Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

ICE Agent's Cellphone Captures Fatal Confrontation In Minneapolis; Iranian Protesters Rename Tehran Street After Trump; Russia Fires Oreshnik Ballistic Missile Into Ukraine. Minnesota Fraud Just The Tip Of The Iceberg. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired January 10, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:38]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs. By now we've all seen the videos multiple times, including the latest from the shooter's perspective. And probably we have formed initial opinions. That's only natural.

Sadly, from the politicians and from the pundits, there's been a glaring lack of critical thinking and independent judgment. Instead, everybody just suiting up in their usual partisan armor. Where is the conservative who watched and said, you know, my instinct is to support law enforcement, but in this case I see an officer discharging his weapon against a fleeing vehicle as an excessive use of lethal force. Or where is the progressive who mourns the loss of life of a social activist while questioning why she put herself in that precarious position, why she didn't follow law enforcement commands, and why then accelerated her SUV? I think we still need more facts.

There needs to be a transparent, independent investigation. It's not helpful that the investigation itself is threatening to become a partisan matter. Minnesota says it's been frozen out, that the U.S. attorney's office has decided that the FBI will be in charge and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension will not have access to the case materials or the evidence. As for the rest of us, I submit that the lens by which a person should view this tragedy is not YouTube or cable television screen, but the officer training and legal standards that apply. They've been developed and are spelled out in a half a dozen government publications over the last 15 years.

I've read them all and I've made some notes. The bottom line is this. The question is whether the ICE shooter, when he pulled the trigger, had a reasonable belief that he faced an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, and only then can he use lethal force. Also, he cannot use the force just to stop a fleeing suspect, he must reasonably believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm and that the force is necessary to prevent the escape. From the documents it's clear that the policy has been subject to great deliberation over many years. For example, I found this there was an outside review of all CBP uses of deadly force over a two year period from 2010 to 2012 and it found this, two policy and practice areas especially need significant change. First, officers and agents should be prohibited from shooting at vehicles unless vehicle occupants are attempting to use deadly force other than the vehicle against the agent. Training and tactics should focus on avoiding positions that put agents in the path of a vehicle and getting out of the way of moving vehicles.

That same review contained this, with regard to restrictions on shooting at vehicles, it should be explained that shooting at vehicles poses a higher risk to agents and innocent bystanders and should be avoided.

Here's another. It's a memo from the chief of CBP in 2014 and it notes this, agents shall not discharge their firearms at a moving vehicle unless the agent has a reasonable belief, based on the totality of circumstances, that deadly force is being used against the agent or another person present. Agents should not put themselves in the path of a moving vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle's path.

Something else emerges from all of these guidelines, the idea that we judge each officer by the reasonable person or the reasonable officer standard. For example, 2014 the use of Force Policy Guidelines and Procedures this handbook from CBP, the reasonableness of a particular use of force is based on the totality of circumstances known by the officer, the agent at the time of the use of force, and weighs the actions of the officer or agent against the rights of the subject, in light of the circumstances surrounding the event. Reasonableness will be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer or agent on the scene rather than with the 2020 vision of hindsight. The 2021 CBP use of Force Policy reiterated these guidelines. The ICE Firearms and Use of Force handbook from 2021 said much the same thing.

[09:05:09]

And then finally secretary -- then Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas reaffirmed these same principles in a memo that was dated February, 6, 2023.

Now, much has been made the fact that the ICE shooter was similarly involved in an apprehension that resulted in him being dragged by a different suspect's car, which caused him serious inj. You're seeing it right there from last summer. Fascinating as that detail might be, it's irrelevant to an evaluation of his conduct in the more recent case. His conduct must be objectively reasonable. It's the reasonable officer test.

The alternative, a subjective test allows a person to get off the hook if their conduct was awful, but in good faith that would sometimes reward stupidity.

Many of the standards that I've referenced, they were shaped by a 1989 Supreme Court case called Graham vs Connor, which made clear that the reasonable standard is not dependent on or related to the subjective background, the capabilities or the experiences of a particular officer. Think about it, otherwise everybody would have their own standard. The mirror image of this occurs occasionally but is not punishable. An officer believes that he shouldn't do something, but he does it anyway. Though the conduct is objectively reasonable, is he liable civilly or criminally?

No. Or as the Supreme Court said in the Graham case, the calculus of reasonableness must embody the allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

In addition, the Supreme Court said the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 2020 vision of hindsight. The question is whether the officer's actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding them, confronting them.

I know it might all sound confusing as hell, right? It's actually stunningly simple. What's reasonable in these particular circumstances? And that's the standard by which we should all evaluate what we're watching on a loop from Minneapolis, not what we're being told we're seeing by a politician or a pundit, including me.

I want to know what you think. Go to smerconish.com and vote on today's poll question. Do you have an open or closed mind as to the guilt or innocence of the Minnesota ICE agent?

Joining me now is Kevin Davis, an expert witness former police officer who spent 39 years in law enforcement. He's the author of the book "Use of Force Investigation, A Manual for Law Enforcement." He's worked for both prosecutors and defense attorneys and recently testified for the defense in a very similar case where an officer, you're seeing the video now, shot and killed a driver who had hit him with her car. That officer was acquitted.

Detective, thank you so much from being here. What did you learn? What should we all learn from the most recent video released, the video from the ICE agents perspective?

KEVIN DAVIS, EXPERT WITNESS & FORMER POLICE OFFICER: Well, Michael, thank you for having me on and you've laid a tremendous foundation for our conversation. I think the big thing here and included in that Graham v. Connor case that you mentioned is totality of the circumstances. And that's what we have to develop as investigators. In other words, we have to take the time to do a methodical and professional investigation, including these digital video -- videos that are now playing. It's certainly when coupled with other videos, and I saw that CNN did a canvas or coupled these videos together, including a 3D animation, it shows you the distances, the positioning, et cetera.

But this was rather interesting in that the movement of the agent around the vehicle so that the driver, Ms. Good, clearly knew that he was there and at the time when she accelerated, looked at him, as we see on the video. SMERCONISH: What do you most want to know?

DAVIS: Well, I think we've developed a lot just over the last 72 hours and that's what we have to do. As you said, this rush to judgment can interfere and these political conversations or the politics of force as I refer to it, can adversely impact. I would want to know the agents and the other witnesses or other agents involved in the case want to know their statements. And I want to look at more at the physical evidence. For instance, we know that this was unfortunately on ice or snow, and lack of traction for both the agent involved as well as the vehicle, you know, are important here, as is, you know, the human factors like action, response time.

[09:10:24]

So this is still in the beginning stages of the investigation.

SMERCONISH: Detective, the banter, the conversation between the decedent and the decedent's partner and ICE, of what significance, of what relevance does that get factored into the totality of the circumstances?

DAVIS: Well, we certainly look at it. You know, there was, I don't know, conversational tone up until the point that she accelerated into the vehicle. But largely that conversation, pre and post use of force is irrelevant, as is the officer's tactics. You know, when the officer moves, I mean, there are no yellow footprints on the roadway where he should stand. And this changes based on her movement of the vehicle.

For instance, he's off to the front right side of the vehicle or the passenger front. When she reverses her vehicle, she swings him then across the windshield, across the front of her vehicle, so that positioning changes. So, you know, conversation tactics, et cetera. She was given clear verbal warnings to turn the car off and exit the vehicle and did not comply with those commands prior to the use of force.

SMERCONISH: So that the two, meaning the two women were seeking to impede ICE, I think is pretty clear from the totality of what we've reviewed so far but that doesn't warrant a death sentence.

DAVIS: No, but oftentimes these cases start out with an innocuous behavior, could even be something like jaywalking. And then the subject based on their actions turns the encounter into a deadly force situation. So the original, you know, blocking of the vehicle and all of that is factored in, but ultimately it's, you know, at the moment that he fired the trigger based on the totality of circumstances. And she changed this encounter when she accelerated towards the agent.

SMERCONISH: Final question, Detective. The reason that I was so eager to have you here is because of the role that you played in testifying in a remarkably similar case. As I made reference in the intro, what lesson can you bring to us from your experience as to having been in a trial with a similar set of facts?

DAVIS: Well, first of all, these are legal questions. When we're doing a legal investigation, there are multi investigations that are going on or will go on. They may go on concurrently or consecutively, but mostly there'll be a internal investigation as to whether he followed policy as well as tactics. And those are separate from the legal question, as you mentioned at the intro. And so we first and foremost have to pay attention to the legal standards.

At the moment based on his perceptions, was it objectively reasonable to use deadly force?

SMERCONISH: Detective, thank you so much for your time and your expertise. We appreciate it very much.

For everybody at home, I want to hear your thoughts. Hit me up on social media. I'll read some throughout the course of the program. From the world of X, before watching the videos, I was open minded, but every new clip is worse than the last. He clearly murdered that woman.

The shine on his shoes wasn't in danger, let alone his life. Why the actual F were there guns out at all?

I mean, Kris, it's a Rorschach test. And to somebody else watching and you've heard this perspective, there was, to the other observation, they would say there was a collision. She imperiled his life. She was accelerating. She shouldn't have done that.

Why would she and her partner have put themselves in harm's way and heightened this circumstance, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? My own view, I want to see all the facts. I haven't seen all the facts. I think it's a very hard case on which to get a conviction. I base that on my knowledge of the law, my studying the totality of these circumstances and taking radio -- you know, three hours worth of radio calls from all across the country of a variety of perspectives and the callers were not lockstep.

They were not lockstep. And a conviction requires unanimity if there were to be a criminal case that would be brought.

I want to know what you think. Today's poll question is just so spot on. Be honest. Do you have an open or closed mind as to the guilt or innocence of the Minnesota ICE agent? At the end of the hour, I'll let you know where that stands.

[09:15:03]

Up ahead, street demonstrations erupt in Tehran as anti-government protests spread. President Trump threatening to attack Iran if security forces kill protesters. Could the regime be toppled? At the same time you've got Russia firing a powerful nuclear capable ballistic missile in Ukraine. Is this Putin's response to Trump having humiliated him by seizing that Venezuelan tanker with a Russian flag?

New York Times White House and National Security Correspondent David Sanger just spent two hours in the Oval Office with the president of the United States. He'll be with us in just a moment. Make sure you're -- when you're voting, you're signing up for the newsletter at smerconish.com you'll get the work of editorial cartoonists like Steve Breen. Love that Greenland cartoon. Jack Ohman, sketch this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:10]

SMERCONISH: Demonstrators have taken to the streets across Iran for the 14th consecutive day as anti-government protests continue to rock theocratic regime. What started as grievances over economic hardships and inflation is now morphed into a full blown uprising against the Islamic Republic. We're getting new video even as authorities have cut off Internet and phone ties, leaving the country mostly detached from the outside world. Across over 100 cities, people have flooded the streets chanting death to Khamenei, also known as the Supreme Leader of Iran, in clashes that have left at least 65 protesters dead and over 2,300 arrested, according to the U.S. based Human Rights Activists News Agency. The supreme leader has accused demonstrators of trying to please Donald Trump, who has threatened to attack Iran if security forces kill protesters.

Iran no stranger to violent uprisings, however, experts agree this wave of protests, it feels different. And many are wondering if the Islamic Republic can be toppled.

Joining me now to discuss all this is New York Times White House and National Security Correspondent David Sanger. He's the author of four books on foreign policy and national security challenges, including his latest, "New Cold Wars, China's Rise, Russia's Invasion, and America's Struggle to Defend the West."

David, so nice to see you. You just spent two hours in the Oval Office with the president. I enjoyed reading your recap. I listened to you on the Daily. I got to say, by the way, I give him a lot of credit for transparency to welcome four reporters from the New York Times to come in for two hours.

What I most wanted to ask you is this, Iranian protesters are slapping Trump's name on streets in Tehran, which seems like a pretty ingenious way to curry favor with our commander in chief. How far do you think Trump will go to defend them?

DAVID SANGER, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR NYT: I think that depends, Michael, on how far these protests go. You know, they started because of a rapid currency devaluation for the Iranian currency. But when you think about the sequence of uprisings in Iran, they're getting more frequent. The rot in the government is getting deeper and deeper. The government's ability to contain these is clearly weakening.

As you noted before, they've cut off all the Internet and yet you're still getting these images coming out. So I think one of the big questions that comes out of this is, is this just another uprising of young people, largely that the Iranian government, which owns all the guns, will be able to put down, or is this the one that really marks the end of a regime for an 86-year-old leader.

President Trump's options here, while he's talking tough and did when went to visit him in the Oval Office, I think are somewhat limited. You know, it's one thing to strike a nuclear site and bury the uranium, and it's another to know what you hit in support of protesters. Do they aim at government buildings? What happens if you end up killing civilians along the way? So it seems to me this is not one that lends itself to an easy military solution.

The biggest solution is give them more Internet connectivity.

SMERCONISH: I wonder what the role of Israel might be and whether the United States and Israel will be on the same page or if Israel will feel emboldened to go a step beyond that which President Trump is willing to go for the Iranian regime, meaning to bring about change.

SANGER: Well, they might be. And you know, when president -- when Prime Minister Netanyahu visited President Trump a few weeks ago, he urged a strike on Iran because they are rebuilding their missile capability after the June 12 day conflict. President Trump, I think, discouraged him from doing that at that time. The risk of that is, of course, that you end up unifying people against an attack from the outside from Israel and distract --

SMERCONISH: Right.

SANGER: -- from their focus on their own government. And so the measurement I think that leaders have to take right now is not to do anything that actually undercuts the protesters.

SMERCONISH: David, let me shift your focus now to Russia. You said coming out of the Oval Office meeting, I listened to you on the Daily and you said that it feels like we're living at one of the most, I think your words were pivotal moments in modern history. It occurs to me there are so many things that are competing for our attention and I'm wondering, are we underappreciating what just took place with Russia? Meaning, we continue to seize these Venezuelan tankers even when displaying a Russian flag, even despite the presence of a Russian sub. Are we at a precipice with Russia?

[0925:12]

Did Putin just bluff? I asked that because since the beginning of the war, we've only given Ukraine enough to hold off the Russian bear, never enough to win. Why? For fear, you know, that Putin would use a nuke. Well, he fired a hypersonic missile with a nuclear capability, but he didn't use a nuke.

It's a long winded way of me asking, did Putin just blink?

SANGER: Well, I think he blinked a bit out in protecting that tanker. You may remember that it was a tanker the U.S. had been following. And then the tanker reflagged itself as a Russian ship and Putin sent, I think, a destroyer and a submarine to escort it. But as soon as the United States turned around and began to operate against it, suddenly those ships just disappeared. And I think that was a blink. But that missile shot, the hypersonic missile you mentioned, I think that was underappreciated. It landed about 40 miles short of the border with Poland. It was a missile that, as you say, is nuclear capable. And I don't think that while it was aimed at Ukraine, it was really intended to send a message to Ukraine. I think the message was to the rest of Europe because if there are European forces that go in as peacekeepers, they would go to precisely that area.

And I think the message of that shot was we have an intermediate range nuclear weapon that we are willing to use in either nuclear or non- nuclear mode right at European nations. And I think it was intended really as a message to them. And I think Putin is concerned that the U.S. and Europe believe that he's bluffing.

SMERCONISH: It's a fire hose of news this week and it's just hard to keep up with everything.

SANGER: Yes.

SMERCONISH: And I'm so glad that you commented in the way that you just did. And for those who've not yet had the benefit of all of this reporting, listen to the audio on the Daily and read it in the Times.

Thank you, David Sanger, we appreciate you.

As for everybody watching at home via social media, love to hear your reaction via X. Follow me on YouTube. You know how to get me. Love or hate Trump, but it's hard to argue against what he's done in Israel, Thailand, Venezuela, and now with Iran being on the brink of regime change. World is trending toward being a safer place, says Huh, What?

I just had this conversation with a colleague and I said, imagine in five years if you could look back and say Maduro is out in Venezuela and there's a more openly legitimate democratic force there, and if the war in Russia with Ukraine having been initiated by Russia against Ukraine has been resolved, and if Gaza is quiet, yes, wouldn't it be great? One can hope and pray, right?

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com, do you have an open or -- oh boy. I hope you're being honest with this one. I have an open mind. I have an open mind. I still want to see more evidence.

I'd love to hear the officer's account. I am not one who suited up immediately that night and said, well, I know exactly what went on here. So how about you? You have an open or closed mind as to the guilt or innocence of the Minnesota ICE agent?

Still to come, your social media reaction to my opening commentary and the outrage over fraud in Minnesota. Yes, the other Minnesota story. Cannot wait to get into this. Because you know what? It's not just a Minnesota problem, it's a national one.

And we are all paying the price for pandemic fraud.

Vote on the poll question. Sign up for the newsletter. You'll get the work of editorial cartoonist, somebody new on our team. He's a libertarian, Eric Allie. What do you make of what he drew?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:33:34]

SMERCONISH: Would you like me to read your social media live and unrehearsed? Then follow me on X and subscribe to my YouTube channel.

From RI, you are making it way too complicated. The rule should be if you run from the police -- what? Are you shitting me? If you run from the police, you'll be shot. That should be the standard?

Surely -- put that camera on me. Surely you jest. Surely you -- if you run from the police, you'll be shot. That's the world in which you want to live?

By the way, I'm a shoplifter. I'm a, I don't know, a car thief. I'm a pickpocket artist. And the police happen upon the scene and I run. And you want me shot without regard for any standard as to serious bodily harm or death being in play? No, that's -- that is -- there's -- there's a country for you and it's behind an iron curtain. It's probably a place where they would chop off your hand as well. That is nutty.

Give me another one. Maybe something more sane. What do we have?

Guilt or innocence of what? I'm open that this doesn't fit the legal definition of manslaughter or murder. I'm closed in mind that this was 100 percent reckless shooting and this --

Yes. Mark, it became too complicated if all of a sudden in a nice tight poll question I defined different things that might be applicable in this instance, I hardly think it matters.

[09:35:03]

I don't believe that there's unanimity in this country for a conviction, in this case, on any charges, on any charges. I base that anecdotally, and radio callers and a split of opinion that I have heard. It's a -- it's a nuanced case. And what I most object to -- what I most object to is what I've witnessed.

I kind of came in here, you know, all wound up today because I've not had the opportunity in television to say what I've said on radio, which is that it appalls me, the certainty with which so many who -- what separates them from you? They have access to a microphone and all of a sudden they're know it alls and they figured this all out, and it's so clear that this was murder, or it's so clear that this was conduct that could be excused and permitted, and no serious effort made to try and ferret out, what are the facts? What are all these guidelines that I read?

Like, what do all they -- what do they all say? Nobody gives a damn. Nobody cares. It's like, oh, I'm going to suit up in my blue jersey. And I'm going to say that they murdered that poor woman.

I'm going to suit up in my red jersey, and I'm going to say, she deserved it. Come on, invest the time.

Vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. I know which way the people whose social media I just read are going to vote. I don't know about the rest of you.

Do you have an open or a closed mind as to the guilt or innocence of the Minnesota ICE agent? Vote at Smerconish.com. End of the hour, I'll tell you where that stands.

Still to come, the Minnesota fraud scandal. The other Minnesota story, you remember? That's the tip of the iceberg. And focusing on a single official or state, I think what misses, what's really happening, what's continuing to happen since the pandemic, it's so much more than a Minnesota story and how much it is costing all of us is next.

Sign up for that newsletter when you vote at Smerconish.com. You'll love it. You'll get it on a daily basis and you'll receive the work of editorial cartoonists like Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:15]

SMERCONISH: OK, now the other Minnesota story. By now, we've all heard about that viral video. We've seen the viral video from the YouTube creator Nick Shirley, you remember this, alleging widespread fraud at government funded child care centers in Minnesota, particularly in the Somali community, started a firestorm. It has certainly caught the attention of the Trump administration and Congress, both of which are subjecting the state to heavy scrutiny. And the accusations are flying.

House Oversight Committee chair James Comer estimates that criminals in Minnesota have stolen an estimated 9 billion in taxpayer funds. Homeland Security officials say that the TSA flagged almost 700 million in cash in the luggage of those leaving Minnesota over the past two years. They believe it's tied to Somali immigrants and their money couriers. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at the Economic Club of Minnesota on Thursday, made the president's feelings clear.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: Minnesota, unfortunately, is ground zero for what may be one of the most egregious welfare scams in our nation's history to date. Under Governor Tim Walz, billions of dollars intended for families in need, housing for disabled seniors, and services for children were diverted to benefit fraudsters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Here's the thing. It is not just Minnesota. That may only be the tip of the iceberg because it's part of a much larger national story years in the making. Story Hinckley, writing last month for the Christian Science Monitor, summed up the origin as follows, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the U.S. government spent an unprecedented amount of money to prop up the economy and aid Americans whose daily lives had come to a sudden halt.

Between 2020 and 2021, President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden signed a combined six laws shelling out over $5 trillion, helping small businesses guarantee paychecks and paying for COVID-19 tests. The money also went toward health care and housing support, and to things like emergency food programs for children going without free lunches. A lot of the money, it turns out, went to fraudsters.

Nearly five years ago, when businesses were suddenly shuttered, workers unemployed an unprecedented flood of federal money was disbursed at record speed and with limited safeguards. I say this not in defense of anything that went on in Minnesota, but just to try and add some context here. It's not just Minnesota.

Three programs, in particular, have been linked to fraud. The Small Business Administration's (ph) COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, the EIDL. You remember this one, the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP, and the expanded unemployment insurance program., the PUA, or Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, much of the relief for these programs was predicated on trust.

Joining me now, the man whose company works with the government to detect fraud, LexisNexis Risk Solutions CEO for Government Haywood Talcove. Haywood, your colleagues responsible literally for the book "WTF" as in "Where's the Fraud?" in this case. So you're the one that I want to ask, Minnesota, exception or the norm?

HAYWOOD TALCOVE, LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS CEO FOR GOVERNMENT: It is not the exception. It is the norm. Right now, taxpayers in this country are losing approximately $1 trillion a year to fraud. To give you a sense of that, that's $115 million every hour of taxpayer money wasted.

SMERCONISH: Did the government know this is the way it was going to be, just because they were so desperate to put funds on the street in the midst of the pandemic?

TALCOVE: I don't think they anticipated the scope and scale of what was going to happen during the pandemic, but something triggered the criminals to understand that governments, the mark, that government prints more money.

[09:45:09]

In post COVID, the stealing of taxpayer dollars has just increased exponentially.

SMERCONISH: OK, what are we talking here? Are we talking about somebody who took advantage of the unemployment benefits when they didn't need them? Are we talking about somebody who took a PPP loan when maybe they didn't have? Is it that kind of just micro stuff but multiplied, you know, millions of times over, or is it something more sophisticated?

TALCOVE: Right, you have some of that. But what I've been talking about for the last decade is the criminal cartels that have entered the system that are stealing from these programs at scale. I mean, these aren't ordinary grifters. These are organized groups.

They have resources. They're focused. And what they've done is they've entered these systems, whether it's Medicaid, unemployment insurance, child care, whatever it might be, and they're able to steal taxpayer dollars without getting caught.

SMERCONISH: Why do they thrive in a government context? And why is so much of this tied to empathy?

You just delivered a PowerPoint presentation within the last 10 days that I've watched and read about. What's the answer to that question? Why so much in government and why a connection to empathy?

TALCOVE: The empathy, the suicidal empathy is what I've been calling it, is tied to American kindness and generosity. And the criminals go into these programs because no one wants to stop health care. No one wants to stop child care. Nobody wants to take away from those in need and they know that.

And because they know that they're able to take advantage of government antiquated systems and processes, not to mention the use of self-reported information. They can put down anything they want on an application, and it isn't validated.

SMERCONISH; I had a conversation this week with someone who played a significant role in the initiation of these programs in the thick of the pandemic. And knowing that you and I would have this conversation, I said, there's an expert, and he tells me, you know, that there just weren't sufficient guardrails and a lot of the money got blanked away.

And this individual said to me, we knew that would happen. And we thought, still better to have the money on the street, even in the hands of the fraudsters, because people will be spending it. Is that nutty?

TALCOVE: Yes. So, the problem with that issue is 70 percent of the money leaves the country, so it doesn't help the local economy. And that has always been a talking point that I'd rather, an individual, not go hungry, or rather an individual not get a loan, but the fact of the matter is fraud prevention isn't benefit prevention. Using front end identity verification and checking self-reported information on applications just takes a little bit of time, and it stops the criminals from stealing from taxpayers.

SMERCONISH: I started the program today talking about the Minnesota shooting, I'm sure you saw that, and expressed my dismay that it's such a partizan issue like everything else. This fraud issue is being presented as a partizan issue too. That it's all Minnesota. It's the Somali community. It's the blue states or et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You're the guy, OK. You're the expert. And if I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. Is it a red and blue state issue? Maybe not on the scale of Minnesota. You tell me.

TALCOVE: It doesn't matter, the state. Every single state has an issue with this. And fraud shouldn't be a partizan issue.

And I testified in front of Chairman Comer's Oversight Committee. I tried to make that point. At the end of the day, as taxpayers, we're losing $115 million an hour. We're enabling criminal enterprises to do horrible things to our most vulnerable. And the time for blaming is over. The time for fixing is now.

SMERCONISH: Final question. I don't know if you can do this. Put a dollar value on how much would come to me and to you and to every other adult in this country if we could contain the fraud and write everybody a legitimate check as a refund, what would it be?

TALCOVE: Every single person over the age of 18, Michael, would get a check for $6,000.

SMERCONISH: Wow, wow. That's a big problem. Haywood Talcove, thank you so much for your expertise. And everybody else, you still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com.

Go to my Web site, cast a ballot on the poll question, set yourself up for the newsletter. It's free. It's worthy.

Do you have an open or a closed mind as to the guilt or innocence of the Minnesota ICE agent? Subscribe to the newsletter and get editorial cartoons from the likes of Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:54:19]

SMERCONISH: OK, this never goes well. Do you want me to -- hand to God I've not looked at the result. Do you want me to show you my prediction, yes or no?

Catherine. OK, I'm going to say that the audience has voted 58 percent closed mind. Do you have an open or closed mind? I'll say that -- oh, OK. Look at that. Interesting. Whoa, 53 -- let's just forget I made the prediction. Let's just forget that I made it.

OK. More than half of nearly 40,000 people say that they've got an open mind. I like that. I'm heartened by that. Here's some social media reaction that came in. I shouldn't be -- I shouldn't be so surprised by our listeners -- our viewers and listeners.

[09:55:00]

Michael, you just said invest the time to research the facts, et cetera. That's the real problem, right? Digital, cable media doing the work for us and our thirst for immediate gratification is killer. I know, Janette, just because you're being fed instantaneously, this assessment, you're not off the hook to go and do some legwork on your own. I just wish more would resist the temptation of having to weigh in so decidedly and act like the case is a no brainer. This case is a very nuanced case. That's what I think.

The first words out of my mouth on this program today, two wrongs don't make a right. A conviction of serious criminal charges against this ICE agent is impossible. I'll tell you that as well. Even though I haven't seen the totality of the evidence. I've just heard enough anecdotally in the community and from radio listeners and my own background and experience, I don't think you could get a conviction of this individual.

And by the way, if there were a different president, and I'm not saying this as a good thing, there would definitely be a prosecution in the -- in the offering from Minnesota. And then this disconnect between the feds and the states -- and I don't think they'd get a conviction in Minnesota. So, maybe it's best that the Trump administration is going to handle it the way that they're going to handle it, because I don't think it could succeed anyway.

Sorry, I got longwinded. More social media reaction. Do I have time or did I eat up all my time? OK, sorry about that. Sorry, guys.

Hey, if you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching and I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)