1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,520 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:11,840 Speaker 2: There's something centers to going on here. There's something bigger 3 00:00:11,880 --> 00:00:17,160 Speaker 2: than just the FBI confiscating the records that. 4 00:00:17,079 --> 00:00:21,120 Speaker 3: They took, and Fulton County Chairman Rob Pitts says the 5 00:00:21,160 --> 00:00:24,960 Speaker 3: county wants the twenty twenty election files that the FBI 6 00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:28,800 Speaker 3: sees last week back. They're asking a federal court to 7 00:00:28,960 --> 00:00:33,159 Speaker 3: order the FBI to return the seven hundred boxes of ballots, 8 00:00:33,280 --> 00:00:37,400 Speaker 3: voter rolls, and other election records, calling the county the 9 00:00:37,440 --> 00:00:41,760 Speaker 3: poster child for further federal action on elections elsewhere in 10 00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:42,400 Speaker 3: the country. 11 00:00:43,040 --> 00:00:45,960 Speaker 2: This is I think probably the first step in whatever 12 00:00:46,560 --> 00:00:51,199 Speaker 2: they're going to do in order to depress voter participation, 13 00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:55,360 Speaker 2: voter registration, making whatever changes they think are necessary to 14 00:00:55,400 --> 00:00:58,160 Speaker 2: help their case in twenty twenty six, but more importantly 15 00:00:58,160 --> 00:00:59,320 Speaker 2: in twenty twenty eight. 16 00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:03,840 Speaker 3: As President Trump is doubling down on his calls to 17 00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:05,480 Speaker 3: nationalize elections. 18 00:01:06,280 --> 00:01:09,080 Speaker 4: I wouldn't see elections be honest, and if a state 19 00:01:09,200 --> 00:01:11,640 Speaker 4: can't run an election, I think the people behind me 20 00:01:11,680 --> 00:01:12,960 Speaker 4: should do something about it. 21 00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:17,920 Speaker 3: Of Course, the Constitution gives the authority to administer elections 22 00:01:18,080 --> 00:01:22,160 Speaker 3: to the states. My guest is Barbara McQuaid, a professor 23 00:01:22,160 --> 00:01:25,160 Speaker 3: at the University of Michigan Law School and a former 24 00:01:25,280 --> 00:01:29,560 Speaker 3: US attorney. Barbara, why do you think the FBI sees 25 00:01:29,640 --> 00:01:34,319 Speaker 3: those hundreds of boxes of ballots and voter rolls and 26 00:01:34,640 --> 00:01:38,679 Speaker 3: other election records from the twenty twenty presidential election. 27 00:01:39,480 --> 00:01:42,920 Speaker 5: It's unknown, of course, but we have some hints. 28 00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:46,160 Speaker 6: I mean, one is they got a search for it, 29 00:01:46,200 --> 00:01:50,280 Speaker 6: which means a magistrate judge found probable cause to believe 30 00:01:50,880 --> 00:01:54,280 Speaker 6: that evidence of a crime would be found there. And 31 00:01:54,320 --> 00:01:57,520 Speaker 6: we know from the public filing that what they obtained 32 00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:05,080 Speaker 6: were ballots, tabulation tapes, and voter roles. Now, twenty twenty 33 00:02:05,360 --> 00:02:09,440 Speaker 6: is six years ago, and so it would seem that 34 00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:13,680 Speaker 6: anything that occurred during that year would be time barred 35 00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:16,440 Speaker 6: by the five year statute of limitations. But of course 36 00:02:16,480 --> 00:02:19,720 Speaker 6: that's not something that a magistrate judge had taken into 37 00:02:19,720 --> 00:02:23,800 Speaker 6: consideration at that stage. Perhaps there's some allegation of an 38 00:02:23,880 --> 00:02:28,840 Speaker 6: ongoing conspiracy that could keep that allegation fresh. 39 00:02:29,520 --> 00:02:30,160 Speaker 5: I don't know. 40 00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:36,400 Speaker 6: But also you can't ignore the simultaneous civil request that 41 00:02:36,440 --> 00:02:39,359 Speaker 6: Trump's doj has been making to try to get voter 42 00:02:39,480 --> 00:02:42,240 Speaker 6: rolls from a number of states, including Georgia. They have 43 00:02:42,360 --> 00:02:45,320 Speaker 6: failed in states where decisions have been made, like California 44 00:02:45,360 --> 00:02:47,400 Speaker 6: and Oregon, where judges have said no. 45 00:02:47,520 --> 00:02:49,440 Speaker 5: The federal government is not entitled to this stuff. 46 00:02:49,480 --> 00:02:52,360 Speaker 6: So are they simply using criminal process to get that 47 00:02:52,400 --> 00:02:56,520 Speaker 6: which they could not obtain otherwise. But the fact that 48 00:02:56,560 --> 00:02:59,440 Speaker 6: a magistrate found probable cause suggests. 49 00:02:59,040 --> 00:03:02,000 Speaker 5: That there is more information there than we currently know. 50 00:03:02,600 --> 00:03:05,640 Speaker 3: The prosecutor who sought the warrant was not the US 51 00:03:05,760 --> 00:03:10,720 Speaker 3: attorney in Atlanta, but the Saint Louis US Attorney, Thomas Albus. 52 00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:15,639 Speaker 3: So he's been appointed to oversee this. I don't know 53 00:03:15,639 --> 00:03:18,240 Speaker 3: if they're calling it election integrity, what they're calling it. 54 00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:21,480 Speaker 5: Yeah, it's really unusual, but not illegal. 55 00:03:21,560 --> 00:03:24,840 Speaker 6: I mean, so much of what the Trump administration does 56 00:03:25,000 --> 00:03:29,920 Speaker 6: is technically lawful, but either unusual or you know, discretion 57 00:03:30,040 --> 00:03:33,280 Speaker 6: you'd rather see someone not exercise. I suppose ordinarily you 58 00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:35,600 Speaker 6: would expect the US Attorney from the Northern District of 59 00:03:35,640 --> 00:03:40,119 Speaker 6: Georgia to oversee any search conducted within his jurisdiction. That's 60 00:03:40,480 --> 00:03:42,520 Speaker 6: the way it's done in ninety nine point nine percent 61 00:03:42,520 --> 00:03:45,600 Speaker 6: of the cases. The Attorney General does, however, have the 62 00:03:45,680 --> 00:03:50,520 Speaker 6: authority to appoint a special attorney to investigate any matters 63 00:03:50,560 --> 00:03:53,160 Speaker 6: that she chooses, and we've seen this done over the years. 64 00:03:53,400 --> 00:03:56,240 Speaker 6: For example, Pat Fitzgerald, who was the US attorney in 65 00:03:56,320 --> 00:03:59,520 Speaker 6: Chicago at the time, handled the Scooter Libby case. I 66 00:03:59,520 --> 00:04:01,480 Speaker 6: think that was effort to just sort of get it 67 00:04:01,560 --> 00:04:04,840 Speaker 6: out of Washington so that it wouldn't have the stench 68 00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:08,320 Speaker 6: of politics. I know that Anne Tompkins out of North 69 00:04:08,320 --> 00:04:14,000 Speaker 6: Carolina handled the prosecution of General Petraeus. For example, John Durham, 70 00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:18,080 Speaker 6: before he was the special counsel looking at the origins 71 00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:22,920 Speaker 6: of the Russia investigation, actually investigated CIA torture. 72 00:04:23,000 --> 00:04:25,600 Speaker 5: At one time, So it's not unprecedented. 