A decade and change ago, the Justice Department delivered news that most Democrats and liberals desperately wanted not to hear: Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson (Missouri) Police Department was legally justified when he shot and killed Michael Brown, a Black teenager.
DOJ’s final report, based on an exhaustive FBI investigation, concluded that Wilson had acted reasonably and that his “actions do not constitute prosecutable violations” of federal law. The Justice Department found that Brown had reached into a police SUV and punched and grabbed Wilson. When Wilson drew his gun, Brown “grabbed the weapon and struggled with Wilson to gain control of it.” The viral narrative that Brown had been shot in the back or while his hands were raised in surrender was “inaccurate” and “inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence.” The evidence of Wilson’s non-guilt was clear enough, according to the Justice Department, that it would not even present the matter to a grand jury for consideration.
The report’s findings came as a stark rebuke to prominent liberals. Journalists, celebrities, activists, and Democratic politicians had posed dramatically with both hands in the air, in support of the false narrative around Brown. Jonathan Capehart, a left-leaning columnist for the Washington Post, acknowledged candidly that the DOJ report established that “‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ was based on a lie.”
Here’s the enduring lesson: those findings, delivered in March 2015, came from the administration of President Barack Obama, and the Justice Department headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. They had to know that the investigation’s conclusions would embarrass and discredit countless Democrats and liberals, and would vindicate a storyline favored by their political opponents. But the probe had been thorough and independent, and the truth was the truth. Holder delivered the facts unflinchingly, without regard to the underlying politics.
It’s impossible to imagine anything like that playing out now, as the Justice Department formally investigates last week’s fatal shooting of Renee Good by ICE Special Agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis. But in contrast to Obama and Holder – who let the Ferguson investigation play out according to the actual facts – President Donald Trump and leading administration officials have aggressively pre-ordained the outcome in the Minneapolis case. This one has barely started, and it’s already over.
Within hours of the Minneapolis shooting, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared publicly – while the crime scene was still being processed, and apparently based on zero investigation beyond a few clicks on X – that the ICE agent had acted in “self-defense” and that Good was engaged in “domestic terrorism” (a go-to phrase for this administration, even though there’s no actual crime called “domestic terrorism” and Good’s conduct, viewed in the worst light, doesn’t meet any plausible definition of the term.) Trump piled on with a claim that Good “viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.” Vice President J.D. Vance attacked the media, called Good a domestic terrorist (of course), deemed her actions “an attack on the American people,” and declared conclusively that Ross had “defended himself.”
Local officials did mostly the same, in reverse. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison preached about the need for an independent investigation and then announced that ICE agents had “escalated” the situation, and that “there’s facts to support” that Ross’s use of force was “unwarranted.” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey called for a “fair investigation” and then proclaimed definitively that Ross had not acted in “self-defense.” Minneapolis City Council member Jason Chavez called tearfully for an independent investigation moments before he pronounced Ross guilty of “murder.” It’s worse when the federal officials who control the ongoing FBI investigation prejudge a case, but it’s also hypocritical and counterproductive – if somewhat less insidious – when local officials do the same.
The Justice Department’s investigation is now hopelessly compromised, no matter what it finds. Consider the two possible outcomes. Assume first that, a few months from now, the FBI finishes its work and concludes that Ross acted in justifiable self-defense, and that criminal charges are not warranted. (This will happen, of course.) Should the public accept that finding, given that the officials who run the Executive Branch already have publicly decreed that Ross did absolutely nothing wrong? Even if the investigation itself is thorough and well-supported in exonerating Ross, will it hold any public credibility?
And imagine if DOJ finds that Ross acted unreasonably and should face criminal charges. It’s a near-certainty that the administration would try to smother this conclusion and prevent it from coming out publicly in the first place. Ultimately, is there any chance that the Trump administration would allow DOJ to actually prosecute Ross – contrary to the vehement public exonerations issued by the President, Vice President, and DHS Secretary? If not, then why bother to investigate at all?
Further complicating matters, the FBI and Minnesota state law enforcement officials parted ways almost immediately, to the surprise of exactly nobody. Ideally (and typically), whenever a federal agent uses lethal force, the FBI works with Justice Department prosecutors to investigate, in coordination with state and local officials. (As a former federal and state prosecutor, I’ve been involved in dozens of police shooting cases, mostly on the state side.) It’s not a fifty-fifty power relationship; the feds run the show, while state authorities typically play a secondary but important role by helping to navigate the local terrain. Here, it took just two days for the FBI to exclude Minnesota investigators. Trump incoherently blamed the decision on Tim Walz being “a stupid person;” a purported “$19 billion stolen from a lot of people but mostly by people from Somalia;” and “a corrupt voting system” in a state he won “all three times” (even though he actually lost all three times). Got it.
This is precisely why decent public officials of both parties habitually, if unsatisfyingly, refrain from making grand pronouncements in the immediate aftermath of a controversial police-involved shooting. Call for calm, call for a full and fair investigation, even call generically for justice to be served – fine. But, until recently, we’ve largely seen responsible leaders make some effort to preserve the investigation’s integrity and the public appearance of fairness. It’s boring, for good reason.
Trump, Vance, and Noem have no interest in such niceties. Why wait for the facts when they can dictate their own preferred outcome through accusation, repetition, and certitude? It’s a raw exercise of political power, divorced entirely from any interest in the truth: We need an investigation! followed immediately by Here’s your result, in advance.
Obama and Holder did a hard thing in 2015 when they delivered a truth their own political allies didn’t want to hear. There’s a crucial lesson in that – one that now seems quaint for its commitment to process and unflinching honesty. But in the Trump era, truth is imposed, not discovered.
