PBS News Hour full episode, Jan. 7, 2026

GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening. I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz. On the "News Hour" tonight: A woman is shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, igniting protests in a city targeted by the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.

JACOB FREY (D), Mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota: I have a message for ICE. To ICE, get the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) out of Minneapolis.

GEOFF BENNETT: U.S. forces seized two more tankers linked to Venezuela as part of President Trump's plan to take control of the nation's oil industry.

AMNA NAWAZ: And California communities struggle to rebuild one year after the devastating Los Angeles fires.

PEGGY HOLTER, Palisades Fire Victim: It's better than it was a year ago, in the sense that it doesn't look horrible, but you're reminded of what you've lost.

(BREAK)

AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "News Hour." State and local officials in Minneapolis are outraged tonight after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed a woman there. Federal officials accuse that woman of trying to run over officers with a vehicle, claiming the shooting was in self-defense.

GEOFF BENNETT: The city's mayor says the video tells a different story. Liz Landers starts our coverage. And a warning: The video in this report is disturbing.

LIZ LANDERS: The incident unfolded in seconds, a maroon SUV approached by a federal law enforcement vehicle, agents telling the female driver to get out of her car, pulling on the door handle. The SUV reverses, then moves forward.

(GUNSHOTS)

LIZ LANDERS: Shots are fired, and the vehicle barrels into parked cars across the street. Shocked bystanders rushed to the car to try and provide aid. The driver, who Minnesota officials identified as a 37-year-old woman, was killed.

WOMAN: Dude, you shot her!

LIZ LANDERS: A Minnesota senator said she was a U.S. citizen. At an event along the Texas border, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the ICE agent acted in necessary self-defense.

KRISTI NOEM, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary: It was an act of domestic terrorism. A woman attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle. An officer of ours acted quickly and defensively shot to protect himself and the people around him.

LIZ LANDERS: The president also weighed in from social media. "It is a horrible thing to watch," Trump said. "The woman screaming was obviously a professional agitator and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer."

No officer appeared to be run over, but some who saw the video from a different angle, including the president, argued the ICE officer's life was in danger from the vehicle. A witness who saw the shooting unfold said he saw it differently.

AIDAN PERZANA, Witness: My interpretation at the time and still is that the person was trying to get away, and there was definitely space to get -- to drive forward without hitting anybody. I did not think that -- at the time, I did not even think there was a risk of her hitting anybody.

JACOB FREY (D), Mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota: There's sowing chaos on our streets and, in this case, quite literally killing people.

LIZ LANDERS: Minneapolis's Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey shared that doubt.

JACOB FREY: They are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense. Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody directly, that is bull (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

LIZ LANDERS: Today's shooting comes as Minnesota faces a massive immigration crackdown, with plans to deploy some 2,000 agents and officers. DHS called it -- quote -- "the largest immigration operation ever," and it is tied in part to allegations of fraud involving Somali residents. Minnesota has the biggest Somali-American population in the country. Mayor Frey had these words for the growing immigration enforcement presence in the city.

JACOB FREY: And I have a message for ICE. To ICE, get the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) out of Minneapolis.

PROTESTERS: Shame! Shame! Shame!

LIZ LANDERS: Hundreds gathered at the scene and angry protesters heckled agents, the residential neighborhood where the shooting occurred just a mile or so from where George Floyd was killed by police in 2020. Minneapolis has long been a target of President Trump since that time, during his first term, when riots and protests broke out in the city after Floyd's murder. Minnesota's Governor Tim Walz said this was a pattern from the Trump administration.

GOV. TIM WALZ (D-MN): Do not take the bait. Do not allow them to deploy federal troops into here. Do not allow them to invoke the Insurrection Act. Do not allow them to declare martial law. Do not allow them to lie about the security and the decency of this state.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Minnesota Star Tribune is now reporting that the mother of the woman who was killed has identified her as Renee Nicole Good. For more, we're joined now by Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara. Thank you for being with us. And you said just yesterday that the way ICE had carried out their operations, the intense emotions surrounding all of this made unrest or tragedy almost inevitable. And now that is precisely what has happened. How do you square that warning with what unfolds?

BRIAN O'HARA, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Police Chief: Well, unfortunately, the reality of conducting law enforcement is, every time our police officers leave the station and go out into the street, there is risk that something tragic can happen. And we know very clearly, as we -- I have been saying for several weeks, is, there is a very heightened risk when activity is being conducted, enforcement activity is being conducted on the street when situations are very tense and things are very emotionally charged. And so that's why I just think it's very important that we ensure that an investigation occur transparency -- transparently. I think we owe that to the deceased person and their family, as well as to the community, who clearly have been very concerned. And there's just been a lot of questions, not so much specifically about whether or not federal law enforcement -- federal laws are enforced, but, more specifically, how that enforcement is being conducted.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, based on what you have seen and learned so far, what is your assessment of what transpired in that fatal shooting?

CHIEF BRIAN O'HARA: So the information that I have is very preliminary and is the same as what is available in open sources. But I can tell you this much. In my career as a police officer for many decades now, law enforcement training has been trying to de-escalate whenever possible and trying to avoid getting police officers into these types of situations with drivers who are taking off and trying to prevent situations where law enforcement may be in the path of a vehicle, trying to avoid these things in the first place. And so that has very clearly been where professional law enforcement has been going in this country for many years.

GEOFF BENNETT: It's your officers who've had to deal with the immediate aftermath of all of this. What's the plan for how you intend to handle protests and demonstrations in the days ahead?

CHIEF BRIAN O'HARA: Well, our officers have been doing an incredible job day and night around the clock, and it's been heightened for the last several weeks. And, quite frankly, many times, our officers come to scenes trying to protect life, trying to preserve the peace, and they often then become the object of people's hate and vitriol and frustration over how things are happening in the street. So we will continue to be staffed up. We will be ready to go around the clock. But, more importantly, we are asking everyone in our community and all of our public officials to please allow people to exercise their right to peaceably assemble and express frustrations, but express those frustrations lawfully and peacefully, and not further subject this community to destruction or any further tragedy. Today was a tragedy. Let's be clear. I don't think, no matter which side you're on, the loss of a human life is a tragedy. And in this type of situation, no one wins.

GEOFF BENNETT: Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara, thanks again for your time this evening. We appreciate it.

CHIEF BRIAN O'HARA: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: For more analysis, I'm joined now by John Sandweg, who served as acting ICE director under President Obama. John, welcome back to the show. Thanks for being with us.

JOHN SANDWEG, Former Acting ICE Director: Yes, thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, as you have seen, DHS is saying that the ICE agent here was acting in self-defense. The mayor of Minneapolis, others have dismissed that after they saw the video. Have you yourself watched the video? What's your assessment of what happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: I think the videos -- I have seen two videos now, and I think both of them raise troubling questions here. But I think what concerns me is this rush to judgment, really on both sides, but I did find the DHS statement particularly irresponsible. This requires an investigation. This -- the video certainly raises concerns as to whether or not the officer had a reasonable basis to believe his life or the life of his fellow agents were in either serious danger of death or bodily injury. But these videos are not -- they're not the entire story and they can be misleading. And so I think what will concern me is that we have all these people making these immediate rushes to judgment without first conducting a formal investigation, getting the facts we need and then drawing our conclusions based on a thorough assessment of what exactly happened.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right? What caused the officer to get into that position? What was the distance between the officer and the -- and the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, right? What angle did the bullets come in? These are all questions are going to form that basis. Now, Amna, the analysis is from that of the agent himself. Did he have a reasonable basis to believe that his life or his fellow agents' lives were in jeopardy, right? That's the critical question. But, again, although those videos absolutely raise troubling questions in that, and I think call all the more reason for us to have an investigation, they're not -- they're not alone sufficient. We're going to need to get more data than that to draw any real conclusions.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that DHS statement. It was very long and detailed, definitively coming out in defense of the ICE agent's actions. What questions do you think need to be answered now to figure out what exactly happened here?

JOHN SANDWEG: Well, first of all, I will tell you, I spent five years at DHS working for a secretary. And whenever something like this happens, the initial information you get is just not accurate. You get all sort of people doing their best to provide quickly information to the department's leadership. And, just unfortunately, it just tends not to be -- you get this misleading or wrong information in the outset. So I think that what's frustrating in part, and where I find that statement really irresponsible, is that you know better when you're in those positions to make rush, snap judgments based on that initial reporting. But, secondly, Amna, look, this -- the videos certainly raise all sorts of questions, including, where was the officer located as the car started to take off, right?

putting real food back at the center of the American diet, real food that nourishes the body, restores health, fuels energy, and builds strength.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But these new recommendations are getting mixed reviews from nutrition experts and medical associations. So, to help break down this new guidance, we are joined again by Lindsey Smith Taillie. She's a nutrition epidemiologist and co-director of the Global Food Research Program at UNC Chapel Hill. Lindsey, so nice to have you back on the program. Let's get your overall broad-brush take on these guidelines. What do you like? What don't you like?

LINDSEY SMITH TAILLIE, Nutrition Epidemiologist, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Thank you so much for having me. I think there's a lot to like in these guidelines and also a number of items to be concerned about. In terms of what to like, I think the overall focus on eating real food is great and really landmark progress in the U.S., where we know that the majority of our diets come from ultra-processed foods that are linked to an array of chronic diseases. And so having this very clear, simple guidance to eat real food, I think is enormously helpful, both for policymakers and for your everyday consumer. On the other hand the guidelines also contain a number of items, such as the increased recommendation for meat and dairy and the elimination of the alcohol guideline, that are quite concerning.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It's striking to me that the idea that the federal government is only now saying to people, eat real food, like, how is it that we have taken this long to say something so simple?

LINDSEY SMITH TAILLIE: I think there are a number of reasons. First of all, from a scientific perspective, it's only been in about the last decade or so that we have really thought of food in this particular way, where we're looking at almost a non-nutritional dimension, processing, how was the food actually made and packaged and distributed? So that is new. I think the other thing that is the reason why we haven't done this before is conflicts of interest. So when you look at who is on the Dietary Guidelines Scientific Committee and who funds their research, in the past, those scientists have been funded by organizations that produce ultra-processed foods. And I think that has a lot to do with what kind of guidelines you see in the previous guidelines and then also today.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So I want to double back to what you were saying before about what seems to be a real heavy focus on meat and dairy. If you just look at that pyramid itself, in the upper left corner, it's chicken and beef and steak and cheese and hamburger. Where do you think that is coming from? And what is it that troubles you about that.

LINDSEY SMITH TAILLIE: Yes, absolutely. So I think there are two things that are troubling to me about that. The first is that this is really in conflict with what the recent Dietary Guidelines Committee of Scientists recommended, and also that this is something that could potentially be very harmful for the environment, because we know that beef production in particular is responsible for the majority of food-related environmental harms. So that's part one. And then I think the second thing that goes along with what I was saying earlier about conflicts of interest is that RFK Jr., one of his main stances that we were also excited about is that he promised to get rid of conflicts of interest from the dietary guidelines, things like this ultra-processed food conflicts of interest that I was talking about earlier. But what we see when we look at the scientists who created this report is that the majority of them have recent financial ties to the beef and dairy industries. And so we still have the same question of, is this actually based in gold standard scientific evidence, or is this essentially food industry propaganda that is kind of coming from the federal government?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Secretary Rollins in that announcement today said that this guidance will have a particularly big impact on school lunches, what's served to children in schools. How so?

LINDSEY SMITH TAILLIE: So, right now, school lunches have no guidelines around their processing levels. And so this guideline at a very high level, this guideline of eating real foods, could have profound effects, because the majority of school lunches are coming from ready-to-eat, ready-to-heat and highly processed sources. And then I think the other major shift in the guideline is really on added sugar. The government was actually just in the process for the first time of implementing an added sugar guideline. But this new recommendation is much more strict than previous recommendations. And so if it gets implemented in schools, we can imagine seeing things like reductions in sweetened, flavored milks for example or all the refined grains that are in school lunches.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Lindsey Smith Taillie of UNC Chapel Hill, always great to talk to you. Thank you so much.

LINDSEY SMITH TAILLIE: Thank you so much for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: And that's the "News Hour" for tonight. I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz. On behalf of the entire "News Hour" team, thank you for joining us.