73 00:04:25,600 --> 00:04:29,640 Speaker 6: It's often in sort of politically charged cases where the 74 00:04:29,640 --> 00:04:33,040 Speaker 6: Attorney General may appoint somebody outside of Washington who's a 75 00:04:33,120 --> 00:04:36,120 Speaker 6: US attorney or it doesn't have to be to handle 76 00:04:36,200 --> 00:04:39,320 Speaker 6: maybe sensitive cases. And I think it's especially true if 77 00:04:39,320 --> 00:04:41,880 Speaker 6: the case might transcend the boundaries of. 78 00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:43,480 Speaker 5: A particular judicial district. 79 00:04:43,520 --> 00:04:46,520 Speaker 6: So maybe this case is going to include not just Georgia, 80 00:04:46,600 --> 00:04:49,400 Speaker 6: but some other states, so that might make some sense. 81 00:04:49,680 --> 00:04:52,160 Speaker 6: I worry a little bit about I don't know Thomas Albis, 82 00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:52,920 Speaker 6: but I do know that. 83 00:04:52,880 --> 00:04:53,960 Speaker 5: He comes from Missouri. 84 00:04:54,440 --> 00:04:59,279 Speaker 6: He has been the top deputy to former attorney general 85 00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:03,200 Speaker 6: in Missouri named Eric Schmidt. Eric Schmidt joined in the 86 00:05:03,279 --> 00:05:07,400 Speaker 6: lawsuit with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton when they tried 87 00:05:07,440 --> 00:05:10,919 Speaker 6: to file a direct lawsuit to the Supreme Court to 88 00:05:11,040 --> 00:05:14,520 Speaker 6: challenge the outcome of election results in several states during 89 00:05:14,520 --> 00:05:17,839 Speaker 6: the twenty twenty election. So he's got sort of the 90 00:05:18,839 --> 00:05:22,320 Speaker 6: association with election deniers that causes me some concern. 91 00:05:22,920 --> 00:05:26,480 Speaker 3: In your latest column for Bloomberg, you compared it to 92 00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:31,120 Speaker 3: the appointment of Lindsay Halligan as US Attorney for the 93 00:05:31,160 --> 00:05:36,800 Speaker 3: Eastern District of Virginia. She's the Trump loyalist with no 94 00:05:36,960 --> 00:05:42,599 Speaker 3: prosecutorial experience who was put in place to get indictments 95 00:05:42,680 --> 00:05:47,800 Speaker 3: against James Comey and Letitia James, indictments which were later dismissed. 96 00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:49,880 Speaker 3: Is she still hanging in there? 97 00:05:50,320 --> 00:05:53,080 Speaker 5: She finally resigned yep, and went on her way. 98 00:05:53,520 --> 00:05:53,760 Speaker 4: Yeah. 99 00:05:53,839 --> 00:05:56,440 Speaker 6: You know, this is not quite as irregular as that 100 00:05:56,440 --> 00:05:58,360 Speaker 6: that was clearly legally invalid. 101 00:05:58,760 --> 00:06:01,839 Speaker 5: Courts found that threw it out. This is legally. 102 00:06:01,600 --> 00:06:05,600 Speaker 6: Valid, but it does have sort of the appearance at 103 00:06:05,680 --> 00:06:09,359 Speaker 6: least the whiff of You remember, her predecessor was a 104 00:06:09,360 --> 00:06:12,320 Speaker 6: guy named Eric Siebert, who said I'm not going to 105 00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:14,800 Speaker 6: indict Jim Comey and Letitia James, and he got fired 106 00:06:14,839 --> 00:06:18,640 Speaker 6: for it. And in twenty twenty, there was a different 107 00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:21,800 Speaker 6: US attorney Trump appointed in the Northern District of Georgia 108 00:06:21,880 --> 00:06:22,560 Speaker 6: by the name of b. J. 109 00:06:22,760 --> 00:06:25,080 Speaker 5: Pack and he resigned. 110 00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:28,680 Speaker 6: In December of twenty twenty when Trump started asking Brad Raffensberger, 111 00:06:28,720 --> 00:06:31,520 Speaker 6: the Secretary of State there, to find me eleven seven 112 00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:35,280 Speaker 6: hundred and eighty votes. So you wonder if it isn't 113 00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:40,000 Speaker 6: the case that these US attorneys who've got backgrounds as 114 00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:44,200 Speaker 6: federal prosecutors. As the current US attorney there in Northern Georgia, 115 00:06:44,320 --> 00:06:47,000 Speaker 6: does I think his name is Hertzberger? You know, he's 116 00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:49,360 Speaker 6: a career a USA. But Trump's not going to make 117 00:06:49,400 --> 00:06:52,360 Speaker 6: the same mistake twice, right, He's going to make sure 118 00:06:52,360 --> 00:06:55,240 Speaker 6: he's got somebody he can trust that Pam Bondy has 119 00:06:55,320 --> 00:07:00,159 Speaker 6: handpicked to handle this very sensitive operation as opposed to 120 00:07:00,760 --> 00:07:01,440 Speaker 6: the person. 121 00:07:01,160 --> 00:07:04,040 Speaker 5: Who would ordinarily assign this case too. 122 00:07:04,120 --> 00:07:06,839 Speaker 6: So that's all I meant by Lindsay Halligan. You know, 123 00:07:06,920 --> 00:07:11,160 Speaker 6: the Trump appointed US attorney not willing to play ball, 124 00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:15,640 Speaker 6: and so let's bring in the specialist from outside who 125 00:07:15,640 --> 00:07:18,360 Speaker 6: will do Trump's bidding. Kind of has the whiff of 126 00:07:18,400 --> 00:07:22,480 Speaker 6: that though, you know, certainly the appointment itself appears to 127 00:07:22,520 --> 00:07:23,440 Speaker 6: be legal. 128 00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:26,920 Speaker 3: And actually the special Agent in charge of the Atlanta 129 00:07:27,040 --> 00:07:31,320 Speaker 3: Field Office resigned from his post about a week before 130 00:07:31,400 --> 00:07:34,920 Speaker 3: the agent served the war and there was no public explanation. 131 00:07:35,600 --> 00:07:39,320 Speaker 6: Yeah, that's another, you know, red flag, I suppose, And 132 00:07:39,400 --> 00:07:43,280 Speaker 6: I don't know whether he resigned or was fired, and 133 00:07:43,320 --> 00:07:45,840 Speaker 6: I don't know why he left. I know cash PTTEL 134 00:07:45,960 --> 00:07:49,880 Speaker 6: has been firing agents who had anything to do with 135 00:07:50,320 --> 00:07:54,160 Speaker 6: either the Trump investigations or the January sixth investigations, which 136 00:07:54,160 --> 00:07:55,160 Speaker 6: itself is improper. 137 00:07:55,200 --> 00:07:57,560 Speaker 5: There's no allegation that engaged in enimous conduct. They just 138 00:07:57,560 --> 00:07:59,240 Speaker 5: don't like the cases that they worked on. 139 00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:02,240 Speaker 6: I don't know why. But again, that would be another 140 00:08:02,360 --> 00:08:05,600 Speaker 6: safeguard there. The Special Agent in charge of the FBI 141 00:08:05,800 --> 00:08:10,960 Speaker 6: runs the FBI office in Atlanta. That office was tasked 142 00:08:11,120 --> 00:08:14,000 Speaker 6: with conducting this search, and so the special Agent in 143 00:08:14,080 --> 00:08:15,720 Speaker 6: charge would be someone who'd be in a position to 144 00:08:15,760 --> 00:08:18,640 Speaker 6: push back and say, no, we're not going to do this. 145 00:08:18,720 --> 00:08:19,840 Speaker 5: I don't think it's lawful. 146 00:08:19,880 --> 00:08:22,480 Speaker 6: I don't think it's an appropriate use of our power, 147 00:08:22,760 --> 00:08:25,800 Speaker 6: or at least let's talk about this and the fact 148 00:08:25,880 --> 00:08:30,200 Speaker 6: that he was either fired or resigned again. Is just 149 00:08:30,240 --> 00:08:34,520 Speaker 6: one more red flag and another irregularity among many. 150 00:08:35,160 --> 00:08:38,080 Speaker 3: Fulton County is suing to get the records back, but 151 00:08:38,160 --> 00:08:41,079 Speaker 3: they say they won't be able to verify that they've 152 00:08:41,120 --> 00:08:45,120 Speaker 3: received everything back because one, typically they're given copies of 153 00:08:45,160 --> 00:08:49,359 Speaker 3: the records, but this time they weren't given copies. And two, 154 00:08:49,440 --> 00:08:53,440 Speaker 3: there was no chain of custody inventory taken at the 155 00:08:53,520 --> 00:08:55,040 Speaker 3: time the records were seized. 156 00:08:55,720 --> 00:08:57,199 Speaker 5: Oh what a mess. I didn't know that. 157 00:08:57,320 --> 00:09:01,960 Speaker 6: So, you know, the chaos of the Trump administration never 158 00:09:02,000 --> 00:09:05,800 Speaker 6: ceases to amaze me. I mean, of course, ordinarily, when 159 00:09:06,040 --> 00:09:09,880 Speaker 6: the FBI conducts a search, there is a whole protocol 160 00:09:09,920 --> 00:09:13,040 Speaker 6: for how that's done. They get training at Quantico for 161 00:09:13,120 --> 00:09:15,760 Speaker 6: how to do this. There is an agent who leads 162 00:09:15,880 --> 00:09:18,840 Speaker 6: the search, and then there are other agents assigned to 163 00:09:18,960 --> 00:09:25,000 Speaker 6: the search. They assign various agents, at least two to every. 164 00:09:24,840 --> 00:09:26,400 Speaker 5: Room that gets searched. 165 00:09:26,840 --> 00:09:30,040 Speaker 6: When there are computers involved, they track what it is 166 00:09:30,120 --> 00:09:35,280 Speaker 6: they're taking or whether they're just copying it, and documenting 167 00:09:35,280 --> 00:09:39,000 Speaker 6: that carefully is critically important, number one, so that everybody 168 00:09:39,040 --> 00:09:41,000 Speaker 6: knows what was taken, so the rightful owner of the 169 00:09:41,040 --> 00:09:43,920 Speaker 6: property kind of requested back. But also if you're going 170 00:09:43,960 --> 00:09:46,280 Speaker 6: to use this at evidence at trial. You have to 171 00:09:46,320 --> 00:09:49,480 Speaker 6: authenticate it and show that chain of custody so that 172 00:09:49,559 --> 00:09:52,679 Speaker 6: the jury knows this isn't something that you just manufactured 173 00:09:52,679 --> 00:09:55,080 Speaker 6: once you got back to the FBI office, that you 174 00:09:55,120 --> 00:09:57,840 Speaker 6: can have a witness testify. I am the one who 175 00:09:57,880 --> 00:10:00,760 Speaker 6: showed up at the Fulton County Election office on such 176 00:10:00,800 --> 00:10:01,440 Speaker 6: and such day. 177 00:10:01,960 --> 00:10:03,920 Speaker 5: I took this document into. 178 00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:06,640 Speaker 6: My hands, or I copied it from a computer or 179 00:10:06,679 --> 00:10:09,320 Speaker 6: whatever it was. I put my initials on it. I 180 00:10:09,360 --> 00:10:12,760 Speaker 6: put it in an evidence bag. I labeled the drive 181 00:10:12,960 --> 00:10:16,120 Speaker 6: whatever it is, so that that chain of custody can 182 00:10:16,160 --> 00:10:20,480 Speaker 6: be retrieved at trial. It makes me wonder whether they're 183 00:10:20,600 --> 00:10:24,400 Speaker 6: obtaining this evidence not so much for any future criminal case, 184 00:10:24,640 --> 00:10:25,880 Speaker 6: but for some other purpose. 185 00:10:26,280 --> 00:10:27,640 Speaker 5: I don't know what that purpose would be. 186 00:10:28,360 --> 00:10:31,000 Speaker 3: It seems to be in line with the Justice Department 187 00:10:31,320 --> 00:10:34,439 Speaker 3: suing twenty four states to try to get not only 188 00:10:34,559 --> 00:10:39,520 Speaker 3: names and addresses, but voter birth dates and drivers license 189 00:10:39,600 --> 00:10:44,800 Speaker 3: information and partial social Security numbers. And I've been wondering 190 00:10:45,400 --> 00:10:48,600 Speaker 3: what they need or want all this information for. 191 00:10:49,880 --> 00:10:52,120 Speaker 5: Yeah, there's been some speculation. You know, I don't think 192 00:10:52,120 --> 00:10:52,360 Speaker 5: we know. 193 00:10:52,440 --> 00:10:54,840 Speaker 6: I don't think the Trump administration has said so, but 194 00:10:54,920 --> 00:10:58,760 Speaker 6: some of the speculation is one to undermine public confidence 195 00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:00,839 Speaker 6: in the twenty twenty City midterms. 196 00:11:01,320 --> 00:11:03,480 Speaker 5: Two to identify. 197 00:11:03,000 --> 00:11:07,040 Speaker 6: People who are not valid voters. You know, they're dead 198 00:11:07,200 --> 00:11:11,040 Speaker 6: or they're non citizens. Fine, I mean people shouldn't be 199 00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:14,200 Speaker 6: voting if they are not eligible to vote. But also 200 00:11:14,520 --> 00:11:20,480 Speaker 6: to obtain private data to conduct influence campaigns. We know 201 00:11:20,559 --> 00:11:24,440 Speaker 6: in twenty sixteen Steve Bannon found at Cambridge Analytica and 202 00:11:24,480 --> 00:11:26,680 Speaker 6: started doing some of this analytical work. You know, in 203 00:11:26,720 --> 00:11:29,600 Speaker 6: the same way Netflix will suggest to you a show 204 00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:32,160 Speaker 6: you might like, and they're pretty good, right. 205 00:11:32,200 --> 00:11:34,439 Speaker 5: They are based. 206 00:11:34,160 --> 00:11:37,199 Speaker 6: On what you've watched before, what you've liked before. They 207 00:11:37,240 --> 00:11:40,079 Speaker 6: can suggest things or you know, when you are on 208 00:11:40,120 --> 00:11:43,160 Speaker 6: Google and other things, the ads that pop up are 209 00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:45,800 Speaker 6: based on some of your prior searches. In the same way, 210 00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:50,880 Speaker 6: what Steve Bannon's group researched and learned is that if 211 00:11:50,920 --> 00:11:54,480 Speaker 6: they can learn certain information about you, then they can 212 00:11:54,520 --> 00:11:58,840 Speaker 6: send you targeted ads that can have nudging effects. So, 213 00:11:58,920 --> 00:12:01,360 Speaker 6: for example, if that we know that this person is 214 00:12:01,400 --> 00:12:04,200 Speaker 6: a gun owner and cares deeply about gun rights, we 215 00:12:04,240 --> 00:12:07,480 Speaker 6: can send them targeted ads all about how a particular 216 00:12:07,520 --> 00:12:11,120 Speaker 6: candidate supports gun rates or their opponent wants to take 217 00:12:11,160 --> 00:12:14,760 Speaker 6: away your guns. If a person cares deeply about immigration issues, 218 00:12:15,080 --> 00:12:17,600 Speaker 6: they can send you targeted ads on that topic. So 219 00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:19,920 Speaker 6: it can be a real treasure trove to have all 220 00:12:19,920 --> 00:12:24,920 Speaker 6: of this information for election purposes. And voter information has 221 00:12:24,960 --> 00:12:29,439 Speaker 6: always been safeguarded and considered a voter's private information. And 222 00:12:29,679 --> 00:12:31,920 Speaker 6: I don't know that that's information that we want to 223 00:12:31,960 --> 00:12:34,800 Speaker 6: be sharing with political campaigns. 224 00:12:35,200 --> 00:12:37,440 Speaker 3: I think the answer from most of us is that 225 00:12:37,520 --> 00:12:40,320 Speaker 3: we don't want that to be shared. We'll talk more 226 00:12:40,360 --> 00:12:44,640 Speaker 3: about that coming up. And also Democrats are sounding the 227 00:12:44,760 --> 00:12:50,360 Speaker 3: alarm that Tulsey Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, was 228 00:12:50,480 --> 00:12:55,040 Speaker 3: at this FBI raid. Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the vice 229 00:12:55,160 --> 00:12:58,360 Speaker 3: chair of the Senate Intel Committee, says Gabbard has no 230 00:12:58,520 --> 00:12:59,960 Speaker 3: place in this investigation. 231 00:13:00,520 --> 00:13:03,680 Speaker 4: To see her skulking around in a baseball cap the 232 00:13:03,720 --> 00:13:06,120 Speaker 4: picture that was posted. You never thought you could make 233 00:13:06,120 --> 00:13:06,719 Speaker 4: this stuff up. 234 00:13:07,280 --> 00:13:10,440 Speaker 3: That's coming up next. I'm June Grosso and you're listening 235 00:13:10,679 --> 00:13:17,000 Speaker 3: to Bloomberg. Is the recent FBI raid of a Georgia 236 00:13:17,040 --> 00:13:21,640 Speaker 3: county election office a precursor to battles ahead as the 237 00:13:21,679 --> 00:13:26,760 Speaker 3: Trump administration steps up efforts to obtain sensitive voter information 238 00:13:26,920 --> 00:13:31,000 Speaker 3: from states. Fulton County is suing to get the FBI 239 00:13:31,240 --> 00:13:34,920 Speaker 3: to return the seven hundred boxes of ballots, voter rolls, 240 00:13:34,960 --> 00:13:39,360 Speaker 3: and other election records, with County Chairman Rob Pitts questioning 241 00:13:39,600 --> 00:13:41,080 Speaker 3: why the records were taken. 242 00:13:42,000 --> 00:13:45,000 Speaker 2: We were given no notice whatsoever. They showed up and 243 00:13:45,080 --> 00:13:48,360 Speaker 2: took the seven hundred boxes that they wanted. So what 244 00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:51,280 Speaker 2: they're doing with them now, we don't know. Typically we're 245 00:13:51,280 --> 00:13:53,840 Speaker 2: given copies. We don't even have copies of what they took. 246 00:13:53,920 --> 00:13:56,400 Speaker 2: So it's a problem. What are they doing with Where 247 00:13:56,400 --> 00:13:57,439 Speaker 2: are they? Who hasn't? 248 00:13:57,679 --> 00:14:01,559 Speaker 3: Lots of questions and not many answers, and Democrats in 249 00:14:01,640 --> 00:14:07,200 Speaker 3: Congress are questioning why Tulci Gabbert, the Director of National Intelligence, 250 00:14:07,440 --> 00:14:11,280 Speaker 3: was at the Fulton County search last week. Senator Mark 251 00:14:11,320 --> 00:14:15,640 Speaker 3: Warner raised concerns about her presence because the search was 252 00:14:15,679 --> 00:14:17,000 Speaker 3: a law enforcement action. 253 00:14:17,679 --> 00:14:21,240 Speaker 4: What the heck is she doing on the FBI serving 254 00:14:21,280 --> 00:14:24,760 Speaker 4: a domestic warranty? If this doesn't concern the heck out 255 00:14:24,800 --> 00:14:27,200 Speaker 4: of every American, it sures, how should. 256 00:14:27,680 --> 00:14:32,000 Speaker 3: Gabert also facilitated a phone call between those FBI agents 257 00:14:32,120 --> 00:14:36,520 Speaker 3: and President Trump after the search warrant was executed, and 258 00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:40,280 Speaker 3: Warner is calling on her to testify in person before 259 00:14:40,280 --> 00:14:42,000 Speaker 3: the Senate Intelligence Committee. 260 00:14:42,360 --> 00:14:45,560 Speaker 4: To see her skulking around in a baseball cap the 261 00:14:45,600 --> 00:14:48,000 Speaker 4: picture that was posted. You never thought you could make 262 00:14:48,000 --> 00:14:48,560 Speaker 4: this stuff up. 263 00:14:48,920 --> 00:14:51,200 Speaker 3: I've been talking to Barbara McQuay, a professor at the 264 00:14:51,280 --> 00:14:55,160 Speaker 3: University of Michigan Law School. Barbara adding to the oddity 265 00:14:55,200 --> 00:14:58,760 Speaker 3: of the search was the appearance of the Director of 266 00:14:59,120 --> 00:15:03,920 Speaker 3: National intelligen Gents, Tulsa Gabbard, who later said that President 267 00:15:04,040 --> 00:15:07,920 Speaker 3: Trump directed her to be at the search and then 268 00:15:08,160 --> 00:15:12,800 Speaker 3: afterwards President Trump spoke to the agents on the phone 269 00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:13,760 Speaker 3: on speak of. 270 00:15:13,880 --> 00:15:16,480 Speaker 5: All of this highly irregular and bizarre. 271 00:15:16,800 --> 00:15:19,840 Speaker 6: So there are two reasons it's bizarre to me that 272 00:15:19,920 --> 00:15:23,640 Speaker 6: Tulsi Gabbard was there. Number One, a person at her level, 273 00:15:24,000 --> 00:15:27,280 Speaker 6: the Director of National Intelligence, like just should have better 274 00:15:27,320 --> 00:15:30,560 Speaker 6: things to do, right, They have trained agents for this work. 275 00:15:30,880 --> 00:15:32,960 Speaker 6: You would not expect the Attorney General to be there. 276 00:15:32,960 --> 00:15:35,440 Speaker 6: You would not expect the head of the FBI to 277 00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:38,200 Speaker 6: be there. Right, These are this is in the trenches 278 00:15:38,360 --> 00:15:40,880 Speaker 6: kind of work that agents are trained to do and 279 00:15:40,920 --> 00:15:43,160 Speaker 6: do every day. So the idea that she's there, and 280 00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:45,320 Speaker 6: she's there like you know, in a ball cap and everything, 281 00:15:45,360 --> 00:15:48,080 Speaker 6: like what is she rolling up her sleeves and grabbing evidence. 282 00:15:48,080 --> 00:15:48,840 Speaker 5: I don't think so. 283 00:15:48,840 --> 00:15:51,880 Speaker 6: So just bizarre that she's physically present at the scene, 284 00:15:51,920 --> 00:15:55,120 Speaker 6: first of all. Second of all, this really feels like 285 00:15:55,160 --> 00:15:59,880 Speaker 6: something way beyond her remit. Her job is to court 286 00:16:00,160 --> 00:16:04,560 Speaker 6: nate intelligence collection among the eighteen intelligence agencies in the 287 00:16:04,560 --> 00:16:08,600 Speaker 6: federal government, and then to report to the President about 288 00:16:08,600 --> 00:16:11,640 Speaker 6: the results of those findings, to answer any questions he 289 00:16:11,720 --> 00:16:15,160 Speaker 6: may have to advise him about threats to the national security. 290 00:16:15,480 --> 00:16:18,160 Speaker 5: These are threats coming from foreign. 291 00:16:18,240 --> 00:16:24,080 Speaker 6: Actors, So that suggests that there is some foreign nexus 292 00:16:24,360 --> 00:16:25,320 Speaker 6: to this search. 293 00:16:25,840 --> 00:16:28,320 Speaker 5: I can't imagine what that would be. It kind of 294 00:16:28,360 --> 00:16:30,720 Speaker 5: goes back to some of those conspiracy theories. Remember when 295 00:16:30,720 --> 00:16:35,280 Speaker 5: Sidney Powell was saying things like dominion falsely, I'll add 296 00:16:35,960 --> 00:16:43,120 Speaker 5: dominion voting machines were programmed by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, 297 00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:46,400 Speaker 5: like what. And then remember there was some tie to 298 00:16:46,440 --> 00:16:49,520 Speaker 5: Italy that caused William Barr to actually travel there with 299 00:16:49,640 --> 00:16:51,800 Speaker 5: John Durham when they were investigating the origins of the 300 00:16:51,880 --> 00:16:54,320 Speaker 5: Russian investigation. They never found anything there. 301 00:16:54,360 --> 00:16:57,520 Speaker 6: The Inspector General never found anything relating to these things. 302 00:16:57,840 --> 00:17:01,520 Speaker 6: It seems like it was all just wild, crazy stuff 303 00:17:01,560 --> 00:17:05,160 Speaker 6: that was manufactured. But here we are again with some 304 00:17:05,240 --> 00:17:08,159 Speaker 6: suggestion that there's some foreign nexus to all of this. 305 00:17:08,520 --> 00:17:11,000 Speaker 6: I don't know what it is, but if there's not 306 00:17:11,080 --> 00:17:14,560 Speaker 6: any foreign nexus, highly improper for Tulsa Gabbert to be there. 