WEBVTT - FBI Raid & Arizona Republicans Challenge National Monument

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.520
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:08.760 --> 0:00:11.840
<v Speaker 2>There's something centers to going on here. There's something bigger

0:00:11.880 --> 0:00:17.160
<v Speaker 2>than just the FBI confiscating the records that.

0:00:17.079 --> 0:00:21.120
<v Speaker 3>They took, and Fulton County Chairman Rob Pitts says the

0:00:21.160 --> 0:00:24.960
<v Speaker 3>county wants the twenty twenty election files that the FBI

0:00:25.120 --> 0:00:28.800
<v Speaker 3>sees last week back. They're asking a federal court to

0:00:28.960 --> 0:00:33.159
<v Speaker 3>order the FBI to return the seven hundred boxes of ballots,

0:00:33.280 --> 0:00:37.400
<v Speaker 3>voter rolls, and other election records, calling the county the

0:00:37.440 --> 0:00:41.760
<v Speaker 3>poster child for further federal action on elections elsewhere in

0:00:41.800 --> 0:00:42.400
<v Speaker 3>the country.

0:00:43.040 --> 0:00:45.960
<v Speaker 2>This is I think probably the first step in whatever

0:00:46.560 --> 0:00:51.199
<v Speaker 2>they're going to do in order to depress voter participation,

0:00:51.400 --> 0:00:55.360
<v Speaker 2>voter registration, making whatever changes they think are necessary to

0:00:55.400 --> 0:00:58.160
<v Speaker 2>help their case in twenty twenty six, but more importantly

0:00:58.160 --> 0:00:59.320
<v Speaker 2>in twenty twenty eight.

0:01:00.040 --> 0:01:03.840
<v Speaker 3>As President Trump is doubling down on his calls to

0:01:04.000 --> 0:01:05.480
<v Speaker 3>nationalize elections.

0:01:06.280 --> 0:01:09.080
<v Speaker 4>I wouldn't see elections be honest, and if a state

0:01:09.200 --> 0:01:11.640
<v Speaker 4>can't run an election, I think the people behind me

0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:12.960
<v Speaker 4>should do something about it.

0:01:13.400 --> 0:01:17.920
<v Speaker 3>Of Course, the Constitution gives the authority to administer elections

0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:22.160
<v Speaker 3>to the states. My guest is Barbara McQuaid, a professor

0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:25.160
<v Speaker 3>at the University of Michigan Law School and a former

0:01:25.280 --> 0:01:29.560
<v Speaker 3>US attorney. Barbara, why do you think the FBI sees

0:01:29.640 --> 0:01:34.319
<v Speaker 3>those hundreds of boxes of ballots and voter rolls and

0:01:34.640 --> 0:01:38.679
<v Speaker 3>other election records from the twenty twenty presidential election.

0:01:39.480 --> 0:01:42.920
<v Speaker 5>It's unknown, of course, but we have some hints.

0:01:43.240 --> 0:01:46.160
<v Speaker 6>I mean, one is they got a search for it,

0:01:46.200 --> 0:01:50.280
<v Speaker 6>which means a magistrate judge found probable cause to believe

0:01:50.880 --> 0:01:54.280
<v Speaker 6>that evidence of a crime would be found there. And

0:01:54.320 --> 0:01:57.520
<v Speaker 6>we know from the public filing that what they obtained

0:01:57.840 --> 0:02:05.080
<v Speaker 6>were ballots, tabulation tapes, and voter roles. Now, twenty twenty

0:02:05.360 --> 0:02:09.440
<v Speaker 6>is six years ago, and so it would seem that

0:02:09.639 --> 0:02:13.680
<v Speaker 6>anything that occurred during that year would be time barred

0:02:13.680 --> 0:02:16.440
<v Speaker 6>by the five year statute of limitations. But of course

0:02:16.480 --> 0:02:19.720
<v Speaker 6>that's not something that a magistrate judge had taken into

0:02:19.720 --> 0:02:23.800
<v Speaker 6>consideration at that stage. Perhaps there's some allegation of an

0:02:23.880 --> 0:02:28.840
<v Speaker 6>ongoing conspiracy that could keep that allegation fresh.

0:02:29.520 --> 0:02:30.160
<v Speaker 5>I don't know.

0:02:30.919 --> 0:02:36.400
<v Speaker 6>But also you can't ignore the simultaneous civil request that

0:02:36.440 --> 0:02:39.359
<v Speaker 6>Trump's doj has been making to try to get voter

0:02:39.480 --> 0:02:42.240
<v Speaker 6>rolls from a number of states, including Georgia. They have

0:02:42.360 --> 0:02:45.320
<v Speaker 6>failed in states where decisions have been made, like California

0:02:45.360 --> 0:02:47.400
<v Speaker 6>and Oregon, where judges have said no.

0:02:47.520 --> 0:02:49.440
<v Speaker 5>The federal government is not entitled to this stuff.

0:02:49.480 --> 0:02:52.360
<v Speaker 6>So are they simply using criminal process to get that

0:02:52.400 --> 0:02:56.520
<v Speaker 6>which they could not obtain otherwise. But the fact that

0:02:56.560 --> 0:02:59.440
<v Speaker 6>a magistrate found probable cause suggests.

0:02:59.040 --> 0:03:02.000
<v Speaker 5>That there is more information there than we currently know.

0:03:02.600 --> 0:03:05.640
<v Speaker 3>The prosecutor who sought the warrant was not the US

0:03:05.760 --> 0:03:10.720
<v Speaker 3>attorney in Atlanta, but the Saint Louis US Attorney, Thomas Albus.

0:03:11.040 --> 0:03:15.639
<v Speaker 3>So he's been appointed to oversee this. I don't know

0:03:15.639 --> 0:03:18.240
<v Speaker 3>if they're calling it election integrity, what they're calling it.

0:03:18.680 --> 0:03:21.480
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, it's really unusual, but not illegal.

0:03:21.560 --> 0:03:24.840
<v Speaker 6>I mean, so much of what the Trump administration does

0:03:25.000 --> 0:03:29.920
<v Speaker 6>is technically lawful, but either unusual or you know, discretion

0:03:30.040 --> 0:03:33.280
<v Speaker 6>you'd rather see someone not exercise. I suppose ordinarily you

0:03:33.280 --> 0:03:35.600
<v Speaker 6>would expect the US Attorney from the Northern District of

0:03:35.640 --> 0:03:40.119
<v Speaker 6>Georgia to oversee any search conducted within his jurisdiction. That's

0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:42.520
<v Speaker 6>the way it's done in ninety nine point nine percent

0:03:42.520 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 6>of the cases. The Attorney General does, however, have the

0:03:45.680 --> 0:03:50.520
<v Speaker 6>authority to appoint a special attorney to investigate any matters

0:03:50.560 --> 0:03:53.160
<v Speaker 6>that she chooses, and we've seen this done over the years.

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:56.240
<v Speaker 6>For example, Pat Fitzgerald, who was the US attorney in

0:03:56.320 --> 0:03:59.520
<v Speaker 6>Chicago at the time, handled the Scooter Libby case. I

0:03:59.520 --> 0:04:01.480
<v Speaker 6>think that was effort to just sort of get it

0:04:01.560 --> 0:04:04.840
<v Speaker 6>out of Washington so that it wouldn't have the stench

0:04:05.040 --> 0:04:08.320
<v Speaker 6>of politics. I know that Anne Tompkins out of North

0:04:08.320 --> 0:04:14.000
<v Speaker 6>Carolina handled the prosecution of General Petraeus. For example, John Durham,

0:04:14.000 --> 0:04:18.080
<v Speaker 6>before he was the special counsel looking at the origins

0:04:18.080 --> 0:04:22.920
<v Speaker 6>of the Russia investigation, actually investigated CIA torture.

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:25.600
<v Speaker 5>At one time, So it's not unprecedented.

0:04:25.600 --> 0:04:29.640
<v Speaker 6>It's often in sort of politically charged cases where the

0:04:29.640 --> 0:04:33.040
<v Speaker 6>Attorney General may appoint somebody outside of Washington who's a

0:04:33.120 --> 0:04:36.120
<v Speaker 6>US attorney or it doesn't have to be to handle

0:04:36.200 --> 0:04:39.320
<v Speaker 6>maybe sensitive cases. And I think it's especially true if

0:04:39.320 --> 0:04:41.880
<v Speaker 6>the case might transcend the boundaries of.

0:04:41.800 --> 0:04:43.480
<v Speaker 5>A particular judicial district.

0:04:43.520 --> 0:04:46.520
<v Speaker 6>So maybe this case is going to include not just Georgia,

0:04:46.600 --> 0:04:49.400
<v Speaker 6>but some other states, so that might make some sense.

0:04:49.680 --> 0:04:52.160
<v Speaker 6>I worry a little bit about I don't know Thomas Albis,

0:04:52.160 --> 0:04:52.920
<v Speaker 6>but I do know that.

0:04:52.880 --> 0:04:53.960
<v Speaker 5>He comes from Missouri.

0:04:54.440 --> 0:04:59.279
<v Speaker 6>He has been the top deputy to former attorney general

0:04:59.279 --> 0:05:03.200
<v Speaker 6>in Missouri named Eric Schmidt. Eric Schmidt joined in the

0:05:03.279 --> 0:05:07.400
<v Speaker 6>lawsuit with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton when they tried

0:05:07.440 --> 0:05:10.919
<v Speaker 6>to file a direct lawsuit to the Supreme Court to

0:05:11.040 --> 0:05:14.520
<v Speaker 6>challenge the outcome of election results in several states during

0:05:14.520 --> 0:05:17.839
<v Speaker 6>the twenty twenty election. So he's got sort of the

0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:22.320
<v Speaker 6>association with election deniers that causes me some concern.

0:05:22.920 --> 0:05:26.480
<v Speaker 3>In your latest column for Bloomberg, you compared it to

0:05:26.680 --> 0:05:31.120
<v Speaker 3>the appointment of Lindsay Halligan as US Attorney for the

0:05:31.160 --> 0:05:36.800
<v Speaker 3>Eastern District of Virginia. She's the Trump loyalist with no

0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:42.599
<v Speaker 3>prosecutorial experience who was put in place to get indictments

0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:47.800
<v Speaker 3>against James Comey and Letitia James, indictments which were later dismissed.

0:05:48.480 --> 0:05:49.880
<v Speaker 3>Is she still hanging in there?

0:05:50.320 --> 0:05:53.080
<v Speaker 5>She finally resigned yep, and went on her way.

0:05:53.520 --> 0:05:53.760
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.

0:05:53.839 --> 0:05:56.440
<v Speaker 6>You know, this is not quite as irregular as that

0:05:56.440 --> 0:05:58.360
<v Speaker 6>that was clearly legally invalid.

0:05:58.760 --> 0:06:01.839
<v Speaker 5>Courts found that threw it out. This is legally.

0:06:01.600 --> 0:06:05.600
<v Speaker 6>Valid, but it does have sort of the appearance at

0:06:05.680 --> 0:06:09.359
<v Speaker 6>least the whiff of You remember, her predecessor was a

0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:12.320
<v Speaker 6>guy named Eric Siebert, who said I'm not going to

0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:14.800
<v Speaker 6>indict Jim Comey and Letitia James, and he got fired

0:06:14.839 --> 0:06:18.640
<v Speaker 6>for it. And in twenty twenty, there was a different

0:06:18.720 --> 0:06:21.800
<v Speaker 6>US attorney Trump appointed in the Northern District of Georgia

0:06:21.880 --> 0:06:22.560
<v Speaker 6>by the name of b. J.

0:06:22.760 --> 0:06:25.080
<v Speaker 5>Pack and he resigned.

0:06:24.640 --> 0:06:28.680
<v Speaker 6>In December of twenty twenty when Trump started asking Brad Raffensberger,

0:06:28.720 --> 0:06:31.520
<v Speaker 6>the Secretary of State there, to find me eleven seven

0:06:31.600 --> 0:06:35.280
<v Speaker 6>hundred and eighty votes. So you wonder if it isn't

0:06:35.320 --> 0:06:40.000
<v Speaker 6>the case that these US attorneys who've got backgrounds as

0:06:40.040 --> 0:06:44.200
<v Speaker 6>federal prosecutors. As the current US attorney there in Northern Georgia,

0:06:44.320 --> 0:06:47.000
<v Speaker 6>does I think his name is Hertzberger? You know, he's

0:06:47.040 --> 0:06:49.360
<v Speaker 6>a career a USA. But Trump's not going to make

0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:52.360
<v Speaker 6>the same mistake twice, right, He's going to make sure

0:06:52.360 --> 0:06:55.240
<v Speaker 6>he's got somebody he can trust that Pam Bondy has

0:06:55.320 --> 0:07:00.159
<v Speaker 6>handpicked to handle this very sensitive operation as opposed to

0:07:00.760 --> 0:07:01.440
<v Speaker 6>the person.

0:07:01.160 --> 0:07:04.040
<v Speaker 5>Who would ordinarily assign this case too.

0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:06.839
<v Speaker 6>So that's all I meant by Lindsay Halligan. You know,

0:07:06.920 --> 0:07:11.160
<v Speaker 6>the Trump appointed US attorney not willing to play ball,

0:07:11.680 --> 0:07:15.640
<v Speaker 6>and so let's bring in the specialist from outside who

0:07:15.640 --> 0:07:18.360
<v Speaker 6>will do Trump's bidding. Kind of has the whiff of

0:07:18.400 --> 0:07:22.480
<v Speaker 6>that though, you know, certainly the appointment itself appears to

0:07:22.520 --> 0:07:23.440
<v Speaker 6>be legal.

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:26.920
<v Speaker 3>And actually the special Agent in charge of the Atlanta

0:07:27.040 --> 0:07:31.320
<v Speaker 3>Field Office resigned from his post about a week before

0:07:31.400 --> 0:07:34.920
<v Speaker 3>the agent served the war and there was no public explanation.

0:07:35.600 --> 0:07:39.320
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, that's another, you know, red flag, I suppose, And

0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:43.280
<v Speaker 6>I don't know whether he resigned or was fired, and

0:07:43.320 --> 0:07:45.840
<v Speaker 6>I don't know why he left. I know cash PTTEL

0:07:45.960 --> 0:07:49.880
<v Speaker 6>has been firing agents who had anything to do with

0:07:50.320 --> 0:07:54.160
<v Speaker 6>either the Trump investigations or the January sixth investigations, which

0:07:54.160 --> 0:07:55.160
<v Speaker 6>itself is improper.

0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:57.560
<v Speaker 5>There's no allegation that engaged in enimous conduct. They just

0:07:57.560 --> 0:07:59.240
<v Speaker 5>don't like the cases that they worked on.

0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:02.240
<v Speaker 6>I don't know why. But again, that would be another

0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:05.600
<v Speaker 6>safeguard there. The Special Agent in charge of the FBI

0:08:05.800 --> 0:08:10.960
<v Speaker 6>runs the FBI office in Atlanta. That office was tasked

0:08:11.120 --> 0:08:14.000
<v Speaker 6>with conducting this search, and so the special Agent in

0:08:14.080 --> 0:08:15.720
<v Speaker 6>charge would be someone who'd be in a position to

0:08:15.760 --> 0:08:18.640
<v Speaker 6>push back and say, no, we're not going to do this.

0:08:18.720 --> 0:08:19.840
<v Speaker 5>I don't think it's lawful.

0:08:19.880 --> 0:08:22.480
<v Speaker 6>I don't think it's an appropriate use of our power,

0:08:22.760 --> 0:08:25.800
<v Speaker 6>or at least let's talk about this and the fact

0:08:25.880 --> 0:08:30.200
<v Speaker 6>that he was either fired or resigned again. Is just

0:08:30.240 --> 0:08:34.520
<v Speaker 6>one more red flag and another irregularity among many.

0:08:35.160 --> 0:08:38.080
<v Speaker 3>Fulton County is suing to get the records back, but

0:08:38.160 --> 0:08:41.079
<v Speaker 3>they say they won't be able to verify that they've

0:08:41.120 --> 0:08:45.120
<v Speaker 3>received everything back because one, typically they're given copies of

0:08:45.160 --> 0:08:49.359
<v Speaker 3>the records, but this time they weren't given copies. And two,

0:08:49.440 --> 0:08:53.440
<v Speaker 3>there was no chain of custody inventory taken at the

0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:55.040
<v Speaker 3>time the records were seized.

0:08:55.720 --> 0:08:57.199
<v Speaker 5>Oh what a mess. I didn't know that.

0:08:57.320 --> 0:09:01.960
<v Speaker 6>So, you know, the chaos of the Trump administration never

0:09:02.000 --> 0:09:05.800
<v Speaker 6>ceases to amaze me. I mean, of course, ordinarily, when

0:09:06.040 --> 0:09:09.880
<v Speaker 6>the FBI conducts a search, there is a whole protocol

0:09:09.920 --> 0:09:13.040
<v Speaker 6>for how that's done. They get training at Quantico for

0:09:13.120 --> 0:09:15.760
<v Speaker 6>how to do this. There is an agent who leads

0:09:15.880 --> 0:09:18.840
<v Speaker 6>the search, and then there are other agents assigned to

0:09:18.960 --> 0:09:25.000
<v Speaker 6>the search. They assign various agents, at least two to every.

0:09:24.840 --> 0:09:26.400
<v Speaker 5>Room that gets searched.

0:09:26.840 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 6>When there are computers involved, they track what it is

0:09:30.120 --> 0:09:35.280
<v Speaker 6>they're taking or whether they're just copying it, and documenting

0:09:35.280 --> 0:09:39.000
<v Speaker 6>that carefully is critically important, number one, so that everybody

0:09:39.040 --> 0:09:41.000
<v Speaker 6>knows what was taken, so the rightful owner of the

0:09:41.040 --> 0:09:43.920
<v Speaker 6>property kind of requested back. But also if you're going

0:09:43.960 --> 0:09:46.280
<v Speaker 6>to use this at evidence at trial. You have to

0:09:46.320 --> 0:09:49.480
<v Speaker 6>authenticate it and show that chain of custody so that

0:09:49.559 --> 0:09:52.679
<v Speaker 6>the jury knows this isn't something that you just manufactured

0:09:52.679 --> 0:09:55.080
<v Speaker 6>once you got back to the FBI office, that you

0:09:55.120 --> 0:09:57.840
<v Speaker 6>can have a witness testify. I am the one who

0:09:57.880 --> 0:10:00.760
<v Speaker 6>showed up at the Fulton County Election office on such

0:10:00.800 --> 0:10:01.440
<v Speaker 6>and such day.

0:10:01.960 --> 0:10:03.920
<v Speaker 5>I took this document into.

0:10:03.720 --> 0:10:06.640
<v Speaker 6>My hands, or I copied it from a computer or

0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:09.320
<v Speaker 6>whatever it was. I put my initials on it. I

0:10:09.360 --> 0:10:12.760
<v Speaker 6>put it in an evidence bag. I labeled the drive

0:10:12.960 --> 0:10:16.120
<v Speaker 6>whatever it is, so that that chain of custody can

0:10:16.160 --> 0:10:20.480
<v Speaker 6>be retrieved at trial. It makes me wonder whether they're

0:10:20.600 --> 0:10:24.400
<v Speaker 6>obtaining this evidence not so much for any future criminal case,

0:10:24.640 --> 0:10:25.880
<v Speaker 6>but for some other purpose.

0:10:26.280 --> 0:10:27.640
<v Speaker 5>I don't know what that purpose would be.

0:10:28.360 --> 0:10:31.000
<v Speaker 3>It seems to be in line with the Justice Department

0:10:31.320 --> 0:10:34.439
<v Speaker 3>suing twenty four states to try to get not only

0:10:34.559 --> 0:10:39.520
<v Speaker 3>names and addresses, but voter birth dates and drivers license

0:10:39.600 --> 0:10:44.800
<v Speaker 3>information and partial social Security numbers. And I've been wondering

0:10:45.400 --> 0:10:48.600
<v Speaker 3>what they need or want all this information for.

0:10:49.880 --> 0:10:52.120
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, there's been some speculation. You know, I don't think

0:10:52.120 --> 0:10:52.360
<v Speaker 5>we know.

0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:54.840
<v Speaker 6>I don't think the Trump administration has said so, but

0:10:54.920 --> 0:10:58.760
<v Speaker 6>some of the speculation is one to undermine public confidence

0:10:58.800 --> 0:11:00.839
<v Speaker 6>in the twenty twenty City midterms.

0:11:01.320 --> 0:11:03.480
<v Speaker 5>Two to identify.

0:11:03.000 --> 0:11:07.040
<v Speaker 6>People who are not valid voters. You know, they're dead

0:11:07.200 --> 0:11:11.040
<v Speaker 6>or they're non citizens. Fine, I mean people shouldn't be

0:11:11.120 --> 0:11:14.200
<v Speaker 6>voting if they are not eligible to vote. But also

0:11:14.520 --> 0:11:20.480
<v Speaker 6>to obtain private data to conduct influence campaigns. We know

0:11:20.559 --> 0:11:24.440
<v Speaker 6>in twenty sixteen Steve Bannon found at Cambridge Analytica and

0:11:24.480 --> 0:11:26.680
<v Speaker 6>started doing some of this analytical work. You know, in

0:11:26.720 --> 0:11:29.600
<v Speaker 6>the same way Netflix will suggest to you a show

0:11:29.640 --> 0:11:32.160
<v Speaker 6>you might like, and they're pretty good, right.

0:11:32.200 --> 0:11:34.439
<v Speaker 5>They are based.

0:11:34.160 --> 0:11:37.199
<v Speaker 6>On what you've watched before, what you've liked before. They

0:11:37.240 --> 0:11:40.079
<v Speaker 6>can suggest things or you know, when you are on

0:11:40.120 --> 0:11:43.160
<v Speaker 6>Google and other things, the ads that pop up are

0:11:43.200 --> 0:11:45.800
<v Speaker 6>based on some of your prior searches. In the same way,

0:11:46.440 --> 0:11:50.880
<v Speaker 6>what Steve Bannon's group researched and learned is that if

0:11:50.920 --> 0:11:54.480
<v Speaker 6>they can learn certain information about you, then they can

0:11:54.520 --> 0:11:58.840
<v Speaker 6>send you targeted ads that can have nudging effects. So,

0:11:58.920 --> 0:12:01.360
<v Speaker 6>for example, if that we know that this person is

0:12:01.400 --> 0:12:04.200
<v Speaker 6>a gun owner and cares deeply about gun rights, we

0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:07.480
<v Speaker 6>can send them targeted ads all about how a particular

0:12:07.520 --> 0:12:11.120
<v Speaker 6>candidate supports gun rates or their opponent wants to take

0:12:11.160 --> 0:12:14.760
<v Speaker 6>away your guns. If a person cares deeply about immigration issues,

0:12:15.080 --> 0:12:17.600
<v Speaker 6>they can send you targeted ads on that topic. So

0:12:18.000 --> 0:12:19.920
<v Speaker 6>it can be a real treasure trove to have all

0:12:19.920 --> 0:12:24.920
<v Speaker 6>of this information for election purposes. And voter information has

0:12:24.960 --> 0:12:29.439
<v Speaker 6>always been safeguarded and considered a voter's private information. And

0:12:29.679 --> 0:12:31.920
<v Speaker 6>I don't know that that's information that we want to

0:12:31.960 --> 0:12:34.800
<v Speaker 6>be sharing with political campaigns.

0:12:35.200 --> 0:12:37.440
<v Speaker 3>I think the answer from most of us is that

0:12:37.520 --> 0:12:40.320
<v Speaker 3>we don't want that to be shared. We'll talk more

0:12:40.360 --> 0:12:44.640
<v Speaker 3>about that coming up. And also Democrats are sounding the

0:12:44.760 --> 0:12:50.360
<v Speaker 3>alarm that Tulsey Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, was

0:12:50.480 --> 0:12:55.040
<v Speaker 3>at this FBI raid. Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the vice

0:12:55.160 --> 0:12:58.360
<v Speaker 3>chair of the Senate Intel Committee, says Gabbard has no

0:12:58.520 --> 0:12:59.960
<v Speaker 3>place in this investigation.

0:13:00.520 --> 0:13:03.680
<v Speaker 4>To see her skulking around in a baseball cap the

0:13:03.720 --> 0:13:06.120
<v Speaker 4>picture that was posted. You never thought you could make

0:13:06.120 --> 0:13:06.719
<v Speaker 4>this stuff up.

0:13:07.280 --> 0:13:10.440
<v Speaker 3>That's coming up next. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

0:13:10.679 --> 0:13:17.000
<v Speaker 3>to Bloomberg. Is the recent FBI raid of a Georgia

0:13:17.040 --> 0:13:21.640
<v Speaker 3>county election office a precursor to battles ahead as the

0:13:21.679 --> 0:13:26.760
<v Speaker 3>Trump administration steps up efforts to obtain sensitive voter information

0:13:26.920 --> 0:13:31.000
<v Speaker 3>from states. Fulton County is suing to get the FBI

0:13:31.240 --> 0:13:34.920
<v Speaker 3>to return the seven hundred boxes of ballots, voter rolls,

0:13:34.960 --> 0:13:39.360
<v Speaker 3>and other election records, with County Chairman Rob Pitts questioning

0:13:39.600 --> 0:13:41.080
<v Speaker 3>why the records were taken.

0:13:42.000 --> 0:13:45.000
<v Speaker 2>We were given no notice whatsoever. They showed up and

0:13:45.080 --> 0:13:48.360
<v Speaker 2>took the seven hundred boxes that they wanted. So what

0:13:48.360 --> 0:13:51.280
<v Speaker 2>they're doing with them now, we don't know. Typically we're

0:13:51.280 --> 0:13:53.840
<v Speaker 2>given copies. We don't even have copies of what they took.

0:13:53.920 --> 0:13:56.400
<v Speaker 2>So it's a problem. What are they doing with Where

0:13:56.400 --> 0:13:57.439
<v Speaker 2>are they? Who hasn't?

0:13:57.679 --> 0:14:01.559
<v Speaker 3>Lots of questions and not many answers, and Democrats in

0:14:01.640 --> 0:14:07.200
<v Speaker 3>Congress are questioning why Tulci Gabbert, the Director of National Intelligence,

0:14:07.440 --> 0:14:11.280
<v Speaker 3>was at the Fulton County search last week. Senator Mark

0:14:11.320 --> 0:14:15.640
<v Speaker 3>Warner raised concerns about her presence because the search was

0:14:15.679 --> 0:14:17.000
<v Speaker 3>a law enforcement action.

0:14:17.679 --> 0:14:21.240
<v Speaker 4>What the heck is she doing on the FBI serving

0:14:21.280 --> 0:14:24.760
<v Speaker 4>a domestic warranty? If this doesn't concern the heck out

0:14:24.800 --> 0:14:27.200
<v Speaker 4>of every American, it sures, how should.

0:14:27.680 --> 0:14:32.000
<v Speaker 3>Gabert also facilitated a phone call between those FBI agents

0:14:32.120 --> 0:14:36.520
<v Speaker 3>and President Trump after the search warrant was executed, and

0:14:36.600 --> 0:14:40.280
<v Speaker 3>Warner is calling on her to testify in person before

0:14:40.280 --> 0:14:42.000
<v Speaker 3>the Senate Intelligence Committee.

0:14:42.360 --> 0:14:45.560
<v Speaker 4>To see her skulking around in a baseball cap the

0:14:45.600 --> 0:14:48.000
<v Speaker 4>picture that was posted. You never thought you could make

0:14:48.000 --> 0:14:48.560
<v Speaker 4>this stuff up.

0:14:48.920 --> 0:14:51.200
<v Speaker 3>I've been talking to Barbara McQuay, a professor at the

0:14:51.280 --> 0:14:55.160
<v Speaker 3>University of Michigan Law School. Barbara adding to the oddity

0:14:55.200 --> 0:14:58.760
<v Speaker 3>of the search was the appearance of the Director of

0:14:59.120 --> 0:15:03.920
<v Speaker 3>National intelligen Gents, Tulsa Gabbard, who later said that President

0:15:04.040 --> 0:15:07.920
<v Speaker 3>Trump directed her to be at the search and then

0:15:08.160 --> 0:15:12.800
<v Speaker 3>afterwards President Trump spoke to the agents on the phone

0:15:13.120 --> 0:15:13.760
<v Speaker 3>on speak of.

0:15:13.880 --> 0:15:16.480
<v Speaker 5>All of this highly irregular and bizarre.

0:15:16.800 --> 0:15:19.840
<v Speaker 6>So there are two reasons it's bizarre to me that

0:15:19.920 --> 0:15:23.640
<v Speaker 6>Tulsi Gabbard was there. Number One, a person at her level,

0:15:24.000 --> 0:15:27.280
<v Speaker 6>the Director of National Intelligence, like just should have better

0:15:27.320 --> 0:15:30.560
<v Speaker 6>things to do, right, They have trained agents for this work.

0:15:30.880 --> 0:15:32.960
<v Speaker 6>You would not expect the Attorney General to be there.

0:15:32.960 --> 0:15:35.440
<v Speaker 6>You would not expect the head of the FBI to

0:15:35.440 --> 0:15:38.200
<v Speaker 6>be there. Right, These are this is in the trenches

0:15:38.360 --> 0:15:40.880
<v Speaker 6>kind of work that agents are trained to do and

0:15:40.920 --> 0:15:43.160
<v Speaker 6>do every day. So the idea that she's there, and

0:15:43.200 --> 0:15:45.320
<v Speaker 6>she's there like you know, in a ball cap and everything,

0:15:45.360 --> 0:15:48.080
<v Speaker 6>like what is she rolling up her sleeves and grabbing evidence.

0:15:48.080 --> 0:15:48.840
<v Speaker 5>I don't think so.

0:15:48.840 --> 0:15:51.880
<v Speaker 6>So just bizarre that she's physically present at the scene,

0:15:51.920 --> 0:15:55.120
<v Speaker 6>first of all. Second of all, this really feels like

0:15:55.160 --> 0:15:59.880
<v Speaker 6>something way beyond her remit. Her job is to court

0:16:00.160 --> 0:16:04.560
<v Speaker 6>nate intelligence collection among the eighteen intelligence agencies in the

0:16:04.560 --> 0:16:08.600
<v Speaker 6>federal government, and then to report to the President about

0:16:08.600 --> 0:16:11.640
<v Speaker 6>the results of those findings, to answer any questions he

0:16:11.720 --> 0:16:15.160
<v Speaker 6>may have to advise him about threats to the national security.

0:16:15.480 --> 0:16:18.160
<v Speaker 5>These are threats coming from foreign.

0:16:18.240 --> 0:16:24.080
<v Speaker 6>Actors, So that suggests that there is some foreign nexus

0:16:24.360 --> 0:16:25.320
<v Speaker 6>to this search.

0:16:25.840 --> 0:16:28.320
<v Speaker 5>I can't imagine what that would be. It kind of

0:16:28.360 --> 0:16:30.720
<v Speaker 5>goes back to some of those conspiracy theories. Remember when

0:16:30.720 --> 0:16:35.280
<v Speaker 5>Sidney Powell was saying things like dominion falsely, I'll add

0:16:35.960 --> 0:16:43.120
<v Speaker 5>dominion voting machines were programmed by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela,

0:16:43.560 --> 0:16:46.400
<v Speaker 5>like what. And then remember there was some tie to

0:16:46.440 --> 0:16:49.520
<v Speaker 5>Italy that caused William Barr to actually travel there with

0:16:49.640 --> 0:16:51.800
<v Speaker 5>John Durham when they were investigating the origins of the

0:16:51.880 --> 0:16:54.320
<v Speaker 5>Russian investigation. They never found anything there.

0:16:54.360 --> 0:16:57.520
<v Speaker 6>The Inspector General never found anything relating to these things.

0:16:57.840 --> 0:17:01.520
<v Speaker 6>It seems like it was all just wild, crazy stuff

0:17:01.560 --> 0:17:05.160
<v Speaker 6>that was manufactured. But here we are again with some

0:17:05.240 --> 0:17:08.159
<v Speaker 6>suggestion that there's some foreign nexus to all of this.

0:17:08.520 --> 0:17:11.000
<v Speaker 6>I don't know what it is, but if there's not

0:17:11.080 --> 0:17:14.560
<v Speaker 6>any foreign nexus, highly improper for Tulsa Gabbert to be there.

0:17:14.920 --> 0:17:17.919
<v Speaker 6>But if she's there, it does raise this specter of

0:17:18.119 --> 0:17:20.680
<v Speaker 6>is there some foreign nexus to this?

0:17:21.400 --> 0:17:24.040
<v Speaker 5>And I just can't imagine where this is going. But

0:17:24.200 --> 0:17:25.440
<v Speaker 5>brace yourself, June.

0:17:25.480 --> 0:17:27.760
<v Speaker 3>Well, what I was going to say is, you know,

0:17:27.760 --> 0:17:31.040
<v Speaker 3>people might say, well, let them investigate. If there's nothing there,

0:17:31.200 --> 0:17:34.280
<v Speaker 3>then no harm, no foul, But you don't know if

0:17:34.320 --> 0:17:38.080
<v Speaker 3>there could be you know, manufactured crimes or as you said,

0:17:38.160 --> 0:17:41.840
<v Speaker 3>the risks of undermining the midterm elections. I mean, there's

0:17:41.880 --> 0:17:45.560
<v Speaker 3>so much that could happen. You know, it's unsettling, to

0:17:45.600 --> 0:17:46.680
<v Speaker 3>say the least.

0:17:46.760 --> 0:17:47.439
<v Speaker 5>It really is.

0:17:47.480 --> 0:17:49.000
<v Speaker 6>And I think one of the great harms of this

0:17:49.080 --> 0:17:53.879
<v Speaker 6>administration is because of some of the acts they've engaged in,

0:17:54.400 --> 0:17:57.560
<v Speaker 6>you know, just like misleading us about what happened on

0:17:57.560 --> 0:18:00.399
<v Speaker 6>the ground in Minneapolis with these shooting when we can

0:18:00.440 --> 0:18:01.000
<v Speaker 6>see with our.

0:18:00.920 --> 0:18:02.520
<v Speaker 5>Own eyes that is not what they say.

0:18:03.160 --> 0:18:05.800
<v Speaker 6>I think that some courts have said they've lost the

0:18:05.840 --> 0:18:09.640
<v Speaker 6>presumption of regularity that our federal government has always enjoyed

0:18:10.080 --> 0:18:12.199
<v Speaker 6>that we trust that when they say they're going to

0:18:12.240 --> 0:18:15.800
<v Speaker 6>do something, that's what they're doing, and that we have

0:18:15.880 --> 0:18:18.000
<v Speaker 6>to sort of, you know, trust and wait and see

0:18:18.040 --> 0:18:20.560
<v Speaker 6>what happens. But I think the track record of this

0:18:20.600 --> 0:18:24.040
<v Speaker 6>administration has made us all very skeptical, and I worry

0:18:24.040 --> 0:18:27.359
<v Speaker 6>that that kind of skepticism will continue even after this

0:18:27.440 --> 0:18:28.639
<v Speaker 6>administration ends.

0:18:29.119 --> 0:18:31.439
<v Speaker 3>Thanks so much, Barbara, it's always a pleasure having you on.

0:18:31.960 --> 0:18:35.800
<v Speaker 3>That's Professor Barbara McQuaid of the University of Michigan Law School.

0:18:38.240 --> 0:18:41.600
<v Speaker 3>Arguments at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could determine

0:18:41.600 --> 0:18:46.199
<v Speaker 3>whether state legislatures can bring lawsuits over the objections of

0:18:46.240 --> 0:18:49.960
<v Speaker 3>the state's governor and attorney general. The Ninth Circuit held

0:18:50.119 --> 0:18:54.240
<v Speaker 3>oral arguments in a case where Republican lawmakers in Arizona

0:18:54.800 --> 0:18:59.359
<v Speaker 3>sidestep the Democratic state governor and attorney general in challenging

0:18:59.400 --> 0:19:04.880
<v Speaker 3>the Footsteps National Monument created by former President Joe Biden

0:19:05.000 --> 0:19:08.959
<v Speaker 3>on federal land in twenty twenty three. The monument designation

0:19:09.119 --> 0:19:13.200
<v Speaker 3>will help preserve fifteen hundred square miles and turned a

0:19:13.359 --> 0:19:18.320
<v Speaker 3>decades long vision for Native American tribes and environmentalists into

0:19:18.359 --> 0:19:23.040
<v Speaker 3>a reality, but Republican lawmakers and the uranium mining industry

0:19:23.119 --> 0:19:27.119
<v Speaker 3>that operates in the area had opposed the designation. The

0:19:27.119 --> 0:19:31.080
<v Speaker 3>appeals court will decide whether state lawmakers have standing to

0:19:31.280 --> 0:19:34.800
<v Speaker 3>challenge the White House's use of the Antiquities Act to

0:19:34.880 --> 0:19:39.720
<v Speaker 3>create national monuments. My guest is an expert in environmental law,

0:19:40.040 --> 0:19:43.320
<v Speaker 3>Dave Owen, a professor at the University of California College

0:19:43.359 --> 0:19:47.000
<v Speaker 3>of Law in San Francisco. There were oral arguments in

0:19:47.000 --> 0:19:51.280
<v Speaker 3>this case before the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday. Tell us

0:19:51.320 --> 0:19:52.840
<v Speaker 3>about the underlying case.

0:19:53.640 --> 0:19:58.680
<v Speaker 1>The underlying lawsuit is about the designation by President Biden

0:19:59.600 --> 0:20:05.560
<v Speaker 1>of the Ancient Footsteps National Monument in Arizona, and the

0:20:05.600 --> 0:20:10.960
<v Speaker 1>plaintiffs are claiming that this designation was unlawful because basically

0:20:11.000 --> 0:20:11.680
<v Speaker 1>it's too broad.

0:20:12.000 --> 0:20:16.679
<v Speaker 3>To get the side straight, it's the Republican controlled Arizona

0:20:16.800 --> 0:20:22.760
<v Speaker 3>legislature that filed the lawsuit challenging the monument, but the

0:20:22.800 --> 0:20:27.760
<v Speaker 3>state's governor, a Democrat, and the state's Attorney general, another Democrat,

0:20:28.240 --> 0:20:29.359
<v Speaker 3>opposed the lawsuit.

0:20:29.840 --> 0:20:33.120
<v Speaker 1>Yes, that's exactly right. There's a group of plaintiffs, including

0:20:33.119 --> 0:20:38.840
<v Speaker 1>the state legislature and the state itself, as represented by

0:20:38.840 --> 0:20:42.280
<v Speaker 1>the Attorney General's office, has intervened on the side of

0:20:42.280 --> 0:20:44.320
<v Speaker 1>the defendants on the side of the federal government.

0:20:44.800 --> 0:20:49.560
<v Speaker 3>President Trump has not been supportive of national monuments, shall

0:20:49.560 --> 0:20:51.800
<v Speaker 3>we put it that way? So is it a surprise

0:20:51.840 --> 0:20:55.159
<v Speaker 3>that the Trump administration is lining up here with the

0:20:55.200 --> 0:20:57.720
<v Speaker 3>democratic governor and attorney general.

0:20:58.359 --> 0:21:00.800
<v Speaker 1>I would say at this stage of the litigation, it

0:21:00.840 --> 0:21:04.960
<v Speaker 1>is not surprising. At this stage of the litigation, the

0:21:05.280 --> 0:21:09.280
<v Speaker 1>question at issue is whether the plaintiffs have standing to suit,

0:21:09.840 --> 0:21:15.480
<v Speaker 1>and the federal government almost always is arguing for more

0:21:15.520 --> 0:21:19.480
<v Speaker 1>restrictive standing for lawsuits against the federal government, and so

0:21:19.600 --> 0:21:24.040
<v Speaker 1>it has an institutional interest that cuts across administrations at

0:21:24.240 --> 0:21:27.160
<v Speaker 1>limiting its own ability to be sued. And since that's

0:21:27.200 --> 0:21:29.439
<v Speaker 1>all that's at stake right now, no, I think it

0:21:29.520 --> 0:21:32.560
<v Speaker 1>makes sense. It's not surprising that the federal government is aligned.

0:21:32.800 --> 0:21:35.960
<v Speaker 3>A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. Why did he or

0:21:36.040 --> 0:21:36.919
<v Speaker 3>she dismiss it?

0:21:37.320 --> 0:21:41.600
<v Speaker 1>So the reason is a legal doctrine called standing just

0:21:41.800 --> 0:21:46.680
<v Speaker 1>means that the plaintiffs have to have a direct personal

0:21:46.720 --> 0:21:49.000
<v Speaker 1>stake in the lawsuit. They have to be threatened with

0:21:49.040 --> 0:21:51.720
<v Speaker 1>some sort of injury, and it has to be both

0:21:51.760 --> 0:21:54.400
<v Speaker 1>plausible and not too speculative, and then the court has

0:21:54.480 --> 0:21:58.240
<v Speaker 1>to be able to fix the problem by ordering the

0:21:58.240 --> 0:22:01.119
<v Speaker 1>defendants to do something differently. And so what the court

0:22:01.200 --> 0:22:06.400
<v Speaker 1>said is that the legislature does not have standing because

0:22:06.480 --> 0:22:10.320
<v Speaker 1>it is not authorized to claim injury on behalf of

0:22:10.320 --> 0:22:14.160
<v Speaker 1>the state. Instead, it can only sue to defend some

0:22:14.200 --> 0:22:17.400
<v Speaker 1>sort of injury to its ability to function as a legislature,

0:22:17.840 --> 0:22:21.560
<v Speaker 1>and there's no such injury here. And then the other plaintiffs,

0:22:21.560 --> 0:22:24.520
<v Speaker 1>who are local governments and private entities, the court said

0:22:24.520 --> 0:22:30.040
<v Speaker 1>that their claims of injury were very speculative and therefore

0:22:30.119 --> 0:22:32.280
<v Speaker 1>did not provide a basis for the lawsuit to go forward.

0:22:32.720 --> 0:22:36.040
<v Speaker 3>During the oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit, the Deputy

0:22:36.080 --> 0:22:39.920
<v Speaker 3>Solicitor General said, the Attorney General represents the state here

0:22:39.960 --> 0:22:43.960
<v Speaker 3>in federal court, not the legislature, not the treasurer. I

0:22:43.960 --> 0:22:47.080
<v Speaker 3>mean that seems like a basic concept to me. It's

0:22:47.080 --> 0:22:50.920
<v Speaker 3>the attorney General who represents the state, it is, basically.

0:22:51.000 --> 0:22:54.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I think that's why the legislature lost on

0:22:54.280 --> 0:22:57.600
<v Speaker 1>that ground the first time through, That's why it will

0:22:57.600 --> 0:23:00.600
<v Speaker 1>lose again on those grounds on appl You know, it's

0:23:00.960 --> 0:23:03.439
<v Speaker 1>hard to predict the outcomes of cases sometimes, but I

0:23:03.480 --> 0:23:06.240
<v Speaker 1>don't think this particular issue, the outcome is at all

0:23:06.240 --> 0:23:07.159
<v Speaker 1>difficult to predict.

0:23:08.040 --> 0:23:12.280
<v Speaker 3>So what did the legislature argue at the Ninth Circuit

0:23:12.480 --> 0:23:14.080
<v Speaker 3>to try to show the head standing.

0:23:14.600 --> 0:23:18.000
<v Speaker 1>Well, the first thing to note is that the legislature's

0:23:18.160 --> 0:23:22.679
<v Speaker 1>argument for standing was hardly mentioned by the plaintiff's attorneys

0:23:22.880 --> 0:23:25.160
<v Speaker 1>or the oral argument yesterday, which I think is a

0:23:25.200 --> 0:23:28.600
<v Speaker 1>pretty strong tell that the plaintiff's attorney knows that this

0:23:28.840 --> 0:23:33.600
<v Speaker 1>is not a winning argument. Instead, the planiff's attorneys chose

0:23:33.640 --> 0:23:38.800
<v Speaker 1>to focus on claims of injury by local governments that

0:23:39.000 --> 0:23:44.040
<v Speaker 1>think their ability to get revenue related to uranium mining

0:23:44.160 --> 0:23:47.320
<v Speaker 1>by other third parties will be limited if the monument

0:23:47.400 --> 0:23:51.320
<v Speaker 1>designation stands. But the legislature's argument in the past has

0:23:51.440 --> 0:23:56.240
<v Speaker 1>been that the fact that this monument is designated means

0:23:56.280 --> 0:23:58.679
<v Speaker 1>the legislature is going to have to worry about some

0:23:58.880 --> 0:24:03.080
<v Speaker 1>other related legislate and kind of keep track of this issue,

0:24:03.400 --> 0:24:06.000
<v Speaker 1>and therefore that's going to affect its ability to function

0:24:06.280 --> 0:24:08.439
<v Speaker 1>as a legislature. And of course, you know, you can

0:24:08.520 --> 0:24:11.639
<v Speaker 1>make that argument about anything the federal government does in

0:24:11.680 --> 0:24:14.040
<v Speaker 1>a state, and that's I think partly why that argument

0:24:14.080 --> 0:24:15.640
<v Speaker 1>didn't go anywhere with the court.

0:24:15.920 --> 0:24:18.360
<v Speaker 3>This is all about uranium in the future.

0:24:18.840 --> 0:24:21.679
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, the basic argument the local governments. I mean, I

0:24:21.680 --> 0:24:24.800
<v Speaker 1>think part of this is just ideological. The federal government

0:24:24.960 --> 0:24:29.720
<v Speaker 1>comes in and takes lands in a rural area. They're

0:24:29.760 --> 0:24:32.479
<v Speaker 1>all federal lands, So this is not the federal government

0:24:32.520 --> 0:24:35.080
<v Speaker 1>grabbing lands from anybody else, but it is taking lands

0:24:35.119 --> 0:24:38.600
<v Speaker 1>in a rural and conservative area with an economy that

0:24:38.640 --> 0:24:42.199
<v Speaker 1>has traditionally been fund somewhat focused on resource extraction and

0:24:42.240 --> 0:24:44.680
<v Speaker 1>saying these lands aren't going to be available for resource

0:24:44.720 --> 0:24:48.240
<v Speaker 1>extraction anymore, and so that gets people upset. So that's

0:24:48.240 --> 0:24:50.560
<v Speaker 1>the general reaction. It has a lot to do with

0:24:50.680 --> 0:24:53.760
<v Speaker 1>just general hostility to the federal government. But the more

0:24:53.760 --> 0:24:59.080
<v Speaker 1>specific argument was that the promising mineral that exists on

0:24:59.119 --> 0:25:04.280
<v Speaker 1>these lands is you're uranium, and maybe uranium prices will

0:25:04.400 --> 0:25:08.080
<v Speaker 1>rise and demand will increase, and then mining companies will

0:25:08.119 --> 0:25:12.280
<v Speaker 1>come in and that will lead to indirectly to revenue

0:25:12.320 --> 0:25:15.720
<v Speaker 1>for the local government, and the loss of that revenue

0:25:15.720 --> 0:25:17.040
<v Speaker 1>therefore is their claimed injury.

0:25:17.520 --> 0:25:23.520
<v Speaker 3>Along those lines, Judge Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, said,

0:25:23.880 --> 0:25:26.280
<v Speaker 3>how does anyone know whether it would make sense to

0:25:26.359 --> 0:25:30.240
<v Speaker 3>open up new uranium minds six years from now? Explain

0:25:30.280 --> 0:25:31.880
<v Speaker 3>what the judge was getting at there?

0:25:32.880 --> 0:25:36.240
<v Speaker 1>The basic theory of the plaintiff's have of standing is

0:25:36.280 --> 0:25:41.120
<v Speaker 1>grounded in the idea that a law that changes market

0:25:41.200 --> 0:25:45.240
<v Speaker 1>conditions to somebody's detriment can be challenging, and that the

0:25:45.280 --> 0:25:48.399
<v Speaker 1>person who is detrimentally hurt by that law can have

0:25:48.440 --> 0:25:51.000
<v Speaker 1>standing to challenge it. In other words, that you don't

0:25:51.440 --> 0:25:54.960
<v Speaker 1>you don't necessarily need to say the governmental whoever else

0:25:55.000 --> 0:25:58.600
<v Speaker 1>the defendant was, directly took money out of my pocketbook.

0:25:58.800 --> 0:26:01.520
<v Speaker 1>You can say this regular is going to change market

0:26:01.520 --> 0:26:04.719
<v Speaker 1>conditions in a way that hurts me, and therefore I

0:26:04.760 --> 0:26:07.960
<v Speaker 1>have the ability to sue, and stated generically the way

0:26:08.000 --> 0:26:12.640
<v Speaker 1>I've just stated it, that's an argument nobody would disagree with,

0:26:12.920 --> 0:26:16.560
<v Speaker 1>at least that it's valid. Sometimes the question in this

0:26:16.720 --> 0:26:23.200
<v Speaker 1>case is whether it's just too speculative for this particular

0:26:23.240 --> 0:26:25.840
<v Speaker 1>action to be changing market conditions in a way that

0:26:25.880 --> 0:26:29.000
<v Speaker 1>would actually impact the plaintiffs. If you start getting a

0:26:29.119 --> 0:26:31.920
<v Speaker 1>very long chain of causation with a lot of very

0:26:32.040 --> 0:26:34.920
<v Speaker 1>uncertain links, then at some point the courts will say

0:26:34.960 --> 0:26:38.280
<v Speaker 1>this is just speculation, and really this case is not

0:26:38.400 --> 0:26:42.679
<v Speaker 1>about arms to your market. Position is about you just

0:26:42.720 --> 0:26:45.480
<v Speaker 1>don't like what the government did, and you just have

0:26:45.600 --> 0:26:49.680
<v Speaker 1>generic hostility to it, and so here again, what Friedland

0:26:49.680 --> 0:26:52.800
<v Speaker 1>is getting that with that question is are we dealing

0:26:52.800 --> 0:26:56.880
<v Speaker 1>with a situation here where the harm that you are claiming,

0:26:56.880 --> 0:27:01.480
<v Speaker 1>which is harm to your local government finance, is based

0:27:01.520 --> 0:27:05.359
<v Speaker 1>on the assumption that someday in the future uranium mining

0:27:05.400 --> 0:27:07.639
<v Speaker 1>is going to pick up again and do so in

0:27:07.720 --> 0:27:10.880
<v Speaker 1>ways that bring revenue to you. Are you just completely

0:27:10.920 --> 0:27:11.840
<v Speaker 1>speculating there?

0:27:12.160 --> 0:27:14.960
<v Speaker 3>Did it seem to you like all three judges were

0:27:15.320 --> 0:27:19.000
<v Speaker 3>skeptical about the plaintiffs having standing.

0:27:19.520 --> 0:27:24.520
<v Speaker 1>You, I wouldn't say all three count she seemed less skeptical,

0:27:25.560 --> 0:27:29.160
<v Speaker 1>Although if I'm an attorney trying to read the tea

0:27:29.200 --> 0:27:31.520
<v Speaker 1>leaves of oral argument, which is always a dangerous thing

0:27:31.600 --> 0:27:35.560
<v Speaker 1>to do, I did not hear her tip her hand

0:27:35.800 --> 0:27:39.280
<v Speaker 1>either way. She was asking the questions one might ask

0:27:39.680 --> 0:27:43.360
<v Speaker 1>if you're trying to throw softballs, or if you are

0:27:43.359 --> 0:27:46.480
<v Speaker 1>trying to see if there's anything to the plaintiff's argument.

0:27:46.840 --> 0:27:49.080
<v Speaker 1>You know, if you're basically saying, I don't think you

0:27:49.119 --> 0:27:50.600
<v Speaker 1>have anything here, but I'm going to ask you the

0:27:50.640 --> 0:27:53.199
<v Speaker 1>most empathetic questions I can, just to see if you

0:27:53.200 --> 0:27:55.760
<v Speaker 1>could come up with something compelling. So it's hard to

0:27:55.800 --> 0:27:59.280
<v Speaker 1>know what the motivation behind those questions was but she

0:27:59.440 --> 0:28:03.280
<v Speaker 1>did not seem as thoroughly skeptical as the other two

0:28:03.359 --> 0:28:03.960
<v Speaker 1>judges did.

0:28:04.200 --> 0:28:07.000
<v Speaker 3>But you think that the legislature is going to lose here.

0:28:07.320 --> 0:28:11.800
<v Speaker 1>I think if the plaintiffs win on this appeal, which

0:28:11.880 --> 0:28:15.199
<v Speaker 1>is just about allowing the case to go forward, it

0:28:15.240 --> 0:28:19.639
<v Speaker 1>would be based on injuries to the local governments in

0:28:19.680 --> 0:28:24.440
<v Speaker 1>the area. I do not think anybody even seemed interested

0:28:24.800 --> 0:28:28.040
<v Speaker 1>in the legislature's claims to have standing.

0:28:28.760 --> 0:28:32.600
<v Speaker 3>If the legislature loses and this goes to the Supreme Court,

0:28:32.960 --> 0:28:37.160
<v Speaker 3>Chief Justice Roberts has said he's skeptical about the use

0:28:37.160 --> 0:28:40.360
<v Speaker 3>of the Antiquities Act. So do the plaintiffs have an

0:28:40.400 --> 0:28:42.680
<v Speaker 3>advantage at the Supreme Court?

0:28:43.280 --> 0:28:46.640
<v Speaker 1>So let's separate it out into if this particular decision

0:28:46.680 --> 0:28:49.400
<v Speaker 1>that's an issue right now, if there's an appeal on that,

0:28:49.880 --> 0:28:53.520
<v Speaker 1>and then the broader question of if the case continues

0:28:53.600 --> 0:28:56.680
<v Speaker 1>forward and goes to the merits, whether there might be

0:28:56.720 --> 0:29:00.920
<v Speaker 1>a Supreme Court problem. So, first off, I don't think

0:29:01.080 --> 0:29:04.120
<v Speaker 1>the United States Supreme Court is going to be at

0:29:04.160 --> 0:29:07.479
<v Speaker 1>all interested in the legislature's theory of standing here. I

0:29:07.520 --> 0:29:09.440
<v Speaker 1>think it's going to look at that and say, no,

0:29:09.560 --> 0:29:11.640
<v Speaker 1>states get to define who speaks for them in court.

0:29:11.680 --> 0:29:13.720
<v Speaker 1>We're not going to mess with that. I also think

0:29:13.760 --> 0:29:17.640
<v Speaker 1>in general, the Supreme Court is going to be somewhat

0:29:17.680 --> 0:29:22.160
<v Speaker 1>skeptical of the plaintiffs general theory of standing, just because

0:29:22.440 --> 0:29:25.120
<v Speaker 1>of the speculative nature of it. And even if the

0:29:25.160 --> 0:29:29.280
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court might sympathize with the merits of the plaintiffs'

0:29:29.280 --> 0:29:32.160
<v Speaker 1>claims here, I don't think you are going to have

0:29:32.200 --> 0:29:37.200
<v Speaker 1>five justices or four on the Court who are interested

0:29:37.400 --> 0:29:41.000
<v Speaker 1>in expanding standing for potentially speculative harms and taking up

0:29:41.040 --> 0:29:44.720
<v Speaker 1>a case just for that basis. So I think probably

0:29:44.800 --> 0:29:48.480
<v Speaker 1>this case gets dismissed on standing grounds, and a certain petition,

0:29:48.680 --> 0:29:51.479
<v Speaker 1>if one is filed, is not accepted. I think that

0:29:51.560 --> 0:29:54.400
<v Speaker 1>is the most likely outcome. But your other question was, well,

0:29:54.440 --> 0:29:56.560
<v Speaker 1>what about you know, maybe it's not this monument, Maybe

0:29:56.560 --> 0:30:00.480
<v Speaker 1>it's another monument. The Court has shown some or Chief

0:30:00.600 --> 0:30:03.360
<v Speaker 1>Justice Roberts, but I don't think it's just him, has

0:30:03.920 --> 0:30:09.120
<v Speaker 1>shown hints of interest in claims that monument designations are

0:30:09.160 --> 0:30:11.560
<v Speaker 1>overly brought. Now it's hard to know what to make

0:30:11.600 --> 0:30:15.840
<v Speaker 1>of those because broad monument designations have been with us

0:30:15.960 --> 0:30:19.120
<v Speaker 1>as a nation for over a century. This is not

0:30:19.280 --> 0:30:22.040
<v Speaker 1>a new practice. It's been around for a very very

0:30:22.080 --> 0:30:26.640
<v Speaker 1>long time. Most of those broad monuments in hindsight or

0:30:26.680 --> 0:30:30.080
<v Speaker 1>designations that people have been very glad about. At least

0:30:30.200 --> 0:30:32.920
<v Speaker 1>a majority of the American public has been very very

0:30:32.920 --> 0:30:34.960
<v Speaker 1>glad about, and a majority of the states in which

0:30:34.960 --> 0:30:38.040
<v Speaker 1>they are located have been glad about. And so you know,

0:30:38.080 --> 0:30:40.239
<v Speaker 1>there's a bunch of reasons why the Supreme Court might

0:30:40.240 --> 0:30:44.840
<v Speaker 1>think this is not an issue that's really important enough

0:30:44.880 --> 0:30:47.560
<v Speaker 1>to be worth our time or that we feel strongly enough,

0:30:47.560 --> 0:30:49.400
<v Speaker 1>But it's hard to know, and it's all speculation.

0:30:49.520 --> 0:30:49.920
<v Speaker 5>There.

0:30:50.280 --> 0:30:55.600
<v Speaker 3>Recent Democratic presidents, I'm thinking former presidents Biden, Obama, and

0:30:55.720 --> 0:31:00.600
<v Speaker 3>Clinton have expanded national monuments. Why is it that the

0:31:00.680 --> 0:31:04.680
<v Speaker 3>Republican seemed to be not in favor of national monuments

0:31:05.200 --> 0:31:09.080
<v Speaker 3>generally and the Democrats seemed to be in favor well.

0:31:08.920 --> 0:31:13.840
<v Speaker 1>Correction there by geographic area. The largest national monument designation

0:31:14.080 --> 0:31:19.280
<v Speaker 1>ever a huge margin, was from George W. Bush Oh

0:31:19.840 --> 0:31:24.320
<v Speaker 1>and it was the Hawaiian Islands Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Monument.

0:31:24.440 --> 0:31:27.800
<v Speaker 1>So it's an incredibly remote area, but it's enormous. And

0:31:27.880 --> 0:31:32.720
<v Speaker 1>so it's not always the case that monument designations are

0:31:32.840 --> 0:31:35.920
<v Speaker 1>a democratic presidential thing. And there was some controversy that

0:31:36.040 --> 0:31:39.680
<v Speaker 1>was not like an easy nobody cares. You know, I

0:31:39.680 --> 0:31:43.000
<v Speaker 1>can win without making any mean, there were fishing interests

0:31:43.000 --> 0:31:45.960
<v Speaker 1>that were upset about that designation. But you are right

0:31:46.080 --> 0:31:49.240
<v Speaker 1>with the general Trent that designating monuments is much more

0:31:49.360 --> 0:31:51.760
<v Speaker 1>a thing that democratic presidents do, and I think the

0:31:51.840 --> 0:31:56.280
<v Speaker 1>reasons are fairly straightforward. The people who oppose these designations

0:31:56.480 --> 0:32:01.120
<v Speaker 1>are typically people in very rural parts of the West,

0:32:01.680 --> 0:32:06.800
<v Speaker 1>and then extractive industries that are not voting for Democrats

0:32:06.880 --> 0:32:09.960
<v Speaker 1>or contributing money to Democrats no matter what. So the

0:32:09.960 --> 0:32:14.040
<v Speaker 1>people who are offended by these actions, there's no political

0:32:14.120 --> 0:32:18.200
<v Speaker 1>loss on the Democratic side, and they're widely popular. I mean,

0:32:18.240 --> 0:32:22.000
<v Speaker 1>even like Utah is kind of a funny example. Utah

0:32:22.840 --> 0:32:28.480
<v Speaker 1>aggressively markets its national monuments in its tourism materials well.

0:32:28.520 --> 0:32:31.720
<v Speaker 1>At the same time, the Utah political establishment is like

0:32:31.800 --> 0:32:34.800
<v Speaker 1>almost duty bound to complain about them constantly. And so

0:32:34.840 --> 0:32:37.240
<v Speaker 1>I think the more interesting question, honestly on the political

0:32:37.280 --> 0:32:41.520
<v Speaker 1>side is why the Republicans are so opposed When monuments

0:32:41.560 --> 0:32:43.160
<v Speaker 1>tend to be popular, they tend to be good for

0:32:43.200 --> 0:32:45.960
<v Speaker 1>business development, and I think the basic reason is that

0:32:46.000 --> 0:32:48.840
<v Speaker 1>there's sort of a core and entrenched part of the

0:32:48.920 --> 0:32:53.320
<v Speaker 1>Republican Party that cares very deeply about these issues, and

0:32:53.560 --> 0:32:58.360
<v Speaker 1>it sees them as symbolically important to broader questions about

0:32:58.400 --> 0:33:00.400
<v Speaker 1>the role of the federal government in the world West,

0:33:00.640 --> 0:33:05.680
<v Speaker 1>and it really demands that the Republican political establishment get upset,

0:33:05.800 --> 0:33:08.360
<v Speaker 1>at least in the West, get upset about monuments. You know,

0:33:08.400 --> 0:33:12.360
<v Speaker 1>I would guess that a lot of those representatives and senators,

0:33:12.760 --> 0:33:14.800
<v Speaker 1>if you gave them truth serum, would say, yeah, actually,

0:33:14.880 --> 0:33:17.960
<v Speaker 1>these designations have been great for our state key constituencies

0:33:17.960 --> 0:33:20.480
<v Speaker 1>that hate them. And so I've got to oppose.

0:33:20.600 --> 0:33:25.200
<v Speaker 3>Can a later president alter a national monument that a

0:33:25.360 --> 0:33:27.440
<v Speaker 3>prior president has put in place?

0:33:27.840 --> 0:33:30.560
<v Speaker 1>And there's two schools of thought on that question. One

0:33:30.560 --> 0:33:34.280
<v Speaker 1>school of thought is that because the governing statutes speak

0:33:34.400 --> 0:33:39.920
<v Speaker 1>very specifically about designating monuments and say absolutely nothing about

0:33:39.960 --> 0:33:43.760
<v Speaker 1>shrinking them, that that silence implies that there is not

0:33:44.000 --> 0:33:47.560
<v Speaker 1>an ability for a later president to reduce a monument.

0:33:48.640 --> 0:33:51.880
<v Speaker 1>On the other side, people have argued that the power

0:33:51.920 --> 0:33:57.080
<v Speaker 1>to designate inherently also conveys the power to reduce. I

0:33:57.120 --> 0:33:59.479
<v Speaker 1>think that second argument is a little strange. I mean,

0:33:59.600 --> 0:34:06.959
<v Speaker 1>usually we don't convey broad sweeping powers presidents through statutory silences.

0:34:07.280 --> 0:34:09.680
<v Speaker 1>But that's the argument that others have made, and that

0:34:09.920 --> 0:34:12.960
<v Speaker 1>question has not been tested by the Supreme Court. That

0:34:12.960 --> 0:34:16.560
<v Speaker 1>would most likely be the case that eventually might come

0:34:16.640 --> 0:34:19.120
<v Speaker 1>up to the Supreme Court. It'll either be a designation

0:34:19.320 --> 0:34:21.799
<v Speaker 1>case where the question is was this designation too broad

0:34:21.840 --> 0:34:25.160
<v Speaker 1>in the first place? Or it will be a monument

0:34:25.200 --> 0:34:29.080
<v Speaker 1>shrinking case. But because we've had for your flip flops,

0:34:29.680 --> 0:34:35.000
<v Speaker 1>designation shrinking cases haven't yet been around long enough to

0:34:35.080 --> 0:34:36.280
<v Speaker 1>make it to the Supreme Court.

0:34:36.560 --> 0:34:40.120
<v Speaker 3>I always find the subject of national monuments so interesting,

0:34:40.200 --> 0:34:43.840
<v Speaker 3>So thanks so much for joining me today. That's Professor

0:34:43.920 --> 0:34:47.160
<v Speaker 3>Dave Owen of the UC College of the Law, San Francisco.

0:34:48.239 --> 0:34:50.560
<v Speaker 3>And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:34:50.920 --> 0:34:53.279
<v Speaker 3>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:34:53.320 --> 0:34:57.600
<v Speaker 3>our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:34:57.760 --> 0:35:02.799
<v Speaker 3>and at www dot bloom com, slash podcast Slash Law,

0:35:03.239 --> 0:35:05.800
<v Speaker 3>And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:35:05.840 --> 0:35:09.760
<v Speaker 3>weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,

0:35:09.880 --> 0:35:11.480
<v Speaker 3>and you're listening to Bloomberg