1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,480
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,480 --> 00:00:10,600
Speaker 2: The president here is very simple. You have a federal

3
00:00:10,640 --> 00:00:14,120
Speaker 2: law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action. That's

4
00:00:14,160 --> 00:00:17,320
Speaker 2: a federal issue. That guy's protected by absolute immunity. He

5
00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:18,319
Speaker 2: was doing his job.

6
00:00:18,960 --> 00:00:22,040
Speaker 3: The rhetoric started on the very day that Renee Good

7
00:00:22,200 --> 00:00:26,160
Speaker 3: was shot to death by an ICE officer. Vice President JD.

8
00:00:26,400 --> 00:00:29,520
Speaker 3: Vance held a news conference and declared that the ICE

9
00:00:29,560 --> 00:00:33,760
Speaker 3: officer couldn't be touched for his actions. That message has

10
00:00:33,800 --> 00:00:38,000
Speaker 3: been reinforced by others in the Trump administration. In fact,

11
00:00:38,080 --> 00:00:42,280
Speaker 3: on Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security posted a clip

12
00:00:42,320 --> 00:00:47,800
Speaker 3: of White House Deputy Chief Stephen Miller amplifying that message.

13
00:00:47,240 --> 00:00:50,320
Speaker 4: To all ICE officers. You have federal immunity in the

14
00:00:50,360 --> 00:00:53,400
Speaker 4: conduct of your duties, and anybody who lays a hand

15
00:00:53,440 --> 00:00:55,880
Speaker 4: on you, or tries to stop you, or tries to

16
00:00:55,920 --> 00:01:00,160
Speaker 4: obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to

17
00:01:00,200 --> 00:01:03,360
Speaker 4: perform your duties, and no one, no city official, no

18
00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:08,040
Speaker 4: state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator, or domestic

19
00:01:08,319 --> 00:01:13,399
Speaker 4: insurrectionists can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties.

20
00:01:13,760 --> 00:01:17,400
Speaker 3: So are they right. Will that ICE officer face any

21
00:01:17,480 --> 00:01:21,440
Speaker 3: consequences for killing the mother of three? Joining me to

22
00:01:21,480 --> 00:01:25,280
Speaker 3: answer that question is Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at

23
00:01:25,319 --> 00:01:30,679
Speaker 3: the Institute for Justice. Anya, are these Trump administration officials right?

24
00:01:31,040 --> 00:01:34,600
Speaker 3: Do these ICE officers have absolute immunity?

25
00:01:34,680 --> 00:01:39,520
Speaker 5: I hate to say that they are right, but unfortunately

26
00:01:40,080 --> 00:01:44,400
Speaker 5: they are very close to being right, and there are

27
00:01:45,120 --> 00:01:49,920
Speaker 5: exceedingly fewer routes to sue federal officials. It's been happening

28
00:01:49,960 --> 00:01:53,840
Speaker 5: for a long time. It's not just a Trump administration invention.

29
00:01:54,520 --> 00:01:58,520
Speaker 5: But what they're doing now is really exposing this gap

30
00:01:58,560 --> 00:02:03,600
Speaker 5: in accountability between state and local officials, for example, Derek

31
00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:08,440
Speaker 5: Chauvin who murdered George Floyd, and federal officials like those

32
00:02:08,520 --> 00:02:13,120
Speaker 5: ICE agents who killed Renee Good. So they are very

33
00:02:13,160 --> 00:02:16,000
Speaker 5: close to being right. And the reason they're out there

34
00:02:16,040 --> 00:02:19,480
Speaker 5: talking about this is because, you know, before the Biden administration,

35
00:02:19,760 --> 00:02:23,000
Speaker 5: the first Trump administration, the Bush administration, the Obama administration,

36
00:02:23,200 --> 00:02:26,320
Speaker 5: they weren't going around and talking about absolute community. The

37
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:29,440
Speaker 5: reason they're talking about it here now is because they

38
00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:32,920
Speaker 5: want those ICE agents to go out there and do

39
00:02:33,120 --> 00:02:36,920
Speaker 5: their worst and instead of de escalating, instead of trying

40
00:02:36,960 --> 00:02:39,600
Speaker 5: to keep the peace. They want them to be out

41
00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:42,520
Speaker 5: there marching on the streets and scaring people, and so

42
00:02:42,560 --> 00:02:45,960
Speaker 5: they're telling them just so you guys know, there is

43
00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:49,000
Speaker 5: nothing that can be done to you. There are, of course,

44
00:02:49,160 --> 00:02:50,240
Speaker 5: some routes.

45
00:02:50,320 --> 00:02:54,160
Speaker 3: And we should mention that Renee Goods family has already

46
00:02:54,320 --> 00:02:56,960
Speaker 3: hired some civil rights lawyers.

47
00:02:56,880 --> 00:02:59,359
Speaker 5: So said that he will file under the Federal Third

48
00:02:59,400 --> 00:02:59,840
Speaker 5: Claims Act.

49
00:03:00,000 --> 00:03:02,800
Speaker 3: Probably okay, Yeah, So first of all, what about a

50
00:03:02,880 --> 00:03:07,880
Speaker 3: lawsuit against the federal government, the family filing against ICE

51
00:03:08,720 --> 00:03:09,919
Speaker 3: or DHS.

52
00:03:10,720 --> 00:03:14,920
Speaker 5: Yes, that is the best route, even though it is

53
00:03:15,160 --> 00:03:18,560
Speaker 5: riddled with complexity, as the lawyer who is representing really

54
00:03:18,600 --> 00:03:22,680
Speaker 5: a Goods family explained, it is riddled with complexity. It

55
00:03:22,880 --> 00:03:28,040
Speaker 5: is not a really full vindication of anyone's rights, but

56
00:03:28,240 --> 00:03:31,120
Speaker 5: it is the best route to accountability. The way the

57
00:03:31,200 --> 00:03:34,480
Speaker 5: law works now, you file a claim under the Federal

58
00:03:34,520 --> 00:03:38,880
Speaker 5: Thought Claims Act, not against the officer who killed you

59
00:03:39,040 --> 00:03:42,920
Speaker 5: or who hurt you, but against the United States government

60
00:03:43,360 --> 00:03:48,320
Speaker 5: in that officer's stead. The statute originally was really intended

61
00:03:48,360 --> 00:03:54,160
Speaker 5: for things like, you know, a USPS driver running over somebody,

62
00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 5: like a negligent step of an act, and then somebody

63
00:03:57,200 --> 00:04:00,880
Speaker 5: would file a claim with the agency and agency would

64
00:04:00,880 --> 00:04:05,720
Speaker 5: compensate for that negligent action. The statute is not a

65
00:04:05,760 --> 00:04:11,120
Speaker 5: great fit for constitutional violations like these. And the problem

66
00:04:11,200 --> 00:04:15,760
Speaker 5: with the statute too, is that the government invariably invokes

67
00:04:16,040 --> 00:04:20,479
Speaker 5: the so called discretionary function immunity. So they basically say

68
00:04:20,520 --> 00:04:23,920
Speaker 5: the officer was acting within the scope of his duty

69
00:04:24,080 --> 00:04:27,560
Speaker 5: and he was exercising discretion in that he was making

70
00:04:27,600 --> 00:04:31,400
Speaker 5: a choice between whether to turn right or left, and

71
00:04:31,480 --> 00:04:35,360
Speaker 5: therefore discretion immunity applies, and even the federal government cannot

72
00:04:35,360 --> 00:04:39,000
Speaker 5: be held accountable. So those suits are very hard, but

73
00:04:39,160 --> 00:04:42,520
Speaker 5: it's still the best option, the FTCA route against the

74
00:04:42,560 --> 00:04:43,400
Speaker 5: government itself.

75
00:04:43,800 --> 00:04:47,279
Speaker 3: Can you think of a big case recently or you

76
00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:51,400
Speaker 3: know the last case where plaintiffs won using that route.

77
00:04:51,880 --> 00:04:56,960
Speaker 5: That's a great question. There are no immediate cases that

78
00:04:57,000 --> 00:04:59,560
Speaker 5: come to mind. What comes to my mind is actually

79
00:04:59,560 --> 00:05:02,200
Speaker 5: the case we argued in front of the Supreme Court

80
00:05:02,360 --> 00:05:06,400
Speaker 5: just last year where there was a wrong house raid

81
00:05:06,760 --> 00:05:11,560
Speaker 5: on an innocent family's home pre dawn, even though there

82
00:05:11,600 --> 00:05:16,080
Speaker 5: was an address on the mailbox right there in front

83
00:05:16,160 --> 00:05:18,960
Speaker 5: of the house telling the officers that this was a

84
00:05:19,040 --> 00:05:23,240
Speaker 5: wrong house to raid, and so the family sued the

85
00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:28,000
Speaker 5: government for this wrong house raid. It was in Atlanta, Georgia,

86
00:05:28,120 --> 00:05:32,440
Speaker 5: and the government basically argued, you can't sue us because

87
00:05:32,560 --> 00:05:37,839
Speaker 5: the officer exercised judgment and there is supremacy clause immunity

88
00:05:37,920 --> 00:05:41,279
Speaker 5: and discretionary function immunity. And the case went all the

89
00:05:41,279 --> 00:05:44,760
Speaker 5: way to the Supreme Court, and Justice Gorsuch even said,

90
00:05:44,800 --> 00:05:47,880
Speaker 5: you'd think there would be a remedy, wouldn't you for

91
00:05:48,000 --> 00:05:50,719
Speaker 5: that kind of a raid, But he said, the answer

92
00:05:50,880 --> 00:05:54,760
Speaker 5: is not that simple, and the Supreme Court did not

93
00:05:54,920 --> 00:05:59,080
Speaker 5: rule for the family. They remained the case back for reconsideration.

94
00:05:59,640 --> 00:06:02,320
Speaker 5: So well, this is pretty much like the most positive

95
00:06:02,400 --> 00:06:06,760
Speaker 5: outcome is that we get to reargue this case again

96
00:06:07,279 --> 00:06:11,640
Speaker 5: years and years after this actual wrong house raid, and

97
00:06:11,880 --> 00:06:15,720
Speaker 5: the family still has seen no justice. The problem then,

98
00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:18,400
Speaker 5: is that not too many lawyers even want to argue

99
00:06:18,400 --> 00:06:22,240
Speaker 5: these cases because it takes years and years to get anywhere,

100
00:06:22,279 --> 00:06:24,039
Speaker 5: as this example demonstrates.

101
00:06:24,279 --> 00:06:28,080
Speaker 3: Yeah, I remember that case. So now let's talk about

102
00:06:28,120 --> 00:06:32,680
Speaker 3: the route that is difficult, impossible, and that's suing the

103
00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:37,839
Speaker 3: individual officers. Suing the ICE agent here, Yes, that.

104
00:06:37,880 --> 00:06:41,880
Speaker 5: Is impossible because they are ICE agents, and even in general,

105
00:06:41,920 --> 00:06:46,520
Speaker 5: with any federal official, it's extremely difficult. So at the

106
00:06:46,600 --> 00:06:51,479
Speaker 5: root of The problem is really congressional admission. After the

107
00:06:51,520 --> 00:06:55,320
Speaker 5: Civil War, Congress passed a statue it called Section nineteen

108
00:06:55,400 --> 00:06:59,479
Speaker 5: eighty three to allow suits for the violation of the

109
00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:03,359
Speaker 5: United States Constitution against state and local officials who we

110
00:07:03,440 --> 00:07:08,440
Speaker 5: essentially weren't complying with reconstruction and violating people's constitutional rights.

111
00:07:08,600 --> 00:07:11,800
Speaker 5: At the time, you could sue federal government in state courts,

112
00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:15,600
Speaker 5: and there was no fear that state courts would be

113
00:07:16,040 --> 00:07:18,640
Speaker 5: easy on federal officials. If anything, state courts at the

114
00:07:18,680 --> 00:07:21,960
Speaker 5: time were hostile to federal officials. So Congress wasn't worried

115
00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:27,280
Speaker 5: about federal officials not getting proper treatment in state courts,

116
00:07:27,440 --> 00:07:30,720
Speaker 5: so they didn't include them in this statute. They only

117
00:07:30,760 --> 00:07:35,760
Speaker 5: included state and local officials, and that admission is now

118
00:07:35,920 --> 00:07:40,040
Speaker 5: used by the Supreme Court as an excuse to deny

119
00:07:40,920 --> 00:07:45,720
Speaker 5: any access to courts to plaintiffs whose violations happened to

120
00:07:45,800 --> 00:07:50,840
Speaker 5: be conducted by federal officials. They're saying Section nineteen eighty

121
00:07:50,840 --> 00:07:54,720
Speaker 5: three does not have federal officials in there. There isn't

122
00:07:54,920 --> 00:07:58,600
Speaker 5: an analog like that for federal officials, and they say

123
00:07:58,720 --> 00:08:02,840
Speaker 5: Congress should amend that statute include federal officials in there,

124
00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:06,120
Speaker 5: and then we will have no problem with people opening

125
00:08:06,160 --> 00:08:09,400
Speaker 5: court house doors, but as long as federal officials are

126
00:08:09,440 --> 00:08:12,440
Speaker 5: not part of that type of a statute, we're not

127
00:08:12,520 --> 00:08:14,160
Speaker 5: going to open the court house doors.

128
00:08:14,480 --> 00:08:15,720
Speaker 6: Now. On the other.

129
00:08:15,600 --> 00:08:21,000
Speaker 5: Hand, there is a problem that circuit courts are interpreting

130
00:08:21,360 --> 00:08:27,320
Speaker 5: another statute that Congress passed as prohibiting suits against federal

131
00:08:27,360 --> 00:08:31,160
Speaker 5: officials in state courts too, so that traditional remedy I

132
00:08:31,200 --> 00:08:35,360
Speaker 5: told you about is also unavailable. So the way that

133
00:08:35,600 --> 00:08:39,559
Speaker 5: the law stands today is that you turn to federal

134
00:08:39,600 --> 00:08:42,280
Speaker 5: courts and the Supreme Court is telling you, you, guys,

135
00:08:42,320 --> 00:08:44,640
Speaker 5: are not part of Section nineteen eighty three, we can't

136
00:08:44,679 --> 00:08:48,280
Speaker 5: do anything about it. And you go to state courts

137
00:08:48,320 --> 00:08:51,800
Speaker 5: and they're basically saying, well, circuit courts so far have

138
00:08:52,080 --> 00:08:57,200
Speaker 5: said that cases in state courts are unavailable. Though we

139
00:08:57,400 --> 00:09:01,600
Speaker 5: do think that by far the best option right now

140
00:09:02,040 --> 00:09:06,360
Speaker 5: is actually for states to pass their own statutes like

141
00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:09,640
Speaker 5: that section nineteen eighty three that Congress passed back in

142
00:09:09,679 --> 00:09:13,080
Speaker 5: the day, and we as public interest lawyers, we have

143
00:09:13,160 --> 00:09:16,040
Speaker 5: a really good argument to explain to the Supreme Court

144
00:09:16,240 --> 00:09:19,359
Speaker 5: why that kind of route actually should be available.

145
00:09:19,559 --> 00:09:21,600
Speaker 6: But this is something that's very new.

146
00:09:21,920 --> 00:09:25,760
Speaker 5: We are encouraging states to pass these laws, and we

147
00:09:25,840 --> 00:09:30,280
Speaker 5: feel very good about arguing that that's a proper route.

148
00:09:30,320 --> 00:09:32,520
Speaker 5: If Congress is not going to do its job and

149
00:09:32,559 --> 00:09:34,880
Speaker 5: it's not going to amend Section nineteen eighty three to

150
00:09:34,920 --> 00:09:38,680
Speaker 5: include federal officials, then its responsibility of every state to

151
00:09:38,800 --> 00:09:39,640
Speaker 5: do so instead.

152
00:09:40,360 --> 00:09:44,160
Speaker 3: Now, once since nineteen eighty has the Supreme Court allowed

153
00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:48,199
Speaker 3: a bivens action which allows people to sue federal officers

154
00:09:48,280 --> 00:09:51,960
Speaker 3: directly to go forward. Do you know why the Court

155
00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:53,040
Speaker 3: took that turn.

156
00:09:53,360 --> 00:09:56,240
Speaker 5: Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about in terms

157
00:09:56,240 --> 00:09:59,600
Speaker 5: of Section nineteen eighty three in excluding federal officials. So

158
00:09:59,800 --> 00:10:03,319
Speaker 5: in in the seventies when this case Bevins was decided,

159
00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:08,600
Speaker 5: the Court didn't really think that, as statuted by Congress,

160
00:10:08,720 --> 00:10:12,160
Speaker 5: authorizing a right to sue was necessary. The Court at

161
00:10:12,160 --> 00:10:15,160
Speaker 5: the time thought, you know what, you could just sue

162
00:10:15,200 --> 00:10:19,160
Speaker 5: directly under the Constitution, just say my Fourth Amendment rights

163
00:10:19,200 --> 00:10:23,400
Speaker 5: were violated, here's my proof, and I demand a day

164
00:10:23,400 --> 00:10:26,880
Speaker 5: in court. That was the attitude in the seventies, and

165
00:10:26,880 --> 00:10:30,840
Speaker 5: then as we're going into the eighties, the Court, really

166
00:10:31,400 --> 00:10:37,280
Speaker 5: led by Justice Scalia, is championing this idea that federal

167
00:10:37,360 --> 00:10:40,720
Speaker 5: courts are court of limited jurisdiction, they should be very

168
00:10:40,800 --> 00:10:43,720
Speaker 5: humble about the kind of cases that they can hear,

169
00:10:44,080 --> 00:10:51,360
Speaker 5: and that without authorization from Congress, they cannot really do anything.

170
00:10:51,400 --> 00:10:54,320
Speaker 5: Their hands are tied, right, And that's when they start

171
00:10:54,400 --> 00:10:57,280
Speaker 5: pointing to that statute section nineteen eighty three and saying

172
00:10:57,600 --> 00:11:00,920
Speaker 5: federal officials are not part of that statute. We can't

173
00:11:00,960 --> 00:11:06,439
Speaker 5: just imply an authorization. We must see it in a text,

174
00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:09,120
Speaker 5: and we don't see it in the text, so there

175
00:11:09,200 --> 00:11:10,319
Speaker 5: is nothing we can do.

176
00:11:10,679 --> 00:11:11,800
Speaker 6: That really is.

177
00:11:11,720 --> 00:11:16,079
Speaker 5: Starting to take shape in the nineteen eighties. That's why

178
00:11:16,160 --> 00:11:20,240
Speaker 5: earlier I said that it's not of Trump's administration's making, right,

179
00:11:20,320 --> 00:11:23,160
Speaker 5: that really starts to take shape in the nineteen eighties

180
00:11:23,600 --> 00:11:27,199
Speaker 5: and kind of reaches into the two thousands where we're

181
00:11:27,240 --> 00:11:31,600
Speaker 5: suing FBI officials for torture. That's when the Court is

182
00:11:31,679 --> 00:11:34,320
Speaker 5: really starting to say, you guys, we mean what we say.

183
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:37,280
Speaker 5: We need a statute to authorization. And then it really

184
00:11:37,360 --> 00:11:42,040
Speaker 5: culminates in twenty twenty two with the decision Eggbird versus

185
00:11:42,040 --> 00:11:45,760
Speaker 5: bull At, where they basically say the door is all

186
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:49,160
Speaker 5: but shut, and frankly, Justice Gorsage and I kind of

187
00:11:49,200 --> 00:11:52,000
Speaker 5: sympathize with that. He writes a concurrence, and he says,

188
00:11:52,200 --> 00:11:55,400
Speaker 5: we should just overturn Vivens so we don't give any

189
00:11:55,440 --> 00:11:58,960
Speaker 5: false hope to anybody. And so everybody understands that you

190
00:11:59,080 --> 00:12:02,320
Speaker 5: cannot sue officials in state court for as long as

191
00:12:02,320 --> 00:12:05,320
Speaker 5: we have Vivns on the books. Some people are under

192
00:12:05,360 --> 00:12:09,000
Speaker 5: the misapprehension that there is any kind of accountability, which

193
00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:10,520
Speaker 5: actually there isn't.

194
00:12:10,880 --> 00:12:11,480
Speaker 6: That's why the.

195
00:12:11,840 --> 00:12:14,120
Speaker 5: Simplest thing to do is to a man section nineteen

196
00:12:14,160 --> 00:12:16,600
Speaker 5: eighty three. Then the Supreme Court will say, fine, this

197
00:12:16,760 --> 00:12:19,400
Speaker 5: is great. Now you can open the courthouse door. And

198
00:12:19,480 --> 00:12:21,959
Speaker 5: short of that, it's states who should take action.

199
00:12:22,559 --> 00:12:26,160
Speaker 3: Coming up next, how some states are fighting back. This

200
00:12:26,200 --> 00:12:29,720
Speaker 3: is Bloomberg. On the day that thirty seven year old

201
00:12:29,800 --> 00:12:32,760
Speaker 3: Renee Good was shot to death by an Ice officer,

202
00:12:33,240 --> 00:12:37,440
Speaker 3: Vice President JD. Vance declared with certainty that there would

203
00:12:37,440 --> 00:12:39,760
Speaker 3: be no consequences for the officer.

204
00:12:40,080 --> 00:12:42,800
Speaker 2: That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing

205
00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:45,600
Speaker 2: his job. The idea that Tim Walls and a bunch

206
00:12:45,600 --> 00:12:48,000
Speaker 2: of radicals in Minneapolis are going to go after and

207
00:12:48,000 --> 00:12:50,960
Speaker 2: make this guy's life miserable because he was doing the

208
00:12:51,080 --> 00:12:54,280
Speaker 2: job that he was asked to do is preposterous. The

209
00:12:54,520 --> 00:12:58,360
Speaker 2: unprecedented thing is the idea that a local official can

210
00:12:58,440 --> 00:13:01,959
Speaker 2: actually prosecute a federal official with absolute immunity. I've never

211
00:13:01,960 --> 00:13:04,360
Speaker 2: seen anything like that. It would get tossed out by

212
00:13:04,360 --> 00:13:04,959
Speaker 2: a judge.

213
00:13:05,400 --> 00:13:08,040
Speaker 3: I've been talking to Anna Bidwell, a senior attorney at

214
00:13:08,040 --> 00:13:14,319
Speaker 3: the Institute for Justice. So then Anya, realistically, Vice President JD.

215
00:13:14,520 --> 00:13:18,920
Speaker 3: Vance and Trump aid Steven Miller are correct in saying

216
00:13:18,960 --> 00:13:21,800
Speaker 3: to the ICE officers, don't worry about what you do.

217
00:13:22,320 --> 00:13:24,000
Speaker 3: You're protected exactly.

218
00:13:24,200 --> 00:13:28,000
Speaker 5: It pains me to say this, but they are correct.

219
00:13:28,040 --> 00:13:31,280
Speaker 5: And again, like I said, previous administrations didn't like to

220
00:13:31,320 --> 00:13:35,199
Speaker 5: advertise that right because it's kind of appalling that you

221
00:13:35,280 --> 00:13:37,640
Speaker 5: can't see federal officials, so they didn't talk about it.

222
00:13:37,679 --> 00:13:39,840
Speaker 5: Then we would go and litigate in court, and they

223
00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:43,320
Speaker 5: would make those arguments in court. This administration is happy

224
00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:46,760
Speaker 5: to talk about it because they want to encourage ICE

225
00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:50,280
Speaker 5: to go out there and do their worst, to not

226
00:13:50,480 --> 00:13:54,200
Speaker 5: care about repercussions, to not de escalate, to basically go

227
00:13:54,400 --> 00:13:59,000
Speaker 5: out there and break all the constitutional guarantees because fundamentally,

228
00:13:59,040 --> 00:14:00,960
Speaker 5: there rea ison't a way to hold too account. Now,

229
00:14:01,400 --> 00:14:06,559
Speaker 5: the federal government, if it wanted to, could prosecute those officers,

230
00:14:06,880 --> 00:14:10,679
Speaker 5: but does anybody here really believe that the federal government

231
00:14:10,720 --> 00:14:14,400
Speaker 5: is actually going to do that. Instead of investigating Jonathan Ross,

232
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:18,959
Speaker 5: they are investigating the wife of Renee Good. Right, So

233
00:14:19,320 --> 00:14:21,400
Speaker 5: we are not counting on the federal government to step

234
00:14:21,400 --> 00:14:25,000
Speaker 5: in here the one meaningful mechanism, And when it comes

235
00:14:25,000 --> 00:14:31,000
Speaker 5: to state prosecutions, there's another complication and another immunity that

236
00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:36,920
Speaker 5: comes in. So states generally speaking, cannot prosecute federal officials

237
00:14:36,960 --> 00:14:41,480
Speaker 5: when federal officials are exercising their federal duties. So again,

238
00:14:41,560 --> 00:14:45,880
Speaker 5: the federal government doesn't even feel compelled to cooperate with

239
00:14:45,960 --> 00:14:48,880
Speaker 5: the state government in the situation, doesn't even feel compelled

240
00:14:48,880 --> 00:14:51,440
Speaker 5: to share the evidence because they also know that the

241
00:14:51,480 --> 00:14:56,320
Speaker 5: state itself is really fundamentally unable to prosecute a federal officer.

242
00:14:56,720 --> 00:14:58,560
Speaker 6: So that's where we are right now.

243
00:14:58,640 --> 00:15:02,040
Speaker 5: And Jdvans and Steven Miller are very comfortable going out

244
00:15:02,080 --> 00:15:05,480
Speaker 5: there and telling Ice, you guys are good. There is

245
00:15:05,560 --> 00:15:08,120
Speaker 5: nothing really that plaintiffs can do right now.

246
00:15:08,360 --> 00:15:10,760
Speaker 3: So Minnesota, you know they're going to try to do

247
00:15:10,800 --> 00:15:14,280
Speaker 3: an investigation, right, I mean, is there a way, even

248
00:15:14,280 --> 00:15:16,120
Speaker 3: if it's a loser way, is there a way for

249
00:15:16,240 --> 00:15:20,720
Speaker 3: Minnesota to prosecute that Ice officer criminally.

250
00:15:20,640 --> 00:15:21,800
Speaker 6: Try I would try.

251
00:15:22,120 --> 00:15:25,040
Speaker 5: You know, again, if I'm a state, what I'm going

252
00:15:25,120 --> 00:15:28,240
Speaker 5: to try to do at this point is a I'm

253
00:15:28,280 --> 00:15:31,440
Speaker 5: going to work to pass a statute to allow suits

254
00:15:31,480 --> 00:15:35,560
Speaker 5: for violations of federal Constitution in my courts. And also

255
00:15:35,680 --> 00:15:40,600
Speaker 5: I'm going to try to prosecute the officer. Now immediately

256
00:15:40,760 --> 00:15:43,240
Speaker 5: there will be a motion to dismiss filed, there will

257
00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:45,640
Speaker 5: be arguments against it, but at least you are trying

258
00:15:45,640 --> 00:15:48,440
Speaker 5: to get out there and try to do something. I

259
00:15:48,480 --> 00:15:52,120
Speaker 5: would also try to just publicly even say here's what

260
00:15:52,160 --> 00:15:55,680
Speaker 5: we want to see, right, some of it is public engagement.

261
00:15:55,800 --> 00:15:58,239
Speaker 5: When you are a state, if we were to investigate,

262
00:15:58,560 --> 00:16:00,800
Speaker 5: this is what we would want to see. These are

263
00:16:00,840 --> 00:16:03,920
Speaker 5: the kind of things that would allow us to evaluate

264
00:16:04,040 --> 00:16:06,800
Speaker 5: what took place here. Federal government, are you doing this

265
00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:09,480
Speaker 5: or are you not doing this? States certainly can't just

266
00:16:09,800 --> 00:16:13,360
Speaker 5: sit there and do nothing. But it's an uphill battle

267
00:16:13,400 --> 00:16:13,920
Speaker 5: all the way.

268
00:16:14,160 --> 00:16:15,640
Speaker 3: What is Illinois doing?

269
00:16:16,000 --> 00:16:19,320
Speaker 5: Yes, Illinois is not the only state, but Illinois is

270
00:16:19,360 --> 00:16:22,920
Speaker 5: the one that actually passed the law, and so DOJ

271
00:16:23,360 --> 00:16:25,200
Speaker 5: is suing it over it right now.

272
00:16:25,560 --> 00:16:27,200
Speaker 6: So there are several states.

273
00:16:27,240 --> 00:16:30,520
Speaker 5: Illinois is the first one in the line of states

274
00:16:30,520 --> 00:16:37,320
Speaker 5: closely behind our California, New York. We also have Colorado, Oregon,

275
00:16:37,720 --> 00:16:42,760
Speaker 5: and Maryland who are looking to pass those statutes that

276
00:16:43,000 --> 00:16:48,040
Speaker 5: allow people to sue for violations of the Federal Constitution.

277
00:16:47,640 --> 00:16:48,560
Speaker 6: In state courts.

278
00:16:48,840 --> 00:16:53,640
Speaker 5: So Illinois was the first to get past the finish line.

279
00:16:53,920 --> 00:16:57,760
Speaker 5: California just got its bill out of the Judiciary Committee

280
00:16:58,280 --> 00:17:01,920
Speaker 5: this Tuesday, and many other states are working on that too,

281
00:17:02,360 --> 00:17:05,560
Speaker 5: so they all kind of differ in the approaches that

282
00:17:05,560 --> 00:17:09,840
Speaker 5: they're taking. Illinois took a bit more of a targeted

283
00:17:09,880 --> 00:17:16,560
Speaker 5: approach with specifically talking about immigration enforcement. States like California

284
00:17:16,560 --> 00:17:19,800
Speaker 5: and New York taking a more general approach and talking

285
00:17:19,920 --> 00:17:25,240
Speaker 5: about just anybody who violates the United States Constitution should

286
00:17:25,280 --> 00:17:29,879
Speaker 5: be held accountable, and that broader approach is actually less

287
00:17:30,000 --> 00:17:34,200
Speaker 5: vulnerable to suits by the DOJ. So we are encouraging

288
00:17:34,200 --> 00:17:36,800
Speaker 5: states to take that broader approach instead of singling out

289
00:17:36,840 --> 00:17:39,680
Speaker 5: a particular agency or a particular conduct.

290
00:17:39,760 --> 00:17:40,720
Speaker 6: But we are very.

291
00:17:40,640 --> 00:17:43,280
Speaker 5: Encouraged to see that states are starting to do this

292
00:17:43,359 --> 00:17:45,080
Speaker 5: at least some states.

293
00:17:44,760 --> 00:17:48,000
Speaker 3: And Congress has introduced an act whereas that.

294
00:17:48,240 --> 00:17:49,919
Speaker 6: Yes, Yes, Congress.

295
00:17:50,320 --> 00:17:54,760
Speaker 5: This is the third time that Representative Hank Johnson introduced

296
00:17:54,840 --> 00:17:59,159
Speaker 5: this bill. It's called the Bivens Act, referring back to

297
00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:03,119
Speaker 5: that case, trying to codify that right in section nineteen

298
00:18:03,160 --> 00:18:05,800
Speaker 5: eighty three instead of just an implied right under the

299
00:18:05,800 --> 00:18:09,800
Speaker 5: Fourth Amendment or other constitutional amendments. It's called the Bivens Act.

300
00:18:10,040 --> 00:18:13,280
Speaker 5: Your listeners can just google Hank Johnson the Bivens Act

301
00:18:13,600 --> 00:18:15,879
Speaker 5: and it will come up, and you'll see how simple

302
00:18:15,920 --> 00:18:19,160
Speaker 5: the amendment is. It basically says agents who act under

303
00:18:19,200 --> 00:18:22,960
Speaker 5: federal law should also be held accountable just like those

304
00:18:22,960 --> 00:18:24,919
Speaker 5: who act under state law.

305
00:18:25,160 --> 00:18:27,080
Speaker 6: That's it. It's the simplest amendment.

306
00:18:27,200 --> 00:18:30,320
Speaker 5: It would take Congress two minutes to pass it if

307
00:18:30,359 --> 00:18:32,800
Speaker 5: they actually had the will to do it.

308
00:18:32,960 --> 00:18:35,080
Speaker 6: And again, it's not just ice officers.

309
00:18:35,160 --> 00:18:38,280
Speaker 5: Right. I had somebody come to me last year where

310
00:18:38,520 --> 00:18:42,280
Speaker 5: a gentleman was killed in an atf raid. They were

311
00:18:42,320 --> 00:18:45,480
Speaker 5: executing a warrant because he violated a gun show loophole.

312
00:18:45,680 --> 00:18:48,600
Speaker 5: And again, it was a pre dawn raid. The gentleman

313
00:18:48,640 --> 00:18:51,879
Speaker 5: didn't know that anybody was coming. He's got a gun

314
00:18:51,920 --> 00:18:54,399
Speaker 5: and he thinks somebody is about to come in and

315
00:18:54,480 --> 00:18:57,720
Speaker 5: rob him and hurt his wife. So he's there with

316
00:18:57,800 --> 00:19:00,199
Speaker 5: the gun and they shoot him and they kill him dead. Right,

317
00:19:00,280 --> 00:19:04,240
Speaker 5: And Jim Jordan was outraged by this, and I call

318
00:19:04,280 --> 00:19:07,800
Speaker 5: on Jim Jordan to say, let's pass this Bivens Act

319
00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:11,720
Speaker 5: so the family who was hurt by the ATF could

320
00:19:11,760 --> 00:19:14,400
Speaker 5: also have a day in court like the family here

321
00:19:14,480 --> 00:19:15,719
Speaker 5: who was hurt by ice.

322
00:19:16,200 --> 00:19:17,160
Speaker 6: So it's not.

323
00:19:17,119 --> 00:19:20,640
Speaker 5: A partisan issue, but right now it is being treated

324
00:19:20,720 --> 00:19:24,159
Speaker 5: as one, and we don't really see much movement on

325
00:19:24,200 --> 00:19:25,560
Speaker 5: the Bivens Act in Congress.

326
00:19:25,960 --> 00:19:28,640
Speaker 3: Let's just say you could too a federal officer. I mean,

327
00:19:28,680 --> 00:19:32,280
Speaker 3: the federal officer would probably be indemnified right by the government.

328
00:19:32,480 --> 00:19:34,119
Speaker 3: I mean they wouldn't have to pay out of their

329
00:19:34,160 --> 00:19:35,240
Speaker 3: own pocket anyway.

330
00:19:35,960 --> 00:19:39,280
Speaker 5: Yes, that's what invariably happens, and it happens with state

331
00:19:39,320 --> 00:19:43,560
Speaker 5: and local officials as well, and they have indemnification provisions

332
00:19:43,600 --> 00:19:47,640
Speaker 5: and the governments invariably indemnify them. But at least then

333
00:19:47,880 --> 00:19:52,080
Speaker 5: the officer is called out, his actions are analyzed, the

334
00:19:52,160 --> 00:19:56,440
Speaker 5: family gets some answers about what happens, because these days

335
00:19:56,440 --> 00:19:58,800
Speaker 5: they don't even feel like they need to explain themselves.

336
00:19:59,160 --> 00:20:03,200
Speaker 5: And then that officer is unnoticed because he did cost

337
00:20:03,320 --> 00:20:05,720
Speaker 5: money to the agency, right, so there is some sort

338
00:20:05,720 --> 00:20:09,480
Speaker 5: of accountability going forward too, and the agencies are much

339
00:20:09,520 --> 00:20:12,919
Speaker 5: more careful about how they hire because they know that

340
00:20:13,000 --> 00:20:15,760
Speaker 5: problematic officers are going to cause them a lot of money.

341
00:20:15,960 --> 00:20:19,280
Speaker 5: And in some situations when the violations are outrageous, then

342
00:20:19,880 --> 00:20:22,840
Speaker 5: the government basically says, you're on your own.

343
00:20:22,880 --> 00:20:24,119
Speaker 6: We're not going to cover it.

344
00:20:24,119 --> 00:20:27,600
Speaker 5: It all depends, but fundamentally, the important thing is that

345
00:20:28,000 --> 00:20:32,560
Speaker 5: if you allow families to sue, then they don't carry

346
00:20:32,560 --> 00:20:35,840
Speaker 5: the burden of the constitutional violation right that they are

347
00:20:35,880 --> 00:20:39,800
Speaker 5: actually able to take control of the situation and get

348
00:20:40,240 --> 00:20:44,560
Speaker 5: to discovery, figure out what happened, and have the jury

349
00:20:44,640 --> 00:20:48,879
Speaker 5: determine what it is that happened and who owns what.

350
00:20:49,400 --> 00:20:53,280
Speaker 5: That's a very important thing to have that simply there

351
00:20:53,320 --> 00:20:55,240
Speaker 5: isn't anything even close to that right now.

352
00:20:55,400 --> 00:20:57,320
Speaker 3: And I want to mention that you've written a legal

353
00:20:57,520 --> 00:21:02,920
Speaker 3: insight column for Bloomberg Law entitled Renee Goods family can't

354
00:21:02,960 --> 00:21:05,840
Speaker 3: sue under federal law just like in the op ed.

355
00:21:06,000 --> 00:21:09,080
Speaker 5: I just can't stop thinking about this, right where what

356
00:21:09,200 --> 00:21:14,040
Speaker 5: happened to George Floyd was absolutely horrific and at least

357
00:21:14,320 --> 00:21:17,280
Speaker 5: there was some sort of a mechanism right for the

358
00:21:17,440 --> 00:21:21,600
Speaker 5: state to look into the actions of the officer and

359
00:21:21,720 --> 00:21:26,040
Speaker 5: prosecute him, and for the family to sue the municipality

360
00:21:26,080 --> 00:21:30,760
Speaker 5: and say you guys did wrong by us by hiring

361
00:21:30,800 --> 00:21:34,679
Speaker 5: this guy and improperly training him. None of those options

362
00:21:34,720 --> 00:21:38,840
Speaker 5: are available when it comes to federal officials, and that's

363
00:21:38,880 --> 00:21:42,680
Speaker 5: something that really is not right. And you can see

364
00:21:42,720 --> 00:21:47,160
Speaker 5: that kind of manifest itself in the way Ice acts.

365
00:21:47,240 --> 00:21:51,000
Speaker 5: Right when Jonathan Ross shoots Renee Good and then he

366
00:21:51,160 --> 00:21:53,640
Speaker 5: calls her that's the kind of thing that I think

367
00:21:53,680 --> 00:21:57,160
Speaker 5: wouldn't happen if he knew that there would.

368
00:21:56,960 --> 00:21:59,040
Speaker 6: Be some sort of repercussions to his actions.

369
00:21:59,240 --> 00:22:01,280
Speaker 3: It's been great to looking to you. Thanks so much.

370
00:22:01,560 --> 00:22:05,639
Speaker 3: That's Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.

371
00:22:06,960 --> 00:22:10,800
Speaker 3: President Trump has been insistent that the US needs to

372
00:22:10,880 --> 00:22:13,840
Speaker 3: acquire Greenland for national security.

373
00:22:14,560 --> 00:22:16,560
Speaker 6: If we don't go in, Russia is going to go in,

374
00:22:16,600 --> 00:22:17,800
Speaker 6: and China is going to go in.

375
00:22:18,520 --> 00:22:21,040
Speaker 7: And there's not a thing that Denmark can do about it,

376
00:22:21,080 --> 00:22:22,800
Speaker 7: but we can do everything about it.

377
00:22:23,320 --> 00:22:26,680
Speaker 3: Trump has been ratcheting up the rhetoric, but officials in

378
00:22:26,800 --> 00:22:30,159
Speaker 3: Denmark have made it clear that Greenland is not for sale.

379
00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:34,359
Speaker 3: Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance

380
00:22:34,520 --> 00:22:37,480
Speaker 3: met with Danish and Greenland officials at the White House

381
00:22:37,560 --> 00:22:43,280
Speaker 3: on Wednesday. Afterwards, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Luga Rasmussen said

382
00:22:43,320 --> 00:22:46,400
Speaker 3: their perspectives continue to differ from.

383
00:22:46,200 --> 00:22:53,600
Speaker 7: Trump's foss ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of

384
00:22:53,680 --> 00:22:57,320
Speaker 7: the Kingdom of Denmark and the riot of such dissemination

385
00:22:57,520 --> 00:23:01,680
Speaker 7: of the Greenlandic people, of course totally unacceptable.

386
00:23:02,119 --> 00:23:04,639
Speaker 3: Joining me is Jessica Peek. She's the director of the

387
00:23:04,800 --> 00:23:10,159
Speaker 3: International and Comparative Law Program at UCLA Law School. Jess So,

388
00:23:10,440 --> 00:23:15,280
Speaker 3: after that meeting, it doesn't seem like diplomatic negotiations are

389
00:23:15,400 --> 00:23:17,240
Speaker 3: going so well.

390
00:23:17,480 --> 00:23:20,800
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, as you said, the Foreign minister has

391
00:23:20,800 --> 00:23:24,720
Speaker 8: said there's a fundamental disagreement and that Trump's threats, repeated

392
00:23:24,720 --> 00:23:28,360
Speaker 8: threats to take over Greenland were totally unacceptable. I think

393
00:23:28,359 --> 00:23:31,440
Speaker 8: they also said that the conversation was frank but constructive,

394
00:23:31,560 --> 00:23:33,800
Speaker 8: and so then the question is what does that actually

395
00:23:33,840 --> 00:23:36,760
Speaker 8: practically mean. I know that there has been an agreement

396
00:23:36,800 --> 00:23:39,679
Speaker 8: to create a high level working group to discuss the

397
00:23:39,720 --> 00:23:43,280
Speaker 8: ways to try and determine a path forward from here,

398
00:23:43,359 --> 00:23:46,000
Speaker 8: But at the same time we have President Trump still

399
00:23:46,400 --> 00:23:49,199
Speaker 8: maintaining that his intention is to take over Greenland, and

400
00:23:49,240 --> 00:23:51,840
Speaker 8: so for as long as he maintains that position. It's

401
00:23:51,920 --> 00:23:56,480
Speaker 8: very difficult to see what the path through is because

402
00:23:56,680 --> 00:24:01,000
Speaker 8: Denmark very understandably has been, you know, full throated in

403
00:24:01,040 --> 00:24:04,840
Speaker 8: their condemnation of Trump's attacks as threats to international law

404
00:24:04,920 --> 00:24:07,440
Speaker 8: and the sovereignty of Denmark and the self determination of

405
00:24:07,480 --> 00:24:10,439
Speaker 8: the people of Greenland. So those two positions are just

406
00:24:10,520 --> 00:24:12,119
Speaker 8: fundamentally opposed to one another.

407
00:24:12,720 --> 00:24:15,960
Speaker 3: So just explain the international law here.

408
00:24:16,680 --> 00:24:20,040
Speaker 8: Yeah, So any threat or use of force against Greenland

409
00:24:20,680 --> 00:24:22,679
Speaker 8: such that we have right now is a violation of

410
00:24:22,760 --> 00:24:26,360
Speaker 8: Article two four of the UN Charters. So threats alone

411
00:24:26,440 --> 00:24:29,879
Speaker 8: are enough to be a violation there. It's worth noting

412
00:24:29,920 --> 00:24:32,040
Speaker 8: that there are a couple of lawful basis for a

413
00:24:32,160 --> 00:24:34,760
Speaker 8: use of force, neither of them are present here. One

414
00:24:34,800 --> 00:24:38,520
Speaker 8: would be a Security Council resolution authorizing force, and the

415
00:24:38,560 --> 00:24:41,520
Speaker 8: second would be a action of self defense in response

416
00:24:41,560 --> 00:24:44,000
Speaker 8: to an armed attack under Article fifty one of the

417
00:24:44,080 --> 00:24:45,920
Speaker 8: UN Charter, and we don't have either of those here.

418
00:24:46,040 --> 00:24:49,520
Speaker 8: So already, even these threats are enough to constitute a

419
00:24:49,840 --> 00:24:53,439
Speaker 8: violation of Article two four of the UN Charter. And

420
00:24:53,520 --> 00:24:56,320
Speaker 8: even without any direct use of force, the US is

421
00:24:56,400 --> 00:25:01,040
Speaker 8: also violating the customary international law prohibition on interval, and

422
00:25:01,119 --> 00:25:04,840
Speaker 8: this is a prohibition that prevents states from intervening in

423
00:25:04,920 --> 00:25:07,840
Speaker 8: the domain reservey of another state, and so the domain

424
00:25:07,880 --> 00:25:12,040
Speaker 8: reserve is areas of state activity that are really the

425
00:25:12,040 --> 00:25:15,160
Speaker 8: internal or domestic affairs of a state and therefore within

426
00:25:15,480 --> 00:25:19,800
Speaker 8: its domestic jurisdiction. This customary prohibition has been recognized by

427
00:25:19,800 --> 00:25:24,280
Speaker 8: the International Court of Justice in numerous occasions, including in

428
00:25:24,320 --> 00:25:28,480
Speaker 8: the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua case

429
00:25:28,560 --> 00:25:31,760
Speaker 8: in nineteen eighty six that involved the United States, and

430
00:25:31,840 --> 00:25:34,120
Speaker 8: also the armed activities on the territory of the Congove

431
00:25:34,200 --> 00:25:37,040
Speaker 8: case in two thousand and two. Trump's language around his

432
00:25:37,200 --> 00:25:40,840
Speaker 8: threats towards Greenland, things like they can take the easy

433
00:25:40,840 --> 00:25:43,800
Speaker 8: way or the hard way, can be interpreted as a

434
00:25:43,840 --> 00:25:47,640
Speaker 8: form of coercion and therefore a violation on this prohibition

435
00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:48,240
Speaker 8: of intervention.

436
00:25:48,680 --> 00:25:51,600
Speaker 3: And if the US military was used, would that be

437
00:25:51,760 --> 00:25:55,400
Speaker 3: comparable to the situation with Russia and Ukraine.

438
00:25:55,880 --> 00:25:57,960
Speaker 8: Yes, it would be a violation of Article two for

439
00:25:58,240 --> 00:26:01,560
Speaker 8: the UN Charter and an active aggression similar to what

440
00:26:01,600 --> 00:26:03,240
Speaker 8: we just saw a week and a half ago with

441
00:26:03,400 --> 00:26:06,600
Speaker 8: the Trump invasion of Venezuela, which was also a violation

442
00:26:06,640 --> 00:26:09,639
Speaker 8: of Article two for the UN Charter and an active aggression.

443
00:26:09,960 --> 00:26:12,919
Speaker 3: If he strikes in Iran, will that also be a

444
00:26:12,960 --> 00:26:13,800
Speaker 3: similar violation?

445
00:26:15,040 --> 00:26:18,119
Speaker 8: Yes, you know, the only use of force is permissible

446
00:26:18,800 --> 00:26:21,520
Speaker 8: is either in response to an armed attack as an

447
00:26:21,560 --> 00:26:24,680
Speaker 8: exercise of Article fifty one of the UN Charter, which

448
00:26:24,760 --> 00:26:27,520
Speaker 8: we don't have an armed attack against the United States

449
00:26:27,520 --> 00:26:31,480
Speaker 8: from Iran, or under a Security Council authorization, which we

450
00:26:31,560 --> 00:26:34,400
Speaker 8: also do not currently have in relation to Iran. So yes,

451
00:26:34,440 --> 00:26:38,159
Speaker 8: we would be talking about very similar, potentially very similar

452
00:26:38,320 --> 00:26:39,840
Speaker 8: violations of international law.

453
00:26:40,280 --> 00:26:44,160
Speaker 3: I mean, the reason that Trump keeps giving for going

454
00:26:44,200 --> 00:26:47,560
Speaker 3: into Greenland is that it's needed for the national security

455
00:26:47,560 --> 00:26:51,199
Speaker 3: of the United States. But Greenland also has you know,

456
00:26:51,400 --> 00:26:56,159
Speaker 3: amazing raw materials, and as far as security, has Greenland

457
00:26:56,200 --> 00:27:01,880
Speaker 3: ever refused to allow the US to establish more security

458
00:27:01,920 --> 00:27:03,480
Speaker 3: there bases or whatever.

459
00:27:03,880 --> 00:27:06,480
Speaker 8: So, you know, experts seem to agree on the strategic

460
00:27:06,600 --> 00:27:10,439
Speaker 8: importance of Greenland for the United States national security, but

461
00:27:10,560 --> 00:27:14,800
Speaker 8: there's no reason that that requires the United States to

462
00:27:15,160 --> 00:27:19,000
Speaker 8: control or own Greenland. And in fact, trying to control

463
00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:22,720
Speaker 8: our own Greenland really seems counterproductive to US national security

464
00:27:23,119 --> 00:27:26,520
Speaker 8: as it's going to damage this vital relationship between Greenland

465
00:27:26,880 --> 00:27:29,760
Speaker 8: and Denmark and other NATO members and the United States.

466
00:27:30,359 --> 00:27:33,560
Speaker 8: And you know, as you alluded to, the Greenland and

467
00:27:33,640 --> 00:27:37,639
Speaker 8: Denmark have been very cooperative and permissive of the US

468
00:27:38,359 --> 00:27:42,359
Speaker 8: maintaining or having access to the territory of Greenland for

469
00:27:42,560 --> 00:27:47,680
Speaker 8: national security measures and for military presences. You know, if

470
00:27:47,680 --> 00:27:49,800
Speaker 8: we think as far back as nineteen forty, the US

471
00:27:49,880 --> 00:27:53,760
Speaker 8: military forces occupied Greenland when Denmark was invaded by Germany,

472
00:27:54,240 --> 00:27:57,840
Speaker 8: and vital Air Force installations was stationed there for US

473
00:27:57,920 --> 00:28:00,760
Speaker 8: troops to get to Europe. Similarly, that was very strong

474
00:28:00,800 --> 00:28:03,640
Speaker 8: cooperation during the Cold War between the US and Denmark

475
00:28:03,720 --> 00:28:06,879
Speaker 8: to defend Greenland from threats against the Soviet Union. And

476
00:28:06,920 --> 00:28:09,520
Speaker 8: so it's very unclear to me why we're treating this

477
00:28:09,600 --> 00:28:13,879
Speaker 8: situation where presumably the national security threat is one coming

478
00:28:13,880 --> 00:28:17,119
Speaker 8: from Russia. We have a model of cooperation there that

479
00:28:17,200 --> 00:28:21,760
Speaker 8: existed previously, and I don't think Denmark or Greenland have

480
00:28:21,920 --> 00:28:25,879
Speaker 8: indicated that they're not willing to maintain that level of cooperation.

481
00:28:26,520 --> 00:28:31,280
Speaker 8: But these repeated threats against Greenland by the Trump administration

482
00:28:31,440 --> 00:28:35,920
Speaker 8: are undoubtedly going to damage the relationship between these two

483
00:28:36,000 --> 00:28:37,240
Speaker 8: countries and Denmark.

484
00:28:38,240 --> 00:28:42,920
Speaker 3: The Danish Defense Ministry announced that it's increasing its military

485
00:28:43,040 --> 00:28:48,000
Speaker 3: presence in Greenland, along with some NATO allies. France, Germany,

486
00:28:48,080 --> 00:28:51,160
Speaker 3: Norway and Sweden announced that they were sending very small

487
00:28:51,280 --> 00:28:55,520
Speaker 3: numbers of troops. So this seems to be more symbolic

488
00:28:56,120 --> 00:28:57,040
Speaker 3: than anything else.

489
00:28:58,040 --> 00:28:59,720
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think at the moment this is just a

490
00:28:59,760 --> 00:29:03,680
Speaker 8: show of political support, right, it's NATO allies going to

491
00:29:03,720 --> 00:29:08,400
Speaker 8: indicate their support to Denmark in this situation. It also

492
00:29:08,560 --> 00:29:10,680
Speaker 8: might be and I have no insider knowledge, but it

493
00:29:10,760 --> 00:29:13,560
Speaker 8: might be also to scope out how a ground deployment

494
00:29:13,640 --> 00:29:16,720
Speaker 8: could be carried out if one were required. Further down

495
00:29:16,760 --> 00:29:20,440
Speaker 8: the line, you know, if Trump actually conducted military force

496
00:29:20,640 --> 00:29:23,120
Speaker 8: in Greenland, and this really brings us to you know,

497
00:29:23,840 --> 00:29:26,240
Speaker 8: how this might play out with NATO.

498
00:29:26,480 --> 00:29:26,680
Speaker 6: Right.

499
00:29:26,800 --> 00:29:29,960
Speaker 8: So, NATO is a military and political alliance that was

500
00:29:30,040 --> 00:29:34,240
Speaker 8: formed by America and European countries in nineteen forty nine

501
00:29:34,280 --> 00:29:38,120
Speaker 8: to provide collective security and to defend its members from threats.

502
00:29:38,680 --> 00:29:42,760
Speaker 8: An Article five of the NATO Treaty contains a collective

503
00:29:42,800 --> 00:29:46,600
Speaker 8: defense provision, and so that basically states that an attack

504
00:29:46,640 --> 00:29:49,600
Speaker 8: on one NATO ally is attack on all NATO allies,

505
00:29:50,240 --> 00:29:54,160
Speaker 8: and in response to any attack, each of the NATO allies,

506
00:29:54,240 --> 00:29:57,920
Speaker 8: in the exercise of the right to individual or collective

507
00:29:58,320 --> 00:30:00,920
Speaker 8: self defense recognized by other Article fifty one of the

508
00:30:01,000 --> 00:30:04,520
Speaker 8: UN Charter will assist the party that is attacked. This

509
00:30:04,600 --> 00:30:08,360
Speaker 8: is a legal obligation. There are some things to consider

510
00:30:08,520 --> 00:30:12,560
Speaker 8: around this right. So one is does Greenland fall under

511
00:30:12,600 --> 00:30:16,440
Speaker 8: the auspices of NATO, And undoubtedly it does. Article six

512
00:30:16,520 --> 00:30:20,200
Speaker 8: of the NATO Treaty basically provides that an armed attack

513
00:30:20,680 --> 00:30:23,240
Speaker 8: must be committed against the territory of any parties in

514
00:30:23,280 --> 00:30:27,120
Speaker 8: Europe or North America. Geographically, Greenland is part of North

515
00:30:27,120 --> 00:30:29,680
Speaker 8: America as it sits on a North American tectonic plate,

516
00:30:30,040 --> 00:30:32,800
Speaker 8: but geopolitically it is tied to Europe and it's a

517
00:30:32,840 --> 00:30:37,080
Speaker 8: politically autonomous territory within Denmark. And so it's very clear

518
00:30:37,200 --> 00:30:40,880
Speaker 8: under international law that Denmark has sovereignty over Greenland, and

519
00:30:41,440 --> 00:30:45,080
Speaker 8: Greenland is part of Denmark. This was confirmed by a

520
00:30:45,240 --> 00:30:48,120
Speaker 8: case of the Permanent Court of International Justice back in

521
00:30:48,240 --> 00:30:52,280
Speaker 8: nineteen thirty three. Greenland has been incorporated in Denmark through

522
00:30:52,320 --> 00:30:56,040
Speaker 8: domestic legislation in the fifties that was recognized by the

523
00:30:56,160 --> 00:31:00,000
Speaker 8: UN General Assembly, and really over the past seventy five,

524
00:31:00,320 --> 00:31:04,000
Speaker 8: the United States has repeatedly acknowledged that Denmark has sovereignty

525
00:31:04,040 --> 00:31:06,880
Speaker 8: over Greenland, and so there's really no question that Greenland

526
00:31:06,880 --> 00:31:09,480
Speaker 8: falls within the auspices of the NATO Treaty. So the

527
00:31:09,560 --> 00:31:14,120
Speaker 8: question is what happens next. Article five of NATO requires

528
00:31:14,200 --> 00:31:18,239
Speaker 8: that there be an attack against a NATO territory, and

529
00:31:18,280 --> 00:31:21,760
Speaker 8: we don't have that attack yet. So if an armed

530
00:31:21,760 --> 00:31:24,600
Speaker 8: attach were to occur, Article five could be triggered at

531
00:31:24,640 --> 00:31:27,440
Speaker 8: the request of Denmark, and if Denmark made that request,

532
00:31:27,480 --> 00:31:31,080
Speaker 8: then all of the allies would be obligated under I

533
00:31:31,160 --> 00:31:34,200
Speaker 8: legal obligation to respond. They do not need to respond

534
00:31:34,200 --> 00:31:36,000
Speaker 8: with a use of force, though, so there are other

535
00:31:36,040 --> 00:31:38,240
Speaker 8: things that they could do. So the only other situation

536
00:31:38,320 --> 00:31:40,760
Speaker 8: in which Article five has been in voked was after

537
00:31:40,840 --> 00:31:44,240
Speaker 8: nine to eleven, and the collective security response is under

538
00:31:44,360 --> 00:31:49,800
Speaker 8: Article five. There really range from intelligence sharing to military action,

539
00:31:49,960 --> 00:31:52,360
Speaker 8: and so there's a whole host of things that could

540
00:31:52,400 --> 00:31:56,960
Speaker 8: happen that would be, you know, not a full military

541
00:31:57,240 --> 00:32:02,240
Speaker 8: action within the territory of Greenland. Denmark could also request

542
00:32:02,280 --> 00:32:07,040
Speaker 8: assistance from other NATO allies under Article four that would

543
00:32:07,040 --> 00:32:12,000
Speaker 8: allow NATO allies to consult where there's been a threat

544
00:32:12,080 --> 00:32:15,560
Speaker 8: to the territorial integrity or political independence or security of

545
00:32:15,600 --> 00:32:17,480
Speaker 8: any of the states, And that's what we have here.

546
00:32:17,920 --> 00:32:21,040
Speaker 8: That would not allow the NATO allies to exercise any

547
00:32:21,200 --> 00:32:23,800
Speaker 8: force though, and so I think what we're seeing with

548
00:32:24,040 --> 00:32:29,600
Speaker 8: these military troops from NATO allied countries going to Greenland

549
00:32:29,640 --> 00:32:32,520
Speaker 8: and from Denmark as well, is really just a show

550
00:32:32,720 --> 00:32:36,200
Speaker 8: of political support. At this point, there has not been

551
00:32:36,240 --> 00:32:39,480
Speaker 8: any official requests that I'm aware of made by Denmark

552
00:32:39,600 --> 00:32:43,200
Speaker 8: under either Article four or Article five. But the NATO

553
00:32:43,320 --> 00:32:46,800
Speaker 8: agreement is there and is to be activated for these

554
00:32:46,960 --> 00:32:50,200
Speaker 8: very kinds of reasons, right, Like that was the whole

555
00:32:50,280 --> 00:32:55,000
Speaker 8: rationale behind the creation of NATO, and so the potential

556
00:32:55,040 --> 00:32:57,200
Speaker 8: for it to be activated definitely exists.

557
00:32:57,600 --> 00:33:00,240
Speaker 3: So I guess it's just wait and see, right now,

558
00:33:00,600 --> 00:33:03,680
Speaker 3: see how serious Trump is about acquiring Greenland.

559
00:33:04,240 --> 00:33:05,960
Speaker 8: Yeah, we do have to wait and see. I mean,

560
00:33:05,960 --> 00:33:09,880
Speaker 8: I think we're seeing some pretty strong rebukes from Congress

561
00:33:09,880 --> 00:33:14,120
Speaker 8: on this, right. So on Monday, there was a bipartisan

562
00:33:14,240 --> 00:33:19,360
Speaker 8: bill introduced, the NATO Unity Protection Act, that would prohibit

563
00:33:19,360 --> 00:33:22,240
Speaker 8: the use of US Department of Defense or US Department

564
00:33:22,240 --> 00:33:26,160
Speaker 8: of State funds to blockade, occupy annex or a certain

565
00:33:26,200 --> 00:33:29,240
Speaker 8: control over the sovereign territory of a NATO member state

566
00:33:29,360 --> 00:33:33,640
Speaker 8: without that allies consent. So that's potentially something there. I

567
00:33:33,640 --> 00:33:36,560
Speaker 8: think overall, the introduction of that bill is very welcome development.

568
00:33:37,120 --> 00:33:41,240
Speaker 8: If it receives very robust bipartisan support, it would signal

569
00:33:41,280 --> 00:33:44,040
Speaker 8: to our NATO allies that Congress intends for the US

570
00:33:44,120 --> 00:33:46,680
Speaker 8: to abide by its commitments under the NATO Treaty. If

571
00:33:46,720 --> 00:33:49,240
Speaker 8: such a bill were to pass, it would place restraints

572
00:33:49,280 --> 00:33:51,680
Speaker 8: on the president, or it should place restraints on the

573
00:33:51,680 --> 00:33:56,240
Speaker 8: President acting unilaterally and continuing to threaten our NATO relationship. However,

574
00:33:56,360 --> 00:33:59,720
Speaker 8: we have seen that President Trump has made repeated threats

575
00:33:59,760 --> 00:34:02,360
Speaker 8: again NATO in this term and the last, and we've

576
00:34:02,400 --> 00:34:05,600
Speaker 8: seen in other instances that the President is willing to

577
00:34:05,600 --> 00:34:09,080
Speaker 8: flo out congressional authority when it suits his broader agenda.

578
00:34:09,400 --> 00:34:11,759
Speaker 8: I also saw reporting this morning that there is a

579
00:34:11,800 --> 00:34:17,520
Speaker 8: bipartisan resolution being introduced today again repudiating President Trump's threats

580
00:34:17,560 --> 00:34:21,200
Speaker 8: against Greenland and affirming the US respect for the sovereignty

581
00:34:21,239 --> 00:34:24,200
Speaker 8: of Denmark and of Greenland. And it also warns that

582
00:34:24,239 --> 00:34:28,920
Speaker 8: any US military action against Danish territory would require Congress's approval.

583
00:34:29,360 --> 00:34:33,200
Speaker 8: So again, that should put limits on the ability of

584
00:34:33,239 --> 00:34:36,720
Speaker 8: the President to act unilaterally. Whether or not it does,

585
00:34:37,280 --> 00:34:39,000
Speaker 8: I think is an open question at the moment.

586
00:34:39,640 --> 00:34:43,240
Speaker 3: We'll see if Congress actually moves forward on any of those.

587
00:34:43,680 --> 00:34:47,279
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, jess That's Jessica Peak, director of the

588
00:34:47,320 --> 00:34:52,399
Speaker 3: International and Comparative Law Program at UCLA Law School. Let's

589
00:34:52,400 --> 00:34:55,279
Speaker 3: turn out to the FBI searching the home of a

590
00:34:55,480 --> 00:35:00,000
Speaker 3: Washington Post reporter who allegedly obtained and reported on clous

591
00:35:00,000 --> 00:35:04,960
Speaker 3: classified information from a Pentagon contractor who's currently in jail.

592
00:35:05,480 --> 00:35:10,200
Speaker 3: That's according to Attorney General Pambondy. The Washington Post identified

593
00:35:10,200 --> 00:35:13,319
Speaker 3: the reporter as Hannah Nathanson. She was at her home

594
00:35:13,360 --> 00:35:16,360
Speaker 3: in Virginia at the time of the search and was

595
00:35:16,440 --> 00:35:19,240
Speaker 3: told she was not a target of the probe. Joining

596
00:35:19,239 --> 00:35:23,800
Speaker 3: me is First Amendment attorney Jeff Lewis of jeff Lewis Law. Jeff,

597
00:35:23,800 --> 00:35:26,600
Speaker 3: how unusual is it to execute a search warrant at

598
00:35:26,640 --> 00:35:27,560
Speaker 3: a reporter's home.

599
00:35:28,400 --> 00:35:31,560
Speaker 1: It's very unusual. I'm surprised the judge signed off on

600
00:35:31,640 --> 00:35:33,960
Speaker 1: such a warrant given the facts of this case. That

601
00:35:34,040 --> 00:35:38,560
Speaker 1: apparently the leaker has been detained or arrested already, so

602
00:35:38,600 --> 00:35:42,640
Speaker 1: it's not like there's this hot threat, a time sensitive

603
00:35:42,760 --> 00:35:45,640
Speaker 1: threat going on that. Rather, they have the leaker, they

604
00:35:45,680 --> 00:35:47,680
Speaker 1: know who he is, so I'm surprised.

605
00:35:47,800 --> 00:35:51,960
Speaker 3: According to reports, the government said that she was engaged

606
00:35:51,960 --> 00:35:56,480
Speaker 3: in a conversation with the leaker involving classified information. Does

607
00:35:56,560 --> 00:35:57,600
Speaker 3: that make any difference?

608
00:35:58,160 --> 00:36:00,640
Speaker 1: Well, the standards of the court, you is is there

609
00:36:00,680 --> 00:36:06,840
Speaker 1: an immediate arm to national security? Is the reporter in

610
00:36:06,960 --> 00:36:11,080
Speaker 1: possession of documents that would violate like the Espionage Act?

611
00:36:11,440 --> 00:36:13,439
Speaker 1: Those are the kinds of the questions that the court

612
00:36:13,480 --> 00:36:17,240
Speaker 1: looks at. Not is a reporter speaking to a confidential source,

613
00:36:17,320 --> 00:36:20,840
Speaker 1: but is there immediacy? Is there an immediate threat and

614
00:36:20,920 --> 00:36:22,680
Speaker 1: a grave threat to national security?

615
00:36:23,320 --> 00:36:26,120
Speaker 3: There is no law that makes it a crime for

616
00:36:26,200 --> 00:36:31,279
Speaker 3: a journalist to obtain or publish classified information. But are

617
00:36:31,280 --> 00:36:34,200
Speaker 3: there any repercussions from the Assange case?

618
00:36:34,480 --> 00:36:38,359
Speaker 1: Well, think that the president was criticized as heavily then

619
00:36:38,600 --> 00:36:41,440
Speaker 1: as the president's being criticized now in terms of the

620
00:36:41,480 --> 00:36:44,480
Speaker 1: Trump administration in their use of warrants, Because in the

621
00:36:44,520 --> 00:36:47,880
Speaker 1: Assage case, there's always this assumption, there's always these norms

622
00:36:48,440 --> 00:36:52,319
Speaker 1: that these materials would be safeguarded, that they'd be only

623
00:36:52,440 --> 00:36:56,479
Speaker 1: used for purposes of the as prosecution and not used

624
00:36:56,480 --> 00:37:01,040
Speaker 1: for political or purposes to deter reporting. In this case

625
00:37:01,120 --> 00:37:04,720
Speaker 1: and this day and age, with concerns about the Trump

626
00:37:04,800 --> 00:37:08,720
Speaker 1: government's violation of freedom of the press and freedom of speech,

627
00:37:08,760 --> 00:37:12,439
Speaker 1: people are concerned about the deterrent effect here and that

628
00:37:12,480 --> 00:37:16,040
Speaker 1: this seizure was more than just investigating this leaker, but

629
00:37:16,120 --> 00:37:19,200
Speaker 1: instead was meant to send a signal to anyone who's

630
00:37:19,200 --> 00:37:23,400
Speaker 1: critical of the Trump administration or communicates with leakers.

631
00:37:24,040 --> 00:37:27,839
Speaker 3: Now, the Justice Department has their own regulations about this,

632
00:37:28,440 --> 00:37:33,359
Speaker 3: and they've been changed under this ag Pam Bondi, can

633
00:37:33,400 --> 00:37:36,200
Speaker 3: you explain what the regulations were before and what they

634
00:37:36,239 --> 00:37:36,680
Speaker 3: are now?

635
00:37:38,040 --> 00:37:40,600
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, Normally, it's the process, especially when you have

636
00:37:40,640 --> 00:37:43,759
Speaker 1: a search warrant as opposed to an exigent search, that

637
00:37:43,880 --> 00:37:47,800
Speaker 1: materials sees like this are escrowed, if you will, or bargoed,

638
00:37:47,800 --> 00:37:51,680
Speaker 1: and they're placed in a secure setting and they can

639
00:37:51,760 --> 00:37:55,200
Speaker 1: only be used. The seized materials can only be accessed

640
00:37:55,200 --> 00:37:58,960
Speaker 1: for a very specific purpose related to the criminal proceeding

641
00:37:59,040 --> 00:38:03,880
Speaker 1: that the search warrant was in. She did after Bondi

642
00:38:03,960 --> 00:38:07,239
Speaker 1: took over, I believe those regulations were relaxed such that

643
00:38:07,920 --> 00:38:10,960
Speaker 1: there are fewer safeguards on what that information can be

644
00:38:11,080 --> 00:38:14,000
Speaker 1: used for, what the seised devices can be searched for,

645
00:38:14,480 --> 00:38:17,960
Speaker 1: and there's no s growing or embargoing of these materials.

646
00:38:18,680 --> 00:38:21,399
Speaker 3: What can the reporter do at this point to get

647
00:38:21,440 --> 00:38:23,560
Speaker 3: her materials back.

648
00:38:24,560 --> 00:38:27,439
Speaker 1: Yeah, after the fact. It's hard because the government could

649
00:38:27,440 --> 00:38:31,800
Speaker 1: have made copies of the image devices, right, the phones

650
00:38:31,880 --> 00:38:34,719
Speaker 1: and the watch and the laptop. So it's hard for

651
00:38:34,760 --> 00:38:37,919
Speaker 1: this reporter to have a remedy. She can certainly get

652
00:38:37,920 --> 00:38:43,680
Speaker 1: her gadgets back, but the invasion, the theft of her information.

653
00:38:44,040 --> 00:38:47,360
Speaker 1: You'll never ondo that. This underscores the needs for reporters

654
00:38:47,880 --> 00:38:51,200
Speaker 1: to use end to end encryption to turn off face

655
00:38:51,280 --> 00:38:53,560
Speaker 1: recognition on their phones, to make it as hard as

656
00:38:53,600 --> 00:38:56,640
Speaker 1: possible for gadgets to be accessed by the government if

657
00:38:56,640 --> 00:38:57,720
Speaker 1: they're physically seized.

658
00:38:58,200 --> 00:39:01,440
Speaker 3: This might be about more than just the classified information.

659
00:39:01,760 --> 00:39:06,000
Speaker 3: In her reporting, she noted that she had amassed like

660
00:39:06,040 --> 00:39:10,279
Speaker 3: more than a thousand sources of federal workers who were

661
00:39:10,280 --> 00:39:15,319
Speaker 3: frequently communicating with her, and one wonders if you know

662
00:39:15,360 --> 00:39:20,239
Speaker 3: they're looking for more than just classified information related to

663
00:39:20,680 --> 00:39:23,120
Speaker 3: this one government.

664
00:39:22,760 --> 00:39:28,080
Speaker 1: Worker absolutely both looking for additional leakers within the government

665
00:39:28,280 --> 00:39:31,560
Speaker 1: and a deterrent to leakers and a deterrent to reporters

666
00:39:31,560 --> 00:39:35,279
Speaker 1: for communicating with leakers. There are bigger implications than just

667
00:39:35,520 --> 00:39:37,320
Speaker 1: one government contractor here.

668
00:39:38,040 --> 00:39:41,080
Speaker 3: Is there any way to you know, impede the government's

669
00:39:41,440 --> 00:39:43,080
Speaker 3: coming after reporters?

670
00:39:43,719 --> 00:39:49,080
Speaker 1: Well, Congress could pass further legislation to restrict the power

671
00:39:49,400 --> 00:39:54,120
Speaker 1: of judges to issue search warrants. That's one option. Reporters

672
00:39:54,160 --> 00:39:57,759
Speaker 1: and newsrooms can protect themselves by having policies regarding security

673
00:39:57,800 --> 00:40:02,880
Speaker 1: for their electronic gadgets, using only to end encryption, you know,

674
00:40:03,800 --> 00:40:07,520
Speaker 1: software like signal, to communicate with confidential sources and to

675
00:40:07,560 --> 00:40:12,759
Speaker 1: only use specific devices when sensitive confidential source information is

676
00:40:12,800 --> 00:40:14,239
Speaker 1: gathered by news reporters.

677
00:40:14,600 --> 00:40:18,879
Speaker 3: Thanks Jeff. That's first Amendment Attorney Jeff Lewis, and that's

678
00:40:18,880 --> 00:40:21,520
Speaker 3: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

679
00:40:21,560 --> 00:40:23,640
Speaker 3: you can always get the latest legal news on our

680
00:40:23,680 --> 00:40:27,839
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

681
00:40:28,000 --> 00:40:33,040
Speaker 3: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,

682
00:40:33,440 --> 00:40:36,040
Speaker 3: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

683
00:40:36,080 --> 00:40:40,000
Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,

684
00:40:40,120 --> 00:40:41,719
Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg