The Deputy U.S. Attorney General blamed protesters Monday morning for destroying evidence at the scene where federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti Saturday. Minnesota blamed federal agents for the same thing. A federal judge already issued a restraining order blocking federal agencies from destroying evidence. And now both sides are in court arguing about who compromised the crime scene.
Meanwhile, President Trump announced he’s sending Border Czar Tom Homan to Minnesota tonight to personally oversee operations. The state of Minnesota is suing to end “Operation Metro Surge”—the massive influx of federal immigration agents.
And a separate lawsuit resulted in a court order blocking federal officers from retaliating against peaceful protesters.
Two U.S. citizens have been killed by federal agents in Minneapolis in less than a week. The crime scenes are compromised. The evidence is disputed.
Federal and state governments are blaming each other. And the confrontation between federal immigration enforcement and Minnesota is escalating into full-scale institutional warfare.
Discussion
Fake news as usual! Always trying to blame Trump when it's their own mess!
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
The Deputy AG’s Accusation
Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche held a press conference Monday morning specifically to blame Minnesota leadership for evidence destruction at the Pretti shooting scene:
“It would do everybody in this country a lot better if honesty were spoken from the leadership in Minnesota. Protesters and rioters overtook that crime scene. It was not federal law enforcement. It was not Border Patrol agents that did not preserve the crime scene. That is just blatantly false.”
Blanche’s statement directly contradicts Minnesota authorities’ account. State investigators claimed federal agents blocked them from the scene, prevented evidence collection, and cleared the area before state officials could process it independently.
Now federal government claims protesters “overtook” the crime scene and compromised evidence—suggesting federal agents lost control of the scene to crowds, allowing evidence destruction.
The competing narratives create impossible situation: Either federal agents blocked state investigators and cleared evidence themselves, or they lost control of the scene to protesters who destroyed evidence.
Both versions suggest the crime scene was compromised. The dispute is over who compromised it.
The Court Order Federal Agents May Have Violated
Judge Katherine Menendez issued a temporary restraining order before Blanche’s press conference.
The order explicitly blocks federal agencies from “destroying or altering evidence related to Pretti’s fatal shooting.”
The timing matters. The judge issued the order because there was concern—from someone, presumably Minnesota authorities or civil rights attorneys—that federal agencies might destroy evidence.
Judges don’t issue restraining orders prohibiting evidence destruction without reason to believe destruction is imminent or already happening. Someone presented the judge with enough evidence of concern to warrant immediate order.
Now Deputy AG is claiming protesters destroyed evidence—after judge already ordered federal agencies not to. If federal agencies lost control of the scene to protesters who destroyed evidence after the court order, federal government potentially violated the order by failing to secure the scene as required.
If federal agencies themselves destroyed or altered evidence before or after the court order, that’s direct violation with potential contempt consequences.
Minnesota’s Lawsuit to End “Operation Metro Surge”
The State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and City of St. Paul filed federal lawsuit demanding an end to “Operation Metro Surge”—the Trump administration’s deployment of massive federal immigration enforcement presence in Minnesota.
The complaint’s core argument: “The aggressive influx of federal immigration officers into the state is driven by nothing more than the Trump Administration’s desire to punish political opponents and score partisan points—at the direct expense of Plaintiffs’ residents.”
That’s extraordinary accusation for state government to make in federal court: that federal immigration enforcement is politically motivated punishment rather than legitimate law enforcement.
The lawsuit asks Judge Menendez to:
Reduce federal agent numbers: Return to pre-Operation Metro Surge levels. Force federal government to withdraw the massive enforcement presence.
Prohibit identity concealment: Ban federal officers from using masks or concealing their identities during operations. Ensure accountability through identification.
Ban racial profiling: Prohibit approaching suspects based only on “race, ethnicity, accented speech, or proximity to predominantly Immigrant-serving businesses or cultural centers.”
These requests are aggressive limitations on federal law enforcement authority. The Trump administration’s response: the lawsuit has “not a shred of legal support” and the president has “broad authority” to enforce federal immigration law.
The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. ET Monday. Judge Menendez will hear arguments from both sides before deciding whether to grant Minnesota’s requests.
The Separate Lawsuit About Peaceful Protesters
A different lawsuit—brought by group of protesters rather than state government—resulted in Judge Menendez issuing another temporary restraining order.
This order blocks federal officers from “retaliating against peaceful protesters.”
The fact that protesters needed court protection from federal retaliation suggests the relationship between federal agents and Minneapolis residents has deteriorated to point where protesters fear government violence for exercising First Amendment rights.
And given that Alex Pretti was killed while recording federal agents—which is First Amendment protected activity—those fears appear well-founded. He was exercising constitutional rights when federal agents killed him.
The court order theoretically protects other protesters from similar retaliation. Whether federal agents will comply with the order is separate question.
Tom Homan’s Deployment – Again
President Trump announced Monday morning he’s sending Border Czar Tom Homan to Minnesota tonight: “I am sending Tom Homan to Minnesota tonight. He has not been involved in that area, but knows and likes many of the people there. Tom is tough but fair, and will report directly to me.”
This is at least the second time Trump has announced deploying Homan to Minnesota. The repetition suggests either previous deployment didn’t happen or didn’t achieve desired effect.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified Homan’s mission: “Tom Homan will be managing ICE operations on the ground in Minnesota and coordinating with others on the ongoing fraud investigations.”
The fraud investigations reference is significant. Trump has repeatedly claimed massive fraud in Minnesota’s childcare programs, tying it to Somali community and Representative Ilhan Omar.
Trump’s Monday post connected the dots explicitly: fraud “is at least partially responsible for the violent organized protests going on in the streets,” and the Justice Department and Congress are “looking at” Ilhan Omar. “Time will tell all.”
That framing transforms Pretti’s killing and resulting protests into fraud investigation blowback—suggesting the real story is Minnesota corruption rather than federal agents killing citizens.
The Ilhan Omar Connection Trump Keeps Making
Trump’s repeated references to Representative Ilhan Omar in context of Minnesota violence, fraud investigations, and federal enforcement create clear political narrative:
Omar represents Minneapolis. She’s Somali-American. She’s been vocal critic of Trump’s immigration policies. Trump has attacked her repeatedly since his first term.
By connecting fraud investigations to Omar, protests to fraud, and federal enforcement to all of it, Trump frames Minnesota conflict as rooting out corruption in Omar’s district and immigrant communities rather than federal overreach.
The message: Minnesota’s problems are self-inflicted corruption that federal government is fixing, not federal agents killing citizens without justification.
Whether fraud investigations actually connect to Omar beyond her representing the district where fraud occurred hasn’t been established. But Trump keeps making the connection publicly, suggesting political prosecution rather than neutral law enforcement.
Secretary Noem’s Praise for Homan Deployment
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem praised Homan’s deployment Monday: “Good news for peace, safety, and accountability in Minneapolis.”
The statement’s irony is remarkable. Two U.S. citizens have been killed by federal agents in Minneapolis in less than a week. Crime scenes are compromised. Evidence is disputed. The city is in chaos. Federal and state governments are suing each other.
Describing this situation as movement toward “peace, safety, and accountability” requires aggressive reframing of reality.
Noem continued: “I have worked closely with Tom over the last year and he has been a major asset to our team—his experience and insight will help us in our wide-scale fraud investigations, which have robbed Americans, and will help us to remove even more public safety threats and violent criminal illegal aliens off the streets of Minneapolis.”
The statement connects Homan’s deployment to fraud investigations and removing “violent criminal illegal aliens”—not to investigating why federal agents keep killing U.S. citizens.
Governor Walz’s Jurisdictional Argument
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz clarified the state’s position Sunday: “We cooperate. We don’t do their job. It’s their job to do Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It’s law enforcement’s job to do law enforcement in Minnesota.”
The distinction is constitutionally sound: Immigration enforcement is federal responsibility. State and local law enforcement handle state crimes and public safety. The two functions are separate.
Minnesota police will cooperate with federal agents on matters within state jurisdiction—if federal agents kill someone, state police will respond to that crime. But they won’t assist with immigration enforcement operations themselves.
