Turley: Democrats Are Fueling The Rage, “They’re Hoping To Ride This Wave Of Rage Straight To The Midterms”
GWU law professor Jonathan Turley on Friday told “Ingraham Angle” host Laura Ingraham that instead of tamping down emotions, Democrats are using the fuel from the rage of the Minneapolis fatal ICE-related shooting this week for their electoral prospects in 2026.
INGRAHAM: Oh, yes, they were already convicting, they are convicting that ICE officer. Here to discuss Jonathan Turley, constitutional law expert, Fox News Contributor. Jonathan, Frey is demanding that the state be involved. Walz is accusing, though, agents of contaminating the scene, the crime scene. So what law takes precedent here — precedence here? And are they within their right to say, we must be involved? JONATHAN TURLEY, GWU LAW PROFESSOR: No, they can ask to be involved, but they have no basis upon to insist on being involved. This is a federal investigation involving a federal shooting, and they do not have to be involved. I don’t expect they will be. And possibly the worst possible person to call for that type of cooperation is Mayor Frey, who soon after the shooting announced that this officer was a murderer and used today to say that he really wasn’t injured. Now, I haven’t been in his kitchen, and I haven’t seen Frey’s fridge, but this does not strike me as a kitchen encounter. When you look at that video, it is a very significant collision with this officer. And the video, most importantly captures something that’s missing on the internet as people slow down this video to the point that it seems like these officers could have gotten coffee and debated what they were going to do next. I mean, this really captures how it was a fraction of a second. The key here is to look at this from the perspective of the officer, the motivations of Good do not matter. It’s her actions that matter. So the question is, what did the officer see in that fraction of a second? That standard favors the officer. Now, we’re going to have a lot of investigation going forward, but people need to be clear what the standard is. To say that the officer was reasonable, does not necessarily mean that the officer was right. You could still disagree with the use of lethal force. But the question is, was this within the parameters, the discretion of the officer? That standard favors the officer, in my view, from this video. INGRAHAM: And Jonathan, on a number of fronts, these governors, mayors are de facto trying to opt out of federal law. In other words, we will not comply, we don’t recognize federal law as legitimate, we do not recognize ICE, we’re not going to protect federal officials that come into the city, like Trump cabinet officials. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCOTT BESSENT, SECRETARY OF TREASURY: Governor Tim Walz is a coward. He is a coward. He put — he refused to provide state police for the secretary of the treasury of the United States to come and hold a roundtable in the state capital, because he is afraid of what we will discover. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: So, Bessent comes here to the state capital, and they — no, we’re not going to — we’re not going to protect you. You’re not welcome here. And then mayors and governors saying, we will not assist you, and going further, we will arrest you, they said here in Minneapolis, if we believe you’re trying to kidnap our people, that was said today here in Minneapolis. TURLEY: That’s right. Also in Philadelphia, the district attorney and the chief of police pledged that they would arrest federal officials wearing masks in that city. Well, good luck with that, because they will be in violation of the law and they will be prevented from doing that. But it’s not that there’s a serious component to this legally. The problem is, it’s extremely dangerous that obviously these officials are fueling the rage. They’re hoping to ride this wave of rage straight to the midterms. That’s the only conclusion I can have, because most reasonable leaders would be really tamping down on the emotions here, saying, let’s let the investigation go forward. And the suggestion they’re going to prosecute this officer on the state level is equally unserious. If they do so, it will be removed to federal court. A judge will have to decide if the officer has immunity. Yes, and I do think that this officer does have immunity from what I’ve seen. We’ll just wait and see the rest of the evidence.