307 00:17:14,920 --> 00:17:17,919 Speaker 6: But if she's there, it does raise this specter of 308 00:17:18,119 --> 00:17:20,680 Speaker 6: is there some foreign nexus to this? 309 00:17:21,400 --> 00:17:24,040 Speaker 5: And I just can't imagine where this is going. But 310 00:17:24,200 --> 00:17:25,440 Speaker 5: brace yourself, June. 311 00:17:25,480 --> 00:17:27,760 Speaker 3: Well, what I was going to say is, you know, 312 00:17:27,760 --> 00:17:31,040 Speaker 3: people might say, well, let them investigate. If there's nothing there, 313 00:17:31,200 --> 00:17:34,280 Speaker 3: then no harm, no foul, But you don't know if 314 00:17:34,320 --> 00:17:38,080 Speaker 3: there could be you know, manufactured crimes or as you said, 315 00:17:38,160 --> 00:17:41,840 Speaker 3: the risks of undermining the midterm elections. I mean, there's 316 00:17:41,880 --> 00:17:45,560 Speaker 3: so much that could happen. You know, it's unsettling, to 317 00:17:45,600 --> 00:17:46,680 Speaker 3: say the least. 318 00:17:46,760 --> 00:17:47,439 Speaker 5: It really is. 319 00:17:47,480 --> 00:17:49,000 Speaker 6: And I think one of the great harms of this 320 00:17:49,080 --> 00:17:53,879 Speaker 6: administration is because of some of the acts they've engaged in, 321 00:17:54,400 --> 00:17:57,560 Speaker 6: you know, just like misleading us about what happened on 322 00:17:57,560 --> 00:18:00,399 Speaker 6: the ground in Minneapolis with these shooting when we can 323 00:18:00,440 --> 00:18:01,000 Speaker 6: see with our. 324 00:18:00,920 --> 00:18:02,520 Speaker 5: Own eyes that is not what they say. 325 00:18:03,160 --> 00:18:05,800 Speaker 6: I think that some courts have said they've lost the 326 00:18:05,840 --> 00:18:09,640 Speaker 6: presumption of regularity that our federal government has always enjoyed 327 00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:12,199 Speaker 6: that we trust that when they say they're going to 328 00:18:12,240 --> 00:18:15,800 Speaker 6: do something, that's what they're doing, and that we have 329 00:18:15,880 --> 00:18:18,000 Speaker 6: to sort of, you know, trust and wait and see 330 00:18:18,040 --> 00:18:20,560 Speaker 6: what happens. But I think the track record of this 331 00:18:20,600 --> 00:18:24,040 Speaker 6: administration has made us all very skeptical, and I worry 332 00:18:24,040 --> 00:18:27,359 Speaker 6: that that kind of skepticism will continue even after this 333 00:18:27,440 --> 00:18:28,639 Speaker 6: administration ends. 334 00:18:29,119 --> 00:18:31,439 Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Barbara, it's always a pleasure having you on. 335 00:18:31,960 --> 00:18:35,800 Speaker 3: That's Professor Barbara McQuaid of the University of Michigan Law School. 336 00:18:38,240 --> 00:18:41,600 Speaker 3: Arguments at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could determine 337 00:18:41,600 --> 00:18:46,199 Speaker 3: whether state legislatures can bring lawsuits over the objections of 338 00:18:46,240 --> 00:18:49,960 Speaker 3: the state's governor and attorney general. The Ninth Circuit held 339 00:18:50,119 --> 00:18:54,240 Speaker 3: oral arguments in a case where Republican lawmakers in Arizona 340 00:18:54,800 --> 00:18:59,359 Speaker 3: sidestep the Democratic state governor and attorney general in challenging 341 00:18:59,400 --> 00:19:04,880 Speaker 3: the Footsteps National Monument created by former President Joe Biden 342 00:19:05,000 --> 00:19:08,959 Speaker 3: on federal land in twenty twenty three. The monument designation 343 00:19:09,119 --> 00:19:13,200 Speaker 3: will help preserve fifteen hundred square miles and turned a 344 00:19:13,359 --> 00:19:18,320 Speaker 3: decades long vision for Native American tribes and environmentalists into 345 00:19:18,359 --> 00:19:23,040 Speaker 3: a reality, but Republican lawmakers and the uranium mining industry 346 00:19:23,119 --> 00:19:27,119 Speaker 3: that operates in the area had opposed the designation. The 347 00:19:27,119 --> 00:19:31,080 Speaker 3: appeals court will decide whether state lawmakers have standing to 348 00:19:31,280 --> 00:19:34,800 Speaker 3: challenge the White House's use of the Antiquities Act to 349 00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:39,720 Speaker 3: create national monuments. My guest is an expert in environmental law, 350 00:19:40,040 --> 00:19:43,320 Speaker 3: Dave Owen, a professor at the University of California College 351 00:19:43,359 --> 00:19:47,000 Speaker 3: of Law in San Francisco. There were oral arguments in 352 00:19:47,000 --> 00:19:51,280 Speaker 3: this case before the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday. Tell us 353 00:19:51,320 --> 00:19:52,840 Speaker 3: about the underlying case. 354 00:19:53,640 --> 00:19:58,680 Speaker 1: The underlying lawsuit is about the designation by President Biden 355 00:19:59,600 --> 00:20:05,560 Speaker 1: of the Ancient Footsteps National Monument in Arizona, and the 356 00:20:05,600 --> 00:20:10,960 Speaker 1: plaintiffs are claiming that this designation was unlawful because basically 357 00:20:11,000 --> 00:20:11,680 Speaker 1: it's too broad. 358 00:20:12,000 --> 00:20:16,679 Speaker 3: To get the side straight, it's the Republican controlled Arizona 359 00:20:16,800 --> 00:20:22,760 Speaker 3: legislature that filed the lawsuit challenging the monument, but the 360 00:20:22,800 --> 00:20:27,760 Speaker 3: state's governor, a Democrat, and the state's Attorney general, another Democrat, 361 00:20:28,240 --> 00:20:29,359 Speaker 3: opposed the lawsuit. 362 00:20:29,840 --> 00:20:33,120 Speaker 1: Yes, that's exactly right. There's a group of plaintiffs, including 363 00:20:33,119 --> 00:20:38,840 Speaker 1: the state legislature and the state itself, as represented by 364 00:20:38,840 --> 00:20:42,280 Speaker 1: the Attorney General's office, has intervened on the side of 365 00:20:42,280 --> 00:20:44,320 Speaker 1: the defendants on the side of the federal government. 366 00:20:44,800 --> 00:20:49,560 Speaker 3: President Trump has not been supportive of national monuments, shall 367 00:20:49,560 --> 00:20:51,800 Speaker 3: we put it that way? So is it a surprise 368 00:20:51,840 --> 00:20:55,159 Speaker 3: that the Trump administration is lining up here with the 369 00:20:55,200 --> 00:20:57,720 Speaker 3: democratic governor and attorney general. 370 00:20:58,359 --> 00:21:00,800 Speaker 1: I would say at this stage of the litigation, it 371 00:21:00,840 --> 00:21:04,960 Speaker 1: is not surprising. At this stage of the litigation, the 372 00:21:05,280 --> 00:21:09,280 Speaker 1: question at issue is whether the plaintiffs have standing to suit, 373 00:21:09,840 --> 00:21:15,480 Speaker 1: and the federal government almost always is arguing for more 374 00:21:15,520 --> 00:21:19,480 Speaker 1: restrictive standing for lawsuits against the federal government, and so 375 00:21:19,600 --> 00:21:24,040 Speaker 1: it has an institutional interest that cuts across administrations at 376 00:21:24,240 --> 00:21:27,160 Speaker 1: limiting its own ability to be sued. And since that's 377 00:21:27,200 --> 00:21:29,439 Speaker 1: all that's at stake right now, no, I think it 378 00:21:29,520 --> 00:21:32,560 Speaker 1: makes sense. It's not surprising that the federal government is aligned. 