That’s anti-commandeering doctrine: federal government cannot force states to enforce federal law. States can refuse to help without violating Supremacy Clause.
But Walz’s clarification also reveals the operational problem: when federal agents conduct enforcement without state cooperation, they operate without local knowledge, community relationships, or backup. That increases likelihood of violent confrontations like the ones that killed two citizens in a week.
The Evidence Destruction Timeline
Reconstructing what happened to evidence at Pretti shooting scene based on competing claims:
Saturday morning: Federal agents shoot Pretti. Scene becomes crime scene requiring evidence preservation.
Saturday afternoon: Minnesota authorities arrive to investigate. Federal agents block their access, citing federal jurisdiction.
Saturday evening: Federal agents clear the scene. Minnesota authorities claim evidence was removed or destroyed before they could process it independently.
Sunday: Minnesota files motion for temporary restraining order to prevent further evidence destruction.
Monday: Judge Menendez issues TRO blocking federal agencies from destroying evidence. Deputy AG Blanche claims protesters, not federal agents, compromised the scene.
The timeline creates questions: If protesters overtook the scene Saturday and destroyed evidence, why did federal agents allow that? If federal agents controlled the scene and prevented state investigators from accessing it, how did protesters compromise it? If evidence destruction happened after the court order, who violated the order?
The Constitutional Crisis in Minnesota
What’s happening in Minnesota represents constitutional crisis involving multiple simultaneous conflicts:
Federal versus state authority: Federal immigration enforcement versus state sovereignty and anti-commandeering doctrine.
Evidence preservation: Federal and state governments both claiming the other destroyed evidence, with court orders trying to prevent further destruction.
Political prosecution: Federal government pursuing fraud investigations in district represented by vocal Trump critic, with Trump explicitly connecting the investigations to Representative Omar.
Use of force: Federal agents have killed two U.S. citizens in one week, with video evidence contradicting official accounts.
Protest suppression: Protesters need court orders protecting them from federal retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights.
Institutional warfare: Federal and state governments suing each other, blaming each other, and refusing cooperation.
None of these conflicts has clear resolution through existing constitutional framework. They’re all escalating simultaneously.
The “Broad Authority” Federal Government Claims
The Trump administration’s response to Minnesota’s lawsuit argues the president has “broad authority” to enforce federal immigration law.
That’s constitutionally accurate—immigration is federal authority, president executes federal law, Congress has granted presidents substantial discretion in immigration enforcement.
But “broad authority” has limits:
Fourth Amendment: Federal agents cannot use excessive force or conduct unreasonable seizures.
First Amendment: Federal agents cannot retaliate against citizens for exercising free speech or recording law enforcement.
Fifth Amendment: Federal agents cannot deprive citizens of life without due process.
Equal Protection: Federal enforcement cannot be motivated by race or political viewpoint.
Minnesota’s lawsuit argues federal operations violate all of these limits. The administration argues its broad authority supersedes these concerns.
The constitutional question: Does broad federal immigration authority include authority to kill citizens exercising constitutional rights, compromise evidence, conduct politically motivated enforcement, and resist state oversight?
Judge Menendez’s Impossible Position
Judge Katherine Menendez—nominated by President Biden—faces impossible legal and political position:
Legally: She must balance federal immigration authority (clearly federal jurisdiction) against constitutional rights violations (state interest in protecting residents) and evidence preservation (court’s interest in ensuring justice).
Politically: Any ruling will be attacked as partisan. Rule for Minnesota, she’s Biden appointee blocking Trump’s immigration enforcement. Rule for federal government, she’s allowing constitutional violations to continue.
Practically: She cannot force federal government to withdraw agents from Minnesota—that’s executive branch decision. She cannot force state to cooperate with federal enforcement—that violates anti-commandeering. Her authority is limited to constitutional violations and evidence preservation.
The hearing Monday will test whether she issues stronger orders limiting federal operations, maintains status quo with TROs on evidence and protest retaliation, or sides with federal government’s broad authority claims.
Whatever she rules, someone will accuse her of political bias and appeal immediately.
Feels like we're losing control and accountability, where's the justice in all this?