DOJ Subpoenas Walz, Frey Over Alleged ICE Obstruction and Reckless Rhetoric
‘Mayor Frey and Governor Walz have to get their city under control. They are encouraging impeding and assault against our law enforcement..”
The Department of Justice’s decision to investigate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey marks a significant moment in the ongoing standoff between federal immigration authorities and Democratic leadership in Minnesota. While the probe does not presume guilt, it reflects growing concern inside the federal government that public statements and actions by state and local officials may have crossed from political opposition into potentially improper interference with lawful enforcement activity.
According to reporting, the DOJ has issued subpoenas as part of a criminal investigation examining whether Walz and Frey impeded federal officers as they carried out immigration operations in the Twin Cities. The inquiry reportedly centers on a federal statute addressing conspiracies to obstruct federal investigations, a high bar that suggests investigators believe the public record warrants closer scrutiny.
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday issued subpoenas for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D), accusing them of standing in the way of federal law enforcement officer’s abilities to carry out their jobs… The Post added that Walz and Frey are being investigated in connection with a federal statute on conspiracy to impede a federal investigation.”
The investigation follows weeks of escalating rhetoric as federal authorities deployed thousands of immigration officers to Minnesota. That deployment sparked protests, some of which turned violent, placing federal agents and local law enforcement in increasingly volatile situations. In that context, the language used by state and city leadership took on heightened significance.
Frey publicly told federal agents to leave Minneapolis using profane language, while Walz repeatedly characterized federal enforcement actions as politically motivated and authoritarian. While public officials are entitled to criticize federal policy, federal investigators appear to be examining whether such statements, made amid unrest and confrontations, had the effect of encouraging resistance or undermining officer safety.
“The federal inquiry is focused on a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 372… which makes it a crime for two or more people to conspire to prevent federal officers from carrying out their official duties through ‘force, intimidation or threats.’ Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said: ‘Mayor Frey and Governor Walz have to get their city under control. They are encouraging impeding and assault against our law enforcement which is a federal crime.’”
Walz and Frey have both dismissed the investigation as an intimidation tactic, arguing that they are being targeted for standing up for their residents. That defense, however, does not fully address the practical consequences of their rhetoric during a period when federal officers were facing physical confrontations, arrests were being made for assaults on law enforcement, and tensions were already running high.
The DOJ’s involvement does not criminalize dissent or policy disagreement. Rather, it reflects a determination to assess whether public conduct by senior officials remained within lawful bounds when federal operations were underway. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s reminder that “no one is above the law” underscores that elected office does not exempt leaders from scrutiny when questions arise about interference with federal authority.
“Both Walz and Frey have openly rebuked the surge of federal activity in Minneapolis, with Frey delivering a public message for federal agents to ‘get the f**k out of Minneapolis.’ … Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote, ‘We support those performing their lawful duties to protect public safety and will PROSECUTE anyone attacking or obstructing them.’”
At its core, this investigation is about judgment. When senior officials choose incendiary rhetoric during active federal operations, they assume responsibility for the consequences that follow. The DOJ is now testing whether that judgment crossed from political posturing into conduct that materially undermined the rule of law, and whether leaders who demand accountability from others were willing to uphold it themselves.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They will not stop until Renee Good happens three more times to fulfill the required body count.
Ohio has been replaced.
“They” being Walz, Frey and the legions of doom that never grew up around minorities.
I fully support three more goods. How can I help?
Oh, and by the way. This is in no way a reference to Good. It is a reference to doing good. Thus the lower case.
This has been a public service announcement encouraging young men and women to be good… not Good.
Elected Democrats in power being held to the law? Ain’t gonna happen.
Subotai Bahadur
If they’ve broken the law, the US Attorney will be only too happy to bring charges. A jury may acquit, there’s nothing that can be done about that, but the USA will bring the charges. The big hurdle is finding the evidence that they’ve committed a crime. I’m not aware of any such evidence. Catch them secretly meeting with ICE Watch, or communicating with them, and you’ll have a case.
Milhouse:
You don’t usually flat-out lie, but in the instance of Minnesota (where I lived for 60 years in the Heart of the Hive™) you’re not only being willfully ignorant, you’re refusing to acknowledge reality.
Here’s what 18 U.S.C. § 372 says (from the Cornell Law site):
“If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.”
Did you get that? “…force, intimidatiion, or THREAT”? If you’re saying that Walz and small-Frey haven’t threatened federal law enforcement, then you’re admitting that you simply haven’t listened to them speak. I’d say that the governor of a state, and the mayor of a city, by issuing these verbal threats after having communicated between each other meets the statute’s definition of trying to “induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed”.
The evidence that you refuse to acknowledge is right in front of you, with links to “The Hill” which in turn contains links to a very few carefully curated videos. Try a simple web search for videos of the small-Frey threatening federal officers and you’ll come up with dozens.
And there’s exactly ZERO need for proof of the two of them “…meeting with ICE watch” or other immaterial nonsense. Read the statute. “Two or more persons…”, which can be small-Frey and Walz, or Walz and Keith Muhammed X. Ellison, or Ellison and small-Frey.
Quit trying to baffle with BS, and admit that they’ve got two un-indicted co-conspirators running that screwed up state and city, and that because they’ve got a “D” after their names that (as Mr. Bahadur points out) will NEVER be convicted. Partly because of the willfully ignorant, like you.
Blackwing, you are the one lying here. There are NO videos, or any other evidence, of any threat made by Walz or by Frey. Anyone who claims they have made threats is lying. So is anyone claiming, as you do, that Frey ordered police to interfere with ICE.
Look up the legal definition of a “true threat”.
A conspiracy requires two or more people to agree that one of them will commit a crime. ICE Watch is a criminal conspiracy. For Walz or Frey to be involved in that conspiracy they must have personally met or communicated with a member of the conspiracy. Not with each other, or with Ellison.
Great! Now do the clowns in NY. PA, IL, and CA for starters. Haul all their asses in and make them explain why they are not encouraging obstruction of federal law enforcement efforts voted on and affirmed by a majority of the voting population in a democratic election.
They don’t have to explain that. The first amendment is all the explanation they need. Encouraging is protected speech. Conspiracy is not.
How is it that SO MANY are getting away with violent obstruction? Throwing bricks, concrete blocks, bottles of urine, targeting law enforcement with fireworks….
This is pure Trump Derangement Syndrome. Nobody gave a rat’s about illegals when Clinton, Bush and Obama deported millions and millions of illegals. But Trump tries it and it’s the end of the world. They never care about anything other than how much the hate Trump
They’re getting away with it because there aren’t enough agents to arrest them all. That will change once Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and sends in the regular army.
Every time I see that picture I think of Biden.
Every time I see that pic I wonder where I left my baseball bat, I also wonder what part me I would sprain next with one good swing and how far I could drive a bonehead.
The neck is the major impediment.
If you’re not sure, you should start with Schiff.
Works for me.
I avoid looking at that picture in order to keep my sanity.
I don’t see how public statements made the news industry can possibly constitute conspiracy with the criminals. Surely conspiracy requires direct communication between its alleged members, so that they can arrive at an agreement.
If Walz or Frey are part of a conspiracy such as “ICE Watch”, then there would need to be at least one meeting or direct phone communication between each of them and at least one member of that conspiracy.
Otherwise all they’re doing is encouraging and cheering, which is protected by the first amendment.
Certainly, but how does it help with finding an actual conspiracy?
Indeed they are encouraging it. And indeed those things are federal crimes. But encouraging a crime is not itself a crime, and it can’t be. The first amendment protects the right to advocate anything, including crimes, and draws the line only at incitement, as defined in Brandenburg.
Perhaps morally, but not legally.
While you are correct that mere public advocacy is not conspiracy, methinks you take a far too narrow view of what constitutes a conspiracy in this instance.
If Walz calls Frey and they discuss and agree on concerted state action to impede ICE (e.g., having the local police stand down on enforcing the law against people attaching ICE agents), that’s an obstruction conspiracy. If Frey and his staff discuss, agree, and implement such actions, that’s an obstruction conspiracy (and probably actionable direct obstruction).
IOW, Walz and Frey’s public statements alone are not enough, but they likely are evidentiary smoke that justifies further investigation, which will likely lead DOJ to an actionable fire. And I suspect there will be no shortage of Mn police who will happily drop a dime on those who are ordering the stand downs.
Frankly, Walz’s public statements alone that he would have the local police fight ICE agents should be more than enough for PDT to invoke the Insurrection Act and send in the 101 Airborne or a Marine division. If Walz truly wants a fight, it will be short and not to his advantage.
No, it isn’t, because that isn’t a crime. The state has the constitutional right to do that.
To be a criminal conspiracy they must agree that some member of the conspiracy will commit a crime, i.e. interfering with ICE agents, rather than simply standing aside and refusing to help them. Not only is there no evidence of this, it makes no sense for them to do so. They are cheering others who commit crimes, but they are keeping their hands clean.
Frankly, Walz’s public statements alone that he would have the local police fight ICE agents He has made no such statements.
Oops, that last bit should have been a blockquote:
He has made no such statements.
Walz must really be deep in the fraud money hence his resurrection of cold weather Dixiecrats.
Hence his decision to drop out of the governor’s race.
He could have dropped out and shut up but there is more to this story.
Stupid always comes with a price. Tampon Tims about to learn that.
It’s better than nature’s (Darwin’s) price, but don’t expect any gratitude from him.
cori bush is trying to make a comeback
he wont be any different
Is she back to her fighting weight yet?
Leave a Comment