379 00:21:32,800 --> 00:21:35,960 Speaker 3: A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. Why did he or 380 00:21:36,040 --> 00:21:36,919 Speaker 3: she dismiss it? 381 00:21:37,320 --> 00:21:41,600 Speaker 1: So the reason is a legal doctrine called standing just 382 00:21:41,800 --> 00:21:46,680 Speaker 1: means that the plaintiffs have to have a direct personal 383 00:21:46,720 --> 00:21:49,000 Speaker 1: stake in the lawsuit. They have to be threatened with 384 00:21:49,040 --> 00:21:51,720 Speaker 1: some sort of injury, and it has to be both 385 00:21:51,760 --> 00:21:54,400 Speaker 1: plausible and not too speculative, and then the court has 386 00:21:54,480 --> 00:21:58,240 Speaker 1: to be able to fix the problem by ordering the 387 00:21:58,240 --> 00:22:01,119 Speaker 1: defendants to do something differently. And so what the court 388 00:22:01,200 --> 00:22:06,400 Speaker 1: said is that the legislature does not have standing because 389 00:22:06,480 --> 00:22:10,320 Speaker 1: it is not authorized to claim injury on behalf of 390 00:22:10,320 --> 00:22:14,160 Speaker 1: the state. Instead, it can only sue to defend some 391 00:22:14,200 --> 00:22:17,400 Speaker 1: sort of injury to its ability to function as a legislature, 392 00:22:17,840 --> 00:22:21,560 Speaker 1: and there's no such injury here. And then the other plaintiffs, 393 00:22:21,560 --> 00:22:24,520 Speaker 1: who are local governments and private entities, the court said 394 00:22:24,520 --> 00:22:30,040 Speaker 1: that their claims of injury were very speculative and therefore 395 00:22:30,119 --> 00:22:32,280 Speaker 1: did not provide a basis for the lawsuit to go forward. 396 00:22:32,720 --> 00:22:36,040 Speaker 3: During the oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit, the Deputy 397 00:22:36,080 --> 00:22:39,920 Speaker 3: Solicitor General said, the Attorney General represents the state here 398 00:22:39,960 --> 00:22:43,960 Speaker 3: in federal court, not the legislature, not the treasurer. I 399 00:22:43,960 --> 00:22:47,080 Speaker 3: mean that seems like a basic concept to me. It's 400 00:22:47,080 --> 00:22:50,920 Speaker 3: the attorney General who represents the state, it is, basically. 401 00:22:51,000 --> 00:22:54,240 Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's why the legislature lost on 402 00:22:54,280 --> 00:22:57,600 Speaker 1: that ground the first time through, That's why it will 403 00:22:57,600 --> 00:23:00,600 Speaker 1: lose again on those grounds on appl You know, it's 404 00:23:00,960 --> 00:23:03,439 Speaker 1: hard to predict the outcomes of cases sometimes, but I 405 00:23:03,480 --> 00:23:06,240 Speaker 1: don't think this particular issue, the outcome is at all 406 00:23:06,240 --> 00:23:07,159 Speaker 1: difficult to predict. 407 00:23:08,040 --> 00:23:12,280 Speaker 3: So what did the legislature argue at the Ninth Circuit 408 00:23:12,480 --> 00:23:14,080 Speaker 3: to try to show the head standing. 409 00:23:14,600 --> 00:23:18,000 Speaker 1: Well, the first thing to note is that the legislature's 410 00:23:18,160 --> 00:23:22,679 Speaker 1: argument for standing was hardly mentioned by the plaintiff's attorneys 411 00:23:22,880 --> 00:23:25,160 Speaker 1: or the oral argument yesterday, which I think is a 412 00:23:25,200 --> 00:23:28,600 Speaker 1: pretty strong tell that the plaintiff's attorney knows that this 413 00:23:28,840 --> 00:23:33,600 Speaker 1: is not a winning argument. Instead, the planiff's attorneys chose 414 00:23:33,640 --> 00:23:38,800 Speaker 1: to focus on claims of injury by local governments that 415 00:23:39,000 --> 00:23:44,040 Speaker 1: think their ability to get revenue related to uranium mining 416 00:23:44,160 --> 00:23:47,320 Speaker 1: by other third parties will be limited if the monument 417 00:23:47,400 --> 00:23:51,320 Speaker 1: designation stands. But the legislature's argument in the past has 418 00:23:51,440 --> 00:23:56,240 Speaker 1: been that the fact that this monument is designated means 419 00:23:56,280 --> 00:23:58,679 Speaker 1: the legislature is going to have to worry about some 420 00:23:58,880 --> 00:24:03,080 Speaker 1: other related legislate and kind of keep track of this issue, 421 00:24:03,400 --> 00:24:06,000 Speaker 1: and therefore that's going to affect its ability to function 422 00:24:06,280 --> 00:24:08,439 Speaker 1: as a legislature. And of course, you know, you can 423 00:24:08,520 --> 00:24:11,639 Speaker 1: make that argument about anything the federal government does in 424 00:24:11,680 --> 00:24:14,040 Speaker 1: a state, and that's I think partly why that argument 425 00:24:14,080 --> 00:24:15,640 Speaker 1: didn't go anywhere with the court. 426 00:24:15,920 --> 00:24:18,360 Speaker 3: This is all about uranium in the future. 427 00:24:18,840 --> 00:24:21,679 Speaker 1: Yeah, the basic argument the local governments. I mean, I 428 00:24:21,680 --> 00:24:24,800 Speaker 1: think part of this is just ideological. The federal government 429 00:24:24,960 --> 00:24:29,720 Speaker 1: comes in and takes lands in a rural area. They're 430 00:24:29,760 --> 00:24:32,479 Speaker 1: all federal lands, So this is not the federal government 431 00:24:32,520 --> 00:24:35,080 Speaker 1: grabbing lands from anybody else, but it is taking lands 432 00:24:35,119 --> 00:24:38,600 Speaker 1: in a rural and conservative area with an economy that 433 00:24:38,640 --> 00:24:42,199 Speaker 1: has traditionally been fund somewhat focused on resource extraction and 434 00:24:42,240 --> 00:24:44,680 Speaker 1: saying these lands aren't going to be available for resource 435 00:24:44,720 --> 00:24:48,240 Speaker 1: extraction anymore, and so that gets people upset. So that's 436 00:24:48,240 --> 00:24:50,560 Speaker 1: the general reaction. It has a lot to do with 437 00:24:50,680 --> 00:24:53,760 Speaker 1: just general hostility to the federal government. But the more 438 00:24:53,760 --> 00:24:59,080 Speaker 1: specific argument was that the promising mineral that exists on 439 00:24:59,119 --> 00:25:04,280 Speaker 1: these lands is you're uranium, and maybe uranium prices will 440 00:25:04,400 --> 00:25:08,080 Speaker 1: rise and demand will increase, and then mining companies will 441 00:25:08,119 --> 00:25:12,280 Speaker 1: come in and that will lead to indirectly to revenue 442 00:25:12,320 --> 00:25:15,720 Speaker 1: for the local government, and the loss of that revenue 443 00:25:15,720 --> 00:25:17,040 Speaker 1: therefore is their claimed injury. 444 00:25:17,520 --> 00:25:23,520 Speaker 3: Along those lines, Judge Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, said, 445 00:25:23,880 --> 00:25:26,280 Speaker 3: how does anyone know whether it would make sense to 446 00:25:26,359 --> 00:25:30,240 Speaker 3: open up new uranium minds six years from now? Explain 447 00:25:30,280 --> 00:25:31,880 Speaker 3: what the judge was getting at there? 448 00:25:32,880 --> 00:25:36,240 Speaker 1: The basic theory of the plaintiff's have of standing is 449 00:25:36,280 --> 00:25:41,120 Speaker 1: grounded in the idea that a law that changes market 450 00:25:41,200 --> 00:25:45,240 Speaker 1: conditions to somebody's detriment can be challenging, and that the 451 00:25:45,280 --> 00:25:48,399 Speaker 1: person who is detrimentally hurt by that law can have 452 00:25:48,440 --> 00:25:51,000 Speaker 1: standing to challenge it. In other words, that you don't 453 00:25:51,440 --> 00:25:54,960 Speaker 1: you don't necessarily need to say the governmental whoever else 454 00:25:55,000 --> 00:25:58,600 Speaker 1: the defendant was, directly took money out of my pocketbook. 