Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Texas militia member was the first to go to trial
Speaker 1: in the January six insurrection. Prosecutors said that guy Refit
Speaker 1: quote lit the fire of the very first group of
Speaker 1: rioters that breached the Capitol, and they not only had
Speaker 1: photos of him storming the Capitol, they had video from
Speaker 1: his own helmet camera. Refit had the sad distinction of
Speaker 1: being turned in by his own teenage son, Jackson. Reffit
Speaker 1: told CNN his father had threatened him and his sister
Speaker 1: as it became clear that law enforcement was hunting down rioters.
Speaker 1: He said to choose a side or die, and if
Speaker 1: I chose a certain side, I would cross a line
Speaker 1: and he would do something he didn't want to do.
Speaker 1: The jury took less than four hours to convict Refit
Speaker 1: of all charges, including obstruction of Congress, a crucial victory
Speaker 1: for the Johnstice Department. Joining me is Eric Larson, a
Speaker 1: Bloomberg legal reporter who covered the trial. Eric tell us
Speaker 1: what the charges against Refit were so. Mr ruff It
Speaker 1: was accused of basically leading the first crowd of writers
Speaker 1: that went up the steps of the terrorism and eventually
Speaker 1: broke into the capitol, so they claimed that he really
Speaker 1: led them on, egged them on, encouraged them to more
Speaker 1: forcefully confront the police, which they did. They also claimed
Speaker 1: that he was armed with a pistol a loaded gun
Speaker 1: at the time, and that he had traveled to Washington
Speaker 1: from Texas with an a R fifteen as well, which
Speaker 1: he had left in his hotel room. So they claimed
Speaker 1: that he went there prepared for battle and prepared to fight,
Speaker 1: and that that is what he did. Was there a
Speaker 1: reason why he was tried? First of all the January
Speaker 1: six rioters, not that I'm aware of. You know, more
Speaker 1: than seven hundred and fifty people have been charged, only
Speaker 1: around two hundred or so pleaded guilty, So there are
Speaker 1: hundreds of people who are supposedly going to go to
Speaker 1: trial here. Um, it just seems that this one sort
Speaker 1: of moves the fastest. We're going to see a lot
Speaker 1: of trials later this year. I think it was just
Speaker 1: the luck of the draw for him. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: the prosecution's case, and what was so unusual and telling
Speaker 1: was that his son was the government's star witness against him. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's correct. That was a real twist. His then eighteen
Speaker 1: year old son contacted the FBI, informed him about his
Speaker 1: father's involvement in the riots, and even went so far
Speaker 1: as to secretly record his father talking at the kitchen table,
Speaker 1: to put his iPhone down on the table and just
Speaker 1: let his father speak as he was bragging about all
Speaker 1: of his activities on January six. So he really went
Speaker 1: pretty far and trying to help the government. And one
Speaker 1: of his reasons for doing so is that at one point,
Speaker 1: as his father realized that so many writers were being
Speaker 1: arrested and charged, he threatened his children to keep them quiets,
Speaker 1: knowing that they had different political views than he did,
Speaker 1: and knowing that they had some pretty incriminating information. He
Speaker 1: told them that speaking with law enforcement would be treason
Speaker 1: and that traders get shot, as they put it. And
Speaker 1: some Capital police officers testified, did one breakdown on the stand.
Speaker 1: There were several who testified, and one in particular, as
Speaker 1: she was in the command center during the riot, and
Speaker 1: you know, they have several different commanders and officers in
Speaker 1: this room with lots of screens watching different camera feeds
Speaker 1: from all over the Capitol. They've got all the radios
Speaker 1: with them, and she just described as the scene just deteriorated,
Speaker 1: and they saw writers running through the building and started
Speaker 1: to hear officers screaming for help on their radios, and
Speaker 1: they just realized that there was only so much they
Speaker 1: could do that they really felt unprepared, and she she
Speaker 1: broke down crying describing it. So it was fairly emotional
Speaker 1: for for some of them. Talk about how federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: built their case against him. You know, what kinds of
Speaker 1: evidence they used besides direct testimony, you know, it was
Speaker 1: really a lot of evidence. I have to say. They
Speaker 1: really built the case as if someone, you know, in
Speaker 1: this case, the jurors didn't know anything about the riot.
Speaker 1: I think that they all did. But they really explained
Speaker 1: how it occurred, what happened. They showed the video footage
Speaker 1: of people attacking that they had witnesses talk from the
Speaker 1: Senate floor explaining how they had to abandon the session
Speaker 1: all to back up all of the various charges for
Speaker 1: obstruction of Congress and being armed on Catholic grounds and
Speaker 1: things like this. They showed photographs from Mr. Refit's house
Speaker 1: when they rated it, showing the gun sitting on his
Speaker 1: nightstand and then comparing it to pictures taken during the
Speaker 1: riot where they say he had the same gun on
Speaker 1: his hip, so cell phone footage from other writers, Mr
Speaker 1: Ruffitt's own helmet mounted camera, his zoom calls with other
Speaker 1: militia leaders, things like that, so they really they put
Speaker 1: it all out there, and the defense didn't call any
Speaker 1: witnesses at all. What was the defense. Of course, defendants
Speaker 1: aren't required to put on a case, and the judge,
Speaker 1: you know, instructed the jury that that shouldn't be interpreted
Speaker 1: as any sort of admission of guilt or anything like that.
Speaker 1: But based on the cross examination of the witnesses, the
Speaker 1: defense was basically that Mr ruff It didn't hurt anyone,
Speaker 1: didn't damage any property, didn't steal anything, and didn't interfere
Speaker 1: with any attempts by law enforcement to arrest anyone. And
Speaker 1: also that he didn't enter the capital. Of course, he
Speaker 1: isn't accused of any of those things, so it was
Speaker 1: a fairly limited defense. He was stopped by pepper spray
Speaker 1: before he could go in the capitals that day, but
Speaker 1: by then, as the prosecution alleged, he had already encouraged
Speaker 1: and led everyone else up the stairs. So the defense
Speaker 1: was really focused on saying that Raffit hadn't done things
Speaker 1: that he wasn't accused of. There was some attempt to
Speaker 1: illustrate that there wasn't enough evidence that he was armed,
Speaker 1: but the jury clearly did not buy that. There was
Speaker 1: actually an audio recording of Mr. Reffitt in the mob
Speaker 1: that day bragging that he had a gun with it,
Speaker 1: So it really didn't work out with the jury. The
Speaker 1: jury didn't take very long to come back with guilty
Speaker 1: on all charges. Was this trial at chest for prosecutors?
Speaker 1: In some ways? I would say so. I think that
Speaker 1: especially the obstruction of Congress charge, there has been some
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say controversy, but some dispute over whether or
Speaker 1: not Congress was technically in session at the moment that
Speaker 1: the Capitol was breached, and whether or not, you know,
Speaker 1: the counting of the certification of the votes qualifies as
Speaker 1: the kind of legal proceeding that can be obstructed. Sort
Speaker 1: of technical arguments around that, And clearly the judge denied
Speaker 1: emotion to dismiss that charge earlier, and of course it
Speaker 1: went to trial and and the jury agreed, based on
Speaker 1: the evidence that Congress wasn't session, that what was happening
Speaker 1: was an official proceeding of the government and that it
Speaker 1: was obstructed by the actions. So I did speak with
Speaker 1: a former federal prosecutor who said that that was an
Speaker 1: important test to see if a jury would agree that
Speaker 1: Congress had been obstructed, since that is a charge that
Speaker 1: will see in so many of these cases. Yeah, prosecutors
Speaker 1: trying to elevate some of the cases beyond misdemeanor and trespassing.
Speaker 1: Another judge dismissed that charge against a January six rioter
Speaker 1: this week, saying the law was meant to apply more
Speaker 1: specifically to destroying documents or records in connection with the proceedings.
Speaker 1: So we may actually see that that question go up
Speaker 1: to the d C Circuit. Yeah, I think that we
Speaker 1: probably will. And you know, the defense lawyer after the
Speaker 1: jury verdict was handed down and the jury was dismissed,
Speaker 1: the defense lawyer did renew his request to have the
Speaker 1: case thrown out, which is not uncommon after a trial,
Speaker 1: but he specifically cited that ruling which had come in
Speaker 1: another case in DC just the prior day, I believe,
Speaker 1: and the judge had already had her decision prepared on
Speaker 1: that and said that regardless of that earlier decision, she's
Speaker 1: standing by her finding that the Congress wasn't session and
Speaker 1: was obstructed. Um, she said, well, basically what you just said.
Speaker 1: We'll have to wait and see. It's a question that
Speaker 1: might might be decided by the d C Circuit. But
Speaker 1: she seems to think that the words in the statutes
Speaker 1: were being defined too narrowly in that decision the day before,
Speaker 1: and that she's standing by her more broad interpretation. So
Speaker 1: will this be a bell weather for the trials to
Speaker 1: come in perhaps the way the prosecution laid out the case,
Speaker 1: You know, I it's possible. It's hard to predict, but
Speaker 1: I think one thing that the judge at some point
Speaker 1: during the trial when the jury wasn't around, sort of
Speaker 1: not admonished, but that to the prosecution, you know, you're
Speaker 1: really doing too much here, almost like knowing too much evidence,
Speaker 1: showing the same evidence too many times, getting too many
Speaker 1: witnesses to say the same things. So in a way
Speaker 1: she was kind of like, look, you've you've made your
Speaker 1: case to move on, And just from having watched it
Speaker 1: it was a six day trial, they really did put
Speaker 1: on so much evidence to prove things that maybe in
Speaker 1: our minds would feel like, yeah, we already know this,
Speaker 1: right happened we know this happened. We know this happened.
Speaker 1: I think they really wanted to just sew everything up
Speaker 1: from every angle and just make it sort of impossible
Speaker 1: to work around the charges. You know, they really have
Speaker 1: to get around that, that doubt, so we'll see you well.
Speaker 1: I guess that shows how much the first trial means
Speaker 1: to sort of set a standard. And also I think
Speaker 1: this means that a lot of defendants whose trials are
Speaker 1: coming up are going to end up pleading. You know,
Speaker 1: that would definitely make sense. That's what some have been
Speaker 1: speculating here that once they saw how effective the prosecution
Speaker 1: was that presenting the government and how quickly the jury
Speaker 1: accepted the evidence to back the charges, that they really
Speaker 1: wanted to take that chance and go to trial if
Speaker 1: they can get some lesser time. And we have seen
Speaker 1: that some defendants who have pleaded guilty are getting some
Speaker 1: seemingly short sentences. I mean, just a day or two ago,
Speaker 1: one defendant of current f A, a employee who's been
Speaker 1: suspended and he participated in the riot, pleaded guilty to
Speaker 1: illegal parading in the capitol. He took a photo in
Speaker 1: front of the Nancy Pelosi's office. He was one of
Speaker 1: the first people in the building. He pleaded guilty and
Speaker 1: was sentenced to no time behind bars and three years
Speaker 1: of probation um. And the government actually had requested only
Speaker 1: two weeks behind bars, so he ended up getting nune.
Speaker 1: So clearly, you know, say what you will about whether
Speaker 1: that was too lenient or not. Um. They're clearly, as
Speaker 1: many defense floors, no benefit to pleading out at some point.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that outside the courthouse after the verdict, wrath
Speaker 1: It's wife told other defendants not to take a plea deal,
Speaker 1: don't take a police, do not take a police. They
Speaker 1: want us to take a police. The reason that we
Speaker 1: have all guilty verdicts as they are making a point
Speaker 1: out of guy and that is to intimidate the other
Speaker 1: members of the one sixers and we will all fight together.
Speaker 1: We'll see what happens there. So what is he facing
Speaker 1: when he's sentenced on June? Ay, I know that Jacob
Speaker 1: chans Ley, the Q and On Shaman as he's known,
Speaker 1: was sentenced to more than three years in prison on
Speaker 1: I think the obstruction charge. Yeah, well, I do know
Speaker 1: a lot of these maximum sentences, you know, they never
Speaker 1: end up being the amount that is handed down and
Speaker 1: when there are multiple accounts that they're not always placed
Speaker 1: on top of each other, they're sort of put together.
Speaker 1: So I think the maximum sentence for the obstruction charge
Speaker 1: alone is twenty years. I think you could add them
Speaker 1: all up and say, you know, maybe it's like sixty
Speaker 1: years or something, but I don't think it would be
Speaker 1: anything like that. So we'll see this judge is that
Speaker 1: sentencing for June eighth, so we'll see if that. That
Speaker 1: will be another important test to see what judges give
Speaker 1: these defendants that they're convicted at trial, right, because usually
Speaker 1: there's an extra sort of added on if you make
Speaker 1: the government prove their case at trial instead of pleading
Speaker 1: out like Chansley did. So the trials that are happening
Speaker 1: later this year, they're the most serious charges against the
Speaker 1: insurrectionists involved two group trials. That's right, Um, they're mostly
Speaker 1: from this group called the Oathkeepers. For the record, Mr
Speaker 1: Ruffort was with the militia group called the Three per Centers,
Speaker 1: But these trials coming up later are mostly Oathkeepers. Here.
Speaker 1: There's one in April or some of these militia members
Speaker 1: who are charged with conspiracy. So that's going to be
Speaker 1: a real interesting case to see whether these conspiracy charges
Speaker 1: can stick at trial the same way we saw in
Speaker 1: this trial just now, whether or not an obstruction of
Speaker 1: Congress charge being sick this will show a much more
Speaker 1: serious conspiracy charge work. Then in July will see another
Speaker 1: group of the oathkeepers who have been charged with the
Speaker 1: most serious charge in from the right, which is sedition.
Speaker 1: So I think a lot of people will be watching
Speaker 1: that to see how far the government can take this
Speaker 1: attempt to essentially overthrow Congress and forced Congress to allow
Speaker 1: Trump to essentially have another tournament office. So whether or
Speaker 1: not that's edition still remains to be seen. And the
Speaker 1: former chairman of the Proud Boys was arrested. Was that
Speaker 1: a big arrest? You know? I it's ah, he had already.
Speaker 1: He was arrested yesterday in Miami, and he has been
Speaker 1: added to an earlier case against some other Proud Boys,
Speaker 1: and that's another conspiracy case. And I believe that one
Speaker 1: goes to trial in May, or at least the schedule two.
Speaker 1: At this point. UM, it's unclear of adding um Henry
Speaker 1: Tario is his name, whether that may slow things down,
Speaker 1: But I would say it's not a surprise only because
Speaker 1: you know he was the leader of the group, and
Speaker 1: the group was clearly deeply involved in the planning of
Speaker 1: UM that march on the Capitol UM and say, you
Speaker 1: know you might remember during the UH during the presidential debate,
Speaker 1: um Trump was asked to condemn white supremacy and and
Speaker 1: the militia groups UH and groups like the Proud Boys,
Speaker 1: and he said to the Proud Boys that stand back
Speaker 1: and stand by. Of course, Trump was pretty widely criticized
Speaker 1: for that. UM. So the fact that the leader of
Speaker 1: the Proud Boys has been added to this isn't too
Speaker 1: surprising to me. UM. But I spoke with his lawyer yesterday. UM.
Speaker 1: He didn't want to comment, but he was wondering whether
Speaker 1: or not UM the case would go to trial as
Speaker 1: play in May. Thanks Eric, that's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Lawson.
Speaker 1: As Russia's invasion of Ukraine heads towards the two week mark,
Speaker 1: the stakes are escalating. Russian President Vladimir Putin said again
Speaker 1: on Sunday the war will continue until Ukraine accepts his
Speaker 1: demands and halts resistance. Are we in danger of a
Speaker 1: new Cold War? Joining me is Michael Doyle, a professor
Speaker 1: at Columbia Law School and Columbia School of International and
Speaker 1: Public Affairs start by telling us about the Cold War
Speaker 1: and when it ended. Well, whenever we say the word
Speaker 1: Cold War, everyone in my generation, the ones before and
Speaker 1: the one after, of course, thinks about the Cold War,
Speaker 1: which is the conflict and the contest between the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union and the United States. The Soviet Union supported by
Speaker 1: the war saw packed the US by NATO that starts
Speaker 1: up in and ends roughly with garbage off somewhere about
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety. So that's the Cold War, and it's a
Speaker 1: contest between two superpowers, the US the U s s
Speaker 1: are divided by two polar opposite ideologies of communism and capitalism,
Speaker 1: also different political systems of dictatorship and democracy. That's sort
Speaker 1: of the Cold War. But what I think we should
Speaker 1: realize is that there are many other conflicts in international
Speaker 1: history that are special, even if they're not identical. And
Speaker 1: what makes them special is that their contests that are
Speaker 1: not just over a different interest at stake, you know,
Speaker 1: who controls that province or this province, or who can
Speaker 1: get the most out of a trade deal and become wealthier.
Speaker 1: Their conflicts about legitimacy, wherein one partner or one state
Speaker 1: regards the other as in some form or another illegitimate.
Speaker 1: That is, that it holds territory that it should not,
Speaker 1: or that it's political system is violative of the principles
Speaker 1: of the rival. So I think we need to expand
Speaker 1: the meaning of Cold War to take into account those
Speaker 1: conflicts over legitimacy, and there are a number of them.
Speaker 1: And the danger is is that we may be entering
Speaker 1: a new one today in which the US and its
Speaker 1: liberal capitalists democratic allies face off against China and Russia
Speaker 1: as nationalist autocracies that are also corporatist in their economic orientation.
Speaker 1: And there's a danger of that that's emerging today. What
Speaker 1: would you say the situation between the US and Russia
Speaker 1: has been for the last let's say two decades. I
Speaker 1: would go back sort of to three decades, that is,
Speaker 1: the Cold War ended in and then there was ten
Speaker 1: years roughly when Russia was unfortunately in a bit of
Speaker 1: crisis under President Elson economically and politically, but nonetheless was
Speaker 1: verging in a direction of shared universal values as Gorba
Speaker 1: Jeff had announced, and movements towards elections and democracy and
Speaker 1: more of a free market. And that era was one
Speaker 1: of very considerable cooperation, though not equality. In the nineteen nineties,
Speaker 1: starting around the period of twenty years ago, we began
Speaker 1: to see some deterioration. Russia itself experienced failures in democracy,
Speaker 1: very problematic movements moving towards a party that was more
Speaker 1: hegemonic and less tolerant of dissent. At the same time,
Speaker 1: as we saw the emergence of Mr. Putin, a strongman
Speaker 1: who built a coterie of oligarchs and party officials around himself,
Speaker 1: determined to reverse the losses that the Soviet Empire had
Speaker 1: experienced with its collapse in n and so, starting then
Speaker 1: and then peaking about twelve, the full Putin regime was
Speaker 1: put in place, a regime which the state controls media,
Speaker 1: controls overall corporate activity, and is able to extract rents
Speaker 1: for it, for its for its cronies, and manipulates the
Speaker 1: elections that do occur, such as there's no real accountability,
Speaker 1: and adopts of quite aggressive foreign military policy in places
Speaker 1: like Georgia, Syria and not of course most recently in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Do you have a theory about why Putin now decided
Speaker 1: to invade Ukraine and start this war? I think it
Speaker 1: was it was an opportunity. He saw the West, that is,
Speaker 1: the NATO allies being both weak and quite divided, increasing
Speaker 1: dependence upon Russian gas that he thought would deter any
Speaker 1: United Front. He just came off a very successful military
Speaker 1: campaign in which he propped up assad in Syria and
Speaker 1: routed those who were trying to over throw Aside. So
Speaker 1: there's a great deal of confidence on the military side,
Speaker 1: a sense of vulnerability looking into Western Europe, which appeared
Speaker 1: divided to him. And he was also I think concerned
Speaker 1: that Mr Zelenski, you know, the then newly elected president,
Speaker 1: had the capacities for mobilizing Ukraine in a way that
Speaker 1: made him very far from the kind of clients that
Speaker 1: he had previously experienced in Kiev. And so we saw
Speaker 1: Ukraine slipping away. He saw the West disunited, and he
Speaker 1: had just come off a very successful military campaign that
Speaker 1: made him quite confident in the capabilities of his army.
Speaker 1: So it looked like an opportunity to him. Are we
Speaker 1: entering another phase of a Cold War? Or might it
Speaker 1: even be worse because he's threatening to use Russia's nuclear capabilities.
Speaker 1: My own view is that we've, you know, for the
Speaker 1: past ten years, we've been in towards the Cold War
Speaker 1: in suspicions cyber war industrial warfare with both Russia and
Speaker 1: China that have been boiling under the surface, UH for
Speaker 1: quite a long time. UM. We had a little proxy
Speaker 1: war in Syria, which which so to speak, the West lost,
Speaker 1: partly because we had no idea which side we were
Speaker 1: fighting for. Frankly, we certainly weren't fighting for Isis, which
Speaker 1: was the major opponent of ASAD. UH. So that you know,
Speaker 1: we're we're in a in that kind of a of
Speaker 1: a of a different world where we've been edging towards
Speaker 1: the Cold War. I suspect that this will solidify it
Speaker 1: in very significant ways, in the same way that the
Speaker 1: coup in Czechoslovakia and UH the war in Korea solidified
Speaker 1: the first Cold War. This will solid if I not
Speaker 1: an iron curtain, but a very significant disarticulation, you know,
Speaker 1: splitting up of the world along ideological lines between autocracy
Speaker 1: and democracy, as President Biden said, now there will be
Speaker 1: strong pushback against that. The Chinese don't want to enter
Speaker 1: that kind of a split world. They want to be
Speaker 1: on both sides. They want the economy of the West
Speaker 1: and the and the polity, the politics of Putin and
Speaker 1: they've tried to play that middle course. It will be
Speaker 1: very difficult now, but they don't want a full blown
Speaker 1: Cold war, and the Europeans, of course, would have immense
Speaker 1: economic cost if there's something like an iron curtain that
Speaker 1: goes down between Western Europe and Russia. The United Nations
Speaker 1: estimates that more than one and a half million people
Speaker 1: have fled Ukraine since Russia began bombing some countries Pole in, Romania,
Speaker 1: think Slovakian else who are taking them in. Well, what's
Speaker 1: happening is that these deeply unfortunate people are fleeing for
Speaker 1: their lives to the border. And as you say, it's
Speaker 1: it's quite striking the welcome that they are receiving in
Speaker 1: the countries you just mentioned plan and including Hungary to
Speaker 1: a certain extent, and certainly Romania and others have stepped
Speaker 1: forward to welcome the refugees. That's exactly the right thing
Speaker 1: to do, and they should all deserve commendation for that
Speaker 1: over time, unless we expect, you know, some kind of
Speaker 1: a quick magical piece and everything gets returned to normal
Speaker 1: right away, or normal that is the independence of Ukraine
Speaker 1: and peace, which I think is very unlikely. They're going
Speaker 1: to be in a protracted situation of having to live
Speaker 1: outside their home country at the expense of so far
Speaker 1: generous Poles and others. And I think it's gonna be
Speaker 1: very important that at least the financial burdens of supporting
Speaker 1: these refugees a million and a half now, who knows
Speaker 1: how many more are coming, should be shared. It should
Speaker 1: be shared in Europe, it should be shared globally. The
Speaker 1: US has announced that will be providing ten billion dollars
Speaker 1: of support for Ukraine humanitarian and refugee assistance that will
Speaker 1: probably go through the Congress, and a refugee cost roughly
Speaker 1: ten thousand euros or so per year, So you multiply
Speaker 1: the figures out and one is talking about a considerable
Speaker 1: number of billions of dollars that will need to be
Speaker 1: invested to support them in their asylum in the countries
Speaker 1: what is now the West. So this will be a
Speaker 1: humanitarian crisis that's not going to go away quickly, and
Speaker 1: it's one that we need to share, at least financially.
Speaker 1: So the EU has agreed to grant temporary residents to
Speaker 1: Ukrainian access to employment, social welfare and housing for up
Speaker 1: to three years. Is three years enough and also why
Speaker 1: hasn't the UK done that. It's a good question, as
Speaker 1: you know, the Brexit uh anxieties in the Produced Breakfast
Speaker 1: were predominantly driven by immigration concerns in the in the UK,
Speaker 1: and so they're deeply allergic to all of this. I
Speaker 1: think it speaks well to the EU that they've offered
Speaker 1: the three years. Again, I stressed that the financial burden
Speaker 1: needs to be shared beyond the EU budget. They can
Speaker 1: afford it, but there's no reason why they should have
Speaker 1: to pay for it alone. This is a global emergency.
Speaker 1: The US and Britain have roles to play. The only
Speaker 1: thing I would say is that, you know, the typical
Speaker 1: refugee in the world today is outside of her country
Speaker 1: for more than eighteen years, and so it's very optimistic
Speaker 1: to think in three years this will be resolved. It
Speaker 1: would be wonderful if that's the case, but it would
Speaker 1: require some extremely statesman like peacemaking in the very near future,
Speaker 1: and I suspect some very considerable further peddling back of
Speaker 1: ambitions by Mr Putin and some concessions by Ukraine in
Speaker 1: order to imagine a three year window that would allow
Speaker 1: the refugees to be able to go back to Ukraine
Speaker 1: and then of course all the cost of rebuilding. Today,
Speaker 1: in the past week, the level of destruction of the
Speaker 1: major cities radically escalated and is likely to continue to
Speaker 1: do so in the next few days. The US has
Speaker 1: given temporary protected status to Ukrainians who are here by
Speaker 1: March one. That doesn't seem like very much compared to
Speaker 1: what other nations are doing. Do you think that the
Speaker 1: U s should be doing more, should be taking in Ukrainians? Yes,
Speaker 1: we should. That is again, um, there will be many
Speaker 1: people in asylum in Western Europe who might prefer to
Speaker 1: be uh in the US because of family connections, job opportunities, etcetera.
Speaker 1: So we two should step up and play of our
Speaker 1: our fair share in supporting these refugees. And again we
Speaker 1: can do it both by resettlement, that is, by issuing
Speaker 1: visas and permits to bring refugees here to the US,
Speaker 1: as we did, you know, way back in n with
Speaker 1: Hungarians who were quickly moved from Western Europe to the
Speaker 1: United States. And we can provide financial support to assist
Speaker 1: the Europeans in the you know, the temporary integration of
Speaker 1: these persons into Western Europe. The governments the taxpayers. We
Speaker 1: should all step up, the people who should really be
Speaker 1: at the front of the line to pay for these
Speaker 1: damages that have been inflicted on the Ukrainian people or
Speaker 1: Mr Putin and the oligarch that support him, and measures
Speaker 1: are afoot in various places to try to seize, not
Speaker 1: just freeze, the wealth that Putin and his fellow orligarchs
Speaker 1: have parked in western banks in Western Europe, Canada, the
Speaker 1: United States and further afield. Thanks for being on the show.
Speaker 1: That's Professor Michael Doyle of Columbia Law School and Columbia
Speaker 1: School of International and Public Affairs. And that's it for
Speaker 1: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, And
Speaker 1: remember to tune in to The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: week night. Attend B M. Wall Street Time. I'm June
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg