Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Minnesota Governor Says He is Angry After Fatal Shooting by ICE; Rubio: Tens of Millions of Barrels Will be Taken and Sold; U.S. Seizes Two Vessels Linked to Venezuela; Woman Shot, Killed by ICE Officer in Minneapolis; U.S. Foreign Policy Under President Trump; Warner Brothers Discovery Rejects Paramount Revamped Takeover Bid. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired January 07, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota giving a briefing there on the events that have
taken place today in Minneapolis. He said that today's shooting, today's killing, it was preventable, it was unnecessary.
The Governor then rounded on the federal government particularly the Secretary of Homeland Security and now the President for the way in which
they have already criticized and assigned blame to seemingly the person who was shot and killed in variety of ways, basically rephrasing the line, "Do
you have no shame? Do you have no decency?"
The reality is we don't know the identity of the person who was killed. The circumstances are both clear and muddied at the same time. Because of the
video that is out there, we saw what happened, but of course, we don't know the background and we don't know the thinking of the officer, the ICE
officer who shot through the windshield and through the side window.
Josh Campbell is with me and joins me.
We really do, Josh have to break this into two or three quite self- contained areas. The events that actually happened, the reaction that's taking place now and the likely fallout in the days ahead.
Let's stick with the events of what actually happened.
[16:00:10]
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, I can tell you as a former federal agent, a law enforcement officer myself, my job is to simply look
at these incidents, put them under the microscope, and try to answer the question, was the law enforcement officer justified in using deadly force
against someone? And unfortunately, in this country where its, you know, a hyper politically charged climate, we have politicians on both sides of the
aisle that quickly infuse politics, draw their own conclusions when the investigation isn't even complete.
We've already heard the Trump administration exonerate the agent who opened fire. We've also heard from at least one Democratic lawmaker who said that
the woman who was driving this vehicle posed no threat to the agent. I don't think we know enough right now to say that either of those things are
the facts.
What we know right now based on the video is that ICE agents were attempting to stop this woman. You see an agent go up to her vehicle in
this graphic footage. He tries to open her door. She then turns her wheels the tires to the right and tries to take off.
There is an agent at the front left of that vehicle who then opens fire, fatally shooting her. She then goes a short way down the road. It appeared
that she was involved in some other collision.
QUEST: All right --
CAMPBELL: Yes, go ahead, Richard.
QUEST: Yes, from what I've seen of it, the agent that shoots pulls his gun only after the car starts moving. He hasn't -- we are going to show -- we
are going to show this. Actually, let me just show it in its entirety and then you and I can talk about it. Let's show this, Ronan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get the (bleep) out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Here we go. Let's just show it and here we go. Let's watch it.
No, I thought we had it.
Josh, I will come to you while we just get it ready. We have it ready now. Let's see it now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No! No! Shame! Shame!
(Gunshots)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my (bleep) God! What the (bleep)! What the (bleep)! You just (bleep). What the (bleep) did you do?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Now, we can't parse it to too much of an extent because obviously, you know, it is deeply distressing. But from what -- I have seen it half a
dozen times more. The agent pulls his gun as the car moves forward, fires the first few shots, then puts the gun through the window.
CAMPBELL: That's right, and you know, it is worth pointing out that under federal policy, federal law enforcement can use deadly force against
someone. They can open fire only if that person poses an imminent threat to the agent or to someone else, a bystander.
And so what that agent would have to articulate is that I felt my life was in danger here. This is somewhat of a close call, in my view, because it
does appear that the front left of that vehicle actually did make contact with that agent.
And so in that situation, the agent would probably articulate that, that look, this person you know, had struck me. I then opened fire. But there is
another important principle here that every law enforcement officer from coast-to-coast in this country is taught, just because you can do something
doesn't mean that you should do something and it all comes down to judgment.
Were there other options that were available to that agent? Could he have moved out of the way? It appears he was at the front, you know, angle of
that car. He had no duty to get away, to retreat, as they call it. But could he have and then thereby prevented a fatality here?
Of course, they could have given chase afterwards, stopped the woman, taken her into custody, charged her with whatever violation there was. But that
is going to be the central question here, Richard. Why did he open fire? And another point ill make is that we haven't seen many federal agents
actually prosecuted by the Trump administration. As I mentioned at the top, the President has essentially already exonerated that agent.
QUEST: Okay, this will be a state -- this could be a state matter, of course in terms of that. That would mean that it would not be up to the
President necessarily to -- the federal government would not have much by way of jurisdiction.
And then, of course, Josh, you have this core argument or this core point, which will be the heat of the moment. I mean, you and I will and everybody
else will watch it from the comfort of our sitting rooms and kitchens. The agent there made a judgment in the heat of the moment, and I guess they
have to have a certain leeway with that.
CAMPBELL: No, that's absolutely right. I mean, we are looking at the vantage point that the agent is not seeing. I will give you an example,
from our video, you actually see the tires of that vehicle start to turn, which appears to us watching from the vantage point from behind the vehicle
that she is taking, a right, that she is trying to get around that agent.
But if you're an agent at the front of that vehicle, you're not seeing those tires turn. And so, as you mentioned, in the heat of the moment, in
this very quick rapidly unfolding event, what was going through the mind of that agent? That is what will have to be articulated.
[16:05:09]
And then the final point I note is you bring up an interesting question about the state, possibly prosecuting here. That will be interesting to
watch because we haven't seen that tested yet this year.
The Trump administration has claimed that federal agents have immunity in their actions, that they can act, you know, based on the color of law, as
they call it, in doing their duties without prosecution. We've heard various local officials across the country threaten prosecution. We haven't
actually seen it yet.
Will we see it here? That's something we will have to wait and see.
QUEST: I am grateful. Thank you, Josh. I appreciate your time and your experience bringing it to us tonight.
CAMPBELL: Always.
QUEST: Thank you.
CAMPBELL: Thank you.
QUEST: Let me just bring you up-to-date. Around 2,000 federal agents have been deployed to Minneapolis amid the immigration crackdown in the state.
The mayor of the city, Jacob Frey, had a simple message to ICE -- I-C-E-- after the incident.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR JACOB FREY (D), MINNEAPOLIS: To ICE, get the (bleep) out of Minneapolis. We do not want you here. Your stated reason for being in this
city is to create some kind of safety, and you are doing exactly the opposite.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Now, to the point that we were just talking about, the fact that various people, the President included, already have made judgment on what
has taken place. President Trump posted on Truth Social that the incident is being studied.
The President claimed that the woman killed was a professional agitator. The Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, also has accused the dead
victim of wrongdoing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: It was an act of domestic terrorism. What happened was our ICE officers were out in an enforcement
action. They got stuck in the snow because of the adverse weather that is in Minneapolis. They were attempting to push out their vehicle and a woman
attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Let me just clarify. It was the woman shouting in the video that was the professional agitator, according to the President, not the woman in the
vehicle, just to just to be clear. Apologies if I led you astray a little on that, but the reality of the situation remains. There is still somebody
who is dead and an entire -- I mean, extraordinary environment now in Minneapolis and indeed for law enforcement in the United States.
And we have Tom Verni with me. There he is, a former New York Police Department detective and law enforcement consultant with me now.
Sir, you've seen it. You've watched it.
Look, a discussion on whether its self-defense or whether it is something, that really is for another day, because we are going to have to know so
many more circumstances.
But as you look at it, what is your gut feeling of what you're looking at?
TOM VERNI, FORMER NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT DETECTIVE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSULTANT: Thank you for having me, Richard, and my condolences to the
family of the woman that was killed today.
Yes. Look, this is a situation that we have in this country right now. I don't think -- I personally do not have a problem with Immigration and
Customs Enforcement going after those who are undocumented in the country that are criminals. Full stop. Okay. I don't have a problem with that.
In the past, because they've been doing that for years. In the past, however the work that they've done, at least when I was working in New York
City when they were doing it, was sort of, you know, it was tactical, it was surgical. You know, they would target a location where they knew the
person was. They would go in, retrieve them and take them out.
What is happening now seems to be, at least by the layman's view, you know, sort of chaotic and haphazard. So, and the -- as you know, Governor Walz
had mentioned and others have mentioned, the risk you run by sort of just flowing, you know, agents into an area and just having at it is a situation
like this.
QUEST: Right.
VERNI: And from my experience, federal agents generally don't do many car stops. Car stops are one of the most dangerous jobs that a law enforcement
officer or police officer specifically can initiate, okay. There is a lot of, you know, of things that could go wrong where it puts the officer at
great jeopardy of their safety, and I've been know there. I have been in the mix of it a number of times, so I know that from experience.
QUEST: Right.
VERNI: This this car stop was chaotic from the minute that they started it and that's where it has gotten out-of-control.
QUEST: To the Governor's point that he had always said as somebody, you know, innocent bystander, a passerby, a member of the general public was
eventually going to get hurt if not killed. This was an accident or this was an incident waiting to happen in some shape or form simply because of
the extent, the rawness, the brutality in many ways of the enforcement actions now in large scale underway across America.
[16:10:21]
VERNI: Yes. Look, I am not familiar with the way that ICE trains their agents to conduct a vehicle stop. I can tell you from having done some
training myself as a master instructor in the NYPD Academy, that is not the way that we train our officers to approach a vehicle.
Now, if this woman, you know, as far as using deadly physical force, if you go on to the National Institute of Justice website, it will show you there
is a use of force continuum and that starts with something as simple as just your professional presence and/or verbal commands, and then it
escalates up to, you know, to physical force, less lethal devices and then deadly physical force as a last resort.
And under normal circumstances, usually during a car stop, verbal commands will take care of the job. Now, unless this woman had a firearm and was
pointing it at this agent which was putting him in imminent danger of his safety or the safety of others around him, as Josh Campbell had mentioned a
little while ago, then that would seem logical and reasonable for him to use deadly physical force against that imminent threat.
However, based on the video and maybe there is more footage that we are not seeing that will provide more evidence, fact-based evidence for that, I am
not seeing an imminent threat at that moment where that agent needed to fire.
But again, this is why we have investigations and why they need to be done. There is no possible way that they can make an instant determination
without, you know, finishing this investigation.
QUEST: Officer, right, but isn't it also a little bit troubling that in the past, I mean, whenever there have been these sort of incidents or not these
sort of incidents, but I mean controversial, difficult incidents, you normally find policy makers coming up with the rubric, do not speculate, we
do not know the facts or some version thereof. We don't have that today.
We have the Secretary of Homeland Security, and we have the President who have made a determination of exactly what was going on here. There is no,
don't -- let's wait and see. Don't rush to judgment. Facts will come out. Investigation will take time.
VERNI: Right. And that is what should be relayed at this point from a federal, state or even local level is that an incident has occurred, an
investigation has to be conducted. All the possible video footage, all the possible potential testimony or corroboration from eyewitnesses and/or from
the law enforcement people who are present there have to all be taken into consideration into this investigation.
We don't want to make a snap judgment based on the -- you know, the 13 or 20 seconds of video that we see, but what that video does show is the
danger of firing into a vehicle, which is why police departments generally don't authorize that for their police officers to do, because she then, you
know, she gets hit and she drives down the block and runs into a couple of parked cars. You know, she could have run over, you know, a bunch of school
children crossing the street.
So that's why we don't authorize officers to do -- to take that sort of action.
But the investigation has to be -- it has to go on. It has to be completed. It has to be done in a nonpartisan way. Facts and evidence only. You know,
the breaking news here would be if the President actually told the truth for a change. You know, that's really the breaking news that we would see
because he just -- you know, we know that he is a habitual liar. You don't have time for that.
We don't have time for political partisan politics to take over the situation. We need to do a clear, concise investigation.
QUEST: Much as I agree, sir, in terms of we want clear, concise, transparent. I rather fear the train has left the station on everything
else.
I am grateful to you, sir. Thank you for your time and attention tonight and for joining us. Thank you.
VERNI: Thank you so much.
QUEST: Now, let's turn to the other major story, the crisis that we are following. The Trump administration is making demands of Venezuela. If the
country wants to resume oil production, dot, dot, dot, you must do this. Onwards.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:17:14]
QUEST: The Trump administration has told Venezuela several demands must be met before it will allow the country to resume oil production. According to
two senior officials at The White House, the U.S. wants Venezuela to cut ties with China, Iran, Russia and Cuba. It is also demanding that Caracas
partner exclusively with the U.S. on oil production. That will go down well with the Russian and Chinese oil companies and give U.S. oil companies
preferred status for future oil sales.
The demands are directed at Venezuela's Interim President, Delcy Rodriguez following the capture, of course, and the ousting.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. has struck a deal to sell tens of millions of barrels of Venezuela's oil. It will be
sold in the marketplace at market rates. The White House Press Secretary told the reporters the oil will be in the United States very soon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: As you know, and as the President announced last night, this was the sanctioned oil that was
basically just sitting in barrels, sitting on ships because of the effective quarantine of the United States of America, and the interim
authorities have agreed to release that oil to the United States, so it will be arriving here at home very soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Kristen is with me, Kristen Holmes at The White House.
Well, you know, it becomes ever clearer what the quid pro quo in all of this is. The difficult bit is that I don't fully, fully, fully follow is
the Caracas government or the Delcy Rodriguez government agreeing to this 30 to 50 million barrels the President announced last night.
It is difficult to see whether this was just a sweetener or something.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Richard, I mean, when you're talking to these officials who have been briefed by Secretary
of State Rubio, they actually are viewing this more as a win-win for both sides.
One of the things that we know had been happening because of the United States sanctions and the blockade, Venezuela had essentially been producing
oil and not been able to ship it anywhere, meaning that most of their carriers were filled with oil with nowhere to go and it is going to be
harder to even continue to create and to pump out oil because they didn't have any place to put it at this point, because we have essentially driven
out all of these cargo ships, the shadow fleet, we were chasing them across the globe, and we have all these sanctions on the Venezuelan oil, and we
have an entire military fleet outside of Venezuela, making it very hard for anyone to do any illicit oil business with that country.
So Venezuela also needed to offload some of this oil, and it gets to be a win for the Trump administration by essentially saying, look at all that
they've provided us. One thing to note here, the reason why it is so much oil is because it is just sitting around there because we've essentially
stopped anyone from being able to buy that oil.
[16:20:05]
Venezuela itself, based on experts I've spoken to, only makes about 800,000 barrels a day. Now, it could make much more if it was able to rebuild its
infrastructure, but right now it has a crippled infrastructure, that's all it can do. So if you're talking about 30 to 50 million barrels of oil,
that's oil that's been accumulating over some time because of the fact that we've had these sanctions and this blockade in place.
The big question is, where do we go from here? They give us this oil. We take the oil, we sell it to American refineries. Now, what's the next step?
Where do we go? And what do we do in this kind of idea where we are rebuilding the Venezuela oil industry or infrastructure? Because we still
have not heard from one single administration official who can tell us why any oil company would want to go back in there and invest these billions of
dollars.
QUEST: And then we get to, as you rightly take us into the road of this idea of cutting ties with China, Iran, Russia and Cuba and the exclusivity
on the U.S. oil production.
In a sense, that will be the test on whether or not Venezuela is de facto a vassal state of the United States, because the U.S. is pulling the strings
on the policies and the government is going along with it, that's when it is going to get tricky.
HOLMES: It is, and then particularly given the fact that they don't actually have the infrastructure for some of the stuff that we have heard,
the administration wants from Venezuela, for example, if they want the amount of oil that Venezuela historically produced, they're going to have
to pump billions of dollars into the infrastructure in Venezuela in order to actually get that level of oil.
They are not producing the kind of oil that President Trump is talking about at this time, given their crumbling infrastructure. So that is part
of the problem here is that we are not entirely sure. We understand this first round of this, this is cutting ties with China, Iran, Russia, this
idea that this is all about National Security, they shouldn't be getting oil from the Western Hemisphere, that should be going to the U.S.
But the next question of what are we actually doing with the potential for Venezuelan oil and the Venezuelan oil that exists after that? That's the
question.
QUEST: I am grateful for you at The White House tonight, as always. It looks like a nice clear blue sky day there. Whatever the news may be, we
are covering it, at least it looks like a nice day to enjoy. Thank you, Kristen.
Thank you.
Now, The White House there does say the President will crack down on dark fleet oil tankers, even though that's going to antagonize Russia. The
Russian flagged, Marinera, it was known as -- it had another name before it was called that, was seized on Tuesday by U.S. forces in the North
Atlantic. It had been evading Coast Guard from the United States last month as it played cat and dog on its way to Venezuela.
It has been under sanctions for the last two years, 18 months. The U.S. Southern Command also seized a vessel in the Caribbean for illicit
activities. Karoline Leavitt says that these operations will continue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: As for the President and the United States, he is going to enforce our policy that's best for the United States of America and with respect to
these ships seizures, that means enforcing the embargo against all dark fleet vessels that are illegally transporting oil and only legitimate
commerce, to answer your question, much earlier, Rachel, determined by the United States is going to be permitted and that's the policy of this
administration and he is not afraid to implement it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: So it is called the shadow fleet. Countries like Russia, Venezuela, et cetera use it to avoid sanctions and western countries have been
responding. So you know the story. The U.S. seized two ships last month, sanctioned over ties that's carrying Venezuelan oil in these cases to Cuba.
Then you have a Panamanian flagged ship. Not under U.S. sanctions, but that didn't seem to matter. It was transporting Venezuelan oil to Asia. Europe,
in this case, it is Russia's shadow fleet with the French Navy boarding the Boracay that was Russia going through to the North Sea.
So everybody is at it in some shape, form or description on the shadow fleet.
Rear Admiral Fred Kenney is the former Director of Legal Affairs and External Relations for the IMO, the International Maritime Organization,
visiting fellow at Swansea University is with me now.
Rear Admiral, the shadow fleet has been -- is as old as the time itself. The only difference these days is technology means we can track, trace and
maybe board and now seems to be enforced.
REAR ADMIRAL FRED KENNEY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS FOR THE IMO: Yes, that's true. I mean, there has been smuggling
activity at ships that wish to evade law enforcement for centuries. That's true. I think we are in a different era now with the rise of the shadow
fleet. We really started seeing it seven or eight years ago, first came to the attention of the IMO with -- we started to see a rash of fraudulent
registries and fraudulently registered vessels which was a significant concern to us because there is no way of knowing if those ships are safe.
[16:25:26]
Whether or not their environmental protection equipment is working, so it was a grave concern and as you mentioned, many of these ships that are
operating outside the legitimate, legal structure internationally are being used to evade sanctions.
QUEST: What I find tricky to understand in the shadow fleet is somebody owns the ships, there are brokers that sell and buy and, you know,
negotiate the cargoes. So the illegality at one level is matched by the normalcy at another as these ships go about their business, when they are
not in the sanctioned waters or they are not dealing in that way.
KENNEY: Sure. I don't think that the business processes differ all that much. It is just a question of the cargo itself being sanctioned or the
ship being sanctioned for activity in the past that violated sanctions regimes, be they domestic sanctions regimes such as those implemented by
the U.S. and the E.U. or international sanctions regimes through a U.N. Security Council resolution.
QUEST: How difficult is it to find a ship? Now, I know that -- I mean, it is very large, obviously, but I realize also, once its sets sail, if it
sets sail in the middle of the night and then steams out into the ocean and it chooses to run blind without any transponders or things like that.
But I always think you know, well, all of those satellites that cost so many hundreds of billions, surely you can push a few buttons and find a
ship.
KENNEY: That's true. You could now, under International Maritime law, specifically the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, which actually
originated from the Titanic sinking, every ship over 300 gross tons, which is relatively small, has to have what's called an Automatic Identification
System on board. It is basically a transponder that broadcasts its signal as to who the ship is, where it is flagged, and what its location is, and
that is a requirement in international law.
Now, ships do turn off their AIS. There are exceptions to the rule, but turning off your AIS to evade sanctions is not one of those exceptions.
QUEST: Right.
KENNEY: But to your point, yes. You know, ships can be found.
QUEST: I am grateful to you, sir. Thank you for joining us tonight on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. Thank you.
Now, as we continue tonight, we will return to Minneapolis. Protests are erupting after an immigration officer shot and killed a woman as she was
driving in her car. In a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:31:32]
QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest.
We have a lot more to talk about tonight. I'll be asking Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group whether the U.S. is heading towards a new era of imperialism.
And the fate of CNN's parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery, WBD, has rejected Paramount's hostile takeover bid. But this is CNN, and whatever
the story, on this network the news, I promise you, always comes first.
A woman in Minnesota has been shot and killed after an encounter with a U.S. federal immigration officer. The Department of Homeland Security
claims she tried to run them over and was -- and that they shot in self- defense. The mayor of Minneapolis disputes it, and he is demanding an investigation.
The White House is vowing to continue seizing sanctioned oil tankers that have been linked to Venezuela. It's captured two separate vessels, a
Russian flagged oil tanker which was under U.S. sanctions for allegedly transporting illicit oil that was in the Atlantic. A second vessel said to
be conducting illicit activities in the Caribbean.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet next week with Danish officials as the White House is renewing its desire to take over Greenland.
Foreign ministers from Denmark and Greenland requested the meeting. U.S. officials say President Trump leaving all of his options open concerning
Greenland to acquire it, and that also includes the use of military force.
The mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, is urging people to respond to the shooting incident with courage and love. There have already been reports of
clashes between police and protesters near the scene, and a short time ago, the Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz, said the shooting is a direct result of
President Trump's immigration crackdown.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. TIM WALTZ (D-MN): We have been warning for weeks that the Trump administration's dangerous, sensationalized operations are a threat to our
public safety. That someone was going to get hurt. Just yesterday I said exactly that. What we're seeing is the consequences of governance designed
to generate fear, headlines and conflict. It's governing by reality TV. And today that recklessness cost someone their life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Now with me is our chief law enforcement intelligence analyst, John Miller.
John, something I don't usually do with most guests. You've seen the pictures. You've seen the video multiple times. Take this discussion any
way that you wish. What for you at the moment is the most significant point?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, I mean, let's break down what it looks like happened by watching the video
enough times to glean from that. It looks like they are out on an operation, a targeted operation. Her car is blocking the road partially. As
the caravan starts to leave, it's really interesting, Richard, you can see her waving them through, like just go around me. She waves her hand as if
go by.
At that point, one of the DHS vehicles, a pickup truck, stops. The two agents get out. The one agent puts his hand on the door handle. And you can
watch this now in real time.
QUEST: Right.
MILLER: They get out. The one agent approaches very quickly, puts his hand on the door and on the door handle. The other agent holds back. When the
car backs up to turn an agent who is in front opens fire.
[16:35:04]
He fires three shots. Now, according to the secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, that agent who fired the shots believed that his life was in
danger because he was going to be run over is what she's suggesting by this car? The other agent who was holding on to the door might have been dragged
by the car, and that he acted properly, which is a very quick way to come to a determination for a shooting that hadn't been fully investigated yet.
But that is the Department of Homeland Security position on this.
From there, you know, we can talk about whether the federal investigation is what has the last word. Can they clear these officers or whether local
prosecutors may bring their own case?
QUEST: It's going to end up in a very sort of gray, muddy, unpleasant area, all things unpleasant. But what I mean by that is this question of what did
the officer about to shoot think, how much would he perceive his own safety? You know, once we are in -- once we are in that area, we are
questioning whether his actions are reckless, whether they're negligent, to what standard they reach. But there is one extra aspect which I'm not going
to -- we can't show because we would have to go and stop the video and point.
But he does put the gun in the window at one point. He shoots at the front and then he shoots through the side. Does that make any difference?
MILLER: So that's very interesting. And it does make a difference. As she is making that turn, so she is clearly not going to run him over, that
second or third shot goes off towards the car after he is clear of the pathway of the vehicle. That's going to be a factor.
You made a really good point, Richard, which is a lot of this hangs on not what we saw but what the agent testifies was in his mind at the time. Did
he have tunnel vision? Did he -- was he only focused on the car coming towards him? Did he not see the wheels? Any of that is possible. His
perception counts for a lot. But, and this is the big but, there's another standard which is, would a reasonable agent in the same position have taken
the same action, or was this outside reasonable consideration when you consider that the options for the agent holding on to the door was to let
go, and for the agent who'd positioned himself in front of the car to get out of the way?
Were those options that a reasonable agent would have taken? The DHS's own guidelines on the use of deadly force say two important things. Number one,
you have to believe that you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury or others. And the second thing it says is DHS law
enforcement officers are prohibited from shooting at the operator of a moving vehicle.
Now, there's a caveat which says, unless in that moment you consider yourself under attack by that vehicle with the use of the car, not someone
who's just trying to get away. And the other thing it says is, as a reasonable agent, you have to consider if you shoot the operator of that
speeding car, does it put other people in danger ahead? Is it a smart thing to do?
QUEST: Which is exactly what happened. The car goes down the road, hits two other vehicles, and ends up wrapped around a lamppost.
I'm grateful, John. John Miller, as always. Thank you, sir.
Whilst we say thank you to John, I want to show you some new video. I mean, it is disturbing, but have a look at it. You can see from this angle.
You'll have to watch carefully. It does look like the agent is hit or at least gets a -- that's. So what we're talking about is the beginning bit.
The last bit of that video is of course because the operator of the vehicle has been shot, we now know killed. Therefore there was just the momentum
until something got in its way and stopped it. And that something was of course the lamppost and the two parked vehicles.
David Weinstein is with me,
Sir, you are former state and federal prosecutor. I'm grateful. We're going to extract your wisdom on this. Is this -- if it's prosecuted in state
court, what's it prosecuted for? The officer.
DAVID WEINSTEIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Richard, John laid out some of this before. It could be prosecuted anywhere from first-degree
homicide all the way down to manslaughter. And that's going to hinge on whether or not the agent was reckless, negligent. What were the reasonable
officer have done? Did he fear for his life? Are we talking about self- defense here, or was it an act that was taken with reckless disregard for human life?
All of that is going to come into play if it's going to be a state prosecution, but it would be some sort of murder or homicide charge.
QUEST: Right. Now, if this was any ordinary, inverted commas, case of a, you know, of a shooting gone wrong, we could leave it at that.
[16:40:10]
But it's not because the federal government through Kristi Noem and the president already seem to have made up their mind. Now, can they in any
way, the feds, get the prosecution in a state court stopped?
WEINSTEIN: Look, they can't by exercising any authority over the state court prosecutors. They're separate sovereigns. They can decline to bring
federal charges for deprivation of civil rights under the civil rights statute, which would apply some of the same standards. But they can't make
the state not proceed forward with their investigation and ultimate a separate determination of the charges.
QUEST: Right.
WEINSTEIN: They can be up in arms about it. They can say that you're not seeing it right, but they can't just make them stop.
QUEST: Right. But, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is there a loophole, trapdoor that they can drag the violent aspect into the -- into
the federal system and then get rid of it in a sense by saying, I mean, you know, it's not crossing state lines, it's not interstate commerce. It's
none of the normal things that you might be able to say, no, no, no, state, you don't have jurisdiction here. We have exclusive jurisdiction.
WEINSTEIN: There is no exclusive jurisdiction for them. This occurred in the state of Minnesota. It occurred in a suburb. It occurred at a place
where state law enforcement has judicial authority.
QUEST: Right.
WEINSTEIN: And even if they took it into federal court, and they made a determination that there was no deprivation of civil rights based on their
analysis of this, there's no double jeopardy. We have separate sovereigns here in the United States. Federal jurisdiction is separate and distinct
and apart from state jurisdictions. And so they operate separately from each other.
QUEST: David, we're going to need a lot more from you in the days, weeks and months ahead. So I'm grateful if you'll come back in the future and
help us understand. And as I always say, when I speak to lawyers, turn the page to the usual place. Thank you, sir.
WEINSTEIN: You're welcome.
QUEST: Now, as we continue tonight, Ian Bremmer, there he is. He's sitting, waiting patiently and -- or he will be to talk to us in just a moment.
There are a million and one things, Ian, that you and I never thought we would be talking about. But we are, and we'll do so after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:40:02]
QUEST: "This is Our Hemisphere." That was the U.S. State Department putting the world on notice earlier this week with their notice on X. "This is Our
Hemisphere." All week the president has been stressing the same idea of influencing every corner of the Western Hemisphere. Most recently, of
course, securing Venezuelan oil.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm also meeting with oil companies. Let's go. You know, you know what that's about. Got a lot of oil
to drill, which is going to bring down oil prices even further.
We're going to have to have big investments by the oil companies to bring back the infrastructure. And the oil companies are ready to go. We need
access to the oil and to other things in their country that allow us to rebuild their country. They took our oil away from us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Some might argue this policy is a step away from democracy and towards 19th Century imperialism. Some might even argue it meets the
definition of plunder, to take the goods of by force, as in war, to take by force or wrongfully plunder.
Is that what the United States is up to?
Ian Bremmer is the president of Eurasia Group and GZero Media. Ian is with me.
And I'm going to divide our time into two distinct sections. Let's talk about President Trump, Western Hemisphere and that, and then the rest of
the world, how they're going to react and respond. Let's just stick. Is this imperialism defined in a way in the Donald Trump era where it's
mercantilism, plunder, you take the spoils?
IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP: Well, I mean, if it is, Richard, it isn't for long because Donald Trump is not president in 2029. And as we've
seen from Trump to Biden and Biden to Trump and Obama to Trump before that, what one president can do, another president can undo. There's still an
independent judiciary in the U.S. There's still an electoral cycle. There's still a professional military.
And all of these things acts as constraints on presidential power over time in a way that the Russians, the Chinese, they don't have those constraints.
So if this is what Trump wants the world to be like, and he is the president of the most powerful country in the world, ultimately the
beneficiaries are not going to be long term, the Americans.
QUEST: Right. But that between now and 2029, a lot of damage can be done. And for instance, this idea --
BREMMER: You think?
QUEST: Well, this idea that, for example, he wants Greenland by the 250th anniversary of the United States. You know, he wants to add another star to
the Star Spangled.
BREMMER: What a fine president for the president it would be. I mean, look, we all know that Denmark is a NATO ally. That means that Greenland is a
part of NATO. The strongest, most durable military alliance in the world. If the United States is concerned about national security, all they need do
is negotiate with their ally, their trusted ally, and that would be made available. Not only that, but Trump was president for four years.
QUEST: That's logic, Ian.
BREMMER: If he's a little bit concerned about national security --
QUEST: Ian, you're putting logic into it. I'm suggesting that the president might do it.
BREMMER: I apologize. I apologize. If he wants it, he must have it. It's his Precious. We can go with the "Lord of the Rings" mythos if you like.
QUEST: But that's the point. That seems to be what's happening. What I'm trying to get from you is an idea of, do you think he will play it out all
the way, or will those other constraints that you rightly point out of, of Denmark and NATO, will they finally come to bear and bring it back to
sanity?
BREMMER: So, Richard, I think that there is a big difference between FAFO, which just happened to Nicolas Maduro, F around and find out, and TACO,
Trump always chickens out, which is what happened when he decided to start a trade war with Xi Jinping and China. And the answer to your question is,
where does President Trump believe that the Europeans land on the FAFO to TACO scale?
And right now, I assure you, he does not believe that they are TACO. He thinks that they are not going to be capable or willing of responding in
ways that would threaten or damage him if he persists with his willingness to engage in trying to ensure that Greenland becomes American.
QUEST: Right.
[16:50:06]
BREMMER: He's not going to send troops. He's not going to send tanks, just like the Russians aren't going to roll tanks into the Baltics or Poland,
because that would cause a war, but short of that, there's a lot he can do. And those plans are being drawn up right now.
QUEST: Do you think that in Moscow, Vladimir is rubbing his hands? He cannot believe his good luck that the U.S. is now completely distracted in
other parts of the world, and Xi Jinping is saying, I'm just going to buy my time and whether it be Taiwan or the Spratley's or whatever, we've got
this now, the U.S. is never going to be able to hold an argument?
BREMMER: Well, I mean, if the Russians were a little bit less incompetent, then I think they would be. I mean, if they had a military that could
execute at one-fifth of the capacity of what the United States just did in Venezuela, you and I would be having a very different conversation about
Ukraine and the Trans-Atlantic relationship. But it's not Trump's behavior or lack thereof, that has been constraining the Russians. It's their own
inability to actually function militarily beyond their borders.
And that's thankfully, given Europe standing up for the Ukrainians and the Ukrainians fighting courageously, the war has not gone farther to Putin's
favor. China is a different story. China is much more capable. And Trump saw that when they reacted to his tariffs on liberation day.
QUEST: All right.
BREMMER: And I think the Chinese see that long term this world is certainly comporting much more to their advantage.
QUEST: I'm grateful, sir. Hopefully see you in Davos in a couple of weeks' time up at the cold mountain.
BREMMER: You will.
QUEST: Where the mood will be certainly different than previous years. Good to see you and it's always lovely to have you. Thank you.
BREMMER: I'm going to layer up. I'm already getting ready for that, Richard.
QUEST: Yes. Well, I follow your lead, sir. Thank you.
And in a moment, Warner Brothers Discovery, our parent company, has dismissed the latest offer as inadequate. Well, there we go. We'll look
more closely in just a moment. Who's going to own me at the end of the day?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: The board of WBD, our parent company, has said no to Paramount. They say there's not enough money and it's all too risky, even though it's
backed by Larry Ellison. Inadequate and inferior.
Brian Stelter is with me.
They prefer the deal with Netflix. You see what they haven't done, Paramount, and they haven't given their last offer. They have not said
final offer. They haven't basically said $34 a share, where the consensus seems to be if you do that, you might get it.
[16:55:09]
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: And Paramount did not say anything today, Richard, about this most recent rebuffing. And this was expected by
the WBD board. They have a signed contract with Netflix, a merger agreement. They're moving forward. But the details of this rejection are
notable. WBD kind of pouring salt in the wound, saying that what Paramount is offering is akin to a leveraged buyout, saying that there's all sorts of
risks of the deal not actually getting across the finish line.
But toward the end of the shareholder letter, WBD said, look, we've told you what you need to do differently. We've told you what to offer us. So in
some ways, the door is still open. And as you said, that $34 a share figure is making the rounds with some analysts believing that could get Paramount
across the finish line.
QUEST: That is the unknown. Everything I've read doesn't suggest that they're going to come in with a killer offer, and that I don't understand.
I mean, if they really want you and me that badly, why -- well, why won't they come in with that killer offer other than the fact that it's a lot
more money, $10 billion more?
STELTER: That has a lot to do with what the value of the cable channels are. How valuable are these cable channel assets? That's an open question
in the market right now. Comcast just spun off its cable channels into a company called Versant.
QUEST: Yes.
STELTER: And the stock has been pummeled for three straight days. Now there's some reasons for that that are technical. I'm told by a Versant
executive they believe it's going to shake out in the next few weeks. But right now the market is not faring very well for a cable channel company.
And so that actually bolsters Paramount's argument not to go above $30 a share.
QUEST: I'm grateful, Brian. We'll talk more about who's going to own us. Thank you, sir, for joining us.
We will have a "Profitable Moment" if one way or another after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's "Profitable Moment," it is the speed with which President Trump announced that 30 million to 50 million barrels of oil from
Venezuela, the deal that he has done. It is the speed with which that has been announced.
You know, here you have Maduro gone. And the first words out of the United States are not, yes, health care or democracy or rule of law or anything
like that about running of the country. No. The first words are, we've got your oil, 50 million barrels out of those tanks over there.
Now, from Venezuela's point of view, yes, get rid of that oil because you need to fill it up with new stuff because of the sanctions. So, yes, on
this particular one, there's a quid pro quo, a win-win. But now it gets really tricky because the U.S. demands, indeed suggests either plunder or
vassal state of Venezuela.
I'll be honest, it's too soon to say. There's too much time to go. There are too many variables that have to change. But at the moment we have to be
questioning whether what we are seeing is basically 19th Century imperialism all over again.
And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's as profitable.
END