455 00:25:58,800 --> 00:26:01,520 Speaker 1: You can say this regular is going to change market 456 00:26:01,520 --> 00:26:04,719 Speaker 1: conditions in a way that hurts me, and therefore I 457 00:26:04,760 --> 00:26:07,960 Speaker 1: have the ability to sue, and stated generically the way 458 00:26:08,000 --> 00:26:12,640 Speaker 1: I've just stated it, that's an argument nobody would disagree with, 459 00:26:12,920 --> 00:26:16,560 Speaker 1: at least that it's valid. Sometimes the question in this 460 00:26:16,720 --> 00:26:23,200 Speaker 1: case is whether it's just too speculative for this particular 461 00:26:23,240 --> 00:26:25,840 Speaker 1: action to be changing market conditions in a way that 462 00:26:25,880 --> 00:26:29,000 Speaker 1: would actually impact the plaintiffs. If you start getting a 463 00:26:29,119 --> 00:26:31,920 Speaker 1: very long chain of causation with a lot of very 464 00:26:32,040 --> 00:26:34,920 Speaker 1: uncertain links, then at some point the courts will say 465 00:26:34,960 --> 00:26:38,280 Speaker 1: this is just speculation, and really this case is not 466 00:26:38,400 --> 00:26:42,679 Speaker 1: about arms to your market. Position is about you just 467 00:26:42,720 --> 00:26:45,480 Speaker 1: don't like what the government did, and you just have 468 00:26:45,600 --> 00:26:49,680 Speaker 1: generic hostility to it, and so here again, what Friedland 469 00:26:49,680 --> 00:26:52,800 Speaker 1: is getting that with that question is are we dealing 470 00:26:52,800 --> 00:26:56,880 Speaker 1: with a situation here where the harm that you are claiming, 471 00:26:56,880 --> 00:27:01,480 Speaker 1: which is harm to your local government finance, is based 472 00:27:01,520 --> 00:27:05,359 Speaker 1: on the assumption that someday in the future uranium mining 473 00:27:05,400 --> 00:27:07,639 Speaker 1: is going to pick up again and do so in 474 00:27:07,720 --> 00:27:10,880 Speaker 1: ways that bring revenue to you. Are you just completely 475 00:27:10,920 --> 00:27:11,840 Speaker 1: speculating there? 476 00:27:12,160 --> 00:27:14,960 Speaker 3: Did it seem to you like all three judges were 477 00:27:15,320 --> 00:27:19,000 Speaker 3: skeptical about the plaintiffs having standing. 478 00:27:19,520 --> 00:27:24,520 Speaker 1: You, I wouldn't say all three count she seemed less skeptical, 479 00:27:25,560 --> 00:27:29,160 Speaker 1: Although if I'm an attorney trying to read the tea 480 00:27:29,200 --> 00:27:31,520 Speaker 1: leaves of oral argument, which is always a dangerous thing 481 00:27:31,600 --> 00:27:35,560 Speaker 1: to do, I did not hear her tip her hand 482 00:27:35,800 --> 00:27:39,280 Speaker 1: either way. She was asking the questions one might ask 483 00:27:39,680 --> 00:27:43,360 Speaker 1: if you're trying to throw softballs, or if you are 484 00:27:43,359 --> 00:27:46,480 Speaker 1: trying to see if there's anything to the plaintiff's argument. 485 00:27:46,840 --> 00:27:49,080 Speaker 1: You know, if you're basically saying, I don't think you 486 00:27:49,119 --> 00:27:50,600 Speaker 1: have anything here, but I'm going to ask you the 487 00:27:50,640 --> 00:27:53,199 Speaker 1: most empathetic questions I can, just to see if you 488 00:27:53,200 --> 00:27:55,760 Speaker 1: could come up with something compelling. So it's hard to 489 00:27:55,800 --> 00:27:59,280 Speaker 1: know what the motivation behind those questions was but she 490 00:27:59,440 --> 00:28:03,280 Speaker 1: did not seem as thoroughly skeptical as the other two 491 00:28:03,359 --> 00:28:03,960 Speaker 1: judges did. 492 00:28:04,200 --> 00:28:07,000 Speaker 3: But you think that the legislature is going to lose here. 493 00:28:07,320 --> 00:28:11,800 Speaker 1: I think if the plaintiffs win on this appeal, which 494 00:28:11,880 --> 00:28:15,199 Speaker 1: is just about allowing the case to go forward, it 495 00:28:15,240 --> 00:28:19,639 Speaker 1: would be based on injuries to the local governments in 496 00:28:19,680 --> 00:28:24,440 Speaker 1: the area. I do not think anybody even seemed interested 497 00:28:24,800 --> 00:28:28,040 Speaker 1: in the legislature's claims to have standing. 498 00:28:28,760 --> 00:28:32,600 Speaker 3: If the legislature loses and this goes to the Supreme Court, 499 00:28:32,960 --> 00:28:37,160 Speaker 3: Chief Justice Roberts has said he's skeptical about the use 500 00:28:37,160 --> 00:28:40,360 Speaker 3: of the Antiquities Act. So do the plaintiffs have an 501 00:28:40,400 --> 00:28:42,680 Speaker 3: advantage at the Supreme Court? 502 00:28:43,280 --> 00:28:46,640 Speaker 1: So let's separate it out into if this particular decision 503 00:28:46,680 --> 00:28:49,400 Speaker 1: that's an issue right now, if there's an appeal on that, 504 00:28:49,880 --> 00:28:53,520 Speaker 1: and then the broader question of if the case continues 505 00:28:53,600 --> 00:28:56,680 Speaker 1: forward and goes to the merits, whether there might be 506 00:28:56,720 --> 00:29:00,920 Speaker 1: a Supreme Court problem. So, first off, I don't think 507 00:29:01,080 --> 00:29:04,120 Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court is going to be at 508 00:29:04,160 --> 00:29:07,479 Speaker 1: all interested in the legislature's theory of standing here. I 509 00:29:07,520 --> 00:29:09,440 Speaker 1: think it's going to look at that and say, no, 510 00:29:09,560 --> 00:29:11,640 Speaker 1: states get to define who speaks for them in court. 511 00:29:11,680 --> 00:29:13,720 Speaker 1: We're not going to mess with that. I also think 512 00:29:13,760 --> 00:29:17,640 Speaker 1: in general, the Supreme Court is going to be somewhat 513 00:29:17,680 --> 00:29:22,160 Speaker 1: skeptical of the plaintiffs general theory of standing, just because 514 00:29:22,440 --> 00:29:25,120 Speaker 1: of the speculative nature of it. And even if the 515 00:29:25,160 --> 00:29:29,280 Speaker 1: Supreme Court might sympathize with the merits of the plaintiffs' 516 00:29:29,280 --> 00:29:32,160 Speaker 1: claims here, I don't think you are going to have 517 00:29:32,200 --> 00:29:37,200 Speaker 1: five justices or four on the Court who are interested 518 00:29:37,400 --> 00:29:41,000 Speaker 1: in expanding standing for potentially speculative harms and taking up 519 00:29:41,040 --> 00:29:44,720 Speaker 1: a case just for that basis. So I think probably 520 00:29:44,800 --> 00:29:48,480 Speaker 1: this case gets dismissed on standing grounds, and a certain petition, 521 00:29:48,680 --> 00:29:51,479 Speaker 1: if one is filed, is not accepted. I think that 522 00:29:51,560 --> 00:29:54,400 Speaker 1: is the most likely outcome. But your other question was, well, 523 00:29:54,440 --> 00:29:56,560 Speaker 1: what about you know, maybe it's not this monument, Maybe 524 00:29:56,560 --> 00:30:00,480 Speaker 1: it's another monument. The Court has shown some or Chief 525 00:30:00,600 --> 00:30:03,360 Speaker 1: Justice Roberts, but I don't think it's just him, has 526 00:30:03,920 --> 00:30:09,120 Speaker 1: shown hints of interest in claims that monument designations are 527 00:30:09,160 --> 00:30:11,560 Speaker 1: overly brought. Now it's hard to know what to make 528 00:30:11,600 --> 00:30:15,840 Speaker 1: of those because broad monument designations have been with us 529 00:30:15,960 --> 00:30:19,120 Speaker 1: as a nation for over a century. This is not 530 00:30:19,280 --> 00:30:22,040 Speaker 1: a new practice. It's been around for a very very 531 00:30:22,080 --> 00:30:26,640 Speaker 1: long time. Most of those broad monuments in hindsight or 532 00:30:26,680 --> 00:30:30,080 Speaker 1: designations that people have been very glad about. At least 533 00:30:30,200 --> 00:30:32,920 Speaker 1: a majority of the American public has been very very 534 00:30:32,920 --> 00:30:34,960 Speaker 1: glad about, and a majority of the states in which 535 00:30:34,960 --> 00:30:38,040 Speaker 1: they are located have been glad about. And so you know, 536 00:30:38,080 --> 00:30:40,239 Speaker 1: there's a bunch of reasons why the Supreme Court might 537 00:30:40,240 --> 00:30:44,840 Speaker 1: think this is not an issue that's really important enough 538 00:30:44,880 --> 00:30:47,560 Speaker 1: to be worth our time or that we feel strongly enough, 539 00:30:47,560 --> 00:30:49,400 Speaker 1: But it's hard to know, and it's all speculation. 