONABLE MEANS OF DOING SO.

SO THERE ARE THESE TWO DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS THAT WHAT THE FEDERAL OFFICER WAS DOING WHEN HE OR SHE BROKE STATE LAW HAS TO HAVE BEEN A NECESSARY PART OF THEIR FEDERAL DUTIES AND THE SPECIFIC ACTIONS HAVE TO HAVE BEEN A REASONABLE MEANS OF CARRYING THOSE DUTIES INTO EFFECT.

HARI, I DON'T WANT TO PREJUDGE ANYTHING, BUT BASED ON THE VIDEO EVIDENCE OUT OF MINNEAPOLIS, HARD TO SEE HOW YOU CAN MEET THAT STANDARD IN EITHER THE RENEE GOOD OR THE ALEX PRETTI SHOOTINGS.

THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S A DRAMATIC REALLY DEEPLY MISLEADING OVERSTATEMENT FOR STEPHEN MILLER, J.D.

VANCE, FOR ALL THESE FOLKS TO SAY HEY, YOU HAVE IMMUNITY.

IN POINT OF FACT, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.

>> YOU SAID IN YOUR PIECE THERE'S KIND OF TWO HURDLES FOR WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.

ONE WAS THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE ESSENTIALLY THE ACTIONS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MIGHT BE TAKING IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES, THAT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY MEAN IT HAS TO GO TO A FEDERAL COURT, RIGHT?

THE LIKELIHOOD OR UNLIKELIHOOD DEPENDS ON, I GUESS, THE WHIMS OF THAT ADMINISTRATION.

>> TO A DEGREE.

THE CASE WOULD LIKELY GO TO FEDERAL COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL OFFICER REMOVAL STATUTE.

THE STATUTE SAYS IF YOU'RE BEING SUED CIVILLY OR CRIMINALLY FOR STUFF YOU DID ON THE JOB AS A FEDERAL OFFICER, YOU CAN MOVE THAT CASE FROM STATE TO FEDERAL COURT, BUT EVEN IN FEDERAL COURT IT WOULD STILL BE LOCAL OR STATE PROSECUTORS.

IT WOULD STILL BE A JURY FROM MINNESOTA, NOT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY, AND I THINK PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY GIVEN THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, ANY CONVICTION WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE PRESIDENT'S PARDON POWER.

THESE WOULD BE CONVICTIONS EVEN IN FEDERAL COURT FOR STATE OFFENSES.

OF COURSE, THE GOVERNOR WOULD RETAIN THE PARDON POWER, BUT I'M NOT SURE GOVERNOR WALZ WOULD BE IN ANY HURRY TO EXERCISE IT.

I'M STILL SKEPTICAL THIS IS THE BEST ANSWER IN THE LONG TERM THAT STATE PROSECUTIONS RAISE LOTS OF COMPLEXITIES, BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION REALLY REDUCES TO IF THE CHOICE IS NO REMEDY FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO RENEE GOOD AND ALEX PRETTI AND WHAT ELSE HAS HAPPENED IN MINNEAPOLIS VERSUS THE IMPERFECTIONS OF STATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, SEEMS INCREASINGLY OBVIOUS TO ME WE SHOULD BE PREFERRING THE LATTER.

>> I WONDER IF IN THE COURSE OF THEIR INVESTIGATION RIGHT NOW IF THERE'S A MINNEAPOLIS POLICE INVESTIGATION THAT'S TRYING AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES ARE NOT BEING HELPFUL, WHAT ARE WAYS FOR THEM TO GET AROUND THAT?

>> SOME OF THIS COMES DOWN TO STUFF WE DON'T KNOW AND PROBABLY WON'T KNOW FOR SOME TIME, WHICH IS HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DO THE LOCAL AND STATE OFFICIALS ALREADY HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION?

HAVE THEY TALKED TO THE RELEVANT WITNESSES?

HAVE THEY BEEN ABLE TO BUILD A COMPREHENSIVE DATABASE OF EVERY SINGLE VIDEO TAKEN AT THE SCENE?

DO THEY HAVE ANY ACCESS TO ANY FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MANY SHOTS WERE FIRED?

DO THEY HAVE ACCESS TO AN AUTOPSY?

I THINK THERE'S A REASON WHY WE AREN'T HEARING A LOT PUBLICLY ABOUT THESE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT I WOULD EXPECT LOCAL AND STATE PROSECUTORS TO BE MAKING A LOT OF NOISE AT LEAST BEHIND THE SCENES IF THEY ARE BEING THWARTED IN THEIR EFFORTS TO UNCOVER THESE MATERIALS.

WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THEM GO TO COURT ONCE IN THE CASE THAT PRODUCED THE TRO BARRING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FROM DESTROYING ANY EVIDENCE.

WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AGAIN IF THERE CONTINUES TO BE A LACK OF COOPERATION.

>> SO A FEDERAL OFFICER, THEN, IF I'M HEARING YOU RIGHT, CAN BE CONVICTED OF SOMETHING IF IT'S BROUGHT BY STATE PROSECUTORS AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE THAT COULD PARDON.

CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THERE AREN'T A LOT OF EXAMPLES OF THIS HISTORICALLY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN VERY LUCKY TO NOT HAVE THAT MANY CASES WHERE FEDERAL OFFICERS BROKE THE LAW AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, BUT YES, IT IS NOT INSANE.

IT'S UNFAMILIAR TO US.

IF YOU GO BACK TO THE FOUNDING ACTUALLY, FOR THE FIRST 60, 70 YEARS OF THE REPUBLIC, STATE COURTS WERE THE PRINCIPAL PLACE WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

THERE ARE REASONS I THINK WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH A UNIFORM SET OF FEDERAL RULES THAT GOVERNED WHEN FEDERAL OFFICERS COULD AND COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE, BUT CONGRESS IN ITS WISDOM HASN'T PROVIDED THAT.

I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE CALLS FOR STATES TO PROVIDE THIS LAST DOOR BACK STOP.

>> I THINK MOST PEOPLE WONDER LOOK, ONE PERSON TOOK THE LIFE OF ANOTHER AND THAT PERSON DOES NOT SEEM ACCOUNTABLE AND WE SEEM TO HAVE CREATED A SYSTEM WHERE THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE AND THERE DOESN'T AT LEAST RIGHT NOW SEEM TO BE A WAY FOR A CITIZEN OF MINNEAPOLIS TO SAY I AM SAFE HERE BECAUSE THERE IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT CAN TAKE MY LIFE AND THEY SEEM IMMUNE TO ANY >> I THINK THIS GOES SO FAR BEYOND WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IN MINNEAPOLIS AND THE TRAGIC CASES OF THE GOOD AND PRETTI SHOOTINGS.

WE'VE BEEN TRENDING THIS DIRECTION THE BETTER PART OF 25 OR 30 YEARS WHERE OVER TIME IT HAS BECOME EVER HARDER AND HARDER AND HARDER TO HOLD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE WHEN IT VIOLATES OUR RIGHTS.

THERE'S ONE BATCH OF CASES WHERE THAT'S NOT BEEN TRUE WHERE THE VIOLATIONS ARE ONGOING WHERE WE'RE CHALLENGING A POLICY OR STATUTE.

COURTS HAVE BEEN PERFECTLY WILLING TO PROVIDE LOTS OF RELIEF IN THOSE CASES THROUGH INJUNCTIONS, THROUGH FORWARD- LOOKING RELIEF, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO BACKWARDS-LOOKING RELIEF FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE ENDED FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE, FOR UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, WE'VE SEEN VIDEOS OF I.C.E.

AND OTHER IMMIGRATION OFFICERS BREAKING DOWN THE DOORS OF AMERICANS' HOMES, THAT'S WHERE WE REALLY HAVE THIS REMARKABLY ALARMING GAP THAT HAS SLOWLY BUT STEADILY EXPANDED OVER THE LAST THREE DECADES AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THE REAL LONG TERM SOLUTION HERE IS NOT ABOUT MINNEAPOLIS OR A MINNESOTA STATE PROSECUTION OF THE OFFICERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF RENEE GOOD AND ALEX PRETTI.

I THINK IT'S ABOUT CONGRESS PROVIDING A MEANINGFUL COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR HOLDING FEDERAL OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY VIOLATE OUR RIGHTS.

WE MAY NOT ALL AGREE ON WHICH CASES WOULD TRIGGER SUCH A REGIME, HARI.

WE MAY NOT AGREE WHETHER RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED IN THIS CASE VERSUS THAT CASE, BUT THAT SHOULD BE UP TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE AND THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY MISSING FROM OUR CURRENT REMEDIAL ARCHITECTURE.

THIS HAS BEEN, I THINK, CLEAR TO THE NERDY LAW PROFESSORS LIKE ME FOR A WHILE NOW, BUT I THINK EVENTS IN MINNEAPOLIS ARE DRIVING HOME TO EVERYBODY WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT GAP REALLY ARE.

>> THERE WAS A CASE OUTSIDE CHICAGO WHERE AN I.C.E.

AGENT WAS CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR FOR PUSHING SOMEONE DOWN, THROWING AN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ACTIVIST TO THE GROUND, AND I WONDER STEPS COULD WORK.

ARE THERE LOCAL VIOLATIONS THESE INDIVIDUALS WOULD STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR?

>> IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE.

I THINK THIS IS THE CRITICAL POINT OF ALL THIS.

THE REASON WHY PEOPLE LIKE ME, I THINK, ARE SO INVESTED IN SOME KIND OF RECOURSE, SOME KIND OF REDRESSABILITY IS ACTUALLY SORT OF TWOFOLD.

FIRST OBVIOUSLY YOU WANT SOME MEASURE OF JUSTICE FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO RENEE GOOD, TO ALEX PRETTI, BUT JUST AS IMPORTANT IS YOU WANT DETERRENTS.

YOU WANT FEDERAL OFFICERS TO HAVE THE SENSE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS A LINE THEY OUGHT NOT TO CROSS, THAT THERE ARE RULES THAT BIND THEM AND THEY'RE GOING TO THINK TWICE BEFORE THEY ENGAGE IN CONDUCT SO EGREGIOUS THEY CROSS THE LINE.

I THINK THERE ARE LOTS OF WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH THE LATTER, TO STRIVE TOWARD MORE DETERRENTS WHEN IT COMES TO FEDERAL OFFICERS.

THE SORT OF SPITTING ON THE SIDEWALK OR THE TAX EVASION APPROACH, I THINK, RAISES MESSY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FORMER AND WHETHER THAT'S REALLY JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS.

I STILL THINK SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE, HARI, BUT I THINK WE CAN HAVE TWO CONVERSATIONS AT ONCE, WHAT DO WE DO IN THE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM?

THE ANSWERS TO BOTH SHOULD BE HOWEVER MUCH ACCOUNTABILITY IS POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> STEPHEN, IT SEEMS TO BE PART OF A LARGER PATTERN.

"THE WASHINGTON POST" RECENTLY REPORTED THERE HAVE BEEN 16 CASES AT LEAST WHERE OFFICERS FIRED SHOTS DURING ENFORCEMENT ARRESTS, BUT THEIR ACTIONS WERE DEEMED TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.

DOES THIS PATTERN SIGNAL ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THE ADMINISTRATION VIEWS OVERSIGHT?

YOU HAVE MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION SAYING OPENLY AND EMBOLDENING ACTIONS ON THE STREETS BY THEIR FEDERAL AGENTS AND IF THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT AND ANY SIGNIFICANT RECOURSE TO SHOOTING AFTER SHOOTING AFTER SHOOTING, THIS ALMOST BECOMES AN INEVITABILITY THIS WOULD GO THIS FAR?

AMOUNT OF TRUTH TO THAT.

WHAT HAPPENED THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WAS SADLY AND TRAGICALLY INEVITABLE.

I WORRY PART OF WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN HOPING FOR ALL ALONG WAS AN EPISODE IN THE OTHER DIRECTION WHERE ONE OF THE PROTESTERS OR ONE OF THE SUSPECTS IN THESE IMMIGRATION RAIDS ACTUALLY OPENED FIRE ON AN I.C.E.

OFFICER OR BORDER PATROL OFFICER AND THAT THAT COULD BECOME A PRETEXT, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR DEPLOYING THE MILITARY UNDER THE INSURRECTION ACT.

WE LIVE IN AN ERA WHERE IT'S VERY HARD TO SEPARATE OUT CYNICISM AND CHARGES OF BAD FAITH WITH WHAT MIGHT ALSO JUST BE STUNNING NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, BUT WHETHER IT'S MALICIOUS, HARI, OR JUST NEGLIGENT, THE REALITY IS THAT WE HAVE A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, THE LIKES OF WHICH WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, AND I THINK COURTS ARE STRUGGLING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RECTIFY THAT PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR IN A CONTENT THEY'RE NOT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST, FOR EXAMPLE, IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN AN ENTIRE CITY.

SO IT REALLY IS, I THINK, A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE DEGREE OF LAWLESSNESS, WHETHER IT'S INTENTIONAL OR JUST ACCIDENTAL, AND THE HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, WHICH IS TO DEAL WITH INDIVIDUAL CASES.

I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN MINNEAPOLIS AND PART OF WHY A LOT OF FOLKS ARE SO FRUSTRATED THAT THINGS ARE MOVING SEEMINGLY SO SLOWLY.

>> A LOT OF YOUR PIECE AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING REALLY REQUIRES ACTION BY CONGRESS TO TRY TO CLARIFY THESE RULES.

RIGHT NOW THERE ARE A FEW, GROWING NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS THAT ARE TRYING TO PUT SOME PRESSURE ON THE ADMINISTRATION.

THERE'S JOHN CURTISS OF UTAH.

HE RECENTLY WROTE ON MONDAY, "WE MUST HAVE A TRANSPARENT, INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MINNESOTA SHOOTING AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE NO MATTER THEIR TITLE.

THEY MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

OFFICIALS WHO RUSHED TO JUDGMENT BEFORE ALL THE FACTS ARE KNOWN UNDERMINE PUBLIC TRUST AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT MISSION.

I DISAGREE WITH SECRETARY WHICH CAME BEFORE ALL THE FACTS WERE KNOWN AND WEAKENED CONFIDENCE."

AND I WONDER, IS TODAY'S CONGRESS CAPABLE OF PUTTING ENOUGH SHORT-TERM PRESSURE OR LONG-TERM PRESSURE TO TRY TO STRUCTURALLY CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT A FEDERAL AGENT CAN BE IMMUNE FOR AND WHAT THEY CAN'T?

>> I THINK, HARI, TWO THINGS ARE STILL TRUE.

ONE, EVEN A LITTLE BIT OF POLITICAL PRESSURE CAN GO A LONG WAY.

WE'RE ALREADY SEEING NOT JUST SENATOR CURTISS' STATEMENTS YOU'VE READ, SENATOR TILLIS HAS EXPRESSED DEEP DISSATISFACTION WITH SECRETARY NOEM, SUGGESTED SHE SHOULD LOSE HER POSITION.

THAT'S VERY MILD, BUT IT'S A LOT MORE THAN WE'VE SEEN THE LAST 13 MONTHS.

THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS IS I THINK IT'S HARD WHEN WE'RE STUCK IN THE POLITICS OF THE MOMENT TO ENVISION CONGRESS AS MEANINGFULLY CHANGING ANYTHING, BUT IF AMERICAN HISTORY TEACHES US ANYTHING IT'S THAT THESE POLITICAL TIDES CAN SHIFT QUICKLY.

WE HAVE MIDTERM ELECTIONS WE HAVE A NEW CONGRESS THAT WILL BE SWORN IN NEXT JANUARY.

IF THIS KEEPS UP, IF WE DON'T SEE A REAL ABOUT-FACE FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, IT'S NOT HARD TO IMAGINE, HARI, THIS KIND OF REFORM BECOMES NOT JUST A HUGE ISSUE IN THE MIDTERMS, BUT ACTUALLY A POINT ON WHICH THERE MIGHT BE A MODICUM OF CONSENSUS COME NEXT JANUARY.

THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BREAK THIS CONVERSATION OUT INTO SHORT- TERM SOLUTIONS AND LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD NOT GIVE UP THE GHOST THAT A FUTURE CONGRESS AS SOON AS NEXT YEAR MIGHT BE MORE WILLING TO RESTORE A MODICUM OF ACCOUNTABILITY THAT IT'S VERY HARD TO IMAGINE THE CURRENT CONGRESS DOING.

>> STEPHEN VLADECK, PROFESSOR OF GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.