540 00:30:49,520 --> 00:30:49,920 Speaker 5: There. 541 00:30:50,280 --> 00:30:55,600 Speaker 3: Recent Democratic presidents, I'm thinking former presidents Biden, Obama, and 542 00:30:55,720 --> 00:31:00,600 Speaker 3: Clinton have expanded national monuments. Why is it that the 543 00:31:00,680 --> 00:31:04,680 Speaker 3: Republican seemed to be not in favor of national monuments 544 00:31:05,200 --> 00:31:09,080 Speaker 3: generally and the Democrats seemed to be in favor well. 545 00:31:08,920 --> 00:31:13,840 Speaker 1: Correction there by geographic area. The largest national monument designation 546 00:31:14,080 --> 00:31:19,280 Speaker 1: ever a huge margin, was from George W. Bush Oh 547 00:31:19,840 --> 00:31:24,320 Speaker 1: and it was the Hawaiian Islands Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Monument. 548 00:31:24,440 --> 00:31:27,800 Speaker 1: So it's an incredibly remote area, but it's enormous. And 549 00:31:27,880 --> 00:31:32,720 Speaker 1: so it's not always the case that monument designations are 550 00:31:32,840 --> 00:31:35,920 Speaker 1: a democratic presidential thing. And there was some controversy that 551 00:31:36,040 --> 00:31:39,680 Speaker 1: was not like an easy nobody cares. You know, I 552 00:31:39,680 --> 00:31:43,000 Speaker 1: can win without making any mean, there were fishing interests 553 00:31:43,000 --> 00:31:45,960 Speaker 1: that were upset about that designation. But you are right 554 00:31:46,080 --> 00:31:49,240 Speaker 1: with the general Trent that designating monuments is much more 555 00:31:49,360 --> 00:31:51,760 Speaker 1: a thing that democratic presidents do, and I think the 556 00:31:51,840 --> 00:31:56,280 Speaker 1: reasons are fairly straightforward. The people who oppose these designations 557 00:31:56,480 --> 00:32:01,120 Speaker 1: are typically people in very rural parts of the West, 558 00:32:01,680 --> 00:32:06,800 Speaker 1: and then extractive industries that are not voting for Democrats 559 00:32:06,880 --> 00:32:09,960 Speaker 1: or contributing money to Democrats no matter what. So the 560 00:32:09,960 --> 00:32:14,040 Speaker 1: people who are offended by these actions, there's no political 561 00:32:14,120 --> 00:32:18,200 Speaker 1: loss on the Democratic side, and they're widely popular. I mean, 562 00:32:18,240 --> 00:32:22,000 Speaker 1: even like Utah is kind of a funny example. Utah 563 00:32:22,840 --> 00:32:28,480 Speaker 1: aggressively markets its national monuments in its tourism materials well. 564 00:32:28,520 --> 00:32:31,720 Speaker 1: At the same time, the Utah political establishment is like 565 00:32:31,800 --> 00:32:34,800 Speaker 1: almost duty bound to complain about them constantly. And so 566 00:32:34,840 --> 00:32:37,240 Speaker 1: I think the more interesting question, honestly on the political 567 00:32:37,280 --> 00:32:41,520 Speaker 1: side is why the Republicans are so opposed When monuments 568 00:32:41,560 --> 00:32:43,160 Speaker 1: tend to be popular, they tend to be good for 569 00:32:43,200 --> 00:32:45,960 Speaker 1: business development, and I think the basic reason is that 570 00:32:46,000 --> 00:32:48,840 Speaker 1: there's sort of a core and entrenched part of the 571 00:32:48,920 --> 00:32:53,320 Speaker 1: Republican Party that cares very deeply about these issues, and 572 00:32:53,560 --> 00:32:58,360 Speaker 1: it sees them as symbolically important to broader questions about 573 00:32:58,400 --> 00:33:00,400 Speaker 1: the role of the federal government in the world West, 574 00:33:00,640 --> 00:33:05,680 Speaker 1: and it really demands that the Republican political establishment get upset, 575 00:33:05,800 --> 00:33:08,360 Speaker 1: at least in the West, get upset about monuments. You know, 576 00:33:08,400 --> 00:33:12,360 Speaker 1: I would guess that a lot of those representatives and senators, 577 00:33:12,760 --> 00:33:14,800 Speaker 1: if you gave them truth serum, would say, yeah, actually, 578 00:33:14,880 --> 00:33:17,960 Speaker 1: these designations have been great for our state key constituencies 579 00:33:17,960 --> 00:33:20,480 Speaker 1: that hate them. And so I've got to oppose. 580 00:33:20,600 --> 00:33:25,200 Speaker 3: Can a later president alter a national monument that a 581 00:33:25,360 --> 00:33:27,440 Speaker 3: prior president has put in place? 582 00:33:27,840 --> 00:33:30,560 Speaker 1: And there's two schools of thought on that question. One 583 00:33:30,560 --> 00:33:34,280 Speaker 1: school of thought is that because the governing statutes speak 584 00:33:34,400 --> 00:33:39,920 Speaker 1: very specifically about designating monuments and say absolutely nothing about 585 00:33:39,960 --> 00:33:43,760 Speaker 1: shrinking them, that that silence implies that there is not 586 00:33:44,000 --> 00:33:47,560 Speaker 1: an ability for a later president to reduce a monument. 587 00:33:48,640 --> 00:33:51,880 Speaker 1: On the other side, people have argued that the power 588 00:33:51,920 --> 00:33:57,080 Speaker 1: to designate inherently also conveys the power to reduce. I 589 00:33:57,120 --> 00:33:59,479 Speaker 1: think that second argument is a little strange. I mean, 590 00:33:59,600 --> 00:34:06,959 Speaker 1: usually we don't convey broad sweeping powers presidents through statutory silences. 591 00:34:07,280 --> 00:34:09,680 Speaker 1: But that's the argument that others have made, and that 592 00:34:09,920 --> 00:34:12,960 Speaker 1: question has not been tested by the Supreme Court. That 593 00:34:12,960 --> 00:34:16,560 Speaker 1: would most likely be the case that eventually might come 594 00:34:16,640 --> 00:34:19,120 Speaker 1: up to the Supreme Court. It'll either be a designation 595 00:34:19,320 --> 00:34:21,799 Speaker 1: case where the question is was this designation too broad 596 00:34:21,840 --> 00:34:25,160 Speaker 1: in the first place? Or it will be a monument 597 00:34:25,200 --> 00:34:29,080 Speaker 1: shrinking case. But because we've had for your flip flops, 598 00:34:29,680 --> 00:34:35,000 Speaker 1: designation shrinking cases haven't yet been around long enough to 599 00:34:35,080 --> 00:34:36,280 Speaker 1: make it to the Supreme Court. 600 00:34:36,560 --> 00:34:40,120 Speaker 3: I always find the subject of national monuments so interesting, 601 00:34:40,200 --> 00:34:43,840 Speaker 3: So thanks so much for joining me today. That's Professor 602 00:34:43,920 --> 00:34:47,160 Speaker 3: Dave Owen of the UC College of the Law, San Francisco. 603 00:34:48,239 --> 00:34:50,560 Speaker 3: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. 604 00:34:50,920 --> 00:34:53,279 Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 605 00:34:53,320 --> 00:34:57,600 Speaker 3: our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 606 00:34:57,760 --> 00:35:02,799 Speaker 3: and at www dot bloom com, slash podcast Slash Law, 607 00:35:03,239 --> 00:35:05,800 Speaker 3: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every 608 00:35:05,840 --> 00:35:09,760 Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, 609 00:35:09,880 --> 00:35:11,480 Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg